Case#1: Pando vs Gimenez
G.R. No. L-31816
February 15, 1930
FACTS:
Gimenez was indebted to Pando in the amount of P8000. To secure
payment of such loan, he executed and delivered a real estate
mortgage over a building located in Sta. Mesa and the leasehold
rights on the lot upon which the building was erected, Hacienda
Tuason being the lessor.
When Gimenez was about to leave Manila to attend to his business in
Cagayan, he gave Pando full control, and complete and absolute
administration over the property he mortgaged, on the condition that
Pando would:
(a) attend to the administration, care and preservation of
the building and property
(b) pay the premium on the insurance of the building
(c) pay the taxes that might become due on the building
(d) pay the rents of the leased property
(e) collect the rents from the tenants of the building
to be applied to the payment of all expenses
necessary for the preservation and maintenance of
the building and the rents of the leased property
In the course of Pandos administration over the property, he failed
and neglected to pay the taxes due for several years. He also failed
and neglected to pay lessor Hacienda Tuason the rents due for
several years on the land leased. Because of this, the building was
sold at public auction to satisfy the taxes due. Moreover, lessor
Hacienda Tuason cancelled the contract of lease of Gimenez and
brought a suit against him for desahucio (eviction) in the Municipal
Court of Manila.
Gimenez is now claiming that Pando, being in charge of the
administration of the premises, had the obligation to attend to the
payment of taxes and rents.
Pando denies that he had such obligation, alleging that his duties
were confined to the collection of rents on the house in order to apply
them to the payment of the interest on the mortgage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Pando, having full control and administration over the
property of Gimenez, was obliged to pay the taxes, charges and other
necessary expenses.
RULING:
Yes, Pando had such obligation. The administration of the property
assumed by Pando was antichretic in character. Article 2135 of the Civil Code
expressly states that the antichretic creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and
charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the
contrary. Such obligation arises from the very nature of the covenant, and is
correlated with the antichretic creditors acquired right to take charge of the
property and collect the fruits for himself.
Pando, having failed in his obligation to pay tax on the house and rent
of the lot, is now required to pay indemnity for damages.
Case#2: SEVERINA ROSALES and PUREZA CONGZON, plaintiffs-
appellants,
vs. LEOCADIO S. TANSECO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs are the widow and daughter, respectively, of Eustaquio
Congzon, who owned with his wife a piece of land with improvements in
Catbalogan, Samar.
On August 15, 1927, defendant Leocadio Tanseco prepared a fictitious
mortgage of the land in favor of Tan Tay San, which he made Eustaquio
Congzon sign without consideration.
In May 1930, the fictitious mortgage was cancelled and substituted by
another mortgage for P26,000 in favor of defendant Tan Sun, which
Eustaquio Congzon again signed thru fraud and without consideration.
On March 30, 1932 Tan Sun transferred all his rights to defendant Tan
Tay San, who in turn assigned his interests to defendant Leocadio
Tanseco in April 1936.
In June 8, 1942, the buildings on the lot were totally burned.
Said buildings have always been occupied by the mortgagees, and never
by Eustaquio Congzon, but the plaintiffs are the one who paid the taxes
amounting to P39,480.75 even if they never enjoyed the possession and
fruits of their land,
According to plaintiffs, from and after the destruction of the buildings
they were in actual and quiet possession of the lot until June 1, 1946,
when defendant Leocadio Tanseco, thru force, intimidation and strategy,
and without their consent, occupied the property and constructed
thereon a house, all to their damage and prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint and prayed that they be declared owners of
the lot, that the mortgage documents and assignments be annulled, and
that Leocadio Tanseco be ordered to vacate and pay damages and costs.
1
 Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was too late
for plaintiff to question the validity of the mortgage and the assignments
because more than ten years had elapsed and as the said mortgage had
not been paid, the plaintiffs have no right to recover their realty.
The court sustained the defendants' position.
Hence this appeal.
ISSUES:
1. WoN plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of the
mortgage and the assignments.
2. WoN the contract is antichresis.
3. WoN the plaintiffs as antichretic debtor who is ejected thru force or
strategy by the antichretic creditor have a right of action?
RULING:
1. Yes, due to prescription (10 years had passed), plaintiffs are precluded
from seeking avoidance of the mortgage and its assignments on the
ground of fraud or lack of consideration.
2. The contract although entitled "Escritura de Hipoteca" (Mortgage Deed)
was a contract of antichresis.
In a contract of antichresis the creditor is obliged to pay the taxes on the
property, unless the contract says otherwise. The contract between
Eustaquio Congzon and Tan Sun said nothing about taxes. Hence it was
the obligation of the creditor or creditors to pay taxes on the property at
issue herein.
Therefore, if the credit was only P26,000 and the debtor has paid for
taxes on the property in the amount of P39,480.75, it is plain to see that
the plaintiffs had already settled their debt by advancing the taxes which
the creditor should have paid, and they are entitled to the return of their
property free from all encumbrance.
3. Under the Civil Code every possessor is entitled to be respected in his
possession: and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected, or
possession shall be restored to him, by the means established by the laws
of procedure. And a possessor, however he may have acquired his
possession, cannot be deprived thereof without legal proceedings.
Case #3
PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. vs.
ROSARIO MORGA, ETC., and MAMERTO MORGA, ET AL.,
intervenors- appellees.
1960 | MONTEMAYOR, J | Briefed: Liwag, A.
FACTS:
-Spouses Perfecto and Carmen Adrid, then owners of a lot situated in
Cavite, executed a document entitled "Sale with Right to Repurchase",
purporting to sell the lot to Eugenio Morga for the sum of P2,000 with the
right to repurchase the same within 2 years for the same sum of P2,000, plus
12% interest per annum.
-The vendors (Spouses Adrid) never repurchased the lot.
-Later, Perfecto Adrid and his son (Carmen Adrid then being already dead),
brought the present action against the administratix of the deceased
Eugenio Morga to recover the lot, offering to pay P2,000 and asking
for accounting all the produce of the lot, this on the theory that the
said contract, converted into one antichresis (considering that
Morga took possession of the same and benefited himself of the
yearly harvest of palay).
-CFI of Cavite: rendered its judgment against the spouses, with
costs (in favor of spouses Eugenio Morga and wife Genoveva
Vasquez).It held that the contract entered into by the parties, is a
contract of sale with a right to repurchase. The spouses having
failed to repurchase the land within the stipulated period, the title
of the deceased vendee a retro, Morga and Vasquez, became
consolidated by operation of law.
ISSUE: WoN the agreement had been converted into an antichresis?
HELD:No.
The SC concluded that the intention of the parties was merely for the
Sps. Adrid to borrow the sum of P2,000 from Eugenio Morga, the lot being
given as security. In other words, it is a clear case of EQUITABLE
MORTGAGE. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the agreement
made for the payment of 12% interest per annum. This interest
must refer to the use of P2,000 by the alleged vendors until the
same shall have been paid to Eugenio Morga. The parties to the
contract must have contemplated the lot remaining in the possession of the
vendors inasmuch as it was considered a mere security. This did not
convert the contract from a sale with pacto de retro to that of
antichresis.
Some of the reasons behind the conclusion that the present case is one of
equitable mortgage, are the ff.:
-Despite the expiration of the 2- year period for the alleged
repurchase, which should have been done in 1940, neither Morga nor his
2
heirs have consolidated their title to the land. The certificate of
title remained in the name of the alleged vendors (AdridS).
-tax declaration for the lot also remained in the name of said
vendors (AdridS), and all these years, Eugenio Morga during his
lifetime, and his heirs after his death, continued to pay the real
estate tax in the name of the vendors.
-It is also a fact that the price of P2,000 would be rather inadequate
for the supposed sale of the lot which has an area of about 3 1/2 hectares
and has a yearly production of 30 cavans of palay valued P10 a cavan, that is
to say, P300 a year. A parcel of land with an annual production of P300
would or should command more than P2,000.00 for its sale.
-Besides, the contract provided for the payment of interest which is
characteristic of a loan or equitable mortgage.
***There is NOTHING in the document, Sale with a Right to
Repurchase nor in the acts of the parties subsequent to its
execution to show that the parties had entered into a contract of
antichresis.
In a case decided by the SC (Alojado vs. Lim Siongco,) the SC said that:
ANTICHRESIS; CHARACTERISTICS; DISTINGUISHED FROM SALE
WITH RIGHT OF REPURCHASE. What characterizes a contract of
antichresis is that the creditor acquires the right to receive the
fruits of the property of his debtor with the obligation to apply
them to the payment of interest, if any is due, and then to the
principal of his credit, and when such a covenant is not made in
the contract, which speaks unequivocally of a sale with right of
repurchase, the contract is a sale with the right to repurchase and
not an antichresis.
=> In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby reversed. The
defendants (The MorgaS) are hereby ordered to give up the
possession of the lot in question to the appellants (AdridS) upon
the payment of P2,000. No interest will be paid inasmuch as
Eugenio Morga and his heir have received the products of the land
in lieu of the payment of interest.
Case #4: ANICETO BANGIS et. Al vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND
SALUD ADOLFO
[G.R. No. 190875. June 13, 2012]
FACTS:
The spouses Serafin, Sr. and Saludada Adolfo were the original
registered owners of a 126,622 square meter lot located in Valencia,
Malaybalay, Bukidnon, which was mortgaged to the then
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the
Philippines or DBP) in 1955.
Upon default in the payment of the loan obligation, the said property
was foreclosed and ownership was consolidated in DBP's name.
Serafin Adolfo, Sr., however, repurchased the same in 1971, a year
after his wife died in 1970.
In 1975, Serafin Adolfo, Sr. (Adolfo) allegedly mortgaged the subject
property for the sum of P12,500.00 to Aniceto Bangis (Bangis) who
immediately took possession of the land.
The said transaction WAS NOT REDUCED IN WRITING.
When Adolfo died, his heirs i.e. his children, executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition in 1997 covering the subject property.
In 1998, the said property was subdivided and separate titles were
issued in names of the Heirs of Adolfo.
Later on, the Heirs of Adolfo expressed their INTENTION TO
REDEEM THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY from Bangis but the
Bangis refused.
He claimed that the transaction between him and Adolfo was one of
SALE.
In 2000, the Heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint before the RTC for
annulment of deed of sale and declaration of the purported contract
of sale as ANTICHRESIS, accounting and redemption of property
and damages against Bangis.
Bangis claimed to have bought the subject property from Adolfo. He
also alleged to have been in open and adverse possession of the
property since 1972 and that the cause of action of the Heirs of
Adolfo has prescribed.
In 2001, Bangis died and was substituted in this suit by his heirs.
During the trial, one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis,
presented a photocopy of an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute
Deed of Sale dated December 30, 1971 for the purpose of proving the
sale of the subject lot by Adolfo and his heirs in favor of his
predecessors-in-interest, Aniceto Bangis and Segundino Cortel, for
the sum of 13,000.00.
He also presented a Promissory Note of even date purportedly
executed by Bangis and Segundino Cortel undertaking to pay the
balance of the purchase price in the amount of 1,050.00.
Both documents were notarized by Atty. Valentin Murillo who
testified to the fact of their execution. Rodolfo Bangis likewise
testified that they have been paying the taxes due on the property
and had even used the same as collateral for a loan with a bank.
On rebuttal, one of the Heirs of Adolfo, Luz Adolfo Bannister, denied
the due execution and genuineness of the foregoing Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale alleging forgery.
3
 The RTC ruled in favour of the Heirs of Adolfo, stating that the
contract is a mere mortgage or antichresis. The Court also ordered
Bangis to deliver the possession of the property in question and all
the improvements to the Heirs of Adolfo.
The Heirs Of Bangis appealed to the CA, but the Court affirmed
RTCs decision, stating that the contract is a mortgage, not a sale.

ISSUE: Whether the contract is one of sale, not a mortgage or antichresis

RULING:

The contract is a MORTGAGE. It is neither a sale nor an antichresis. For

the contract of antichresis to be valid, Article 2134 of the Civil Code requires
that "the amount of the principal and of the interest shall be specified in
writing; otherwise the contract of antichresis shall be void." In this case, the
Heirs of Adolfo were indisputably unable to produce any document in
support of their claim that the contract between Adolfo and Bangis was an
antichresis, hence, the CA properly held that no such relationship existed
between the parties.