Scribd
Upload
67 views2 pages

Genova V de Castro

1) Roberto Genova obtained a loan of 1 million pesos from Levita de Castro, securing the loan with his title over a parcel of land. He remained in possession of the property. 2) Genova failed to repay his loan from UCPB and they foreclosed on the property. De Castro then redeemed the property from UCPB. 3) Instead of drafting a deed of mortgage, De Castro drafted an absolute deed of sale over the property. Genova sued, seeking refund of payments made under the principle of solutio indebiti. 4) The court ruled Genova was entitled to refund, as no binding relationship existed between the parties after the invalid deed of

Uploaded by

bantucin davoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views2 pages

Genova V de Castro

1) Roberto Genova obtained a loan of 1 million pesos from Levita de Castro, securing the loan with his title over a parcel of land. He remained in possession of the property. 2) Genova failed to repay his loan from UCPB and they foreclosed on the property. De Castro then redeemed the property from UCPB. 3) Instead of drafting a deed of mortgage, De Castro drafted an absolute deed of sale over the property. Genova sued, seeking refund of payments made under the principle of solutio indebiti. 4) The court ruled Genova was entitled to refund, as no binding relationship existed between the parties after the invalid deed of

Uploaded by

bantucin davoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GENOVA V DE CASTRO

GR No. 132076

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

FACTS:
Roberto Genova owns a parcel of land in Sta. Ana, Manila with an area of 399.6 sqm and
registered in his name under TCT No. 172539 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. In 1989,
petitioner tends to enter the movie production business thus, obtaining a loan from Levita de
Castro for 1 Million with the interest rate of 5% per annum, to fund his film project.
Genova turned over his owner’s duplicate certificate of title as security for the loan,
signing blank sheets of paper with the promise that their Deed of Mortgage be printed thereon.
Still, Genova remained in possession of the property. Still, he pays De Castro for such.
Genova had also obtained a loan from UCPB secured by a real estate mortgage over
subject property. He was in default in the payment of his obligations where the bank caused the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and purchased the property as the highest bidder at the
public auction.
De Castro has redeemed the property from UCPB. Instead of printing a Deed of
Mortgage on the blank sheets of paper which Genova signed, De Castro prepared an Absolute
Deed of Sale of a Registered Land.
Petitioner, before the Court prayed that he be entitled to refund.

ISSUE:
Is the petitioner entitled for refund by virtue of solution indebiti as enshrined in Art. 2154
of the Civil Code?

RULING:
The principle of solution indebiti is grounded on the principle that no person shall
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the other. Under Art 2154 of the Civil code, solutio
indebiti occurs when: a) payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the
payor, who has no dduty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and b) when the
payment is made through mistake.
The payments that the petitioner has made to respondent must be returned based on this
principle of solutio indebiti. Although, there was clearly no mistaken payment, the petitioner is
still entitled for refund of what he has paid based on equitable grounds.

You might also like