CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ PANDO VS. GIMENEZ, 54 PHIL. 459

PANDO VS. GIMENEZ,

54 PHIL. 459

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Art. 2135. The creditor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, is obliged to pay the taxes and charges upon the estate. He is also bound to bear the expenses necessary for its preservation and repair. The sums spent for the purposes stated in this article shall be deducted from the fruits.

 

FACTS

Gimenez was indebted to Pando in the amount of P8000. To secure payment of such loan, he executed and delivered a real estate mortgage over a building located in Sta. Mesa; and the leasehold rights on the lot upon which the building was erected, Hacienda Tuason being the lessor.

 

When Gimenez was about to leave Manila to attend to his business in Cagayan, he gave Pando full control, and complete and absolute administration over the property he mortgaged, on the condition that Pando would:

(1)  attend to the administration, care and preservation of the building and property

(2)  pay the premium on the insurance of the building

(3)  pay the taxes that might become due on the building

(4)  pay the rents of the leased property

(5)  collect the rents from the tenants of the building;

·         to be applied to the payment of all expenses necessary for the preservation and maintenance of the building and the rents of the leased property

 

In the course of Pando’s administration over the property, he failed and neglected to pay the taxes due for several years. He also failed and neglected to pay lessor Hacienda Tuason the rents due for several years on the land leased. Because of this, the building was sold at a public auction to satisfy the taxes due. Moreover, lessor Hacienda Tuason cancelled the contract of lease of Gimenez, and brought a suit against him for desahucio in the municipal court of Manila. Gimenez is now claiming that Pando, being in charge of the administration of the premises, had the obligation to attend to the payment of taxes and rents. Pando denies that he had such obligation, alleging that his duties were confined to the collection of rents on the house in order to apply them to the payment of the interest on the mortgage.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not Pando, having full control and administration over the property of Gimenez, was obliged to pay the taxes, charges and other necessary expenses.

 

RULING

The court held that the administration of the property in question taken over by the plaintiff towards the end of October, 1925, is antichretic in character, and therefore justice and equity demand that the provisions of the Civil Code relating to the obligations of a creditor in antichresis be applied to the case, among them, the obligation to pay the taxes and charges which burden the estate. The plaintiff having failed to pay the tax on the house and the rent of the lot where the same is built, he is by law required to pay to the appellant indemnity for damages (art. 1101, Civil Code) which amount to P5,000 according to the evidence on the value and condition of the house and the improvements made by the appellant.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459