Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    RODOLFO LANUZA, Vendor, vs. MARTIN DE LEON, Intervenor-Appellant

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie Sakiwat Vargas
    Rodolfo Lanuza sold his house and other property to Reyes and Navarro through a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. Lanuza later mortgaged the same property to Martin de Leon, who foreclosed on the mortgage when payments weren't made. De Leon argued he had a better right as a third party. The court found the original transaction was actually an equitable mortgage under the Civil Code, making De Leon's registered mortgage valid against the unregistered claims of Reyes and Navarro. As a registered mortgagee, De Leon had priority over the unregistered sale with right to repurchase.

    Copyright:

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

    RODOLFO LANUZA, Vendor, vs. MARTIN DE LEON, Intervenor-Appellant

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie Sakiwat Vargas
    33 views1 page
    Rodolfo Lanuza sold his house and other property to Reyes and Navarro through a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. Lanuza later mortgaged the same property to Martin de Leon, who foreclosed on the mortgage when payments weren't made. De Leon argued he had a better right as a third party. The court found the original transaction was actually an equitable mortgage under the Civil Code, making De Leon's registered mortgage valid against the unregistered claims of Reyes and Navarro. As a registered mortgagee, De Leon had priority over the unregistered sale with right to repurchase.

    Original Title

    Lanuza-v-de-Leon-in-RE.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodolfo Lanuza sold his house and other property to Reyes and Navarro through a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. Lanuza later mortgaged the same property to Martin de Leon, who foreclosed on the mortgage when payments weren't made. De Leon argued he had a better right as a third party. The court found the original transaction was actually an equitable mortgage under the Civil Code, making De Leon's registered mortgage valid against the unregistered claims of Reyes and Navarro. As a registered mortgagee, De Leon had priority over the unregistered sale with right to repurchase.

    Copyright:

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

    RODOLFO LANUZA, Vendor, vs. MARTIN DE LEON, Intervenor-Appellant

    Uploaded by

    Lorelie Sakiwat Vargas
    Rodolfo Lanuza sold his house and other property to Reyes and Navarro through a deed of sale with a right to repurchase. Lanuza later mortgaged the same property to Martin de Leon, who foreclosed on the mortgage when payments weren't made. De Leon argued he had a better right as a third party. The court found the original transaction was actually an equitable mortgage under the Civil Code, making De Leon's registered mortgage valid against the unregistered claims of Reyes and Navarro. As a registered mortgagee, De Leon had priority over the unregistered sale with right to repurchase.

    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

    RODOLFO LANUZA, vendor, vs. MARTIN DE LEON, intervenor-appellant.

    GR#L-22331 June 6, 1967

    Facts: Issue: Who has a better right?

    Rodolfo Lanuza and his wife Belen sold their Held:


    house, leasehold rights to the lot, television set
    De Leon has a better right.
    and a refrigerator to Reyes and Navarro in
    consideration of a sum of P3,000. It was executed Art 2088 of the New Civil Code states that the
    under a “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase.” creditor cannot appropriate the things given by
    The parties extended the term for the way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them.
    redemption when the original expired. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
    There were no transmission of ownership
    Subsequently, the Lanuzas mortgaged the
    between the Lanuzas and Reyes and Navarro. In
    property to the intervenor, De Leon recorded in
    truth, there was a provision regarding automatic
    the Register of Deeds in Manila. And upon failure
    transfer of ownership which was a Pactum
    to pay of the former, the latter filed in the
    Commisorium and it is prohibited under the law.
    sheriff’s office petition for extrajudicial
    Hnece, the intention of the parties was deemed
    foreclosure. De Leon then won as the sole bidder.
    as a mortgage rather than of a sale.
    On the other hand, the petitioners Reyes and
    The court held that it was in reality an equitable
    Navarro filed a petition for consolidation of
    mortgage and the claims of De Leon is preferred
    ownership of the house on the ground that the
    because his mortgage was registered under art.
    vendees failed to redeem their property upon
    2125 of the New Civil Code - In addition to the
    the expiration of the redemption period.
    requisites stated in article 2085, it is
    Consequently, De Leon argued that the pacto de
    indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be
    retro sale could not affect his right as a third
    validly constituted, that the document in which it
    party.
    appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If
    The lower court decided the case in favor of the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is
    Reyes and Navarro on the ground that the nevertheless binding between the parties.
    Lanuzas lose the right to mortgage their
    property because they were not the absolute
    owners of the property that time.

    You might also like