Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Diño v. Jardines

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the true nature of the contract between Leonides Diño and Lina Jardines was an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right of redemption. Key facts supporting this were that Jardines remained in physical possession of the property and continued paying real property taxes on it. Additionally, the supposed purchase price was earning interest and penalties, indicating it was a loan. The agreed interest rates of 9-10% per month were also deemed excessive and unconscionable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Diño v. Jardines

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    123 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the true nature of the contract between Leonides Diño and Lina Jardines was an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right of redemption. Key facts supporting this were that Jardines remained in physical possession of the property and continued paying real property taxes on it. Additionally, the supposed purchase price was earning interest and penalties, indicating it was a loan. The agreed interest rates of 9-10% per month were also deemed excessive and unconscionable.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the true nature of the contract between Leonides Diño and Lina Jardines was an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right of redemption. Key facts supporting this were that Jardines remained in physical possession of the property and continued paying real property taxes on it. Additionally, the supposed purchase price was earning interest and penalties, indicating it was a loan. The agreed interest rates of 9-10% per month were also deemed excessive and unconscionable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    Diño v. Jardines

    Uploaded by

    iwamawi
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the true nature of the contract between Leonides Diño and Lina Jardines was an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right of redemption. Key facts supporting this were that Jardines remained in physical possession of the property and continued paying real property taxes on it. Additionally, the supposed purchase price was earning interest and penalties, indicating it was a loan. The agreed interest rates of 9-10% per month were also deemed excessive and unconscionable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Leonides C. Diño, petitioner,vs. Lina Jardines, respondent. Civil Code.

    Civil Code. Moreover, it was also found out that the P165,000 supposed
    G.R. No. 145871 January 31, 2006 purchase price was earning interest and in case of default, it shall bear 10%
    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. penalty charge. The above findings clearly show that the intention of the
    parties was merely for the property to stand as security for the loan.
    Facts:
    On January 31 1987, Lina Jardines sold a parcel of land with improvements In addition, the agreed interest rate of 9% per month or 108% per annum,
    for P165,000 to Leonides Diño through a Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro. as claimed by respondent; or 10% per month or 120% per annum, as
    It was stipulated in the deed that period of redemption would expire in 6 claimed by petitioner, is clearly excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and
    month or on July 29, 1987. Jardines was not able to redeem the land. exorbitant. Being so, the Court declared it as void and thus, it is to be
    Hence, Diño filed a Petition for Consolidated Ownership with RTC Baguio considered that the parties have no stipulation regarding the interest rate.
    on December 14,1992. In turn, the rate of interest should be 12% per annum to be computed
    from judicial or extrajudicial demand, subject to the provisions of Article
    Jardines contended that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not embody the real 1169 of the Civil Code. As such, the 12% interest should be reckoned from
    intention of the parties. The true transaction entered was one of simple the date of extrajudicial demand which was March 12,1989.
    loan and the Deed of Sale was only executed as a security for the loan.
    Jardines claimed that she borrowed P 50,000 on the first week of January Notes:
    with a monthly interest of 9% to be paid in 6 months. When it was
    insufficient for the construction of her house, she again borrowed P30,000. Art. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in
    It was never her intention to sold the house given that her property is any of the following cases:
    valued at P1.5 million. She already paid the P55,000 and was willing to (1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually
    settle the unpaid balance but Diño insisted on appropriating the property. inadequate;
    She was still in possession of the property and was the one paying for the (2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;
    real estate tax xxx xxx xxx
    (5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;
    RTC: Pacto de retro sale xxx xxx xxx
    CA: Reversed; Equitable mortgage

    Issue: True nature of the contract

    Held: Equitable Mortgage

    The Court affirmed the findings of the CA. The true nature of the contract
    entered by the parties was one of equitable mortgage based on the fact
    that Jardines was still in physical possession of the property and the one
    paying the real property taxes. This is also pursuant to Article 1602 of the

    You might also like