Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 604 views

    Genova vs. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    piptipayb
    Roberto U. Genova obtained a loan from Levita de Castro and used his land title as collateral. Instead of registering a mortgage, Levita prepared a deed of sale for the property under her name. Roberto made payments to Levita to repurchase the property. The court ruled that the payments must be refunded to Roberto based on equitable grounds, as there was an agreement for Roberto to repurchase the property, so the principle of mistaken payment did not apply. The court ordered Levita to refund Roberto P2,287,000 and for the lower court to return Roberto's consigned check for P1,045,196.59.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Genova vs. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    piptipayb
    604 views2 pages
    Roberto U. Genova obtained a loan from Levita de Castro and used his land title as collateral. Instead of registering a mortgage, Levita prepared a deed of sale for the property under her name. Roberto made payments to Levita to repurchase the property. The court ruled that the payments must be refunded to Roberto based on equitable grounds, as there was an agreement for Roberto to repurchase the property, so the principle of mistaken payment did not apply. The court ordered Levita to refund Roberto P2,287,000 and for the lower court to return Roberto's consigned check for P1,045,196.59.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Genova vs. De Castro.doc

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roberto U. Genova obtained a loan from Levita de Castro and used his land title as collateral. Instead of registering a mortgage, Levita prepared a deed of sale for the property under her name. Roberto made payments to Levita to repurchase the property. The court ruled that the payments must be refunded to Roberto based on equitable grounds, as there was an agreement for Roberto to repurchase the property, so the principle of mistaken payment did not apply. The court ordered Levita to refund Roberto P2,287,000 and for the lower court to return Roberto's consigned check for P1,045,196.59.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    604 views2 pages

    Genova vs. de Castro

    Uploaded by

    piptipayb
    Roberto U. Genova obtained a loan from Levita de Castro and used his land title as collateral. Instead of registering a mortgage, Levita prepared a deed of sale for the property under her name. Roberto made payments to Levita to repurchase the property. The court ruled that the payments must be refunded to Roberto based on equitable grounds, as there was an agreement for Roberto to repurchase the property, so the principle of mistaken payment did not apply. The court ordered Levita to refund Roberto P2,287,000 and for the lower court to return Roberto's consigned check for P1,045,196.59.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 132076 July 22, 2003 ROBERTO U. GENOVA, Petitioner, vs. LEVITA DE CASTRO, Respondent.

    FACTS: Roberto U. Genova was the owner of a parcel of land located in Sta. Ana, Manila, containing an area of 399.6 square meters and registered in his name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 172539 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. In 1989, petitioner invested into the business of movie production. To fund his film project, he obtained a loan from respondent, Levita de Castro, for P1,000,000.00 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The petitioner turned over his owners duplicate certificate of title as a security for the loan, and signed blank sheets of paper with the understanding that their Deed of Mortgage will be printed thereon. Meanwhile, petitioner remained in possession of the property. However, the petitioner had obtained a loan from the United Coconut Planters Bank secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property. He defaulted in the payment of his obligations, whereupon the bank caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and purchased the property as the highest bidder at the sale at public auction. Then, respondent redeemed the property from UCPB and caused the cancellation of TCT No. 172539 on the strength of a purported deed of sale from petitioner. Wherein, instead of printing a Deed of Mortgage on the blank sheets of paper which signed by the petitioner, respondent prepared an "Absolute Deed of Sale of a Registered Land" in her favor. Thus, respondent obtained TCT No. 194123 in her name. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is entitled of refund based on the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the Civil Code RULING: The payments that the petitioner has made to respondent must be returned based on the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the Civil Code. There is solutio indebiti where: (1) payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause.The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti is based on the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. The first element of solutio indebiti is lacking. There can be no mistaken payment in this case, for the petitioner made payments to respondent with an agreement to

    repurchase the property. Thus, the principle of solutio indebiti finds no application in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of what he had paid based on equitable grounds. The Court ruled that the consolidated petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41521 is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48422 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondent is ordered to REFUND to petitioner the sum of P2,287,000.00. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25, is also ordered to RETURN the check which was consigned by the petitioner in the amount of P1,045,196.59.

    You might also like