CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ COTONER-ZACARIAS VS. REVILLA, 740 SCRA 51
COTONER-ZACARIAS VS. REVILLA,
740 SCRA 51
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides that “[b]y 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.”
Antichresis requires delivery of the property to the
antichretic creditor, but the latter cannot ordinarily acquire this immovable
property in his or her possession by prescription. Similar to the prohibition
against pactum commissorium since creditors cannot “appropriate the things
given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them,” an antichretic
creditor also cannot appropriate the real property in his or her favor upon the
nonpayment of the debt. Antichresis also requires that the amount of the
principal and the interest be in writing for the contract to be valid.
FACTS
Paz Castillo – Revilla borrowed
money from Amada Cotoner – Zacarias. By way of security, the parties verbally
agreed that Amada would take physical possession of the property, cultivate it,
then use the earnings from the cultivation to pay the loan and realty taxes.
Upon full payment of the loan, Amada would return the property to the Revilla
spouses. Amada sold the property to the spouses Adolfo and Elvira Casorla by Deed
of Absolute Sale Unregistered Land. In turn, the Casorla spouses executed a
deed of absolute sale in favor of the spouses Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun
Alfredo Revilla
returned from Saudi Arabia. He asked Amada why she had not returned their tax
declaration considering their full payment of the loan. He then discovered that
the property’s tax declaration was already in the name of the Sun spouses.The
Revilla spouses filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court for the
annulment of sales and transfers of title and reconveyance of the property with
damages against Amada, the Casorla spouses, the Sun spouses, and the Provincial
Assessor of Cavite.The Regional Trial Court found the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng
Lupa to be a fictitious document, and ruled in favor of the Revilla spouses.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Amada, and partially granted the
appeal of the Sun spouses.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Contract of Antichresis
executed between Amada & Paz Revilla is void.
RULING
Yes.
The court held that Antichresis requires delivery of the
property to the antichretic creditor, but the latter cannot ordinarily acquire
this immovable property in his or her possession by prescription. Similar to
the prohibition against pactum commissorium since creditors cannot “appropriate
the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them,” an
antichretic creditor also cannot appropriate the real property in his or her
favor upon the nonpayment of the debt. Antichresis also requires that the
amount of the principal and the interest be in writing for the contract to be
valid.
Therefore, the contract of
antichresis is void. The Court affirmed the lower court’s order of reinstatement
and reconveyance of the property in favor of respondents Revilla Spouses.