Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 595 views

    Kasilag Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Ibid Angeles
    1) The parties entered into a contract for a loan secured by a mortgage on improvements on a piece of land. However, they also verbally agreed to an antichresis contract allowing enjoyment of the land's fruits, which is invalid. 2) The petitioner possessed the land believing his title was valid, unaware of the invalid antichresis agreement. 3) The court held that while the antichresis contract was null and void, the petitioner was a possessor in good faith due to his excusable ignorance of the law, and the mortgage on improvements was valid.

    Copyright:

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

    Kasilag Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Ibid Angeles
    595 views2 pages
    1) The parties entered into a contract for a loan secured by a mortgage on improvements on a piece of land. However, they also verbally agreed to an antichresis contract allowing enjoyment of the land's fruits, which is invalid. 2) The petitioner possessed the land believing his title was valid, unaware of the invalid antichresis agreement. 3) The court held that while the antichresis contract was null and void, the petitioner was a possessor in good faith due to his excusable ignorance of the law, and the mortgage on improvements was valid.

    Original Title

    2. Kasilag vs Rodriguez.docx

    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) The parties entered into a contract for a loan secured by a mortgage on improvements on a piece of land. However, they also verbally agreed to an antichresis contract allowing enjoyment of the land's fruits, which is invalid. 2) The petitioner possessed the land believing his title was valid, unaware of the invalid antichresis agreement. 3) The court held that while the antichresis contract was null and void, the petitioner was a possessor in good faith due to his excusable ignorance of the law, and the mortgage on improvements was valid.

    Copyright:

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

    Kasilag Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Ibid Angeles
    1) The parties entered into a contract for a loan secured by a mortgage on improvements on a piece of land. However, they also verbally agreed to an antichresis contract allowing enjoyment of the land's fruits, which is invalid. 2) The petitioner possessed the land believing his title was valid, unaware of the invalid antichresis agreement. 3) The court held that while the antichresis contract was null and void, the petitioner was a possessor in good faith due to his excusable ignorance of the law, and the mortgage on improvements was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Kasilag versus Rodriguez Case Digest/ Brief 69 Phil 217

    FACTS: This is an appeal taken by the defendant-petitioner from the decision


    of the Court of Appeals which modified that rendered by the court of First
    Instance of Bataan. The said court held: that the contract is entirely null and
    void and without effect; that the plaintiffs-respondents, then appellants, are
    the owners of the disputed land, with its improvements, in common
    ownership with their brother Gavino Rodriguez, hence, they are entitled to
    the possession thereof; that the defendant-petitioner should yield possession
    of the land in their favor, with all the improvements thereon and free from
    any lien

    SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: The parties entered into a contract of loan to which has
    an accompanying accessory contract of mortgage. The executed accessory
    contract involved the improvements on a piece land, the land having been
    acquired by means of homestead. P for his part accepted the contract of
    mortgage.

    Believing that there are no violations to the prohibitions in the alienation of


    lands P, acting in good faith took possession of the land. To wit, the P has no
    knowledge that the enjoyment of the fruits of the land is an element of the
    credit transaction of Antichresis.

    ISSUE: Whether or not P is deemed to be a possessor in good faith of the


    land, based upon Article 3 of the New Civil Code as states Ignorance of the
    law excuses no one from compliance therewith, the Ps lack of knowledge of
    the contract of antichresis.

    HELD: The accessory contract of mortgage of the improvements of on the


    land is valid. The verbal contract of antichresis agreed upon is deemed null
    and void.

    REASONING: Sec 433 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides Every
    person who is unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its
    acquisition by which it is invalidated shall be deemed a possessor of good
    faith. And in this case, the petitioner acted in good faith. Good faith maybe
    a basis of excusable ignorance of the law, the petitioner acted in good faith
    in his enjoyment of the fruits of the land to which was done through his
    apparent acquisition thereof.

    You might also like