ANTI CHRESIS

2. ADRID VS MORGA 1960

FACTS:

Sps. Perfecto and Carmen Adrid, then owners of a lot situated in Cavite, executed a Sale with a
right to Repurchase, purporting to sell the lot to Eugenio Morga for the sum of P2000 plus 12%
interest per annum. The vendors never repurchased the lot. Later, Perfecto Adrid and his son, brought the present
action against the administratix of the deceased Eugenio Morga to recover the lot, offering to pay P2,000.00 and asking for
accounting all the produce of the lot, this on the theory that the said contract, converted into one antichresis. The plaintiff
and defendant instead of presenting evidence, sub mitted a stipulation of facts with a pray er that
decision be rendered on the basis of such facts.
The CFI of Cavite rendered its judgment against the spouses, with costs. 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 vendea retro, Morga and Vasquez became consolidated by operation of law.

ISSUE: Whether the agreement had been converted into an antichresis.

RULING:

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. $he parties to the
contract must have contemplated the lot remaining in the possession of the vendors inasmuchas it was
considered a mere securit y. This did not convert, as contended by plaintiffs, the contract from a sale with
pacto de retro to that of antichresis. The contention of plaintiffs that although the original contract was one of sale with
rightt o r e p u r c h a s e , 2 i t w a s c o n v e r t e d i n t o o n e o f a n t i c h r e s i s + u s t b e c a u s e t h e v e n d e e
t o o ( possession of the land, is clearl y untenable. $here is nothing in the document, 3Sale with
aRight to Repurchase nor in the acts of the parties subse uent to its execution to show that theparties had entered into
a contract of antichresis. in a case decided by the SC 4
Alojado vs. LimSiongco
, 5" Phil., 6678 the SC said that9/hat characteri es a contract of antichresis is that the creditor ac uires the
right toreceive the fruits of the propert y of his debtor with the obligation to appl y them to
thepayment of interest, if any is due, and then to the principal of his credit, and when such acovenant is not made in the contract which
spea(s une uivocally of a sale with right of repurchase, the contract is a sale with the right to repurchase and not an antichresis.

REM

PNB vs CA GR 126908