17

Kasilag vs. Rodrigues, 69 Phil 217

G.R. No. 46623, December 07, 1939

Facts:

The petitioner, Marcial Kalisag, entered into a contract with Emiliana Ambrosio wherein the
petitioner loaned an amount of P1000, by way of mortgage, to Emiliana Ambrosio. It was
provided in the contract that Emiliana Ambrosio shall pay the loaned amount with interest within
4 and ½ years from the execution of the contract. It was also stipulated in the contract that
Emiliana Ambrosio shall pay all taxes on the property during the term of the agreement. It was
further agreed that Emiliana Ambrosio would execute a deed of absolute sale of the property
should she fail to pay the said amount plus interest in the given period term. After one year of
the execution of the contract, Emiliana Ambrosio was unable to pay the stipulated interest as
well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and the petitioner entered
into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on the
condition that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of
the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon.

These pacts made by the parties independently were calculated to alter the mortgage contract
clearly entered into, converting the latter into a contract of antichresis. (Article 1881 of the Civil
Code.) The contract of antichresis, being a real encumbrance burdening the land, is illegal and
void.

There are several assignments of errors Kalisag contended; one of which is that the Court of
Appeals erred in holding that he acted in bad faith in taking possession of the land and in taking
advantage of the fruits thereof, resulting in the denial of his right to be reimbursed for the value
of the improvements introduced by him. And upon those stipulated assignments of error the
Court of Appeals held that the respondents, Rafaela Rodriguez, Urbano Roque, Severo
Mapilisan, and Ignacio Del Rosario, then appellants and children and heirs of Emiliana
Ambrosio, are the owners of the disputed land, with its improvements, hence, they are entitled to
the possession thereof.

Issues:

Whether or not the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in good faith because he was
unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated.

Whether or not good faith may be premised upon ignorance of the laws.

Ruling:

Yes. From the facts found established by the Court of Appeals, we can neither deduce nor
presume that the petitioner was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition,
aside from the prohibition contained in section 116.
Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible,
excusable ignorance may be such basis. It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant with the
laws because he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements, he proceeded
on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of
the land. In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as
clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the
contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by section 116. These
considerations again bring us to the conclusion that, as to the petitioner, his ignorance of the
provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith. We,
therefore, hold that the petitioner acted in good faith in taking possession of the land and
enjoying its fruits.