Ramirez vs.

CA

FACTS: In 1959, petitioners-spouses Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio

filed an application for registration of a parcel of riceland. After notice and
publication, nobody appeared to oppose the application. An order of general
default was issued. Petitioners presented parol evidence that they acquired
the land in question by purchase from Gregoria Pascual but the contract of
sale was lost and no copy or record of the same was available. The decree of
registration was subsequently issued.

Private respondents in this case filed a petition to review the decree on the
ground of fraud. They based their claim that they are the legal heirs of Agapita
Bonifacio, who died intestate, and that Valentina Bonifacio is a sister of the
deceased Agapita, they, being the children of Gregoria Pascual. Pascual
during her lifetime, from 1916, possessed the property in the concept of an
owner which possession was continued by Agapita in 1928. In 1938,
respondents obtained a loan from petitioners which they secured with a
mortgage on the land by way of antichresis. The Tax Declarations were
issued in the names of petitioners and that they began paying taxes on the
land. After several attempts to redeem the land were refused by petitioners,
the respondents filed a complaint in the CFI for the recovery of possession
and ownership. The spouses Ramirez based their claim to the land on two
deeds of sale which they allegedly found accidentally in March 1960.

The court found the deeds of sale spurious and further found that respondents
took possession of the land as owners after the death of Agapita in 1938,
mortgaged it to the spouses Ramirez to secure the payment of a loan in the
amount of Php 400. It was agreed that respondents could not redeem the
property within a period of 5 years and that the petitioners would take
possession of the land, enjoy its fruits, and pay the land taxes. The CFI ruled
in favor of the respondents and ordered the reconveyance of the property.
The decision was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged possession by the petitioners may serve
as title for acquiring dominion.

HELD: NO. While there was an admission that the petitioners have been in
actual possession of the disputed land since 1938, it was made to show and
prove the fact that THE PETITIONERS ARE ONLY ANTICHRETIC
CREDITORS. The respondents never admitted that they have not possessed
the land at all. On the contrary, they alleged that they and their predecessors-
in-interest namely Gregoria Pascual and Agapita Bonifacio have been in
possession of the land since time immemorial and that the petitioners were
placed in possession of the land pursuant to a contract of antichresis.

This court has on several occasions held that the antichretic creditor cannot
ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor.
The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owner but mere holders
placed in possession of the land by its owners. Thus, their possession cannot
serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
 RAMIREZ VS. CA
G.R. No. L-38185 / 144 SCRA 292; September 24, 1986

- An antichretic creditor cannot acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the
debtor 
 
FACTS
On September 15, 1959, petitioners-spouses Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio filed
an application for registration of a parcel of riceland in Rizal. In their application
for registration, they alleged that to the best of their knowledge and belief, there is no
mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land and that they had
acquired it by purchase from certain Gregoria Pascual during the early part of
the American regime but the corresponding contract of sale was lot and no
copy or record of the same was available.The Court found, however, that the applicants
are not the owners of the land sought to be registered. They were ANTICHRETIC
CREDITORS- mere holders placed in possession of the land by its owners as security for
loan. The applicants were foundguilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment
when they declared that no other person had any claim or interest in the said land.

ISSUE
W/N an antichretic creditor can acquire land of debtor by prescription.

HELD
No.The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owners, but mere HOLDERS
placed in possession of land by its owners. Thus, their possession cannot serve as atitle
for acquiring dominion. The court, from other cases like Trillana v. Manansala,Valencia v.
Acala and Barretto v. Barretto, held that the antichretic creditor cannotordinarily acquire by
prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor.