When a Deed of Sale is Not Really a Sale: Understanding Equitable Mortgage in Philippine Property Law

In the Philippines, a document titled “Deed of Absolute Sale” doesn’t always signify a straightforward sale. Sometimes, despite the title, the true intention is to secure a loan, creating what’s known as an equitable mortgage. This distinction is crucial, as it impacts property rights and obligations. This case highlights how Philippine courts look beyond the surface of a contract to uncover the real agreement between parties, especially when dealing with property and financial transactions.

G.R. No. 145794, January 26, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Imagine believing you’ve bought a property, only to discover later that the sale was actually intended as loan security! This scenario isn’t uncommon and often leads to complex legal battles. In the Philippines, the concept of equitable mortgage exists to protect vulnerable parties in property transactions where the form of a contract doesn’t match its true purpose. The Supreme Court case of Arrofo v. Quiño perfectly illustrates this principle, unraveling a seemingly absolute sale to reveal an equitable mortgage underneath. This case revolves around Pedro Quiño, who ostensibly sold his land to Renato Mencias, and later Lourdes Arrofo who bought it from Mencias. However, Quiño claimed the ‘sale’ was actually a loan agreement secured by his property, not an outright transfer of ownership. The central legal question is whether the deeds of sale were valid absolute sales or disguised equitable mortgages.

LEGAL CONTEXT: EQUITABLE MORTGAGE AND PROTECTING VULNERABLE PARTIES

Philippine law, specifically Article 1602 of the Civil Code, anticipates situations where contracts of sale are used to conceal loan agreements. This provision is designed to prevent abuse, especially when one party is in a weaker bargaining position. An equitable mortgage arises when a contract, though lacking the proper formalities of a mortgage, reveals an intent to use property as security for a debt. Article 1602 explicitly lists circumstances that raise a presumption of equitable mortgage:

“Article 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:

1. When the price of a sale with 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.

In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage.“

Crucially, the presence of just ONE of these circumstances is enough to establish an equitable mortgage. Furthermore, Article 1604 extends these protections to contracts that appear to be absolute sales, ensuring no one can circumvent the law simply by labeling an agreement differently. Complementing this is the principle of “buyer in good faith,” which protects individuals who purchase registered land without knowledge of defects in the seller’s title. However, this protection is not absolute. A buyer cannot ignore red flags or suspicious circumstances that would prompt a reasonable person to investigate further. Failing to do so negates the claim of being a buyer in good faith.

CASE BREAKDOWN: UNRAVELING THE “SALE” BETWEEN QUIÑO AND MENCIAS

Pedro Quiño owned land in Mandaue City. Needing money, he entered into a transaction with his niece, Myrna Mencias, and her husband Renato. Two “Deeds of Absolute Sale” were executed, but Quiño insisted the real agreement was a loan of P15,000, with his land as collateral. The first deed, signed in April 1990, even excluded the house on the property from the sale – an unusual clause for an absolute sale. A second deed, without this exclusion, was signed in March 1991. Lourdes Arrofo later bought the property from the Menciases. When Quiño sued for reconveyance, claiming equitable mortgage, the trial court sided with Arrofo, upholding the sales. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding in favor of Quiño. The case reached the Supreme Court when Arrofo appealed.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the circumstances, highlighting several key pieces of evidence:

• Continued Possession by Quiño: Despite the supposed sales, Quiño remained in possession of the property and continued to receive rent from his tenant. The Court emphasized, “There is no evidence that Renato and Myrna attempted to take possession of the property… Moralde was never informed that there was already a new owner. He was never asked to remit his payments to the new owner. Since Moralde continued making his payments to Quiño, Quiño must have retained his possession of the Property.”
• Circumstances Surrounding the Deed: Testimony from Fiscal Mabanto, a witness to the first deed, revealed the parties’ understanding that the “deed of sale was not supposed to be notarized until Pedro Quiño will lose his right to redeem the property.” This strongly suggested a loan agreement with a redemption period, not an outright sale.
• Inadequate Consideration: While Arrofo argued the price was fair based on tax declarations, Myrna Mencias herself testified to paying a much larger sum than stated in the deed to avoid taxes – a common practice but one that cast doubt on the true nature of the transaction. The fact that Renato resold the property to Arrofo for significantly less than Myrna claimed they paid further pointed to the initial amount being a loan, not a true sale price.
• Discrepancies and Fabricated Claims: Myrna’s claim that the first deed was fabricated was disproven by annotations on the title itself, undermining her credibility and strengthening the argument for equitable mortgage based on the totality of evidence.

Based on these factors, the Supreme Court concluded the “sale” was indeed an equitable mortgage.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR PROPERTY INTERESTS

Arrofo v. Quiño serves as a potent reminder of the importance of clearly understanding the nature of property transactions. For property owners needing loans, it highlights the dangers of signing deeds of sale as loan security. While it may seem expedient, it can lead to losing your property if the “buyer” registers the sale. For buyers, it underscores the need for due diligence beyond just checking the title. Ocular inspections and inquiries about occupants are crucial. A significantly low price should also raise red flags. The case also demonstrates the court’s willingness to look beyond the written contract to ascertain the true intent of the parties, especially to protect vulnerable individuals from potentially predatory lending practices.

Key Lessons:

• Substance over Form: Courts prioritize the true intention of parties over the literal wording of a contract, especially in equitable mortgage cases.
• Due Diligence is Key: Buyers must conduct thorough due diligence, including property inspection and occupant inquiries, not just rely on clean titles.
• Inadequate Price is a Red Flag: A price significantly below market value can indicate an equitable mortgage rather than a genuine sale.
• Possession Matters: The seller remaining in possession after a sale is a strong indicator of equitable mortgage.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Always consult with a lawyer before signing property documents, especially if you are using property as loan security or purchasing property at a suspiciously low price.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) about Equitable Mortgage

1. What is an Equitable Mortgage?

An equitable mortgage is essentially a loan secured by property, disguised as a sale or another type of transaction. The documents might say “sale,” but the real intent is for the property to serve as collateral.

2. How does an Equitable Mortgage differ from a regular mortgage?

A regular mortgage is formally documented as a mortgage. An equitable mortgage lacks these formal mortgage documents but is recognized by courts based on evidence of the parties’ true intent.

3. What are the signs of an Equitable Mortgage?

Signs include: inadequate selling price, seller remaining in possession, seller paying property taxes, and evidence suggesting the transaction was really a loan.

4. What should I do if I suspect a contract is an Equitable Mortgage?

Gather all evidence supporting your suspicion, such as communication records, witness testimonies, and circumstances surrounding the transaction. Consult a lawyer immediately to assess your case and take appropriate legal action.

5. As a buyer, how can I avoid purchasing a property subject to an Equitable Mortgage claim?

Conduct thorough due diligence: inspect the property, talk to occupants, verify ownership history beyond just the title, and be wary of unusually low prices. Engage a lawyer to review all documents before purchase.

6. Can a Deed of Absolute Sale be considered an Equitable Mortgage?

Yes, absolutely. Philippine law specifically allows for a Deed of Absolute Sale to be re-characterized as an equitable mortgage if evidence suggests the true intent was loan security, as seen in Arrofo v. Quiño.

7. What happens if a court declares a Deed of Sale to be an Equitable Mortgage?

The “seller” (borrower) is given the chance to repay the loan (principal plus reasonable interest). Once paid, the property is returned to the original owner. If the loan isn’t repaid, foreclosure proceedings may follow, similar to a regular mortgage.

8. What is “buyer in good faith” and how does it relate to Equitable Mortgage?

A buyer in good faith is someone who buys registered land without notice of any defects in the seller’s title. However, if circumstances should have alerted a reasonable buyer to a potential problem (like possible equitable mortgage), they may not be considered a buyer in good faith and their rights may be subordinate to the original owner’s claim.

9. What is the significance of continued possession by the original owner in Equitable Mortgage cases?

Continued possession by the original owner, even after a supposed “sale,” is a very strong indicator of an equitable mortgage. It suggests the transaction was not a genuine transfer of ownership.

10. Is an illiterate person at a disadvantage in Equitable Mortgage cases?

The courts are more inclined to protect vulnerable individuals like illiterate persons. Their lack of education and understanding of complex legal documents strengthens the argument that they might have been misled into signing documents that did not reflect their true intent, as seen in Quiño’s case.

ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Property Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.