10 Lustan v. CA

IV 10 LUSTAN v. CA FACTS •

Pet Adoracion Lustan is the registered owner of a parcel

•

of land in Calinog, Iloilo containing an area of 10.0057 hect hectare ares. s. She She leas leased ed the the prop proper erty ty to pri priat atee resp resp  !icolas Parangan for a ter" of ten #10$ years and an annual rent of P1%. &urin &uring g the period period of lease, lease, Parang Parangan an was regula regularly rly

•

e'tend e'tending ing loans loans in s"all s"all a"ount a"ountss to petiti petitione onerr to defray her daily e'penses and to finance her daughter(s education. )n *uly +, 170, petitioner e'ecuted a SPA in faor of 

•

Parangan to secure an agricultural loan fro" priate resp P!- with the aforesaid lot as collateral. )n e/ruary 1, 17+, a second SPA was e'ecuted /y

•

Lust Lustan an /y irt irtue ue of whic which, h, Para Parang ngan an was was a/le a/le to secure  additional loans, to wit2 the su"s of +%, 3%, 3.4% and +5%. he last three loans were without the %nowle %nowledge dge of herein herein Lustan Lustan and all the procee proceeds ds therefro" were used /y Parangan for his own /enefit. Lustan signed a &eed of Pacto de 6etro Sale in faor of 

•

Para Parang ngan an whic which h was was supe supers rsed eded ed /y the the &eed &eed of  &efinite Sale dated ay , 17 which Lustan signed upon Parangan(s representation that the sa"e "erely eidences the loans e'tended /y hi" unto the for"er. or fear that her property "ight /e pre8udiced /y the continued /orrowing of Parangan, she de"anded the return of her certificate of title. Instead of co"plying with the re9uest, Parangan asserted his rights oer the  property which allegedly had /eco"e his /y irtue of  the afore"entioned &eed of &efinite Sale. :nder said docu"ent, Lustan coneyed the su/8ect property and all the i"proe"ents thereon unto Parangan a/solutely for and in consideration of 75%. ISSUE ;hether petitioner(s property is lia/le to P!- for  the loans contracted /y Parangan /y irtue of the SPA. SPA. HELD::