Text of the provision

Art. 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 any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws.

(n)

Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles renderings and the Official Gazette, all three of which agree word for word.

What this article means

The badges of an equitable mortgage. A contract is presumed to be an equitable mortgage — whatever the paper calls it — where the repurchase price is unusually inadequate, where the seller stays in possession as lessee or otherwise, where the redemption period is extended by a later instrument, where the buyer keeps part of the purchase price, where the seller undertakes to pay the taxes, or in any other case from which it may fairly be inferred that the real intention was to secure a debt. Any one of them is enough. In all of them, money or fruits the buyer receives as rent are treated as interest, subject to the usury laws.

Related provisions

Cases interpreting this article

Note. The text of the provision above is reproduced in full from the official enactment (Republic Act No. 386), verified against the LawPhil and ChanRobles renderings. The annotation and commentary around it are the work of Vivas & Nobles Law Office and are general legal information, not legal advice. How a provision applies to a particular situation depends on facts that only a lawyer reviewing your case can assess.