Showing Page:
1/2
Eldana Ortiz
JD2B
CASE TITLE
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-38185; September 24, 1986
GR NUMBER
G.R. No. L-38185
DATE
September 24, 1986
PONENTE
GUTIERREZ, JR., J
NATURE/KEY
WORDS
Antichresis
SALIENT
PROVISION/S
Under Article 2136 of the Civil Code, the debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment
of the immovable without first having totally paid what he owes the creditor
DOCTRINE
FACTS
Petitioner spouses registered a parcel of land. After notice and publication
nobody appeared to oppose the application. Thereafter, the court ordered the
issuance the Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner.
Private respondents filed a petition to review on the ground of fraud. The
respondents alleged that they are the successor-in-interest of Agapita Bonifacio
who purchased the subject property from Gregoria Pascual. And that
respondents and petitioners entered into a loan agreement where the former
mortgaged the land as form of security to the latter by way of antichresis.
The RTC ruled that the of deed of sale was spurious and ruled in favor of the
respondents. The CA likewise affirmed the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUE(S)
WON the petitioners are possessor of the subject in land in the concept of an
owner.
RULING(S)
No.
While there was an admission that the petitioners have been in actual
possession of the disputed land since 1938, it was made to show and prove the
fact that the petitioners are only antichretic creditors. The respondents never
admitted that they have not possessed the land at all. On the contrary, they
alleged that they and their predecessors-in-interest namely Gregoria Pascual
and Agapita Bonifacio have been in possession of the land since time
immemorial and that the petitioners were placed in possession of the land
pursuant to a contract of antichresis.
Showing Page:
2/2
Eldana Ortiz
JD2B
This court has on several occasions held that 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. Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio
are not the owners of the disputed land and have no registrable right over it and
that the respondents herein have established their ownership by a strong
preponderance of evidence.
The argument of laches is explained and countered by the close relationship of
the parties and the nature of a contract of antichresis. The private respondents
are nephews and nieces, with their spouses, of the petitioners. Moreover, there
is evidence to show that long before the filing of the cases, there had been
attempts to recover the property.
We note, however, that in spite of the finding of an existing contract of
antichresis between the parties, the two courts below did not order the payment
of the principal amount of mortgage, Under Article 2136 of the Civil Code, the
debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first having
totally paid what he owes the creditor.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with a
modification that the respondents are ordered to pay the petitioners the amount
of P400.00 as principal for the contract of antichresis, the fruits obtained from
the possession of the land having been applied to the interests on the loan.
ADDITIONAL NOTES: (if any)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Eldana Ortiz JD2B CASE TITLE Ramirez v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-38185; September 24, 1986 GR NUMBER G.R. No. L-38185 DATE September 24, 1986 PONENTE GUTIERREZ, JR., J NATURE/KEY WORDS Antichresis SALIENT PROVISION/S Under Article 2136 of the Civil Code, the debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first having totally paid what he owes the creditor DOCTRINE FACTS Petitioner spouses registered a parcel of land. After notice and publication nobody appeared to oppose the application. Thereafter, the court ordered the issuance the Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner. Private respondents filed a petition to review on the ground of fraud. The respondents alleged that they are the successor-in-interest of Agapita Bonifacio who purchased the subject property from Gregoria Pascual. And that respondents and petitioners entered into a loan agreement where the former mortgaged the land as form of security to the latter by way of antichresis. The RTC ruled that the of deed of sale was spurious and ruled in favor of the respondents. The CA likewise affirmed the Decision of the RTC. ISSUE(S) WON the petitioners are possessor of the subject in land in the concept of an owner. RULING(S) No. While there was an admission that the petitioners have been in actual possession of the disputed land since 1938, it was made to show and prove the fact that the petitioners are only antichretic creditors. The respondents never admitted that they have not possessed the land at all. On the contrary, they alleged that they and their predecessors-in-interest namely Gregoria Pascual and Agapita Bonifacio have been in possession of the land since time immemorial and that the petitioners were placed in possession of the land pursuant to a contract of antichresis. Eldana Ortiz JD2B This court has on several occasions held that 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. Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio are not the owners of the disputed land and have no registrable right over it and that the respondents herein have established their ownership by a strong preponderance of evidence. The argument of laches is explained and countered by the close relationship of the parties and the nature of a contract of antichresis. The private respondents are nephews and nieces, with their spouses, of the petitioners. Moreover, there is evidence to show that long before the filing of the cases, there had been attempts to recover the property. We note, however, that in spite of the finding of an existing contract of antichresis between the parties, the two courts below did not order the payment of the principal amount of mortgage, Under Article 2136 of the Civil Code, the debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first having totally paid what he owes the creditor. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with a modification that the respondents are ordered to pay the petitioners the amount of P400.00 as principal for the contract of antichresis, the fruits obtained from the possession of the land having been applied to the interests on the loan. ADDITIONAL NOTES: (if any) Name: Description: ...
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4