consti digest03.doc

Bellido vs CA Facts: Spouses Bellido, being financially distressed, offered their property, as collateral loan, to the Del Rios Before the loan was given to the Bellidos, the Del Rios demanded the execution of an deed of absolute sale and surrender the Bellido’s land title to the latter. As the Bellidos executed the deed of absolute sale but only received a total of P 240, 000.00 including the advance of the payment. Issue: WON a deed of absolute sale should be considered as an equitable mortgage? Held: Art. 1602 of the NCC provides that a contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage in the following cases: 1. When the price of a sale with the right to repurchase is unusually inadequate. 2. When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise. 3. When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed. 4. When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price. 5. When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold. 6. In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. Article 1604 of the Civil Code makes the aforementioned Article 1602 applicable to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale. The Court had previously ruled: That a transaction was really one of loan with security, and therefore a mortgage, may be shown by the aid of surrounding circumstances, and parole evidence is competent in that respect. This rule has been accepted for many generations. The difficulty lies in its application, for many factors are to be considered, none of them conclusive in itself, but each to be considered in its company.

Phil. Columbian Association vs. City of Manila Facts: Phil. Columbian Association is, a non stock and non profit domestic corporation, engaged in a business providing sports and recreational facilities for its members. Its office, located in Paco, Manila, is adjacent to a parcel of land consisting of 4, 842.90 sq meters, owned by them. City of Manila, together with the other respondents, is the occupants of the said land owned by the Phil. Columbian Association. Sometime in 1982 the PCA filed an ejectment case against the City of Manila and later judgment was rendered in favor the PCA. As a remedy, the City of Manila filed an expropriation proceeding against the PCA for the expropriation of the land of the latter. PCA filed a motion to dismiss due to that the City of Manila has no power to expropriate its land and the expropriation proceeding is not for public welfare but it is politically motivated. Issue: WON the contention of the PCA that the City of Manila has no power to expropriate private properties under the 1987 Constitution? Held: Petitioner forgot that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, R.A. No. 409, expressly authorizes the City of Manila to "condemn private property for public use" (Sec. 3) and "to acquire private land . . . and subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms to city residents" (Sec. 100). The Revised Charter of the City of Manila expressly grants the City of Manila general powers over its territorial jurisdiction, including the power of eminent domain, thus: General powers. — The city may have a common seal and alter the same at pleasure, and may take, purchase, receive, hold, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal property for the general interest of the city, condemn private property for public use, contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, and prosecute and defend to final judgment and execution, and exercise all the powers hereinafter conferred. Section 100 of said Revised Charter authorizes the City of Manila to undertake urban land reform, thus: Sec. 100. The City of Manila is authorized to acquire private lands in the city and to subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms for city residents, giving first priority to the bona fidetenants or occupants of said lands, and second priority to laborers and low-salaried employees. For the purpose of this section, the city may raise the necessary funds by appropriations of general funds, by securing loans or by issuing bonds, and, if necessary, may acquire the lands through expropriation proceedings in accordance with law, with the approval of the President . . . The City of Manila, acting through its legislative branch, has the express power to acquire private lands in the city and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona fide tenants or occupants thereof, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the city. That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them.