FACTS:

Dionisia Dorado Delfin owned Lot No. 1213 in Panitan, Capiz. She executed an "Escritura De Venta Con Pacto de Retro" over a 50,000-square meter portion of the lot in favor of Ildefonso Dellota and Patricia Delfin, but failed to exercise her right of redemption. She then sold another portion of the lot, 50,000 square meters, to Gumersindo Deleña. Dionisia never redeemed this portion from Gumersindo. She later executed a "Deed of Mortgage and Promise to Sell" in favor of Salvador Dellota over a 90,000-square meter portion of the lot without specifying if it included the portion sold to Gumersindo. Dionisia filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Salvador. The trial court ordered Salvador's wife to allow the plaintiffs to redeem a 40,000-square meter portion of the lot, consolidated the ownership of the 50,000-square meter portion to the intervenors and heirs of Gumersindo, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Dionisia's heirs argue that the contract between Dionisia and Gumersindo is an equitable mortgage.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the contract between Dionisia and Gumersindo is an equitable mortgage

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that the contract is not an equitable mortgage. An equitable mortgage is one that reveals an intention to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage. The presence of one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code suffices to convert a purported contract of sale into an equitable mortgage. However, the court found that the consideration of P5,300.00 paid by Gumersindo for the portion of the lot is not "unusually inadequate". The court invoked previous rulings that there is no requirement for the price to be equal to the exact value of the thing subject to sale. Moreover, there is a presumption that a person takes ordinary care of their concerns, so there is no evidence to show that Dionisia did not understand the ramifications of signing the contract. The court also noted that Dionisia failed to prove that the price was grossly inadequate. Even if the contract were an equitable mortgage, Dionisia failed to redeem the property for 15 years. The payment of realty taxes is not conclusive evidence of land ownership, and the timing of Dionisia's payment raises questions. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.