Scribd
Upload
84 views1 page

Hechanova vs. Adil

This case involves a dispute over the sale of three parcels of land. Jose executed a deed of sale for the properties to Hechanova. However, Pio claimed the properties were mortgaged to him in 1970 by Jose's cousin to secure a loan, and argued the sale was fraudulent. The defendants claimed the mortgage was invalid as it was a private document not recorded. The court ruled that Pio had no standing to question the validity of the sale, as no valid mortgage was constituted in his favor since the alleged mortgage document was private and unregistered. Even if the property had been validly mortgaged, Pio's recourse was to foreclose on the mortgage, not seek to annul the sale

Uploaded by

Anne Kerstine Bastinen
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
84 views1 page

Hechanova vs. Adil

This case involves a dispute over the sale of three parcels of land. Jose executed a deed of sale for the properties to Hechanova. However, Pio claimed the properties were mortgaged to him in 1970 by Jose's cousin to secure a loan, and argued the sale was fraudulent. The defendants claimed the mortgage was invalid as it was a private document not recorded. The court ruled that Pio had no standing to question the validity of the sale, as no valid mortgage was constituted in his favor since the alleged mortgage document was private and unregistered. Even if the property had been validly mortgaged, Pio's recourse was to foreclose on the mortgage, not seek to annul the sale

Uploaded by

Anne Kerstine Bastinen
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/ 1

47. Hechanova vs.

Adil
G.R. No. L-49940 September 25, 1986

Facts:

Jose executed a deed of sale in favor of Hechanova covering three parcels of land Claiming that the said
parcels of land were mortgaged to him in 1970 by the vendor, who is his cousin, to secure a loan. Pio
impugned the validity of the sale as being fraudulent, and prayed that it be declared null and void and
the transfer certificates of title issued to the vendees be cancelled, or alternatively, if the sale is not
annulled, to order Jose to pay the amount of P20,000.00, plus interests, and to order defendants to pay
damages. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the private document evidencing the alleged
mortgage stating that in case Pio fail to redeem the said properties within the period stated above, Jose
shall become the sole owner thereof.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it did not state a cause of action,
the alleged mortgage being invalid and unenforceable since it was a mere private document and was
not recorded in the Registry of Deeds; and that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest and, as a
mere mortgagee, had no standing to question the validity of the sale.

Issue:

Whether the deed of sale is not valid by reason of the agreement between Jose and Pio to mortgage the
properties

Ruling:

No, it is clear from the records of this case that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Plaintiff has no
standing to question the validity of the deed of sale executed by the deceased defendant Jose Servando
in favor of his co-defendants Hechanova and Masa. No valid mortgage has been constituted plaintiff's
favor, the alleged deed of mortgage being a mere private document and not registered; moreover, it
contains a stipulation (pacto comisorio)  which is null and void under Article 2088 of the Civil Code. Even
assuming that the property was validly mortgaged to the plaintiff, his recourse was to foreclose the
mortgage, not to seek annulment of the sale.

You might also like