FACTS: Petitioners are co-owners (pro-indiviso share) of eight parcels of land in Batangas. One of them, Fidel dela Vega, mortgaged three of the properties to defendant Ballilos for P43. !he relevant provisions of their contract as follows" #. . . . and whereas on this da$ % have mortgaged the two parcels of land a&ove-mentioned to the said '. !omas Ballilos for the sm of P43 and for the term of eight $ears, conting from this da$, at the epiration of which % ma$ redeem them* that shold % not then do so, the said lands shall contine to &e mortgaged ntil % have the mone$ availa&le wherewith the redeem them* therefore, % here&$ mortgage the two parcels of land hereina&ove mentioned to '. !omas Ballilos for the said sm of P43, which % have received from him in crrent coin, and as the same was not received in or presence, we waive the eception of mone$ not paid in cash* therefore, henceforth and dring the period a&ove stiplated, % grant and conve$ m$ ownership and possession in the said two parcels of land to the said '. !omas Ballilos in order that he ma$ manage and en+o$ the same in con sideration of the sm for which the$ are mortgaged. !here &eing present '. !omas Ballilos . . . ., he stated that he had received in mortgage, to his entire satisfaction, the two parcels of tilla&le land a&ove mentioned, nder the conditions and for the time stiplated, for the sm of P43, which he has alread$ delivered to the said '. Fidel de a Vega, who in trn states that the said lands are free of all charges and encm&rances and &inds himself to warrant this mortgage in case of legal proceedings. (!hese provisions will &e material in the rendition of +dgment) %n essence, it alleges that the agreement was one of antichresis constitted ntil the &orrowed sm is paid in fll. %n the following $ear, /, the plaintiffs (save for Policarpio dele Vega) &orrowed in sccession P4, P0, and P1 from the respondent nder the same contract of antichresis. !he$ gave three more properties as secrit$ from which he is to collect the interest. !he plaintiffs then attempted to pa$ off their loans (in the total amont of P/40) in order to reac2ire the said parcels of land. !he defendant refsed to receive the sms and appropriated to himself the parcels of land. 'ring the trial in the lower cort, defendant alleged, among other things, that" !he parcels of land in 2estion as these were validl$ sold to him &$ the co-owners dela Vega* !here was no period specified for the right of reprchase agreed pon* hen the co-owners co-owners failed to reprchase reprchase within within the legal period, ownership ownership of the properties properties was consolidated in him &$ operation of law* ote" 5everal other properties were allegedl$ sold6 mortgaged &t the s&+ect of this case remain to &e the parcels of land covered &$ the contract &etween Fidel and !omas eected 7l$ 01 (2oted a&ove). ISSUE: 6 there was a contract of 8ntichresis. (9es) HELD: First topic: Instrument neither a Real Mortgage nor a Sale Pacto de Retro (Acaemic! !he said contract apparentl$ records a loan of P43, secred &$ a mortgage of the aforementioned two parcels of land and pa$a&le within the period of eight $ears, or within sch time as the de&tor Fidel de la Vega might &e a&le to pa$ his de&t and redeem the said land. :owever, notwithstanding the terms of the docment, legall$ there is no mortgage inasmch as the said instrment is not of the natre of a p&lic instrment. 8nd 8nd even thogh it were, it was not recorded in the propert$ registr$ as it oght to have &een. Frthermore, the instrment recites that the de&tor thenceforth ceded and conve$ed his ownership and possession in the said two parcels of land to the creditor Ballilos in order that Ballilos might manage and en+o$ the same in consideration of the sm for which the lands, free of all &rden and encm&rance according to the de&tor, were mortgaged.
%f the instrment a&ove mentioned cannot &e constred as a mortgage of the said two parcels of land in secrit$ for P43, the amont loaned, and for the pa$ment of the de&t within eight $ears or some other period, neither can it &e held to &e a sale nder pacto de retro inasmch as the said docment contains no mention whatever of an$ sale with right of redemption, althogh it does sa$ that the de&tor ceded and conve$ed to the creditor the ownership and possession of the lands in order that he might manage and en+o$ them in consideration of the sm for which the$ were mortgaged. Secon Topic: Instrument is a Contract o" Antichresis (Main #oint o" the Case! 8s it is not shown that the said docment is a contract of mortgage eected as secrit$ for a loan, still less does it appear to &e a contract of pacto de retro, in view of the terms of the agreement ;hi&it O, as stiplated &etween the contracting parties, of the allegations of &oth parties, and of the findings of the cort in regard to the allegations, made and proven at the trial &$ the contending parties, we find the classification of the said contract as one of antichresis to &e correct and proper, ta ow == 8?3?, -31, -3@, and -30* !hese are the elements of a contract of 8ntichresis) .
B$ antichresis a creditor ac2ires a right to receive the frits of real propert$ of his de&tor, with the o&ligation to appl$ them to the pa$ment of interest, if de, and afterwards to the principal of his credit. ?. !he de&tor cannot recover the en+o$ment of the real propert$ withot previosl$ pa$ing in fll what he owes to his creditor. Bt the latter, in order to free himself from the o&ligations imposed on him &$ the preceding article, ma$ alwa$s compel the de&tor to reenter pon the en+o$ment of the estate, nless there &e an agreement to the contrar$. 3. !he creditor does not ac2ire the ownership of the real propert$ &$ nonpa$ment of the de&t within the term agreed pon. 8n$ stiplation to the contrar$ shall &e void. Bt in this case the creditor ma$ demand, in the manner prescri&ed in the law of civil procedre, the pa$ment of the de&tor or the sale of the realit$. 4. !he contracting parties ma$ stiplate that the interest of the de&t &e set off against the frits of the estate given in antichresis. !his contract is somewhat similar to those of pledge and mortgage and for this reason article 001 (now ?3) prescri&ed that certain articles relative to these latter contracts are applica&le to contracts of antichresis, for &oth the former and the latter contracts are comprised in title /, &oo< 4, of the =ivil =ode. (5till applica&le. 5pecific article nm&ers +st changed) !he contract entered into &$ the contracting parties which has prodced &etween them rights and o&ligations is in fact one of antichresis, for article ?0 of the =ivil =ode prescri&es among other things that if the words shold appear to conflict with the evident intent of the contracting parties, the intent shall prevail. 8rticle ?03 provides that however general the terms of the contract ma$ &e, the$ shold not &e nderstood to inclde things and cases different from those with regard to which the interested parties intended to contract* and, frther, article ?04 of the same code sa$s that if an$ stiplation of a contract shold admit of several different meanings, that most sita&le to give it effect shold &e applied. %n this case, it was stiplated that even after eight $ears the de&tor, the owner of the propert$, might redeem it whenever he shold have the means to pa$ his de&t and recover the lands given in antichresis to his creditor who might told them in sfrct in consideration for the mone$ he had loaned* and as the foregoing articles of the =ivil =ode fies no term for the recover$ of the en+o$ment of immova&les given in antichresis, provided that the de&tor previosl$ pa$ what he owes to this creditor, the plaintiffs have an n2estiona&le right to recover parcels os. , /, and @ of the land designated in the map or plan admitted &$ agreement of the pa rties, after first pa$ing the de&t of P43 to the defendant-creditor.
