Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    3 Macapinlac v. Repide

    Uploaded by

    Pre Pacionela
    The plaintiff, Jose Macapinlac, purchased an automobile on credit and executed promissory notes, securing the debt with a deed transferring his property, Hacienda Dolores, to E.M. Bachrach. Francisco Repide later acquired the rights to the property from Bachrach. Macapinlac claimed the transfer to Repide was fraudulent, as the original deed was intended only as security for the debt and not as an actual sale. The Supreme Court ruled the original conveyance was a mortgage, not a sale, as it was executed solely to secure Macapinlac's debt. As the debt was partially paid, Repide was obligated to account to Macapinlac for any profits derived from H

    Copyright:

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

    3 Macapinlac v. Repide

    Uploaded by

    Pre Pacionela
    140 views1 page
    The plaintiff, Jose Macapinlac, purchased an automobile on credit and executed promissory notes, securing the debt with a deed transferring his property, Hacienda Dolores, to E.M. Bachrach. Francisco Repide later acquired the rights to the property from Bachrach. Macapinlac claimed the transfer to Repide was fraudulent, as the original deed was intended only as security for the debt and not as an actual sale. The Supreme Court ruled the original conveyance was a mortgage, not a sale, as it was executed solely to secure Macapinlac's debt. As the debt was partially paid, Repide was obligated to account to Macapinlac for any profits derived from H

    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 plaintiff, Jose Macapinlac, purchased an automobile on credit and executed promissory notes, securing the debt with a deed transferring his property, Hacienda Dolores, to E.M. Bachrach. Francisco Repide later acquired the rights to the property from Bachrach. Macapinlac claimed the transfer to Repide was fraudulent, as the original deed was intended only as security for the debt and not as an actual sale. The Supreme Court ruled the original conveyance was a mortgage, not a sale, as it was executed solely to secure Macapinlac's debt. As the debt was partially paid, Repide was obligated to account to Macapinlac for any profits derived from H

    Copyright:

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

    3 Macapinlac v. Repide

    Uploaded by

    Pre Pacionela
    The plaintiff, Jose Macapinlac, purchased an automobile on credit and executed promissory notes, securing the debt with a deed transferring his property, Hacienda Dolores, to E.M. Bachrach. Francisco Repide later acquired the rights to the property from Bachrach. Macapinlac claimed the transfer to Repide was fraudulent, as the original deed was intended only as security for the debt and not as an actual sale. The Supreme Court ruled the original conveyance was a mortgage, not a sale, as it was executed solely to secure Macapinlac's debt. As the debt was partially paid, Repide was obligated to account to Macapinlac for any profits derived from H

    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

    Macapinlac v. Repide, et. al.

    G.R. No. 18574. September 20, 1922.


    FACTS: Plaintiff Jose Macapinlac, owner of Hacienda Dolores, purchased an automobile and
    accessories on credit from Bachrach Motor Company and executed 14 promissory notes in the
    amount of P12,960.00. Upon delivery of the notes, Macapinlac executed what on its face
    purports to be a deed of sale with a right to repurchase as a security or guaranty for payment
    of said notes. This transfer included Hacienda Dolores and named E.M. Bachrach as transferee.
    On November 8, 1917, defendant Francisco Repide acquired all the rights of E.M. Bachrach in
    the property with knowledge that the transfer of Title was to secure the debt owing to Bachrach
    by Macapinlac and that the debt had been paid in half. To transfer the certificate of title to his
    own name, it was necessary to make it appear that the contract of sale with pacto de retro
    noted in the original Torrens certificate was truly what it appeared to be, that is, a contract of
    sale, not a mere mortgage. Title was issued in favor of Repide.
    Macapinlac then filed a complaint to secure a decree declaratory rights as owner of Hacienda
    Dolores; to nullify the transfer to Repide; and to recover possession from Repide. He claims that
    the transfer to Repide was due to fraudulent practices. CFI dismissed the complaint.
    ISSUE: Whether the conveyance is a pacto de retro sale or a mortgage
    RULING: The conveyance executed by Macapinlac is a mortgage.
    Inasmuch as said conveyance is alleged to have been executed as security for a debt owing by
    Macapinlac to the Bachrach Company, it follows that in equity said conveyance must be treated
    as a mere security or substantially as a mortgage. A conveyance in the form of a contract of
    sale with pacto de retro will be treated as a mere mortgage, if really executed as security for a
    debt which can be shown by oral evidence.
    Further, when a mortgagee of real property acquires possession with the consent of the
    mortgagor, the rights of the parties are to be determined by the rules applicable to the contract
    of antichresis. While the contract of antichresis non-payment of the debt does not vest the
    ownership of the mortgaged property in the creditor, nevertheless, the debtor cannot recover
    the enjoyment of the property without first paying in full what he owes to his creditor. At the
    same time the creditor is under obligation to apply the fruits derived from the estate in
    satisfaction, first, of the interest on the debt, if any, and secondly, to the payment of the
    principal. From this is necessarily deduced the obligation of the creditor to account to the
    debtor for said fruits.

    You might also like