Title
Dizon vs. Gaborro
Case
G.R. No. L-36821
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1978
Dizon mortgaged properties to DBP and PNB, defaulted, and sold to Gaborro. SC ruled transaction as equitable mortgage, granting Dizon reconveyance rights upon reimbursement.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36821)

Facts:

  • Title, Mortgages, and Foreclosure
    • Jose P. Dizon owned three parcels in Mabalacat, Pampanga (TCT No. 15679; total ±1,305, in hectares).
    • He secured a first mortgage with Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for ₱38,000.00 and a second mortgage with Philippine National Bank (PNB) for ₱93,831.91.
    • Dizon defaulted; DBP extrajudicially foreclosed under Act No. 3135 on May 26, 1959. The three parcels sold to DBP for ₱31,459.21 (Certificate of Sale) and recorded in DBP’s name under TCT No. 24292 (Oct. 6, 1960).
  • Contracts between Dizon and Gaborro (Oct. 6, 1959)
    • Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage (Exh. A):
      • Purported absolute sale for ₱131,831.91 (sum of DBP and PNB debts), “paid in cash,” with purchaser to assume both mortgages.
      • No actual cash changed hands; Dizon transferred only his right to redeem and possess during the redemption period.
    • Option to Purchase Real Estate (Exh. B):
      • Gave Dizon the option to repurchase the parcels for ₱131,831.91 plus 8% p.a., valid Jan. 1965–Dec. 31, 1970.
      • Required Dizon to reimburse amounts paid on the mortgages before full reconveyance.
  • Post-Contract Transactions
    • Gaborro took possession on Oct. 7, 1959; wrote DBP to assume its mortgage; DBP conditioned acceptance on 20% down.
    • July 11, 1960: DBP and Gaborro executed a conditional sale (₱36,090.95 down; balance in 10 annual amortizations at 8% p.a.).
    • Jan. 7, 1960: Dizon assigned his right of redemption and mortgage assumption to Gaborro (Exh. D).
    • Gaborro paid both banks (principal and some interest), cultivated lands, appropriated fruits, and paid land taxes.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • July 30, 1962: Dizon sued in CFI Pampanga for reformation, reimbursement, reconveyance, accounting of fruits, and damages.
    • DBP and Gaborro denied material allegations; DBP asserted Dizon’s only right was redemption under Act 3135.
    • Pre-trial stipulation of facts admitted: mortgages, foreclosure, conditional sale, payments, possession, cultivation, appropriation of fruits.
    • Mar. 14, 1970: CFI reformed both instruments into equitable mortgage/antichresis; denied other reliefs.
    • June 22, 1978: CA affirmed with modification—Dizon may refund ₱131,831.91 + 8% p.a. from Oct. 6, 1959, within one year or lose rights; costs against Dizon.
    • Supreme Court review on certiorari ensued.

Issues:

  • Do the “Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage” and “Option to Purchase Real Estate” constitute an absolute sale of the parcels or rather an equitable mortgage/security?
  • Does the “Assignment of Right of Redemption and Assumption of Obligation” prove an absolute sale or merely confirm the equitable mortgage?
  • Is Gaborro (or his estate) obliged to account for fruits, harvests, and other income from Oct. 6, 1959?
  • What remedies and reliefs should be granted—reformation, reconveyance, reimbursement, accounting, damages?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.