Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 393 views

    Case No. 5: Verzosa V. Bucag: G.R NO. L-8031 DATE: October 29, 1955 TOPIC: Antichresis

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1955 regarding a land transaction dispute. [1] The defendants took possession of the land without consent after the plaintiff's predecessors had possessed it since 1948 to secure a loan. [2] The defendants claimed the original contract was one of antichresis, meaning the fruits of the land paid off the debt, but the Court found the contract was a mortgage because it did not stipulate applying fruits first to interest then principal and called the land security for repayment. [3] The Court ruled the contract was a mortgage and ordered defendants to return possession to the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case No. 5: Verzosa V. Bucag: G.R NO. L-8031 DATE: October 29, 1955 TOPIC: Antichresis

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    393 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1955 regarding a land transaction dispute. [1] The defendants took possession of the land without consent after the plaintiff's predecessors had possessed it since 1948 to secure a loan. [2] The defendants claimed the original contract was one of antichresis, meaning the fruits of the land paid off the debt, but the Court found the contract was a mortgage because it did not stipulate applying fruits first to interest then principal and called the land security for repayment. [3] The Court ruled the contract was a mortgage and ordered defendants to return possession to the plaintiff.

    Original Title

    5. VERZOSA v. BUCAG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1955 regarding a land transaction dispute. [1] The defendants took possession of the land without consent after the plaintiff's predecessors had possessed it since 1948 to secure a loan. [2] The defendants claimed the original contract was one of antichresis, meaning the fruits of the land paid off the debt, but the Court found the contract was a mortgage because it did not stipulate applying fruits first to interest then principal and called the land security for repayment. [3] The Court ruled the contract was a mortgage and ordered defendants to return possession to the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    393 views2 pages

    Case No. 5: Verzosa V. Bucag: G.R NO. L-8031 DATE: October 29, 1955 TOPIC: Antichresis

    Uploaded by

    Loreen Danao
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1955 regarding a land transaction dispute. [1] The defendants took possession of the land without consent after the plaintiff's predecessors had possessed it since 1948 to secure a loan. [2] The defendants claimed the original contract was one of antichresis, meaning the fruits of the land paid off the debt, but the Court found the contract was a mortgage because it did not stipulate applying fruits first to interest then principal and called the land security for repayment. [3] The Court ruled the contract was a mortgage and ordered defendants to return possession to the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CREDIT TRANSACTIONS DIGESTS

    SBU LAW A.Y. 2020-2021


    MODULE No.

    Case No. 5: VERZOSA v. BUCAG G.R NO. L-8031

    DATE: October 29, 1955

    TOPIC: Antichresis

    DOCTRINE: Where it is not stipulated that the net produce of the property shall be first applied to the
    payment of the interest, if any, and afterwards to that of the principal, and that the property is security for
    the payment of the loan and the fruits thereof, assigned to the lender by way of compensation for their
    sacrifice in lending money, the contract is a mortgage contract and not antichresis.

    FACTS:

    On November 1, 1926, the defendants herein, Pedro Bucag and Bibiano Bucag, their sister, Irene Bucag,
    and their mother, Ambrocia Malenab, conveyed a certain parcel of land (unirrigated) situated in
    Angadanan, Isabela, to the spouses Faustino Andres and Petra Abara, in consideration of an amount of
    P1,620, which the former had received from the latter by way of indebtedness. The heirs of Faustino
    Andres and Petra Abara tranferred the land to Victorino Verzosa, plaintiff herein, in 1948, in consideration
    of the sum of P1,000, and plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment thereof from then until November 29,
    1950, when the defendants took possession without the consent of the plaintiff and without returning the
    amount of indebtedness. The defendants are two of the signers of the original deed of conveyance.
    Following local custom, one-third of the products produced by the land is the share of the owner or
    possessor of land.

    The plaintiff now alleges that he is entitled to the possession of the land by virtue of two deeds of
    conveyance. The defendants in answer allege that the original deed of conveyance, by virtue of which
    plaintiff's predecessors in interest were in possession of the property, is null and void as the contract
    contained therein is usurious, and that their (defendants) original indebtedness has been sufficiently paid
    from the products of the land during the time that it was in the possession of the plaintiff and his
    predecessors in interest. The trial court held that the claim of the defendants that the indebtedness has
    already been paid from the products of the land so as to make the contract one of antichresis is not justified
    by the evidence, and that neither was the transaction usurious or contrary to good morals or public policy.
    It further held that defendants could not recover the property without first paying the amount of the
    indebtedness. The trial court, therefore, ordered the defendants to return the possession of the land to the
    plaintiff, and for their wrongful possession of the property.

    ISSUE/S:

    Whether the deed of conveyance was one of mortgage or antichresis.

    SC RULING:
    CREDIT TRANSACTIONS DIGESTS
    SBU LAW A.Y. 2020-2021
    MODULE No.

    The contract was one of mortgage.

    In the first place, it is agreed that the full amount of the indebtedness of P1,620 must be returned to the
    lenders before the borrowers could demand the return of the property. This is contrary to an antichretic
    contract wherein the products of the land should be applied to the interest and then to the principal. In the
    second place, the contracting parties used the term mortgage (hipoteca) in various parts of the contract.
    In the third place, the parties agreed that the lenders are not to pay rentals on the property in consideration
    of the fact that the borrowers do not pay interest on the land which they obtained as a loan.
    The Court cited Salcedo v. Celestial, In said case the court found that one deed called the agreement
    "contract of mortgage and another "contract of antichresis"; that it is not stipulated that the net produce of
    the property shall be first applied to the payment of the interest, if any, and afterwards to that of the
    principal; that the property is security for the payment of the loan and the fruits thereof, assigned to the
    lender by way of compensation for their sacrifice in lending money. It was held that the contract was a
    mortgage because it contains the essential requisites of a mortgage enumerated in Article 1857 of the old
    Civil Code.

    ADDITIONAL NOTES

    You might also like