3. On November 11, 1913 the heirs sold the land to Lim Ponso & CO.

with a
2 Alojado vs. Lim Siongco right to repurchase for 1 year. This right however was not exercised. As
such, the title was consolidated.
GR 27084 | December 31, 1927 | Contract of Antichresis | Rica 4. On February 15, 1918 – Lim Ponso &Co. transferred the land
Petitioner: Ambrosio T. Alojado, as administrator of the intestate estate of the unconditionally to respondents Lim Siongco and Lim Kingko.
5. Upon the death of Juana Mabaquiao, Ambrosio Alojado was appointed as
deceased Juana Mabaquiao
her administrator. He brought this action in January 1992 praying that he
Respondents: M.J. Lim Siongco, et al.
be declared the absolute owner of the land and to restore all rights of an
Recit-Ready: owner including possession and usufruct. Lower court denied his petition.

ISSUES:
Juana Mabaquiao sold her land to Nicolas Alegata for 7,744. When Alegata died,
his estate, including the land was adjudicated to his legal heirs Lim Kang Jang and
W/N the contract entered into by Alegata and Mabaquiao is a contract of
Lim Eng Teng who then subsequently sold the land to Lim Ponso & Co who was
antichresis (No, it is a contract of sale with a right to repurchase)
able to consolidate the title to their name. The land was then transferred to
respondents Lim Siongco and Lim Kingko. On the other hand, Mabaquiao died and
RATIO:
as administrator, Ambrosio Alojado filed an action praying that he be declared the
absolute owner of the land. The main issue in this case is whether or not the contract
1. The terms and character of contract clearly show a contract of sale with a
entered into by Alegata and Mabaquiao is a contract of antichresis and as such,
right to repurchase
Alojado is entitled to recover the land.
a. The only defect in the wording of the contract is with regards to
the period of the right to repurchase. But as a whole, the intention
The Court held NO, the contract is instead a contract of sale with a right to
of the parties is that the vendor could repurchase when she had
repurchase. First, the terms of contract clearly express a contract of sale with right
the means to pay. (clearly a contract w right to repurchase and
to repurchase. The only defect is with regard to the period of right to repurchase but
not antichresis)
seen as a whole, the intention is that the vendor could repurchase when she had
2. The characteristics of antichresis are not present in this case.
the means to pay. Second, the characterisitics of antichresis are not present in this
a. What characterizes a contract of antichresis: creditor
case. There is no right acquired by Alegata that enables him to receive the fruits of
acquires the right to receive the fruits of the property of his debtor
the land with the obligation to apply such to the payment of interest if due and then
with obligation to apply them to the payment of interest, if any is
to principal obligation. Even as a contract of sale with right to repurchase, the
due, and then to the principal of his credit.
petitioner could no longer redeem the land as the period to repurchase has expired.
i. The only substantial detail is that Mabaquiao could
Article 1508 provides that when the period is fixed as in this case, the repurchase
repurchase when she had the means. This stipulation
must be done within 10 years. This action was brought only after 15 years since the
does not characterize antichresis.
sale. As such, the right to repurchase has been nullified. Finally, the nullity of said
b. Petitioner cites De la Vega vs Ballilos but this is not applicable to
right does not affect the validity of the sale as the right is only accidental to a sale.
the case at hand.
i. In De la Vega, the court held the contract called
FACTS: mortgage is actually an antichresis
1. Parties agreed debtor assigns the ownership of
1. October 12, 1902- Juana Mabaquiao sold the subject land to Nicolas the land to the creditor for the management
Alegata for Php 7,744. and enjoyment as a profit from the amount
2. Nicolas Alegata died. Subsequently, on October 23 1913, his estate, for which it had been mortgaged.
including the land was adjudicated to Lim Kang Jang and Lim Eng Teng, ii. The aforementioned agreement characterizes
Alegata’s legal heirs. antichresis which is not present in this case.
3. Evidence is not to justify any alteration in the contract because it (contract)
already expresses a contract of sale
a. Eulogia Española (Mabaquiao’s granddaughter) testified that she
was present at the time the contract was entered into and that
the intention was that Mabaquiao or any of her heirs may recover
possession of the land upon payment of the 7,744. In the
meantime, possession shall remain with Alegata who also has
the obligation to deliver 1/5 of the products of the land to
Mabaquiao.
b. This was countered by Vicente Gomez, he also alleged that
Eulogia was not even present when parties entered the contract.
4. Title transmitted to Alegata has already been consolidated.
a. Action was brought 15 years after the sale (Oct 1907 – Sept
1922)
i. Art 1508 of Civil Code states that when no period of
redemption is fixed, the period is 4 years but when it is
fixed, it shall not exceed 10 years. After such, right to
repurchase is nullified.
1. In this case, period is fixed – “until Juana
Mabaquiao, or her heirs had the means.” The
right was not exercised within 10 years and as
such, the title had already been consolidated.

More Contentions SC
1. Yadao vs. Yadao – same
1. The fact that the stipulation (repurchase when
petitioners could no debtor has the means) as in
longer repurchase the this case but Court has held
land is in conflict with the that such stipulation is subject
nature of a contract of to the period of redemption
sale with right to not exceeding 10 years. (ratio
repurchase. As such, it #4)
could not be the said
contract.
2. Yadao – right to repurchase is
2. Since the right to merely accidental to a sale.
repurchase is nullified, An absolute sale may be
the contract of sale must made without a stipulation of
also be nullified. right to repurchase. As such,
it is just logical that the nullity
of the right does not affect the
validity of the sale.