Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Francisco Realty V CA Digest PDF
Francisco Realty V CA Digest PDF
CASE NAME: A. Francisco Realty & Devt Corp. vs. CA and Sps. Romulo & Erlinda Javillonar
Case Summary:
A. Francisco Realty granted a Php 7.5M loan to spouses Javillonar, wherein the spouses
executed a promissory note, a real estate mortgage over a certain property, and a deed of
sale of said mortgaged property in favor of A. Francisco. Upon maturity of loan, the spouses
failed to pay, so A. Francisco demanded possession of the mortgaged realty. The spouses
alleged that it was not their intention to sell as the deed of sale was merely an additional
security for their loan payment. The RTC adjudged in favor of A. Francisco. On appeal, CA
reversed RTC decision. SC sustained the CA decision.
Rule of Law:
Art. 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or
dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
Detailed Facts:
WON a forfeiture clause (in the Promissory Note) not incorporated in the mortgage deed is
constitutive of pactum commissorium. - YES
Holding:
The stipulations in the promissory notes providing that, upon failure of mortgagor (spouses) to
pay interest, ownership of the property would be automatically transferred and the deed of
sale in its favor would be registered to mortgagee (A. Francisco), are in substance a pactum
commissorium.
The stipulations in the Promissory Note embody the two elements of pactum commissorium:
(2) That there should be a stipulation for an automatic appropriation by the creditor
of the thing pledged or mortgaged in the event of non-payment of the principal
obligation within the stipulated period.
To sustain the theory of the petitioner (that the forfeiture clause should be in the mortgage
deed itself in order to be prohibited) would be to allow a subversion of the prohibition.
Ruling:
Other Opinions:
BLOCK D 2019 2