Title Villanueva v.

Ipondo

September 24, 1947

Doctrine
Facts The deceased Juan Melliza owns 3 parcels of land, known as haciendas Barrusbus-Balcon,
Sablai Ravena, and Balcon-Bundulan. Melliza’s brother in law, Eusebio and his wife Fausta
were placed as administrators over these parcels of land.

During their tenure, they introduced improvements thereon, and as way of reimbursing
them, the late Melliza executed a document entitled “mortgage” in which it was stated that
Melliza owes the spouses 20,000 pesos and the collection of the amount is voluntary and
they have option to apply 1/3 of the fruits of Sablai-Ravena and Barrusbus-Balcon for the
payment of the debt of 20,000 split evenly between the two haciendas. Another document
was executed, this time for Balcon-Bundulan, appearing that the spouses have the right to
possess the property for the rest of their lives unless the debt of Php20,000 is paid.

Now, the administrator of Melliza, Remedios Villanueva filed a cause for illegal detainer
against the spouses.

Contentions Petitioner Respondent

Lower Court
Issue W/N Villanueva has a cause of action against the spouses for illegal detainer.

SC Ruling No.

For it is clear that the will of the deceased is to allow the possession of the spouses over
the 3 haciendas. The 2 documents executed by Melliza clearly shows that he allowed the
spouses to continue the possession until payment of the debt, which is for the
improvements introduced thereon. However, the first document is not really a mortgage;
it is a contract of antichresis. It is so because Melliza allowed the spouses to
use 1/3 of the fruits of the two haciendas under such document for the
payment of the debt. Moreover, Melliza allowed them to possess the two
haciendas until the debt is fully paid, which is made voluntarily in this
arrangement. What is peculiar here is the fact that the antichresis only allowed
1/3 of the fruits to be applied. There is nothing wrong about this arrangement
since the parties have freedom to stipulate it. The other document is a usufruct
arrangement for life in favor of the spouses. There is a doctrine that usufructs of these
arrangements are really antichretic arrangements. This bolsters the theory that possession
is allowed. Ergo, the case for illegal detainer must fail.