Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Kasilag vs Rodriguez Borromeo vs CA

Facts: Emiliana Ambrosio and Kasilag (petitioner) entered into Facts: the defendant, Mr. Villamor is a lumber dealer of Mr.
a contract where Ambrosio will borrow P1000 from petitioner Miller
with 12% interest. As security, Ambrosio mortgaged the FRUITS
AND IMPROVEMENTS of her lot, a homestead.  He borrows money on several occassions to his friend and
classmate, Mr. Borromeo
 They further agreed that: if petitioner cannot pay the  One day, he had a pressing obligation which prompted
debt within 4 ½ years, the mortgage will be foreclosed him to borrow 10 k form Mr. Borromeo, mortgaging his
 Owner shall pay the taxes, and owner shall cancel the house and lot
certificate of homestead  Mr. Miller filed a civil action attaching all his properties
 If unpaid up to 4 ½ years, owner will execute a deed of including that of which he mortgaged to Mr. Borromeo
sale to kasilag amounting to the value of the debt  Mr. Borromeo pressed him with his obligation, but Mr.
 One year after execution of contract, ambrosia failed to Villamor executed a promissory note stating that he will
pay taxes, so they entered into another verbal contract pay his indebtedness even after 10 years; that he
 Verbal contact says that petitioner will possess the land, renounced the prescription as provided for by the civil
enjoy the fruits, petiotioner can employ improvements code
provided that ambrosia will not pay interest and land  Liquidation has been made, it was shown that Villamore
taxes owed 7,220. He promised to pay when he has money and
 CA’s decision: the written and verbal contract null and that the amount will bear an interest of 12%
void, the petitioners are entitled to pay 1,000 plus 6%  Plaintiff did not file any case against defendant
interest  After the last war, plaintiff filed an action agains Villamor
 Thus, this case  CFI Cebu held that: Villamor to pay Borromeo 7,220 plus
12% interest
Issue: WON CA erred in ruling that contracts are null and  CA reversed CFI’s decision
void
Issue: WON CA erred in reversing CFI’s decision
Held: the contract was very clear, they intended to loan 1000
ay 12% interest, and they mortgage the improvements of the Held: Yes. CA’s decision is reversed, upheld TC’s decision
homestead land
If promises contains a mixture of legal and illegal promises,
 That the stipulation that property will be sold to kasilag the illegal promises may be sorted out or separated
incase of failure to pay debt is void because it is contrary
to law. according to section 116, a homestead land Between two possible interpretations, that which saves rather
cannot be subhect to encumbrance or alienation. than destroys is to be preferred.
 That kasilag did not know that what he entered into was a
form of antichresis which is void as per sec116 The rule is that a lawful promise made for a lawful
 That kasilag acted in good faith, tantamounts to excusable consideration is not invalid merely because an unlawful
negligence for not knowing the law promise was made at the same time and for the same
consideration, and this rule applies, although the invalidity is
SC: written contract is valid due to violation of a statutory provision, unless the statute
expressly or by necessary implication declares the entire
 Contract of antichresis is null and void contract void
 Petitioner is possessor in GF
 Petitioners can have improvements by paying petitioner the
value thereof (3k)
 Respondents have the right to the possession of land
 Respondent may redeem land if they pay 1000, no interest
because the fruits and improvements already
compensated the interest
 In default of payment, petitioner may foreclose and do a
public sale of the mortgage

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen