74 Alcantara v. Alinea YES.

Either one of the contracts are perfectly legal and both are authorized
respectively by articles 14511, 1740, and 1753, and those following, of the
PEDRO ALCANTARA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.,
Civil Code. The fact that the parties have agreed at the same time, in such a
defendants-appellants
manner that the fulfillment of the promise of sale would depend upon the
G.R. No. 3227| March 22, 1907| J. Torres| [ MAOI ] nonpayment or return of the amount loaned, has not produced any charge
in the nature and legal conditions of either contract, or any essential defect
Doctrine: In order to constitute a valid mortgage it is indispensable that the
which would tend to nullify the same.
instrument be registered in the Register of Property,
The document of contract has been recognized by the defendant Alinea and
Nature: Appeal from CFI Decision
by the witnesses who signed same with him, being therefore an authentic
FACTS and efficacious document, and as the amount loaned has not been paid and
continues in possession of the debtor, it is only just that the promise of sale
On the Feb 29, 1904, Ambrosio Alinea and Eudosia Belarmino, borrowed
be carried into effect, and the necessary instrument be executed by the
from Pedro Alcantara the sum of P480, payable in January 1905 under the
vendees.
agreement that if at the end of the period the balance is unpaid, the house
and lot owned by Alinea and Belarmino be considered as absolutely sold to 2. Is there a mortgage of the property?
Alcantara for the same sum. The metes and bounds of the property are
NO. The property does not appear mortgaged in favor of the creditor,
properly described in the complaint. The time for payment of said sum
because in order to constitute a valid mortgage it is indispensable that the
expired and no payment was made, but Alinea and Belarmino refuse to
instrument be registered in the Register of Property, in accordance with
deliver the said property, violating the contract to do and depriving
article 1875 of the Civil Code. The document of contract does not constitute
Alcantara of the rents which he should have received counting from
a mortgage, nor could it possibly be a mortgage, for the reason that said
February 1905.
document is not vested with the character and conditions of a public
Alinea and Belarmino alleged that the amount claimed was actually the instrument.
P200 principal plus P280 interest. Furthermore, they assert that they tried
DISPOSITIVE
to pay the balance of P480, but Alcantara had refused to accept the same.
The trial court adjudged in favor of Alcantara, and ordered Alinea and Therefore, by virtue of the reasons given above and accepting the findings
Belarmino to deliver the house and lot and pay the costs. given in the judgment appealed from, we affirm the said judgment herein,
with the costs against the appellants.
We have in this case a contract of loan and a promise of sale of a house and
lot, the price of which should be the amount loaned, if within a fixed period WILLARD, J., dissenting:
of time such amount should not be paid by the debtor-vendor of the
This contract violates the fundamental principle of the Spanish law, which
property to the creditor-vendee of same.
does not permit a debtor to make an agreement whereby the mere failure
ISSUE AND RATIO to pay the loan at maturity shall divest him irrevocably of allow his interest
in the specific property mentioned in the agreement without any right on
1. Is the contract valid?
his part to redeem or to have the property sold to pay the debt. I therefore
dissent.
1