Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 199852 2014-11-12	SPS. FELIPE SOLITARIOS AND JULIA TORDA v. SPS. GASTON JAQUE AND LILIA JAQUE VELASCO JR., J.
In Sps. Raymundo v. Sps. Bandong,[35] the Court observed that it is contrary to human experience that a person would easily part with his property after incurring a debt. Rather, he would first look for means to settle his obligation, and the selling of a property on which the house that shelters him and his family stands, would be his last resort.
	GR No. 158377 2010-08-13	HEIRS OF JOSE REYES v. AMANDA S. REYES BERSAMIN, J.
The existence of any one of the conditions enumerated under Article 1602 of the Civil Code, not a concurrence of all or of a majority thereof, suffices to give rise to the presumption that the contract is an equitable mortgage.[24] Consequently, the contract between the vendors and vendees (Spouses Francia) was an equitable mortgage.
	GR No. 182673 2009-10-05	AQUALAB PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, again based on the hypothetically admitted allegations in the complaint, it would appear that Anthony Gaw Kache, Aqualab's predecessor-in-interest, was not in possession of subject lots. Such a fact should have put Aqualab on guard relative to the possessors' (respondents') interest over subject lots. A buyer of real property that is in the possession of a person other than the seller must be wary, and a buyer who does not investigate the rights of the one in possession can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith.[37]
	GR No. 158384 2008-06-12	JUAN OLIVARES v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO CARPIO, J.
An equitable mortgage is defined as one that, although lacking some formality or form, nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge a real property as security for a debt.[22] A contract of sale is considered an equitable mortgage when the real intention of the parties was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage.[23] In this case, the land which was the subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale was already mortgaged not to the buyer but to another entity who was not a party to the contract. The land was already mortgaged to DBP by the sellers (respondent and her husband Manuel), who were unable to pay their loan. The records show that the property was about to be foreclosed so respondent and Manuel decided to sell the property to Boteros. Under the terms of the Deed of Definite Sale dated May 1979, the consideration for the sale was P2,000 plus the assumption of Boteros of the sellers' loan from the DBP, including all interests. Prior to their sale transaction, there is no evidence that respondent had an existing debt with Boteros. There is likewise no substantial evidence on the records that the parties to the contract agreed upon a different transaction other than the sale of real property.