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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    9 Repuela V Estate of Spouses

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Repuela brothers borrowed P200 from Otillo Larawan and signed an extrajudicial declaration to secure the loan. However, they remained in possession of the land and continued farming it. They later learned the Larawans transferred the title to their name. The Repuela brothers filed a complaint to annul the declaration. The RTC found it was an equitable mortgage but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled the declaration was an equitable mortgage because the Repuela brothers remained in possession and it was clearly intended to secure their debt, not sell the land. The Larawans failed to prove the Repuela brothers fully understood the document.

    Copyright:

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

    9 Repuela V Estate of Spouses

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    80 views2 pages
    The Repuela brothers borrowed P200 from Otillo Larawan and signed an extrajudicial declaration to secure the loan. However, they remained in possession of the land and continued farming it. They later learned the Larawans transferred the title to their name. The Repuela brothers filed a complaint to annul the declaration. The RTC found it was an equitable mortgage but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled the declaration was an equitable mortgage because the Repuela brothers remained in possession and it was clearly intended to secure their debt, not sell the land. The Larawans failed to prove the Repuela brothers fully understood the document.

    Original Description:

    SALES

    Original Title

    9-Repuela-v-Estate-of-Spouses

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Repuela brothers borrowed P200 from Otillo Larawan and signed an extrajudicial declaration to secure the loan. However, they remained in possession of the land and continued farming it. They later learned the Larawans transferred the title to their name. The Repuela brothers filed a complaint to annul the declaration. The RTC found it was an equitable mortgage but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled the declaration was an equitable mortgage because the Repuela brothers remained in possession and it was clearly intended to secure their debt, not sell the land. The Larawans failed to prove the Repuela brothers fully understood the document.

    Copyright:

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

    9 Repuela V Estate of Spouses

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Repuela brothers borrowed P200 from Otillo Larawan and signed an extrajudicial declaration to secure the loan. However, they remained in possession of the land and continued farming it. They later learned the Larawans transferred the title to their name. The Repuela brothers filed a complaint to annul the declaration. The RTC found it was an equitable mortgage but the CA reversed. The Supreme Court ruled the declaration was an equitable mortgage because the Repuela brothers remained in possession and it was clearly intended to secure their debt, not sell the land. The Larawans failed to prove the Repuela brothers fully understood the document.

    Copyright:

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

    #9 Repuela v.

    Estate of the Spouses Larawan


    G.R. No. 219638, 7 December 2016

    FACTS:

    Cipriano and Marcelino (Repuela brothers) borrow P200.00 from Otillo Larawan (Otillo). To
    secure the loan, the spouses Otillo and Juliana Larawan (Spouses Larawan) required them to turn
    over the certificate of title for Lot No. 3357 and sign an Extajudicial Declaration of Heirs and
    Sale, which was purportedly a mortgage contract. However, they were not given a copy of the
    said document. Cipriano affixed his signature while Marcelino, being illiterate, just placed his
    thumb mark thereon. The Repuela brothers remained in possession of the land despite the
    mortgage and had been planting bamboos, corn, bananas, and papayas thereon and sharing the
    produce between them. They also paid the taxes due on the property.

    Later, the Repuela brothers learned that the Spouses Larawan have already caused the transfer of
    title over the property to their name by virtue of the Extajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Sale.
    Hence, they filed a complaint before the RTC for the annulment of the Extrajudicial Declaration
    of Heirs and Sale and the cancellation of title under the name of the Spouses Larawan.

    The RTC decided in favor of the Repuela brothers, holding that the transaction between the
    parties was not a sale but an equitable mortgage. However, the CA reversed and set aside the
    Decision of the RTC.

    Whether the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirsand Sale amounted to an equitable mortgage.

    RULING:

    The Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirsand Sale amounted to an equitable mortgage. An equitable


    mortgage is one which, although lacking in some formality, or form, or words, or other requisites
    demanded by a statute, reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security for a
    debt, and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law. For a presumption of an equitable
    mortgage to arise, two requisites must first be satisfied, namely: that the parties entered into a
    contract denominated as a contract of sale and that their intention was to secure an existing debt
    by way of mortgage.

    Article 1602, in relation to Article 1604 of the Civil Code enumerates several instances when a
    contract, purporting to be, and in fact styled as, an absolute sale, is presumed to be an equitable
    mortgage.

    In this case, 2 instances enumerated in Article 1602 apply:

    a) possession of the subject property; and


    b) inference that the transaction was in fact a mortgage attended the assailed transaction.

    First, the Repuela brothers remained in possession of the subject property after the transaction.
    Second, it can be inferred from the attending circumstances that the real intention of the Repuela
    brothers was to secure their indebtedness from Spouses Larawan. It was never their intention to
    sell the subject property.

    The decisive factor in evaluating such agreement is the intention of the parties, as shown not
    necessarily by the terminology used in the contract but by all the surrounding circumstances.

    Granting that the Repuela brothers, signed and thumbmarked, respectively, the Extrajudicial
    Declaration of Heirs and Sale, they did so without understanding the real nature, effects and
    consequences of what they did as they were never explained to them. Cipriano, who only
    finished Grade One, and Marcelino, an illiterate, were in dire need of money.

    The burden to show that the other party fully understood the contents of the document rests upon
    the party who seeks to enforce the contract. If he fails to discharge this burden, the presumption
    of mistake, if not, fraud, stands unrebutted and controlling. Respondent failed to overcome this
    burden. Furthermore, the law accords the equitable mortgage presumption in situations when
    doubt exists as to the true intent of the parties to the contract, as in this case.

    You might also like