PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS
Article 3 of the New Civil Code
Kasilag v. Rodriguez, 69 PHIL 217
FACTS: Marcial Kasilag and Emiliana Ambrosio entered a contract of mortgage of improvements
of land acquired as homestead to secure the payment of the indebtedness of P1,000 plus
interest. The parties stipulated that Emilina Ambrosio was to pay the debt with interest within 4
½ years., and in such case, mortgage would not have any effect. They also agreed that Emiliana
Ambrosio would execute a deed of sale if it would not be paid within 4 ½ years and that she
would pay the tax on the land. After a year, it turned out that she was not able to pay the tax.
Hence, they entered a verbal agreement whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of
the land on the condition that they would not collect the interest of the loan, would attend to
the payment of the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, & would introduce
improvement thereof.
These pacts made by the parties independently were calculated to alter the mortgage a
contract clearly entered into, converting the latter into a contract of antichresis. The contract of
antichresis, being a real encumbrance burdening the land, is illegal and void because it is legal
and valid.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner should be deemed the possessor of the land 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
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. This being the case, the
question is whether good faith may be premised upon ignorance of the laws.
Gross and inexcusable ignorance of 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.
Source: https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2013/11/kasilag-v-rodriguez-69-phil-217.html
Kasilag versus Rodriguez Case Digest/ Brief 69 Phil 217
PROCEDURAL FACTS: This is an appeal taken by the defendant-petitioner from the decision of
the Court of Appeals which modified that rendered by the court of First Instance of Bataan. The
said court held: that the contract is entirely null and void and without effect; that the plaintiffsrespondents, then appellants, are the owners of the disputed land, with its improvements, in
common ownership with their brother Gavino Rodriguez, hence, they are entitled to
the possession thereof; that the defendant-petitioner should yield possession of the land in
their favor, with all the improvements thereon and free from any lien
SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: The parties entered into a contract of loan to which has an accompanying
accessory contract of mortgage. The executed accessory contract involved the improvements
on a piece land, the land having been acquired by means of homestead. P for his part accepted
the contract of mortgage.
Believing that there are no violations to the prohibitions in the alienation of lands P, acting in
good faith took possession of the land. To wit, the P has no knowledge that the enjoyment of
the fruits of the land is an element of the credit transaction of Antichresis.
ISSUE: Whether or not P is deemed to be a possessor in good faith of the land, based upon
Article 3 of the New Civil Code as states “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith,” the P’s lack of knowledge of the contract of antichresis.
HELD: The accessory contract of mortgage of the improvements of on the land is valid. The
verbal contract of antichresis agreed upon is deemed null and void.
REASONING: Sec 433 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides “Every person who is
unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated shall
be deemed a possessor of good faith.” And in this case, the petitioner acted in good faith. Good
faith maybe a basis of excusable ignorance of the law, the petitioner acted in good faith in
his enjoyment of the fruits of the land to which was done through his apparent acquisition
thereof.
Source: http://studentsofsocrates.blogspot.com/2010/04/kasilag-versus-rodriguez-casedigest.html