Antichresis
Adrid vs Morga
Facts:
Sps Adrid executed a sale with a right to repurchase in favor of Morga over their lot. Sps Adrid never repurchased the same. Later on they brought an action to recover the lot contending that such agreement had been converted into one of antichresis considering that Morga took possession of the same and benefited himself of the yearly harvest of palay.
Issue:
WON the agreement had been converted into an antichresis.
Held:
No.
There is nothing in the document nor in the acts of the parties subsequent to its execution to show that the parties had entered into a contract of antichresis. In the case of Alojado vs. Lim Siongco, 51 Phil., 339 this Court said:
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.
*******************
The agreement was in fact an equitable mortgage. The lot was given as security for Sps. Adrid’s loan. Adrid also paid for the real estate tax.
Rosales vs Tansenco
Facts:
Congzon, thru fraud and without consideration, was made by Tansenco to execute a mortgage in favor of Tan Sun on a piece of land owned by him (Congzon). Tan Sun then transferred all his rights to Tan Tay Sun, who, in turn, assigned such to Tansenco. Congzon never enjoyed the possession and fruits of the land. He also paid for the taxes, the amount of which is much more than that of the credit of Tan Sun secured by the mortgage.
Issue:
WON there was in fact a contract of antichresis.
Held:
Yes.
In a contract of antichresis the creditor is obliged to pay the taxes on the property, unless the contract says otherwise (Art. 1882 Civil Code). The contract between Congzon and Tan Sun said nothing about taxes. Hence it was the obligation of the creditor or creditors to pay the taxes on the property at issue herein.
Bearing in mind that the credit was only P26,000 it is plain to see that Congzon et al affirmed in effect that they had already discharged their debt (by advancing the taxes which the creditor should have paid) and are entitled to the return of their property free from all encumbrance.
Legaspi vs Celestial
Facts:
Legaspi et al brought an action against Celestial to pay a certain obligation plus the interests. Celestial, contends, among others, that the contract entered into between them was an antichresis, thus, Legaspi et al are bound to render an account of the products.
Issue:
WON the contract was an antichresis.
Held:
No. It was a mortgage.
It appears therefore that the debtor, instead of paying a certain per cent of the principal of the loan as compensation for the sacrifice made by the creditors in depriving themselves of the use of their principal and the enjoyment of its fruits, so as to give them to the debtor, has delivered to them the property constituted as a security for the payment of the loan, so that they may administer and use it, enjoying its fruits, by way of compensation for their said sacrifice in lending said debtor their money. Therefore, the contracts, which are the subject matter of this action, have all the essential requsites of a mortgage, enumerated in article 1857 of the Civil Code and, consequently, are mortgage contracts.
**************************
when a contracts of loan with security does not stipulate the payment of interest but provides for the delivery to the creditor by the debtor of the real property constituted as security for the payment thereof, in order that the creditor may administer the same and avail himself of its fruits, without stating that said fruits are to be applied to the payment of interest, if any, and afterwards to that of the principal of the credit, the contract shall be considered to be one of mortgage and not of antichresis.
Pando vs Giminez et al
Facts:
Gimenez was indebted to Pando. Such indebtedness was secured by a mortgage over his house and the leasehold right on the lot on which the house was erected. Because Gimenez was to leave Manila, he gave Pando the full control and possession of the property including the payment of taxes and monthly rentals and the collection of the rents from the tenants, among others. Pando failed to pay the taxes, as a result of which, such was sold at public auction. Pando denies liability alleging that his responsibility was confined only in the collection of rents and applying them to the payment of the interest of the mortgage.
Issue:
WON Pando was duty bound to pay for the taxes, among others.
Held:
Yes.
The administration of the property in question assumed by Pando is antichretic in character, and therefore justice and equity demand that application be here made of the Civil Code provisions touching the obligations of the antichretic creditor (Art. 1882, Civil Code.). Failure to fulfill his obligation to pay the tax and the rent of the lot, the law requires him to pay for indemnity of dmages. (Art. 101, NCC).
******************************
(Art. 1882, Civil Code.)
The creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.
He shall also be obliged to pay any expenses necessary for its preservation and repair.
Any sums he may expend for such purposes shall be chargeable against the fruits. (Art. 1882, Civil Code.)
These obligations arise from the very nature of the covenant, and are correlated with the plaintiff's acquired right to take charge of the property and collect the fruits for himself. Hence, the illustrious Manresa, explains the basis of this article 1882 in the following terms:
The right which the creditor acquires by virtue of antichresis to enjoy the fruits of the property delivered to him, carries two obligations which are a necessary consequence of the contract, because they arise from its very nature.
Ramirez & Bonifacio vs. CA & Medina et al
Facts:
A decree of registration over a lot was issued in favor of Ramirez & Bonifacio on the ground of prescription. Medina et al, however, moved for the cancellation of such on the ground of fraud, alleging that they are the real owners of the lot and that Ramirez & Bonifacio were mere antichretic as a result of a loan contracted by them (Medina et al) secured by such lot.
Issue:
WON Ramirez & Bonifacio, the antichretic creditors, may acquire the lot in question through prescription.
Held:
No.
The antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor. The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owner but mere holders placed in possession of the land by its owners. Thus, their possession cannot serve as a title for acquiring dominion (See Art. 540, Civil Code).