Kasilag v. Roque: G.R. No. 46623 - December 7, 1939
Uploaded by
Remus CalicdanKasilag v. Roque: G.R. No. 46623 - December 7, 1939
Uploaded by
Remus CalicdanKasilag v.
Roque
G.R. No. 46623 | December 7, 1939
FACTS
• The property that is the subject of this case is a land located at Limay, Bataan originally owned by one
Emiliana Ambrosio.
• The controversy arose when the heirs of Emiliana, herein the respondents filed a case against Marcial
Kasilag for recovery of possession of land.
• Kasilag on the other hand argues that his possession over the said land and the fruits located therein
was a result of a mortgage agreement between Kasilag and Emiliana during her lifetime.
• It was presented that subject to the contract of mortgage between Kasilag and Emiliana, Emiliana was
supposed to pay the stipulated interests as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. This led to
another verbal contract whereby Emiliana conveyed to Kasilag the possession of the land on th
econdition that Kasilag would not collect interest on the loan, that he would attend to the payment of
the land tax, benefit from the fruits thereon and would be allowed to introduce improvements thereon.
• By virtue of this contract, Kasilag entered upon the possession of the land, and gathered the products
ISSUE
• Whether or not Kasilag’s was in good faith when he took possession
of the land. -Yes
RULING
• To note, the property in this case was actually a homestead patent granted to Emiliana
on 1931. The mortgage on such property was made on 1932, which is clearly prohibited
under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 which prohibits the encumbrance or alienation of
such homestead from the date of the approval of the application up to a term of 5 years.
• Bad faith is not expressly defined under the Civil Code but Article 433 (now Article 526 of
the New Civil Code) provides that “Every Person who is unaware of anu flaw in his title,
or in the manner of its acquisition, by which it is invalidated, shall be deemed to be
possessor in good faith”
• It provides further that “Possessors aware of such flaw are deemed possessors in bad
faith”
• In the case at bar, Kasilag was unaware of any flaw in his title, such that he did not
know that the property was a merely a grant to Emiliana at the time of the
mortgage.
• Despite this, the Supreme Court posed whether Kasilag’s ignorance of Section 116 of
Act 2874 may excuse him and classify him as a person as a person in good faith.
Whether good faith may be premised upon ignorance of the laws. The court here
said yes.
• From the commentaries of Manresa, It is gross and inexcusable ignorance of the may
which may not be considered as the basis of good faith, but excusable ignorance may
be such basis.
• It is a fact that the Kasilag is not conversant with the laws because he is
not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he
proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the
prohibition regarding the alienation of the land.
• In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did
not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of
the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as
a lien, was prohibited by section 116. These considerations again bring us
to the conclusion that, as to Kasilag, his ignorance of the provisions of
section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith.
