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.