ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-6752   April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA<br /><br />096 Phil 865

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-6752. April 29, 1955.]

    NAZARIO TRILLANA, Petitioner, v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA, MARIA LOPEZ, MAXIMA MANANSALA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

    Delgado, Flores & Macapagal for Petitioner.

    M. G. Bustos & Remedios D. Garcia for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ANTICHERESIS; MORTGAGE COUPLED WITH DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND TO CREDITOR IS ANTICHRESIS. — A mortgage, coupled with delivery of possession of the land to the creditor, is antichresis.

    2. ID.; ANTICHRETIC CREDITOR CANNOT ACQUIRE LAND BY PRESCRIPTION. — The antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor. (Barretto v. Barretto, 37 Phil., 234; Valencia v. Alcala, 42 Phil., 177.)


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    To a revindicatory complaint filed in 1950 in the Court of First Instance by Nazario Trillana over a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, the defendants Faustino Manansala Et. Al., set up title through sale and prescription.

    Both parties allegedly deriving ownership from the registered owner Marcos Bernardo, presented at the hearing:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Plaintiff — the contract of absolute sale (Exhibit A) executed in his favor in June 1948 by Vicenta Bernardo, daughter and the only surviving heir of Marcos Bernardo;

    (b) Defendants — the document Exhibit 1, in tagalog, which is translated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Julio 20, 1934-1944

    I Marcos Bernardo married of legal age and residing at barrio S. Sebastian, Hagonoy, Bulacan, P, I. now I own a land (latian) . . . now my above mentioned property I mortgage to Mr. Faustino Manansala and Maria Lopez husband and wife in the amount of P1,070 beginning today July 20, 1934 until April 1944 and if I cannot pay said amount come April 1944 the property I mortgaged is hereby paid to Mr. Faustino Manansala and Maria Lopez husband and wife . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The judge found Exhibit 1 to be a forgery, and rendered judgment for plaintiff, saying as to prescription, that even if defendants had possessed the land since 1934, they could not acquire by prescription because they had no just title, inasmuch as they knew Exhibit 1 was false.

    On appeal, the Court of Appeals saw differently. It was not convinced of the document’s (Exhibit 1) falsity, and held that since defendants admittedly took possession of the realty in July 1934 pursuant to such document and retained it thereafter, the action filed in 1950 was late, inasmuch as more than 15 years of adverse possession forfeited the plaintiff’s right to recover, if any.

    Doubting the legal feasibility of acquiring, thru prescription, land obtained under Exhibit 1, we gave due course to the petition for review on certiorari, being impressed with counsel’s contention that said written document represented a contract of antichresis, which may not give rise to acquisitive prescription.

    Upon a fuller examination of the matter, we are now persuaded that our preliminary impressions were justified. The document Exhibit 1, having used the words "Isinangla", "sinangla" and "matubos obviously indicated a mortgage, which, coupled with delivery of possession of the land to the creditor, amounted to antichresis.

    And several decisions of this court consistently hold that the antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor. 1

    The most that defendants could contend under Exhibit 1 is that it was a sale with pacto de retro. Yet no argument is needed to show that, even under such contract, prescription does not run during the period of redemption (1934-1944).

    In this connection we notice the Court of Appeals did not regard the contract as a pacto de retro sale. The Court of Appeals declared the agreement was a "kaliwaan" or exchange, which according to defendants meant, "after the execution of the document we delivered the money, and plaintiff delivers possession of the land." The arrangement however contemplated a subsequent "re-exchange" when the owner redeems (matubos) on or before April 1944. Such exchange and re-exchange agreed in Exhibit 1, dovetail with an antichretic relationship, which we think was the true agreement of the parties.

    It has not escaped our notice that the document says "if I cannot redeem come April 1944, the property I mortgage is hereby paid to Mr. Faustino Manansala." But that in our opinion merely authorized Manansala to get the property for payment, thru the proceedings prescribed for mortgages. Otherwise the stipulation would be open to attack, either as pactum commissorium or as against the law. (Arts. 1859 and 1884 Civil Code.)

    Now as the contract Exhibit 1 did not divest Marcos Bernardo of ownership of the property, his heir Vicenta Bernardo could, and she did, validly convey such ownership to Nazario Trillana in 1948, by Exhibit A. Subject of course to the rights of the antichretic creditors, they defendants Manansala Et. Al.

    Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and one will be promulgated requiring defendants to deliver the lot to the plaintiff (substituted by Candida Cruz, Juana Trillana and Francisco Trillana) upon payment by the latter of the amount of P1,070.2 No interest is to be satisfied, because the fruits gathered by the Manansalas are considered as interest; no special damages too. Costs against defendants. So ordered.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Barretto v. Barretto, 37 Phil., 234; Valencia v. Acala, 42 Phil., 177.

    2. Aldea v. Fuentes, 24 Phil., 303.

    G.R. No. L-6752   April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA<br /><br />096 Phil 865


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED