Villanueva v. Ipondo
2
Villanueva v. Ipondo 44 O.G. 4377 Facts: The deceased Juan Melliza owns 3 parcels of land, known as haciendas Barrusbus-Balcon, Sablai Ravena, and Balcon-Bundulan. Melliza’s brother in law, Eusebio and his wife Fausta were placed as administrators over these parcels of land. During their tenure, they introduced improvements thereon, and as way of reimbursing them, the late Melliza executed a document entitled “mortgage” in which it was stated that Melliza owes the spouses 20,000 pesos and the collection of the amount is voluntary and they have option to apply 1/3 of the fruits of Sablai-Ravena and Barrusbus-Balcon for the payment of the debt of 20,000 split evenly between the two haciendas. Another document was executed, this time for Balcon-Bundulan, appearing that the spouses have the right to possess the property for the rest of their lives unless the debt of Php20,000 is paid. Now, the administrator of Melliza, Remedios Villanueva filed a cause for illegal detainer against the spouses. Issue: W/N Villanueva has a cause of action against the spouses for illegal detainer. Held: No. For it is clear that the will of the deceased is to allow the possession of the spouses over the 3 haciendas. The 2 documents executed by Melliza clearly shows that he allowed the spouses to continue the possession until payment of the debt, which is for the improvements introduced thereon. However, the first document is not really a mortgage; it is a contract of antichresis. It is so because Melliza allowed the spouses to use 1/3 of the fruits of the two haciendas under such document for the payment of the debt. Moreover, Melliza allowed them to possess the two haciendas until the debt is fully paid, which is made voluntarily in this arrangement. What is peculiar here is the fact that the antichresis only allowed 1/3 of the fruits to be applied. There is nothing wrong about this arrangement since
-
Upload
migz-dimayacyac -
Category
Documents
-
view
34 -
download
0
description
antichresis
Transcript of Villanueva v. Ipondo
Villanueva v. Ipondo44 O.G. 4377
Facts: The deceased Juan Melliza owns 3 parcels of land, known as haciendas Barrusbus-Balcon, Sablai Ravena, and Balcon-Bundulan. Mellizas brother in law, Eusebio and his wife Fausta were placed as administrators over these parcels of land. During their tenure, they introduced improvements thereon, and as way of reimbursing them, the late Melliza executed a document entitled mortgage in which it was stated that Melliza owes the spouses 20,000 pesos and the collection of the amount is voluntary and they have option to apply 1/3 of the fruits of Sablai-Ravena and Barrusbus-Balcon for the payment of the debt of 20,000 split evenly between the two haciendas. Another document was executed, this time for Balcon-Bundulan, appearing that the spouses have the right to possess the property for the rest of their lives unless the debt of Php20,000 is paid. Now, the administrator of Melliza, Remedios Villanueva filed a cause for illegal detainer against the spouses.Issue: W/N Villanueva has a cause of action against the spouses for illegal detainer.Held: No. For it is clear that the will of the deceased is to allow the possession of the spouses over the 3 haciendas. The 2 documents executed by Melliza clearly shows that he allowed the spouses to continue the possession until payment of the debt, which is for the improvements introduced thereon. However, the first document is not really a mortgage; it is a contract of antichresis. It is so because Melliza allowed the spouses to use 1/3 of the fruits of the two haciendas under such document for the payment of the debt. Moreover, Melliza allowed them to possess the two haciendas until the debt is fully paid, which is made voluntarily in this arrangement. What is peculiar here is the fact that the antichresis only allowed 1/3 of the fruits to be applied. There is nothing wrong about this arrangement since the parties have freedom to stipulate it. The other document is a usufruct arrangement for life in favor of the spouses. There is a doctrine that usufructs of these arrangements are really antichretic arrangements. This bolsters the theory that possession is allowed. Ergo, the case for illegal detainer must fail.
