Good Afternoon your Honor, I am here to represent the petitioners, SPS. Bagadiong.

Under Article 1602 of the New Civil Code an equitable mortgage is presumed 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 the debt or the performance of any other obligation. This is a petition for review the decision of the Court of Appeals. FACTS: My client Bagadiong entered into an agreement with the respondent. It was stated in the contract that the Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro between the respondent, as the VENDOR, and my client, as the VENDEE acknowledged the following: 1. the vendor is the absolute owner of the land. 2. that the vendor in consideration of P1,500.00,and receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY by way of PACTO DE RETRO, unto the said VENDEE, her heirs, and assigns, the property, free from all liens and encumbrances 3. that the VENDOR reserves the right to repurchase, and the VENDEE obligates herself to resell the property within six months from and after the date of the instrument for the same price, PROVIDED, that if the VENDOR shall fail to exercise her right within the given period. then the conveyance shall become absolute and irrevocable, without the necessity of a new deed of absolute sale. The lower court declared the contract an equitable mortgage and allowed the plaintiff to redeem the property . On appeal, the decision was affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not the contract was a valid sale with right to repurchase or an equitable mortgage. ARGUMENT: I contend that none of the instances enumerated under Art. 1602 is present in this case. The vendor has not remained in possesion of the land as lessee or otherwise. My client has been in actual possession of the land from the time of the sale up to the present. After the repurchase period, the parties did not execute any instrument to extend it. Neither was there a granting by the vendee-a-retro of a new period to repurchase the property. My client never retained a part of the purchase price. There is no stipulation that the vendor binds herself to pay the taxes of the land. There is no hint that it was made to secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. There are evident manifestations of a genuine sale with right of repurchase. (a) A purchase price which is "adequate;" (b) An immediate delivery of the property by the vendor to the vendee; (c) The religious payment of the taxes of the land by my client; the vendor neglects this already; and (d) The inaction of the vendor to redeem the property for a period of 8 years from the date of the execution of the deed. Wherefore premises considered , I respectfully pray to this Honorable Court that the decision of the Court of Appeals be REVERSED and SET ASIDE in favor of my client.