Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
142944)
Petitioner: Edenbert Madrigal and Virgilio Mallari
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Jose Mallari
Date: Aprile 15, 2005
Summary: Spouses Jose and Fermina Mallari owned a 340sqm lot with a 2-storey house in Olongapo. When Jose
was in need of money for Fermina’s trip to the US, he wanted to mortgage the property but their son, Virgilio,
convinced him not to and persuaded him to assign a portion to Virgilio with some conditions like allowing them to stay
there, renovating a room for the mother, getting one room for Virgilio, and to ask for Jose’s permission before
disposing it. The consideration stated in the Deed, however, was only P50k. Thereafter, unknown to Jose, Virgilio
sold the lot to Madrigal for P50k, who demanded that Jose and company vacate the same. So Jose filed a case
against both of them. TC and CA ruled for Jose. Issue relevant to Evidence: WoN the TC and CA erred in taking
into account parol evidence presented by Jose to prove the existence of an equitable mortgage instead of a sale
between him and Virgilio –NO H: As held in Lustan v. CA: Even when a document appears on its face to be a sale,
the owner of the property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage by raising an issue the fact that
the document does not express the true intent of the parties. In this case, parol evidence then becomes competent
and admissible to prove that the instrument was in truth and in fact given merely as a security for the repayment of a
loan.
Facts:
1. Jose Mallari and his wife Fermina Mallari are the owners of a 340 sqm. residential lot with a 2-storey
residential house at Olongapo City. They had 10 children, 5 of whom are staying with them and the other 5
residing abroad or elsewhere.
2. In need of money for his wife’s planned travel to the US, Jose thought of mortgaging the property with a
bank. However, his son Virgilio residing in Bulacan, convinced him not to and to instead assign to him a
portion, assuring his father that the latter could continue in occupancy and that he will allow his sister
Elizabeth who operates a store thereat to continue. Virgilio told his father, however, that he will occupy one
of the rooms in case he goes to Olongapo and that he will renovate the other room and reserve it for his
mother. Virgilio assured his father that he will not dispose of the property without his father’s consent and
that he could redeem the property any time.
3. Jose and Fermina executed a document denominated as “Deed of Absolute Sale,” where the couple
appeared to have conveyed to Virgilio the house and lot for P50k although the property commands much
more. Worse, the deed described the properties sold as a one-storey residential house and the 135 sqm. lot.
4. Without Jose’s knowledge, Virgilio, via a document entitled “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan,” sold the same
property for P50k to Edenbert Madrigal, a longtime neighbor of the Mallaris. Thereafter, Jose was demanded
by Madrigal to vacate the property.
5. In the RTC of Olongapo, Jose filed against Virgilio and Madrigal the complaint for annulment, redemption
and damages with preliminary injunction/TRO. He prayed that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by him
and Fermina be declared null and void, or, in the alternative, that he be allowed to redeem the property. He
likewise prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a TRO enjoining Virgilio and Madrigal from
entering, demolishing or introducing improvements on the properties, plus damages and attorney’s fees.
6. TC: rendered judgment for Jose by ordering Madrigal to allow Jose to redeem the property based on the
amount it was sold to him and for the 2 to pay damages and attorney’s fees. CA: affirmed en toto.
Issue:
1. WoN the Deed of Sale is a Mortgage and WoN Madrigal was a buyer in GF – YES MORTGAGE and NO BF
2. WoN there should be an award of moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees - YES
Held: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision and resolution of the CA
AFFIRMED.
1
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the TC; (8) when the findings
are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.