You are on page 1of 2

Pando vs. Gimenez G.R. No.

31896

FACTS:

Gimenez was indebted to Pando in the amount of P8000. To secure payment of such loan, he executed
and delivered a real estate mortgage over a building located in Sta. Mesa; and the leasehold rights on the
lot upon which the building was erected, Hacienda Tuason being the lessor.

When Gimenez was about to leave Manila to attend to his business in Cagayan, he gave Pando full
control, and complete and absolute administration over the property he mortgaged, on the condition that
Pando would:

1 attend to the administration, care and preservation of the building and property

2 pay the premium on the insurance of the building

3 pay the taxes that might become due on the building

4 pay the rents of the leased property

5 collect the rents from the tenants of the building;

to be applied to the payment of all expenses necessary for the preservation and
maintenance of the building and the rents of the leased property

In the course of Pandos administration over the property, he failed and neglected to pay the taxes due for
several years. He also failed and neglected to pay lessor Hacienda Tuason the rents due for several
years on the land leased. Because of this, the building was sold at a public auction to satisfy the taxes
due. Moreover, lessor Hacienda Tuason cancelled the contract of lease of Gimenez, and brought a suit
against him for desahucio in the municipal court of Manila.

Gimenez is now claiming that Pando, being in charge of the administration of the premises, had the
obligation to attend to the payment of taxes and rents. Pando denies that he had such obligation, alleging
that his duties were confined to the collection of rents on the house in order to apply them to the payment
of the interest on the mortgage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Pando, having full control and administration over the property of Gimenez, was obliged to
pay the taxes, charges and other necessary expenses.

HELD:

Yes, Pando had such obligation.

The administration of the property assumed by Pando was antichretic in character. Article 2135 of the
Civil Code expressly states that the antichretic creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and charges which
burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. Such obligation arises from the very
nature of the covenant, and is correlated with the antichretic creditors acquired right to take charge of the
property and collect the fruits for himself.

Pando, having failed in his obligation to pay tax on the house and rent of the lot, is now required to pay
indemnity for damages.

You might also like