2
PANDO V. GIMINEZ ET AL FACTS: Gimenez was indebted to Pando. Such indebtedness was secured by a mortgage over his house and the leasehold right on the lot on which the house was erected. Because Gimenez was to leave Manila, he gave Pando the full control and possession of the property including the payment of taxes and monthly rentals and the collection of the rents from the tenants, among others. Pando failed to pay the taxes, as a result of which, such was sold at public auction. Pando denies liability alleging that his responsibility was confined only in the collection of rents and applying them to the payment of the interest of the mortgage. ISSUE: WON Pando was duty bound to pay for the taxes, among others. HELD: Yes. The administration of the property in question assumed by Pando is antichretic in character, and therefore justice and equity demand that application be here made of the Civil Code provisions touching the obligations of the antichretic creditor (Art. 1882, Civil Code.). Failure to fulfill his obligation to pay the tax and the rent of the lot, the law requires him to pay for indemnity of dmages. (Art. 101, NCC). ****************************** (Art. 1882, Civil Code.) The creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. He shall also be obliged to pay any expenses necessary for its preservation and repair. Any sums he may expend for such purposes shall be chargeable against the fruits. (Art. 1882, Civil Code.)

Pando v Giminez Et Al

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Pando v Giminez Et Al Digest

Citation preview

PANDO V. GIMINEZ ET AL

FACTS:

Gimenez was indebted to Pando. Such indebtedness was secured by a mortgage over his house and the leasehold right on the lot on which the house was erected. Because Gimenez was to leave Manila, he gave Pando the full control and possession of the property including the payment of taxes and monthly rentals and the collection of the rents from the tenants, among others. Pando failed to pay the taxes, as a result of which, such was sold at public auction. Pando denies liability alleging that his responsibility was confined only in the collection of rents and applying them to the payment of the interest of the mortgage.

ISSUE:

WON Pando was duty bound to pay for the taxes, among others.

HELD:

Yes.

The administration of the property in question assumed by Pando is antichretic in character, and therefore justice and equity demand that application be here made of the Civil Code provisions touching the obligations of the antichretic creditor (Art. 1882, Civil Code.). Failure to fulfill his obligation to pay the tax and the rent of the lot, the law requires him to pay for indemnity of dmages. (Art. 101, NCC).

******************************

(Art. 1882, Civil Code.)

The creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.

He shall also be obliged to pay any expenses necessary for its preservation and repair.

Any sums he may expend for such purposes shall be chargeable against the fruits. (Art. 1882, Civil Code.)

These obligations arise from the very nature of the covenant, and are correlated with the plaintiff’s acquired right to take charge of the property and collect the fruits for himself. Hence, the illustrious Manresa, explains the basis of this article 1882 in the following terms:

The right which the creditor acquires by virtue of antichresis to enjoy the fruits of the property delivered to him, carries two obligations which are a necessary consequence of the contract, because they arise from its very nature.