Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Kasilag V Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Phil Alkofero Lim Abrogar
    Kasilag took out a 1000 peso loan secured by a mortgage on her land, with the agreement to pay it back within 4.5 years or lose the land. However, she was unable to pay the taxes on the land, so the parties agreed to alter the terms such that Kasilag would give possession of the land to the lender in exchange for removing the interest and allowing her to benefit from the land by living on it and making improvements, converting the mortgage to a contract of antichresis. The court ruled that the new possessor of the land was not unaware of flaws in the title or acquisition due to prohibitions against willful ignorance of the law, even if excusable ignorance could be grounds for

    Copyright:

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

    Kasilag V Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Phil Alkofero Lim Abrogar
    20 views1 page
    Kasilag took out a 1000 peso loan secured by a mortgage on her land, with the agreement to pay it back within 4.5 years or lose the land. However, she was unable to pay the taxes on the land, so the parties agreed to alter the terms such that Kasilag would give possession of the land to the lender in exchange for removing the interest and allowing her to benefit from the land by living on it and making improvements, converting the mortgage to a contract of antichresis. The court ruled that the new possessor of the land was not unaware of flaws in the title or acquisition due to prohibitions against willful ignorance of the law, even if excusable ignorance could be grounds for

    Original Description:

    Kasilag v Rodriguez

    Original Title

    Kasilag v Rodriguez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kasilag took out a 1000 peso loan secured by a mortgage on her land, with the agreement to pay it back within 4.5 years or lose the land. However, she was unable to pay the taxes on the land, so the parties agreed to alter the terms such that Kasilag would give possession of the land to the lender in exchange for removing the interest and allowing her to benefit from the land by living on it and making improvements, converting the mortgage to a contract of antichresis. The court ruled that the new possessor of the land was not unaware of flaws in the title or acquisition due to prohibitions against willful ignorance of the law, even if excusable ignorance could be grounds for

    Copyright:

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

    Kasilag V Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Phil Alkofero Lim Abrogar
    Kasilag took out a 1000 peso loan secured by a mortgage on her land, with the agreement to pay it back within 4.5 years or lose the land. However, she was unable to pay the taxes on the land, so the parties agreed to alter the terms such that Kasilag would give possession of the land to the lender in exchange for removing the interest and allowing her to benefit from the land by living on it and making improvements, converting the mortgage to a contract of antichresis. The court ruled that the new possessor of the land was not unaware of flaws in the title or acquisition due to prohibitions against willful ignorance of the law, even if excusable ignorance could be grounds for

    Copyright:

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

    Kasilag V Rodriguez

    Facts: Kasilag and Ambrosio entered into a contract of mortgage for land improvements that were
    applied to the homestead worth 1000 pesos with interest. The stipulation was that Ambrosio would pay
    the debt with interest in 4 years and a half, and that mortgage would not have any effect. Included to
    this would be a deed of sale and tax payment for the land if the debt was not pain within the given time.
    It turned out though that she was unable to pay the tax, and as such a verbal agreement was made that
    she would convey the possession of the land on the condition that the loan interest would be removed,
    pay the land tax, benefit from the fruits of the land, and introduce improvements. These were made to
    alter the mortgage, which converted the contract into a contract of antichresis.

    Issue: Whether or not the Petitioner should be the possessor of the land due to good faith that he was
    unaware of any flaw in the title or the acquisition?

    Ruling: yes, it is deduced that the petitioner was aware of the flaw in his title or in the manner of
    acquisition, aside from the prohibitions of section 116. The gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law
    may not be a basis of good faith, but excusable ignorance is a basis.

    You might also like