Dizon v Gaborro [June 22, 1978]

FACTS:
After the foreclosure by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) of the
mortgage on the property of respondent Dizon, the latter entered into a contract with
petitioner Gaborro entitled Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.

Under the contract, Gaborro would assume and pay the indebtedness of Dizon to
DBP and in consideration therefor, Gaborro was given the possession, the enjoyment and
the use of the land mortgaged until Dizon can reimburse fully the amount paid.

ISSUE:
What is the nature of the contract entered into between Gaborro and Dizon?

HELD:
The agreement between Gaborro and Dizon is one of those innominate contracts
under Article 1307 of the New Civil Code whereby Gaborro and Dizon agreed to give and to
do certain rights and obligations respecting the lands and the mortgage debts of the former
which would be acceptable to the bank.

However, said contract partakes the nature of an antichresis insofar as the principal
parties, Dizon and Gaborro, are concerned. The Supreme Court based based its ruling on the
intention of the parties because there was neither transfer of full title/ownership to
Gaborro nor was there any consideration for the sale.

Bangis v Adolfo [June 13, 2012]

FACTS:

Serafin Adolfo, Sr. allegedly mortgaged a land he owned for the sum of Php
12,500.00 to herein Private Respondent Ancieto Bangis, who immediately took possession
of the land. The said transaction was, however, not reduced into writing.

When Serafin, Sr. died, his heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition covering
the same subject property and a Torrens Certificate of Title was issued to them.

In June 1998, the Heirs of Adolfo expressed their intention to redeem the mortgaged
property from Bangis but the latter refused, claiming that the transaction between him and
Adolfo was one of SALE.

During the conciliation meetings in the barangay, Bangis showed them a copy of a
deed of sale and a certificate of title of the disputed lot.

The Heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court for annulment
of the deed of sale and declaration of the purported contract of sale as antichresis.
 The Trial Court declared the contract between the petitioners and respondents as a
mere mortgage or antichresis and since the respondents have been in the possession of the
property in 1975 up to the present time enjoying all its fruits or income, the mortgaged loan
of Php 12,500.00 is deemed fully paid. Aggrieved, the Heirs of Bangis appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeals, affirmed the RTC in ruling that the contract between the
parties was a mortgage, not a sale. It noted that while Bangis was given the possession of
the subject property, the certificate of title remained in the custody of Adolfo and was never
cancelled.

ISSUE:
WON the transaction between Bangis and Adolfo was one of antichresis?

HELD:
The transaction was one of Mortgage, not Antichresis. For the contract of
antichresis to be valid, Article 2134 of the Civil Code requires that:

Article 2134. The amount of the principal and of the interest shall be
specified in writing; otherwise, the contract of antichresis shall be
void.

In this case, the heirs of Adolfo were indisputably unable to produce any document
in support of their claim that the contract between Adolfo and Bangis was an antichresis.

The Supreme Court held that the possession of the subject land by Bangis is for the
security of Adolfos obligation to return the money he loaned.