Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15128)
Facts:
Cecilio Diego v. Segundo Fernando, G.R. No. L-15128, August 25, 1960, the Supreme Court, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellee Cecilio Diego sued defendant-appellant Segundo Fernando in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 1694) for foreclosure of mortgage after Fernando allegedly failed to pay a loan secured by a mortgage.
On May 26, 1950, Fernando executed a written deed of mortgage (Exhibit "A") in favor of Diego to secure a P2,000 loan "without interest" payable within four years; possession of the mortgaged lands was thereafter turned over to Diego. After the four‑year period, Fernando did not pay; Diego made repeated demands and then filed the foreclosure action.
Fernando defended that the transaction was not a mortgage but an antichresis: he alleged Diego had taken possession and received 120 cavans of palay (valued by him at P10 per cavan, or P5,200), thereby extinguishing the debt and entitling Fernando to a refund. The trial court found the written instrument to be a true mortgage (citing the absence of an express agreement that the fruits were to be applied to interest and principal) and held that possession by the mortgagee did not convert the mortgage into antichresis; the trial court also found Diego had received fruits from the property (stated at one point as 65 cavans). The trial court awarded Diego P2,000 with legal interest from filing, P500 attorney’s fees, costs, and foreclosure in case of default.
Fernando appealed to the Court of Appeals; that tribunal certified the appeal to the Supreme Court because the case raised only questions of law. The Supreme Court reviewed the deed, the Civil Co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the contract evidenced by Exhibit "A" a mortgage or an antichresis?
- Must the mortgagee in possession account for the fruits (rents and profits) he received, and may those fruits be credited against the principal?
- Is the mortgagee entitled to legal interest from the filing of the action despite remaining in possess...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)