Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 809 views

    Rights of Antichretic Creditor

    Uploaded by

    Kyo Pneuma
    1. The document discusses the rights of an antichretic creditor under Philippine law. 2. An antichretic creditor has the right to receive the fruits and income from the debtor's immovable property and apply it to interest and principal on the debt. They also have the right to retain the property until the debt is fully paid. 3. If the debt is not paid at maturity, the antichretic creditor may file a petition to sell the property through the court, following rules for foreclosure of mortgages. They have preference to the proceeds of any sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Rights of Antichretic Creditor

    Uploaded by

    Kyo Pneuma
    809 views2 pages
    1. The document discusses the rights of an antichretic creditor under Philippine law. 2. An antichretic creditor has the right to receive the fruits and income from the debtor's immovable property and apply it to interest and principal on the debt. They also have the right to retain the property until the debt is fully paid. 3. If the debt is not paid at maturity, the antichretic creditor may file a petition to sell the property through the court, following rules for foreclosure of mortgages. They have preference to the proceeds of any sale.

    Original Description:

    RANC

    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 document discusses the rights of an antichretic creditor under Philippine law. 2. An antichretic creditor has the right to receive the fruits and income from the debtor's immovable property and apply it to interest and principal on the debt. They also have the right to retain the property until the debt is fully paid. 3. If the debt is not paid at maturity, the antichretic creditor may file a petition to sell the property through the court, following rules for foreclosure of mortgages. They have preference to the proceeds of any sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Rights of Antichretic Creditor

    Uploaded by

    Kyo Pneuma
    1. The document discusses the rights of an antichretic creditor under Philippine law. 2. An antichretic creditor has the right to receive the fruits and income from the debtor's immovable property and apply it to interest and principal on the debt. They also have the right to retain the property until the debt is fully paid. 3. If the debt is not paid at maturity, the antichretic creditor may file a petition to sell the property through the court, following rules for foreclosure of mortgages. They have preference to the proceeds of any sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Rights of Antichretic Creditor

    1. The right to the Fruits and income of the thing as provided for by :

    Art. 2132. By the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right to
    receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor, with the obligation to apply
    them to the payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal
    of his credit.

    Note: The creditor acquires only the right to receive the fruits of the property,
    hence it does not produce a real right. The reduction of the amount of the fruits
    available to the creditor does not vary the nature of the contract.

    2. To retain the thing until the debt is paid. Article 2136, Par. 1 of the Civil Code
    provides that:
    Art. 2136. The debtor cannot reacquire the enjoyment of the immovable without first
    having totally paid what he owes the creditor.

    Note: The Antichretic Creditor has the right to retain the thing until the debt has
    been fully paid, the property delivered stands as a security for the obligation of the
    debtor in antichresis. Hence, the debtor cannot demand its return until the debt is
    totally paid. (Macapinlac vs repide (September 20, 1922) G.R. No. 18574)

    3.To have the thing sold upon non-payment at maturity as provided for under
    Article 2137 of the Civil Code

    Note: that although the creditor does not acquire ownership of the real estate for
    non-payment of the debt within the period agreed upon as well as every stipulation
    to the contrary shall be void. The second paragraph of the said article provides that
    the Creditor may file a petition with the court for the payment of the debt or the
    sale of the real property and that the Rules of Court on the Foreclosure of
    mortgages shall apply.
    4. Preference to the proceeds of the sale of the thing. (5 TOLENTINO, supra at
    567); and

    5. To be reimbursed for his expense for machinery and other improvements on the
    land, and for the sums paid as land taxes. (5 PARAS, supra at 1143)

    Case: Macapinlac vs repide (September 20, 1922)


    G.R. No. 18574

    Facts: Plaintiff owned the real estate property located in Pampanga. Later, plaintiff acquired a
    loan to Bachrach Garage & Taxicab for a price of an automobile. To secure payment, plaintiff
    executed fourteen promissory notes: 11 in the hands of Bachrach and 3 in the hands of the payee
    of the company. As security and guaranty of payment, plaintiff executed a deed of sale with a
    right to repurchase.
    More than a year later, respondent acquired the rights of Bachrach over the properties by
    paying P5000. Be it noted that during the conveyance of rights, Repide knew of the purpose of
    the transfer of title to secure the debt owing to Bachrach by the plaintiff. He also knew that the
    debt had been paid and that only a half of the debt existed.
    Afterwards, Repide caused for the transfer of title into his name by making it appear that
    the purported sale was true. During those times, respondent Repide was in actual possession of
    the property and was enjoying its fruits.
    Plaintiff filed a case to recover possession in which the Court of First Instance decided in
    favour of respondent. Due to this, plaintiff filed for a review of the case.

    Issue:
    1. Whether or not the contract was a sale de retro or a mortgage.
    2. What contract should govern between the parties?

    Held:
    (1)The court held that since the conveyance was executed to secure a debt, it should
    follow that in equity, said conveyance must be treated as a security or substantially as a
    mortgage. This decision was supported by the case of Cuyugan vs Santos, in which the court
    discuss the conditions in which a conveyance absolute on its face may be treated as a mortgage.

    (2)In this case, the court cited the case of Barretto vs. Barreto, where the heirs of a
    mortgagee of an estate were found in possession of mortgaged property more than thirty years
    after the mortgage had been executed; and it was shown that the mortgage had never been
    foreclosed. In effect, the rights held by the parties, both the mortgagor and mortgagee, were
    essentially the same as the ones in a contract of antichresis.

    You might also like