1

March 22, 1907 G.R. No. 3227 Alcantara vs Alinea PEDRO AL AN!ARA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AM"RO#$O AL$NEA, E! AL., defendants-appellants. S.D. Reyes for appellants. J. Gerona for appellee. On the 13th day of March, 1905, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of First nstance of !a !a"una, prayin" that #ud"ment $e rendered in his $ehalf orderin" the defendants to de liver to him the house and lot claimed, and to pay him in addition thereto as rent the sum of % pesos per month from Fe$ruary of that year, and to pay the costs of the action& and the plaintiff alle"ed in effect that on the '9th day of Fe$ruary, 190(, the defendants, )m$rosio )linea and *udosia +elarmino, $orro,ed from him the sum of (%0 pesos, paya$le in -anuary of said year 1905 under the a"reement that if, at the e.piration of the said period, said amount should not $e paid it ,ould $e understood that the house and lot, the house $ein" constructed of stron" materials, o,ned $y the said defendants and located in the to,n of /an 0a$lo on the street of the same name, 0rovince of !a !a"una, $e considered as a$solutely sold to the plaintiff for the said sum& that the superficial e.tent and $oundaries of said property are descri$ed in the complaint& and that, not,ithstandin" that the time for the payment of said sum has e.pired and no payment has $een made, the defendants refuse to deliver to plaintiff the said property, openly violatin" that ,hich they contracted to do and deprivin" him to his loss of the rents ,hich plaintiff should received, the same countin" from Fe$ruary, 1905. 1he defendants, after the overrulin" of a demurrer to the complaint herein, ans,ered denyin" "enerally and specifically all the alle"ations contained in the complaint, e.cept those ,hich ,ere e.pressly admitted, and alle"ed that the amount claimed included the interest& and that the principal $orro,ed ,as only '00 pesos and that the interest ,as '%0 pesos, althou"h in dra,in" the document $y mutual consent of the parties thereto the amount of inde$tedness ,as made to appear in the sum of (%0 pesos& and that as their special defense defendants alle"ed that they offered to pay the plaintiff the sum of (%0 pesos, $ut the plaintiff had refused to accept the same, therefore they persisted in ma2in" said offer and tender of payment, placin" at the disposal of the plaintiff the said (%0 pesos first tendered& and defendants as2ed for the costs of action. )fter havin" ta2en the evidence of $oth parties and attachin" the documents presented in evidence to the record, the #ud"e on 3ovem$er '4, 1905, rendered a #ud"ment orderin" the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff the house and lot, the o$#ect of this liti"ation, and to pay the costs of the action, not ma2in" any findin" upon the 5uestion of loss or dama"es $y reason of the a$sence of proof on these points. 1he defendants duly too2 e.ception to this decision, and as2ed for a ne,

trial of the case on the "round that the findin"s of the court $elo, in its decision ,ere plainly contrary to la,, ,hich motion ,as overruled and from ,hich rulin" defendants also e.cepted. 6e have in this case a contract of loan and a promise of sale of a house and lot, the price of ,hich should $e the amount loaned, if ,ithin a fi.ed period of time such amount should not $e paid $y the de$tor-vendor of the property to the creditorvendee of same. *ither one of the contracts are perfectly le"al and $oth are authori7ed respectively $y articles 1(51, 14(0, and 1453, and those follo,in", of the Civil Code. 1he fact that the parties have a"reed at the same time, in such a manner that the fulfillment of the promise of sale ,ould depend upon the nonpayment or return of the amount loaned, has not produced any char"e in the nature and le"al conditions of either contract, or any essential defect ,hich ,ould tend to nullify the same. f the promise of sale is not vitiated $ecause, accordin" to the a"reement $et,een the parties thereto, the price of the same is to $e the amount loaned and not repaid, neither ,ould the loan $e null or ille"al, for the reason that the added a"reement provides that in the event of failure of payment the sale of property as a"reed ,ill ta2e effect, the consideration $ein" the amount loaned and not paid. 3o article of the Civil Code, under the rules or re"ulations of ,hich such dou$le contract ,as e.ecuted, prohi$its e.pressly, or $y inference from any of its provisions, that an a"reement could not $e made in the form in ,hich the same has $een e.ecuted& on the contrary, article 1'4% of the aforesaid code provides that 8contracts shall $e $indin", ,hatever may $e the form in ,hich they may have $een e.ecuted, provided the essential conditions re5uired for their validity e.ist.8 1his le"al prescription appears firmly sustained $y the settled practice of the courts. 1he property, the sale of ,hich ,as a"reed to $y the de$tors, does not appear mort"a"ed in favor of the creditor, $ecause in order to constitute a valid mort"a"e it is indispensa$le that the instrument $e re"istered in the 9e"ister of 0roperty, in accordance ,ith article 1%45 of the Civil Code, and the document of contract, *.hi$it ), does not constitute a mort"a"e, nor could it possi$ly $e a mort"a"e, for the reason of said document is not vested ,ith the character and conditions of a pu$lic instrument. +y the aforesaid document, *.hi$it ), said property could not $e pled"ed, not $ein" personal property, and not,ithstandin" the said dou$le contract the de$tor

continued in possession thereof and the said property has never $een occupied $y the creditor. 3either ,as there ever nay contract of antichresis $y reason of the said contract of loan, as is provided in articles 1%%1 and those follo,in" of the Civil Code, inasmuch as the creditor-plaintiff has never $een in possession thereof, nor has he en#oyed the said property, nor for one moment ever received its rents& therefore, there are no proper terms in la,, ta2in" into consideration the terms of the conditions contained in the aforesaid contract, ,here$y this court can find that the contract ,as null, and under no consideration ,hatever ,ould it $e #ust to apply to the plaintiff articles 1%59 and 1%%( of the same code. 1he contract :pactum commissorium; referred to in !a, (1, title 5, and la, 1', title 1', of the fifth Partida, and perhaps included in the prohi$ition and declaration of nullity e.pressed in articles 1%59 and 1%%( of the Civil Code, indicates the e.istence of the contracts of mort"a"e or of pled"e or that of antichresis, none of ,hich have coincided in the loan indicated herein. t is a principle in la,, invaria$ly applied $y the courts in the decisions of actions instituted in the matter of compliance ,ith o$li"ations, that the ,ill of the contractin" parties is the la, of contracts and that a man o$li"ates himself to that to ,hich he promises to $e $ound, a principle in accordance ,ith !a, 1, title 1, $oo2 10 of the Novisima Recopilacion, and article 1091 of the Civil Code. 1hat ,hich is a"reed to in a contract is la, $et,een the parties, a doctrine esta$lished, amon" others, in #ud"ments of the supreme court of /pain of Fe$ruary '0, 1%94, and Fe$ruary 13, 190(. t ,as a"reed $et,een plaintiff and defendants herein that if defendants should not pay the loan of (%0 pesos in -anuary, 1905, the property $elon"in" to the defendants and descri$ed in the contract should remain sold for the aforesaid sum, and such a"reement must $e complied ,ith, inasmuch as there is no "round in la, to oppose the compliance ,ith that ,hich has $een a"reed upon, havin" $een so ac2no,led"ed $y the o$li"ated parties. 1he supreme court of /pain, applyin" the aforementioned la,s of /panish ori"in to a similar case, esta$lishes in its decision of -anuary 1<, 1%4', the follo,in" le"al doctrine= +asin" the complaint upon the o$li"ation si"ned $y the de$tor, ,hich #udicially reco"ni7ed his si"nature& and after confessin" to have received from the plaintiff a

certain amount, $indin" himself to return same to the satisfaction of the plaintiff ,ithin the term of four years, or in case of default to transfer direct domain of the properties descri$ed in the o$li"ation and to e.ecute the necessary sale& and the term havin" e.pired and the aforesaid amount not havin" $een paid, said plaintiff has his ri"ht free from impediment to claim same a"ainst the heirs of the de$tor. 1he document of contract has $een reco"ni7ed $y the defendant )linea and $y the ,itnesses ,ho si"ned same ,ith him, $ein" therefore an authentic and efficacious document, in accordance ,ith article 1''5 of the Civil Code& and as the amount loaned has not $een paid and continues in possession of the de$tor, it is only #ust that the promise of sale $e carried into effect, and the necessary instrument $e e.ecuted $y the vendees. 1herefore, $y virtue of the reasons "iven a$ove and acceptin" the findin"s "iven in the #ud"ment appealed from, ,e affirm the said #ud"ment herein, ,ith the costs a"ainst the appellants. )fter e.piration of t,enty days from the date of the notification of this decision let #ud"ment $e entered in accordance here,ith and ten days thereafter let the case $e remanded to the court from ,hence it came for proper action. /o ordered.