Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Enriquez Vs Ranolo

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    1) Petitioners filed a lawsuit against an estate administrator to collect a P30,000 debt secured by a mortgage on 809,609 square meters of land. 2) Two intervenors claimed the administrator had agreed to an antichresis contract allowing the petitioners to use the land's profits to pay the debt before the mortgage expired in 5 years, thereby novating the obligation. 3) The court affirmed dismissing the case, finding a merger of rights occurred when the petitioners acquired the land's title from a third party for P857.31, extinguishing the P30,000 debt under the Civil Code even though the estate remained liable.

    Copyright:

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

    Enriquez Vs Ranolo

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    115 views2 pages
    1) Petitioners filed a lawsuit against an estate administrator to collect a P30,000 debt secured by a mortgage on 809,609 square meters of land. 2) Two intervenors claimed the administrator had agreed to an antichresis contract allowing the petitioners to use the land's profits to pay the debt before the mortgage expired in 5 years, thereby novating the obligation. 3) The court affirmed dismissing the case, finding a merger of rights occurred when the petitioners acquired the land's title from a third party for P857.31, extinguishing the P30,000 debt under the Civil Code even though the estate remained liable.

    Original Description:

    nnn

    Original Title

    Enriquez vs Ranolo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners filed a lawsuit against an estate administrator to collect a P30,000 debt secured by a mortgage on 809,609 square meters of land. 2) Two intervenors claimed the administrator had agreed to an antichresis contract allowing the petitioners to use the land's profits to pay the debt before the mortgage expired in 5 years, thereby novating the obligation. 3) The court affirmed dismissing the case, finding a merger of rights occurred when the petitioners acquired the land's title from a third party for P857.31, extinguishing the P30,000 debt under the Civil Code even though the estate remained liable.

    Copyright:

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

    Enriquez Vs Ranolo

    Uploaded by

    LoveAnne
    1) Petitioners filed a lawsuit against an estate administrator to collect a P30,000 debt secured by a mortgage on 809,609 square meters of land. 2) Two intervenors claimed the administrator had agreed to an antichresis contract allowing the petitioners to use the land's profits to pay the debt before the mortgage expired in 5 years, thereby novating the obligation. 3) The court affirmed dismissing the case, finding a merger of rights occurred when the petitioners acquired the land's title from a third party for P857.31, extinguishing the P30,000 debt under the Civil Code even though the estate remained liable.

    Copyright:

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

    NATALIO A. ENRIQUEZ, SUSANA GALA, MOISES A.

    GALA and AVELINA


    ELEAZAR, plaintiffs-appellants,
    vs.
    COSME RAOLA, administrator of the estate of the deceased Fructuosa
    Cadiz, defendant-appellee.
    PEDRO HERRERA and MARTIN MENDOZA, intervenors-appellants.
    G.R. No. 40908
    September 8, 1934

    Facts: Petitioners filed an action against Cosme Raola as administrator of the


    estate of Fructuosa Cadiz for the collection of a P30,000 with interest and the
    foreclosure of the mortgage that secured the debt. . This mortgage was a first
    lien on a parcel of land with improvements described in certificate of title No. 878
    of Tayabas and containing an area of 809,609 square meters assessed at
    P28,150. It is alleged that neither Fructuosa Cadiz in her lifetime nor her
    representative since her death has paid the said past due loan or the interest
    thereon since June 27, 1930, although due demand was made.
    Thereafter, Pedro Herrera and Martin Mendoza filed a petition of
    intervention. They allege that in 1931 the defendant administrator delivered
    possession of the said mortgaged property to the plaintiffs by way of antichresis
    for the remaining portion of the five-year period stated in the original contract of
    mortgage with the understanding that the plaintiffs should apply the products of
    the land to the payment of the mortgage debt and interest; that by virtue of said
    agreement of antichresis there has been a novation of the obligation and the
    plaintiffs cannot foreclose the mortgage executed by Fructuosa Cadiz before the
    expiration of five years from the date of the said mortgage, that is to say, June
    27, 1935, and hence the action of the plaintiffs is premature. They pray that the
    contract of mortgage be declared novated by the subsequent contract of
    antichresis, that the plaintiffs be required to render an account; that the petition of
    the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs.

    Issue: Whether or not confusion or merger of rights took place when a creditor
    bought the mortgaged land of his debtor, in effect extinguishing the debt?

    Held: Yes, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The trial court held
    that when the plaintiffs acquired through Francisco Paulino the equity of
    Fructuosa Cadiz in the very same lands conveyed to them as mortgagees, a
    merger of rights (confusion de derechos) took place which had the effect of
    extinguishing the debt of Fructuosa Cadiz in favor of the plaintiffs, under the
    provisions of articles 1156 and 1159 of the Civil Code. If that were not true, the
    plaintiffs would acquire the legal and equitable title to lands assessed at P28,150
    for the sum of P857.31 paid by them to Francisco Paulino without giving
    Fructuosa Cadiz or her estate credit for anything, leaving the said estate still
    owing the plaintiffs the P30,000, plus interest, for which the lands stood security.
    This extinction of the obligation and merger of rights by which the plaintiffs
    became owners of the land, occurred when they acquired the rights of Francisco
    Paulino, that is to say, on February 24, 1931.

    The intervenors' appeal rests essentially upon the proposition that


    novation of the contract of mortgage occurred when the plaintiffs agreed that they
    should take possession of the land before the maturity of the mortgage, and
    credit the products thereof to the payment of the principal and interest of the
    debt, thus converting the mortgage to a contract of antichresis. The evidence
    fails entirely to establish said alleged agreement. The defendant administrator,
    the widower of the deceased Fructuosa Cadiz, makes no such claim. The
    plaintiffs contend that they did not take possession until after they became
    owners by virtue of the conveyance from Francisco Paulino, that is to say, toward
    the end of the month of February, 1932, which was after the year for redemption
    of Francisco Paulino's purchase by the judgment debtor had expired.

    You might also like