Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil 100, March 3, 1916

    Uploaded by

    Roi Red
    Eutiquiano Cuyugan's deceased mother borrowed 3,500 pesos from Isidoro Santos in 1985. To secure the loan, they executed a deed of sale for a property but orally agreed the mother could repurchase it. When Cuyugan offered to pay the balance, Santos refused, claiming the right to repurchase expired. The Court ruled the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the deed was intended only as security for the loan based on the parties' oral agreement. As a mortgage, Cuyugan could compel Santos to accept payment and cancel the deed.

    Copyright:

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

    Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil 100, March 3, 1916

    Uploaded by

    Roi Red
    48 views1 page
    Eutiquiano Cuyugan's deceased mother borrowed 3,500 pesos from Isidoro Santos in 1985. To secure the loan, they executed a deed of sale for a property but orally agreed the mother could repurchase it. When Cuyugan offered to pay the balance, Santos refused, claiming the right to repurchase expired. The Court ruled the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the deed was intended only as security for the loan based on the parties' oral agreement. As a mortgage, Cuyugan could compel Santos to accept payment and cancel the deed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    33. Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil 100, March 3, 1916.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?

    Eutiquiano Cuyugan's deceased mother borrowed 3,500 pesos from Isidoro Santos in 1985. To secure the loan, they executed a deed of sale for a property but orally agreed the mother could repurchase it. When Cuyugan offered to pay the balance, Santos refused, claiming the right to repurchase expired. The Court ruled the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the deed was intended only as security for the loan based on the parties' oral agreement. As a mortgage, Cuyugan could compel Santos to accept payment and cancel the deed.

    Copyright:

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

    Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil 100, March 3, 1916

    Uploaded by

    Roi Red
    Eutiquiano Cuyugan's deceased mother borrowed 3,500 pesos from Isidoro Santos in 1985. To secure the loan, they executed a deed of sale for a property but orally agreed the mother could repurchase it. When Cuyugan offered to pay the balance, Santos refused, claiming the right to repurchase expired. The Court ruled the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the deed was intended only as security for the loan based on the parties' oral agreement. As a mortgage, Cuyugan could compel Santos to accept payment and cancel the deed.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-10265            March 3, 1916

    EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    ISIDORO SANTOS, defendant-appellee

    FACTS:

    Eutiquiano Cuyugan was the sole heir of his deceased mother, Guillerma Cuyugan y Candia.
    In 1985, her mother borrowed the sum of P3, 500 from the defendant. At the same time,
    the two parties executed a deed of sale of a land, with a reservation in favor of the vendor
    of the right to repurchase, as a security for the said loan. The deed of sale stipulated that
    the vendor shall continue to have the possession of the land. The petitioner then offered to
    pay the remainder balance of the loan, but Santos refused alleging that the right to
    repurchase has already expired. Petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the
    transaction was a mortgage and not a sale.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the transaction was a sale or a mortgage

    RULING:

    The Court ruled that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale. It is an elementary and
    basic principle in the Civil Code, that the intention of the parties shall be given more force
    than the provisions of the instrument on its face. Herein, the deed of sale executed was
    intended to be mere security of the loan, and not to effect a transfer of ownership from
    Cuyugan to Santos. It is regardless of the fact that the agreement was only made orally. An
    oral contract is as binding as a written one, provided that there is no third party interested
    such as in this case. Therefore, being a mere mortgage, the plaintiff is entitled to compel the
    respondent to accept the payment and cancel the formal deed of conveyance.

    You might also like