Scribd
Upload
111 views2 pages

Alcantara vs. Alinea

1) The document describes a loan agreement between Pedro Alcantara and Ambrosio Alinea where Alinea borrowed 480 pesos and agreed that if the amount was not paid by a certain date, their house and lot would be considered sold to Alcantara for the loan amount. 2) When the payment was not made, Alinea refused to deliver the property. Alcantara filed a case in court seeking delivery of the property. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement was not a pactum commissorium, which indicates a mortgage, pledge, or antichresis, as the property was not registered or possessed by the creditor. It was a valid loan and conditional

Uploaded by

Bibi Jumpol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views2 pages

Alcantara vs. Alinea

1) The document describes a loan agreement between Pedro Alcantara and Ambrosio Alinea where Alinea borrowed 480 pesos and agreed that if the amount was not paid by a certain date, their house and lot would be considered sold to Alcantara for the loan amount. 2) When the payment was not made, Alinea refused to deliver the property. Alcantara filed a case in court seeking delivery of the property. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement was not a pactum commissorium, which indicates a mortgage, pledge, or antichresis, as the property was not registered or possessed by the creditor. It was a valid loan and conditional

Uploaded by

Bibi Jumpol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Title PEDRO ALCANTARA vs. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL., G.R. No.

3227, March 22, 1907


Ponente TORRES, J.
Doctrine MORTGAGES
Facts
 Defendants Ambrosio Alinea and Eudosia Belarmino borrowed from Plaintiff Alcantara
the sum of 480 pesos, payable in January of 1905 under the agreement that if, at the
expiration of the said period, said amount should not be paid it would be understood
that the house and lot owned by the said defendants and located in the town of San
Pablo, Laguna, be considered as absolutely sold to the plaintiff for the said sum.
 Notwithstanding that the time for the payment of said sum has expired and no payment
has been made, the defendants refuse to deliver to plaintiff the said property.
 Plaintiff filed a complaint in the CFI of La Laguna
Contentions Petitioner [Alcantara] Respondent [Alinea]
Praying that judgment be rendered in Alleged that the amount claimed included
his behalf ordering the defendants to deliver the interest; and that the principal borrowed
to him the house and lot claimed, and to was only 200 pesos and that the interest was
pay him in addition thereto as rent the sum 280 pesos, although in drawing the
of 8 pesos per month from February of that document by mutual consent of the parties
year, and to pay the costs of the action. thereto the amount of indebtedness was
made to appear in the sum of 480 pesos.
They contend that it was plaintiff’s refusal to
accept their offer of sum of 480 pesos as
payment.
Lower Courts CFI rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff the house and
lot, the object of this litigation, and to pay the costs of the action, not making any finding
upon the question of loss or damages by reason of the absence of proof on these points.
Issue W/N the contract is in nature of a pactum commissorium?
SC Ruling NO. 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 of time such
amount should not be paid by the debtor-vendor (Defendants) of the property to the
creditor-vendee (Plaintiff) of the same. The fact that the parties have agreed at the same
time, in such a manner that the fulfillment of the promise of sale would depend upon the
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 which would tend to nullify
the same.
If the promise of sale is not vitiated because, according to the agreement between the
parties thereto, the price of the same is to be the amount loaned and not repaid, neither
would the loan be null or illegal, for the reason that the added agreement provides that in
the event of failure of payment the sale of property as agreed will take effect, the
consideration being the amount loaned and not paid. No article of the Civil Code, under the
rules or regulations of which such double contract was executed, prohibits expressly, or by
inference from any of its provisions, that an agreement could not be made in the form in
which the same has been executed; on the contrary, article 1278 of the aforesaid code
provides that "contracts shall be binding, whatever may be the form in which they may have
been executed, provided the essential conditions required for their validity exist." This legal
prescription appears firmly sustained by the settled practice of the courts.

The Supreme Court added that the contract of pactum commissorium indicates the
existence of the contracts of mortgage or of pledge or that of antichresis, none of which
have coincided in the loan indicated herein.
1) The property, the sale of which was agreed to by the debtors, does not appear
mortgaged in favor of the creditor, because in order to constitute a valid mortgage it
is indispensable that the instrument be registered in the Register of Property, in
accordance with article 1875 of the Civil Code, and the document of contract, does
not constitute a mortgage, nor could it possibly be a mortgage, for the reason of
said document is not vested with the character and conditions of a public
instrument.

2) Said property could not be pledged, not being personal property, and
notwithstanding the said double contract the debtor continued in possession thereof
and the said property has never been occupied by the creditor.

3) Neither was there ever nay contract of antichresis by reason of the said contract of
loan, as is provided in articles 1881 and those following of the Civil Code, inasmuch
as the creditor-plaintiff has never been in possession thereof, nor has he enjoyed the
said property, nor for one moment ever received its rents; therefore, there are no
proper terms in law, taking into consideration the terms of the conditions contained
in the aforesaid contract, whereby this court can find that the contract was null, and
under no consideration whatever would it be just to apply to the plaintiff articles
1859 and 1884 of the same code.

The contract ( pactum commissorium) referred to in Law 41, title 5, and law 12, title 12, of the fifth Partida, and
perhaps included in the prohibition and declaration of nullity expressed in articles 1859 and 1884 of the Civil Code,
indicates the existence of the contracts of mortgage or of pledge or that of antichresis, none of which have coincided
in the loan indicated herein

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy