Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERLINDA SAN PEDRO v. RUBEN LEE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 163876 2008-07-09	ROSALINA CLADO-REYES v. SPS. JULIUS AND LILY LIMPE QUISUMBING, J.
Worth stressing, in civil cases, the plaintiff must establish his cause of action by preponderance of evidence; otherwise, his suit will not prosper.[31] After carefully considering the arguments of the parties, as well as their respective evidence, we unanimously agree that the petitioners were not able to prove that they have any legal or equitable title over the disputed lot. Thus, we find no reversible error in the assailed decisions of the courts below.
	GR No. 158384 2008-06-12	JUAN OLIVARES v. ESPERANZA DE LA CRUZ SARMIENTO CARPIO, J.
The records of the case are bereft of any evidence which could lead to the conclusion that the sale price was unusually inadequate. No evidence was presented on the market value of real estate in the area where the property was located at the time of the sale. Neither was there testimony of any alleged disparity on the price and the market value of the property. There was no testimony nor evidence presented on the inadequacy of the sale price. Besides, the property which respondent sold to Boteros for P25,000 in 1979 was subsequently sold by Boteros to petitioners in 1984 for P27,000. If the price indicated on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 2 July 1979 was indeed grossly inadequate, then Boteros could have sold the property five years later at a much higher price than P27,000. To presume that a contract is an equitable mortgage based on gross inadequacy of price, it must be clearly shown from the evidence presented that the consideration was in fact grossly inadequate at the time the sale was executed. In fact, mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient.[25]
	GR No. 143697 2008-01-28	DIONISIA DORADO VDA. DE DELFIN v. SALVADOR D. DELLOTA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Jurisprudence recognizes that there is no conclusive test to determine whether a deed purporting to be a sale on its face is really a simple loan accommodation secured by a mortgage.[5] However, our case law consistently shows that the presence of even one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 1602 suffices to convert a purported contract of sale into an equitable mortgage.[6] In this case, what should be determined is whether the consideration of P5,300.00 paid by Gumersindo to Dionisa for a five-hectare portion of Lot No. 1213 on June 9, 1949 is "unusually inadequate."
	GR No. 165943 2007-11-20	ELIODORO ALELIGAY v. TEODORICO LASERNA QUISUMBING, J.
x x x x The presence of any of these circumstances is sufficient for a contract to be deemed an equitable mortgage. Both the trial and appellate courts, however, found none of the circumstances enumerated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code. Neither do we find any cogent reason to reverse their findings. Actori incumbit onus probandi. (Upon the plaintiff in a civil case lies the burden of proof.) Plaintiff must therefore establish his case by preponderance of evidence; failing to do so results in his defeat.[21]
	GR NO. 154156 2006-08-31	JMA HOUSE INCORPORATED v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
For the presumptions under the article to apply, two requisites must concur: (1) that the parties entered into a contract denominated as a sale; and (2) that their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage.[74] In order for a deed to be declared a mortgage, the relation of debtor and creditor must exist between the grantor in such a deed and one who seeks to have it declared a mortgage.[75] There must be a continuing binding debt; a debt in its fullest sense. Where there is no debt, there can be no mortgage; for if there is nothing to secure, there can be no security.[76] If there is an indebtedness or liability between the parties, either a debt existing prior to the conveyance, or a debt arising from a loan made at the time of the conveyance, or from any other cause, and this debt is still left subsistent, not being discharged or satisfied by the conveyance, but the grantor is regarded as still owing and bound to pay at some future time, so that the payment stipulated for in the agreement to re-convey is in reality the payment of this existing debt, then the whole transaction amounts to a mortgage, whatever stipulation they may have inserted in the instruments. If there is no relation of debtor-creditor, but by the terms of the contract one is merely given an option to buy real property for a fixed amount and for a fixed price, there is no equitable mortgage; the optionee is not bound to buy and to pay for said real property.[77]
	GR NO. 166183 2006-01-20	SPS. TITO ALVARO AND MARIA VALELO v. SPS. OSMUNDO TERNIDA AND JULITA RETURBAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An equitable mortgage is defined as one which although lacking in some formality, or form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute, nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security for a debt, and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law.[15] For the presumption of an equitable mortgage to arise, two requisites must concur: (1) that the parties entered into a contract denominated as a sale; and (2) that their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of a mortgage.[16]
	GR NO. 148376 2005-03-31	LEONARDO ACABAL v. VILLANER ACABAL CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears noting, however, that Villaner failed to present evidence on the fair market value of the property as of April 19, 1990, the date of execution of the disputed deed. Absent any evidence of the fair market value of a land as of the time of its sale, it cannot be concluded that the price at which it was sold was inadequate.[48] Inadequacy of price must be proven because mere speculation or conjecture has no place in our judicial system.[49]
	GR NO. 149756 2005-02-11	MYRNA RAMOS v. SUSANA S. SARAO PANGANIBAN, J.
On the other hand, an equitable mortgage is a contract that --although lacking the formality, the form or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute -- nevertheless reveals the intention of the parties to burden a piece or pieces of real property as security for a debt.[24] The essential requisites of such a contract are as follows: (1) the parties enter into what appears to be a contract of sale, but (2) their intention is to secure an existing debt by way of a mortgage.[25] The nonpayment of the debt when due gives the mortgagee the right to foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of the loan obligation.[26]