KASILAG v.

Rodriguez
69 PHIL 217

Facts: Ambrosio mortgage the improvements on her land to Kasilag for P1,000 with interest. When
Ambrosio was unable to pay the interest and tax of the land and its improvement, she entered into a
verbal contract with Kasilag where she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on the
condition that he will not collect interest on the loan and would attend to the payment of the land.
Ambrosio’s heirs filed a case for the recovery of the disputed property, the Court held that the contract
between the parties was one of absolute purchase and sale of the land and its improvements thus null
and void.

Issue: Whether or not the contract entered into between the parties was one of absolute purchase and
sale.

Ruling: No, it was not a contract of absolute purchase and sale. The In the interpretation of contracts,
the intention of the contracting parties should always prevail because their will has the force of law
between them. The words used by the contracting parties in the contract clearly show that they
intended to enter into the principal contract of loan in the amount of P1,000 with interest, and into the
accessory contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land acquire as homestead.