Short answer. Yes. Article 1454 says that when an absolute conveyance of property is made only to secure the performance of the grantor's obligation to the grantee, a trust by operation of law arises. If you offer to fulfill the obligation when it becomes due, you may demand the reconveyance of the property to you.
What the law says
If an absolute conveyance of property is made in order to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee, a trust by virtue of law is established.
Civil Code, Article 1454 — Conveyance as Security (Trust). Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantor when it becomes due, he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him.
Civil Code, Article 1454 — Conveyance as Security (Trust). Read the full provision →
A security conveyance creates a trust
On paper you handed over full title, but the deal was never a real sale — the transfer was only a way to secure a debt. Article 1454 looks past the form: If an absolute conveyance of property is made in order to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor toward the grantee, a trust by virtue of law is established. In law the grantee holds the property as trustee for you, not as a true owner free to keep it. The absolute-looking deed does not turn a security arrangement into an outright sale. What controls is the purpose — to secure, not to sell.
Your right to reconveyance on paying
The trust exists precisely so you can get the property back. The article continues: If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantor when it becomes due, he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him. So when the debt falls due and you offer to pay — or otherwise perform the secured obligation — you are entitled to have the property conveyed back. The grantee cannot pocket the land and keep the payment too. Offering fulfilment is the key that unlocks the right; the grantee's role was to hold the property as security, and that role ends when the debt it secured is satisfied.
Proving the true purpose
Everything turns on showing that the conveyance was really security, not a genuine sale. Since the deed itself reads as absolute, you will have to establish the actual agreement behind it — that the transfer was made to secure the debt. Surrounding circumstances often reveal this: you kept possession, the price was far below the property's value, the debt continued to be treated as owing, or the parties dealt with the land as collateral. The law is willing to recognise the trust, but the burden is on the person asserting it to prove that the absolute conveyance was in truth a security device.
What this does not do
This provision protects a grantor who performs; it does not let you keep the property while refusing to pay. The right to reconveyance is tied to offering fulfilment of the secured obligation — until you do, the grantee's security stands. Nor does it convert every low-priced or informal sale into a trust; there must genuinely have been an obligation the conveyance was meant to secure. And the trust it recognises is between you and the grantee — the rights of a later buyer who acquired the property in good faith and for value are governed by separate rules and may not be defeated so easily.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- National Power Corporation vs Socorro T. Posada, Renato Bueno, Alice Balin, Adrian Tablizo, et al, G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and Air Transportation Office (ATO) vs. Bernardo Lozada, et al, G.R. No. 176625, February 25, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of TImoteo Moreno, et al. vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 156273, October 15, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →