Issue: W/N petitioner has a valid legal defense of ignorance of the law
HELD: YES
The petitioner is not a lawyer and therefore not conversant with the laws. When he accepted the mortgage of the improvements, it isbased on his well-grounded belief that he is was not violating the prohibition on the alienation of land. Thus is possessing, and consenting the receipt of its fruits, he has no knowledge that this is already in the nature of a contract of antichresis, which as a lien, was prohibited by section 116. Therefore, petitioner's ignorance of the provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment