Cases For Property

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935
DAVAO SAW MILL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
APRONIANO G. CASTILLO and DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., defendants-appellees.
Arsenio Suazo and Jose L. Palma Gil and Pablo Lorenzo and Delfin Joven for appellant.
J.W. Ferrier for appellees.
MALCOLM, J .:
The issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of the decision in the trial court and as
set forth by counsel for the parties on appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the
properties described in the complaint. The trial judge found that those properties were personal in
nature, and as a consequence absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the
plaintiff.
The Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the
Philippine Islands. It has operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu, municipality of
Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business was conducted belonged to
another person. On the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery
used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning
machines which were placed and mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of lease
between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there appeared the following provision:
That on the expiration of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and buildings
introduced and erected by the party of the second part shall pass to the exclusive
ownership of the party of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any
amount for said improvements and buildings; also, in the event the party of the
second part should leave or abandon the land leased before the time herein
stipulated, the improvements and buildings shall likewise pass to the ownership of
the party of the first part as though the time agreed upon had expired: Provided,
however, That the machineries and accessories are not included in the
improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the expiration or
abandonment of the land leased.
In another action, wherein the Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw,
Mill Co., Inc., was the defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action
against the defendant in that action; a writ of execution issued thereon, and the properties now in
question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. No third party claim was filed for such
properties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein.
Indeed the bidder, which was the plaintiff in that action, and the defendant herein having
consummated the sale, proceeded to take possession of the machinery and other properties
described in the corresponding certificates of sale executed in its favor by the sheriff of Davao.
As connecting up with the facts, it should further be explained that the Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., has
on a number of occasions treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel
mortgages in favor of third persons. One of such persons is the appellee by assignment from the
original mortgages.
Article 334, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Civil Code, is in point. According to the Code, real property
consists of
1. Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil;
x x x x x x x x x
5. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of
any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on
therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of
industry.
Appellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last mentioned paragraph. We entertain
no doubt that the trial judge and appellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines flowing
from the facts.
In the first place, it must again be pointed out that the appellant should have registered its protest
before or at the time of the sale of this property. It must further be pointed out that while not
conclusive, the characterization of the property as chattels by the appellant is indicative of intention
and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. In this connection the
decision of this court in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Yorkvs. Jaramillo ( [1923], 44 Phil.,
630), whether obiter dicta or not, furnishes the key to such a situation.
It is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the resolution of this appeal on side issues.
It is machinery which is involved; moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any building or
land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a lessee for use in a building erected on the
land by the latter to be returned to the lessee on the expiration or abandonment of the lease.
A similar question arose in Puerto Rico, and on appeal being taken to the United States Supreme
Court, it was held that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when
placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a
usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of
the owner. In the opinion written by Chief Justice White, whose knowledge of the Civil Law is well
known, it was in part said:
To determine this question involves fixing the nature and character of the property
from the point of view of the rights of Valdes and its nature and character from the
point of view of Nevers & Callaghan as a judgment creditor of the Altagracia
Company and the rights derived by them from the execution levied on the machinery
placed by the corporation in the plant. Following the Code Napoleon, the Porto Rican
Code treats as immovable (real) property, not only land and buildings, but also
attributes immovability in some cases to property of a movable nature, that is,
personal property, because of the destination to which it is applied. "Things," says
section 334 of the Porto Rican Code, "may be immovable either by their own nature
or by their destination or the object to which they are applicable." Numerous
illustrations are given in the fifth subdivision of section 335, which is as follows:
"Machinery, vessels, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the
tenements for the industrial or works that they may carry on in any building or upon
any land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works."
(See also Code Nap., articles 516, 518 et seq. to and inclusive of article 534,
recapitulating the things which, though in themselves movable, may be immobilized.)
So far as the subject-matter with which we are dealing machinery placed in the
plant it is plain, both under the provisions of the Porto Rican Law and of the Code
Napoleon, that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized
when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant. Such result would not
be accomplished, therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a
usufructuary or any person having only a temporary right. (Demolombe, Tit. 9, No.
203; Aubry et Rau, Tit. 2, p. 12, Section 164; Laurent, Tit. 5, No. 447; and decisions
quoted in Fuzier-Herman ed. Code Napoleon under articles 522 et seq.) The
distinction rests, as pointed out by Demolombe, upon the fact that one only having a
temporary right to the possession or enjoyment of property is not presumed by the
law to have applied movable property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by
causing it by an act of immobilization to become the property of another. It follows
that abstractly speaking the machinery put by the Altagracia Company in the plant
belonging to Sanchez did not lose its character of movable property and become
immovable by destination. But in the concrete immobilization took place because of
the express provisions of the lease under which the Altagracia held, since the lease
in substance required the putting in of improved machinery, deprived the tenant of
any right to charge against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was expressly
stipulated that the machinery so put in should become a part of the plant belonging to
the owner without compensation to the lessee. Under such conditions the tenant in
putting in the machinery was acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with
the obligations resting upon him, and the immobilization of the machinery which
resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the owner in giving by contract a
permanent destination to the machinery.
x x x x x x x x x
The machinery levied upon by Nevers & Callaghan, that is, that which was placed in
the plant by the Altagracia Company, being, as regards Nevers & Callaghan,
movable property, it follows that they had the right to levy on it under the execution
upon the judgment in their favor, and the exercise of that right did not in a legal
sense conflict with the claim of Valdes, since as to him the property was a part of the
realty which, as the result of his obligations under the lease, he could not, for the
purpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately against. (Valdes vs. Central
Altagracia [192], 225 U.S., 58.)
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, the costs of
this instance to be paid by the appellant.
Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-41643 July 31, 1935
B.H. BERKENKOTTER, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CU UNJIENG E HIJOS, YEK TONG LIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY and THE PROVINCE SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, defendants-
appellees.
Briones and Martinez for appellant.
Araneta, Zaragoza and Araneta for appellees Cu Unjieng e Hijos.
No appearance for the other appellees.
VILLA-REAL, J .:
This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff, B.H. Berkenkotter, from the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, dismissing said plaintiff's complaint against Cu Unjiengs e Hijos et al., with costs.
In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns six alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its
decision in question which will be discussed in the course of this decision.
The first question to be decided in this appeal, which is raised in the first assignment of alleged error,
is whether or not the lower court erred in declaring that the additional machinery and equipment, as
improvement incorporated with the central are subject to the mortgage deed executed in favor of the
defendants Cu Unjieng e Hijos.
It is admitted by the parties that on April 26, 1926, the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., owner of the sugar
central situated in Mabalacat, Pampanga, obtained from the defendants, Cu Unjieng e Hijos, a loan
secured by a first mortgage constituted on two parcels and land "with all its buildings, improvements,
sugar-cane mill, steel railway, telephone line, apparatus, utensils and whatever forms part or is
necessary complement of said sugar-cane mill, steel railway, telephone line, now existing or that
may in the future exist is said lots."
On October 5, 1926, shortly after said mortgage had been constituted, the Mabalacat Sugar Co.,
Inc., decided to increase the capacity of its sugar central by buying additional machinery and
equipment, so that instead of milling 150 tons daily, it could produce 250. The estimated cost of said
additional machinery and equipment was approximately P100,000. In order to carry out this plan,
B.A. Green, president of said corporation, proposed to the plaintiff, B.H. Berkenkotter, to advance
the necessary amount for the purchase of said machinery and equipment, promising to reimburse
him as soon as he could obtain an additional loan from the mortgagees, the herein defendants Cu
Unjieng e Hijos. Having agreed to said proposition made in a letter dated October 5, 1926 (Exhibit
E), B.H. Berkenkotter, on October 9th of the same year, delivered the sum of P1,710 to B.A. Green,
president of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., the total amount supplied by him to said B.A. Green
having been P25,750. Furthermore, B.H. Berkenkotter had a credit of P22,000 against said
corporation for unpaid salary. With the loan of P25,750 and said credit of P22,000, the Mabalacat
Sugar Co., Inc., purchased the additional machinery and equipment now in litigation.
On June 10, 1927, B.A. Green, president of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., applied to Cu Unjieng e
Hijos for an additional loan of P75,000 offering as security the additional machinery and equipment
acquired by said B.A. Green and installed in the sugar central after the execution of the original
mortgage deed, on April 27, 1927, together with whatever additional equipment acquired with said
loan. B.A. Green failed to obtain said loan.
Article 1877 of the Civil Code provides as follows.
ART. 1877. A mortgage includes all natural accessions, improvements, growing fruits, and
rents not collected when the obligation falls due, and the amount of any indemnities paid or
due the owner by the insurers of the mortgaged property or by virtue of the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, with the declarations, amplifications, and limitations established by
law, whether the estate continues in the possession of the person who mortgaged it or
whether it passes into the hands of a third person.
In the case of Bischoff vs. Pomar and Compaia General de Tabacos (12 Phil., 690), cited with
approval in the case of Cea vs. Villanueva (18 Phil., 538), this court laid shown the following
doctrine:
1. REALTY; MORTGAGE OF REAL ESTATE INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS AND
FIXTURES. It is a rule, established by the Civil Code and also by the Mortgage Law, with
which the decisions of the courts of the United States are in accord, that in a mortgage of
real estate, the improvements on the same are included; therefore, all objects permanently
attached to a mortgaged building or land, although they may have been placed there after
the mortgage was constituted, are also included. (Arts. 110 and 111 of the Mortgage Law,
and 1877 of the Civil Code; decision of U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Royal Insurance
Co. vs. R. Miller, liquidator, and Amadeo [26 Sup. Ct. Rep., 46; 199 U.S., 353].)
2. ID.; ID.; INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF MACHINERY, ETC. In order that it may be
understood that the machinery and other objects placed upon and used in connection with a
mortgaged estate are excluded from the mortgage, when it was stated in the mortgage that
the improvements, buildings, and machinery that existed thereon were also comprehended,
it is indispensable that the exclusion thereof be stipulated between the contracting parties.
The appellant contends that the installation of the machinery and equipment claimed by him in the
sugar central of the Mabalacat Sugar Company, Inc., was not permanent in character inasmuch as
B.A. Green, in proposing to him to advance the money for the purchase thereof, made it appear in
the letter, Exhibit E, that in case B.A. Green should fail to obtain an additional loan from the
defendants Cu Unjieng e Hijos, said machinery and equipment would become security therefor, said
B.A. Green binding himself not to mortgage nor encumber them to anybody until said plaintiff be fully
reimbursed for the corporation's indebtedness to him.
Upon acquiring the machinery and equipment in question with money obtained as loan from the
plaintiff-appellant by B.A. Green, as president of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., the latter became
owner of said machinery and equipment, otherwise B.A. Green, as such president, could not have
offered them to the plaintiff as security for the payment of his credit.
Article 334, paragraph 5, of the Civil Code gives the character of real property to "machinery, liquid
containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in
connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to
meet the requirements of such trade or industry.
If the installation of the machinery and equipment in question in the central of the Mabalacat Sugar
Co., Inc., in lieu of the other of less capacity existing therein, for its sugar industry, converted them
into real property by reason of their purpose, it cannot be said that their incorporation therewith was
not permanent in character because, as essential and principal elements of a sugar central, without
them the sugar central would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was
established. Inasmuch as the central is permanent in character, the necessary machinery and
equipment installed for carrying on the sugar industry for which it has been established must
necessarily be permanent.
Furthermore, the fact that B.A. Green bound himself to the plaintiff B.H. Berkenkotter to hold said
machinery and equipment as security for the payment of the latter's credit and to refrain from
mortgaging or otherwise encumbering them until Berkenkotter has been fully reimbursed therefor, is
not incompatible with the permanent character of the incorporation of said machinery and equipment
with the sugar central of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., as nothing could prevent B.A. Green from
giving them as security at least under a second mortgage.
As to the alleged sale of said machinery and equipment to the plaintiff and appellant after they had
been permanently incorporated with sugar central of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., and while the
mortgage constituted on said sugar central to Cu Unjieng e Hijos remained in force, only the right of
redemption of the vendor Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., in the sugar central with which said machinery
and equipment had been incorporated, was transferred thereby, subject to the right of the
defendants Cu Unjieng e Hijos under the first mortgage.
For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold: (1) That the installation of a
machinery and equipment in a mortgaged sugar central, in lieu of another of less capacity, for the
purpose of carrying out the industrial functions of the latter and increasing production, constitutes a
permanent improvement on said sugar central and subjects said machinery and equipment to the
mortgage constituted thereon (article 1877, Civil Code); (2) that the fact that the purchaser of the
new machinery and equipment has bound himself to the person supplying him the purchase money
to hold them as security for the payment of the latter's credit, and to refrain from mortgaging or
otherwise encumbering them does not alter the permanent character of the incorporation of said
machinery and equipment with the central; and (3) that the sale of the machinery and equipment in
question by the purchaser who was supplied the purchase money, as a loan, to the person who
supplied the money, after the incorporation thereof with the mortgaged sugar central, does not vest
the creditor with ownership of said machinery and equipment but simply with the right of redemption.
Wherefore, finding no error in the appealed judgment, it is affirmed in all its parts, with costs to the
appellant. So ordered.
Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 February 28, 1958
ENRIQUE LOPEZ, petitioner,
vs.
VICENTE OROSA, JR., and PLAZA THEATRE, INC., respondents.
Nicolas Belmonte and Benjamin T. de Peralta for petitioner.
Tolentino & Garcia and D. R. Cruz for respondent Luzon Surety Co., Inc. Jose B. Macatangay for
respondent Plaza Theatre, Inc.
FELIX, J .:
Enrique Lopez is a resident of Balayan, Batangas, doing business under the trade name of Lopez-
Castelo Sawmill. Sometime in May, 1946, Vicente Orosa, Jr., also a resident of the same province,
dropped at Lopez' house and invited him to make an investment in the theatre business. It was
intimated that Orosa, his family and close friends were organizing a corporation to be known as
Plaza Theatre, Inc., that would engage in such venture. Although Lopez expressed his unwillingness
to invest of the same, he agreed to supply the lumber necessary for the construction of the proposed
theatre, and at Orosa's behest and assurance that the latter would be personally liable for any
account that the said construction might incur, Lopez further agreed that payment therefor would be
on demand and not cash on delivery basis. Pursuant to said verbal agreement, Lopez delivered the
lumber which was used for the construction of the Plaza Theatre on May 17, 1946, up to December
4 of the same year. But of the total cost of the materials amounting to P62,255.85, Lopez was paid
only P20,848.50, thus leaving a balance of P41,771.35.
We may state at this juncture that the Plaza Theatre was erected on a piece of land with an area of
679.17 square meters formerly owned by Vicente Orosa, Jr., and was acquired by the corporation on
September 25, 1946, for P6,000. As Lopez was pressing Orosa for payment of the remaining unpaid
obligation, the latter and Belarmino Rustia, the president of the corporation, promised to obtain a
bank loan by mortgaging the properties of the Plaza Theatre., out of which said amount of
P41,771.35 would be satisfied, to which assurance Lopez had to accede. Unknown to him, however,
as early as November, 1946, the corporation already got a loan for P30,000 from the Philippine
National Bank with the Luzon Surety Company as surety, and the corporation in turn executed a
mortgage on the land and building in favor of said company as counter-security. As the land at that
time was not yet brought under the operation of the Torrens System, the mortgage on the same was
registered on November 16, 1946, under Act No. 3344. Subsequently, when the corporation applied
for the registration of the land under Act 496, such mortgage was not revealed and thus Original
Certificate of Title No. O-391 was correspondingly issued on October 25, 1947, without any
encumbrance appearing thereon.
Persistent demand from Lopez for the payment of the amount due him caused Vicente Orosa, Jr. to
execute on March 17, 1947, an alleged "deed of assignment" of his 420 shares of stock of the Plaza
Theater, Inc., at P100 per share or with a total value of P42,000 in favor of the creditor, and as the
obligation still remained unsettled, Lopez filed on November 12, 1947, a complaint with the Court of
First Instance of Batangas (Civil Case No. 4501 which later became R-57) against Vicente Orosa, Jr.
and Plaza Theater, Inc., praying that defendants be sentenced to pay him jointly and severally the
sum of P41,771.35, with legal interest from the firing of the action; that in case defendants fail to pay
the same, that the building and the land covered by OCT No. O-391 owned by the corporation be
sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof be applied to said indebtedness; or that the 420
shares of the capital stock of the Plaza Theatre, Inc., assigned by Vicente Orosa, Jr., to said plaintiff
be sold at public auction for the same purpose; and for such other remedies as may be warranted by
the circumstances. Plaintiff also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on said properties
with the Register of Deeds.
Defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre, Inc., filed separate answers, the first denying that
the materials were delivered to him as a promoter and later treasurer of the corporation, because he
had purchased and received the same on his personal account; that the land on which the movie
house was constructed was not charged with a lien to secure the payment of the aforementioned
unpaid obligation; and that the 420 shares of stock of the Plaza Theatre, Inc., was not assigned to
plaintiff as collaterals but as direct security for the payment of his indebtedness. As special defense,
this defendant contended that as the 420 shares of stock assigned and conveyed by the assignor
and accepted by Lopez as direct security for the payment of the amount of P41,771.35 were
personal properties, plaintiff was barred from recovering any deficiency if the proceeds of the sale
thereof at public auction would not be sufficient to cover and satisfy the obligation. It was thus
prayed that he be declared exempted from the payment of any deficiency in case the proceeds from
the sale of said personal properties would not be enough to cover the amount sought to be collected.
Defendant Plaza Theatre, Inc., on the other hand, practically set up the same line of defense by
alleging that the building materials delivered to Orosa were on the latter's personal account; and that
there was no understanding that said materials would be paid jointly and severally by Orosa and the
corporation, nor was a lien charged on the properties of the latter to secure payment of the same
obligation. As special defense, defendant corporation averred that while it was true that the materials
purchased by Orosa were sold by the latter to the corporation, such transactions were in good faith
and for valuable consideration thus when plaintiff failed to claim said materials within 30 days from
the time of removal thereof from Orosa, lumber became a different and distinct specie and plaintiff
lost whatever rights he might have in the same and consequently had no recourse against the Plaza
Theatre, Inc., that the claim could not have been refectionary credit, for such kind of obligation
referred to an indebtedness incurred in the repair or reconstruction of something already existing
and this concept did not include an entirely new work; and that the Plaza Theatre, Inc., having been
incorporated on October 14, 1946, it could not have contracted any obligation prior to said date. It
was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed; that said defendant be awarded the sum P
5,000 for damages, and such other relief as may be just and proper in the premises.
The surety company, in the meantime, upon discovery that the land was already registered under
the Torrens System and that there was a notice of lis pendens thereon, filed on August 17, 1948, or
within the 1-year period after the issuance of the certificate of title, a petition for review of the decree
of the land registration court dated October 18, 1947, which was made the basis of OCT No. O-319,
in order to annotate the rights and interests of the surety company over said properties (Land
Registration Case No. 17 GLRO Rec. No. 296). Opposition thereto was offered by Enrique Lopez,
asserting that the amount demanded by him constituted a preferred lien over the properties of the
obligors; that the surety company was guilty of negligence when it failed to present an opposition to
the application for registration of the property; and that if any violation of the rights and interest of
said surety would ever be made, same must be subject to the lien in his favor.
The two cases were heard jointly and in a decision dated October 30, 1952, the lower Court, after
making an exhaustive and detailed analysis of the respective stands of the parties and the evidence
adduced at the trial, held that defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr., and the Plaza Theatre, Inc.,
were jointly liable for the unpaid balance of the cost of lumber used in the construction of
the building and the plaintiff thus acquired the materialman's lien over the same. In making the
pronouncement that the lien was merely confined to the building and did not extend to the land on
which the construction was made, the trial judge took into consideration the fact that when plaintiff
started the delivery of lumber in May, 1946, the land was not yet owned by the corporation; that the
mortgage in favor of Luzon Surety Company was previously registered under Act No. 3344; that the
codal provision (Art. 1923 of the old Spanish Civil Code) specifying that refection credits are
preferred could refer only to buildings which are also classified as real properties, upon which said
refection was made. It was, however, declared that plaintiff's lien on the building was superior to the
right of the surety company. And finding that the Plaza Theatre, Inc., had no objection to the review
of the decree issued in its favor by the land registration court and the inclusion in the title of the
encumbrance in favor of the surety company, the court a quo granted the petition filed by the latter
company. Defendants Orosa and the Plaza Theatre, Inc., were thus required to pay jointly the
amount of P41,771.35 with legal interest and costs within 90 days from notice of said decision; that
in case of default, the 420 shares of stock assigned by Orosa to plaintiff be sold at public auction
and the proceeds thereof be applied to the payment of the amount due the plaintiff, plus interest and
costs; and that the encumbrance in favor of the surety company be endorsed at the back of OCT No.
O-391, with notation I that with respect to the building, said mortgage was subject to the
materialman's lien in favor of Enrique Lopez.
Plaintiff tried to secure a modification of the decision in so far as it declared that the obligation of
therein defendants was joint instead of solidary, and that the lien did not extend to the land, but
same was denied by order the court of December 23, 1952. The matter was thus appealed to the
Court of appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling, and then to this Tribunal. In this instance,
plaintiff-appellant raises 2 issues: (1) whether a materialman's lien for the value of the materials used
in the construction of a building attaches to said structure alone and does not extend to the land on
which the building is adhered to; and (2) whether the lower court and the Court of Appeals erred in
not providing that the material mans liens is superior to the mortgage executed in favor surety
company not only on the building but also on the land.
It is to be noted in this appeal that Enrique Lopez has not raised any question against the part of the
decision sentencing defendants Orosa and Plaza Theatre, Inc., to pay jointly the sum of P41,771.35,
so We will not take up or consider anything on that point. Appellant, however, contends that the lien
created in favor of the furnisher of the materials used for the construction, repair or refection of a
building, is also extended to the land which the construction was made, and in support thereof he
relies on Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, pertinent law on the matter, which reads as follows:
ART. 1923. With respect to determinate real property and real rights of the debtor, the
following are preferred:
x x x x x x x x x
5. Credits for refection, not entered or recorded, with respect to the estate upon which the
refection was made, and only with respect to other credits different from those mentioned in
four preceding paragraphs.
It is argued that in view of the employment of the phrase real estate, or immovable property, and
inasmuch as said provision does not contain any specification delimiting the lien to the building, said
article must be construed as to embrace both the land and the building or structure adhering thereto.
We cannot subscribe to this view, for while it is true that generally, real estate connotes the land and
the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct
from the land, in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties
1
could mean only one thing
that a building is by itself an immovable property, a doctrine already pronounced by this Court in
the case of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644. Moreover, and in view of the
absence of any specific provision of law to the contrary, a building is an immovable property,
irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the
same owner.
A close examination of the provision of the Civil Code invoked by appellant reveals that the law gives
preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the
refection or work was made. This being so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created
attaches merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which the obligation was
incurred. Evidently, therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the unpaid value of the lumber used in
the construction of the building attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the
obligors.
Considering the conclusion thus arrived at, i.e., that the materialman's lien could be charged only to
the building for which the credit was made or which received the benefit of refection, the lower court
was right in, holding at the interest of the mortgagee over the land is superior and cannot be made
subject to the said materialman's lien.
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1
Article 415 of the new Civil Code (Art. 334 of the old) enumerates what are considered
immovable property, among which are land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30173 September 30, 1971
GAVINO A. TUMALAD and GENEROSA R. TUMALAD, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
ALBERTA VICENCIO and EMILIANO SIMEON, defendants-appellants.
Castillo & Suck for plaintiffs-appellees.
Jose Q. Calingo for defendants-appellants.

REYES, J.B.L., J .:
Case certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 27824-R) for the reason that only
questions of law are involved.
This case was originally commenced by defendants-appellants in the municipal court of Manila in
Civil Case No. 43073, for ejectment. Having lost therein, defendants-appellants appealed to the
court a quo (Civil Case No. 30993) which also rendered a decision against them, the dispositive
portion of which follows:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the former a
monthly rent of P200.00 on the house, subject-matter of this action, from March 27,
1956, to January 14, 1967, with interest at the legal rate from April 18, 1956, the filing
of the complaint, until fully paid, plus attorney's fees in the sum of P300.00 and to
pay the costs.
It appears on the records that on 1 September 1955 defendants-appellants executed a chattel
mortgage in favor of plaintiffs-appellees over their house of strong materials located at No. 550 Int.
3, Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, over Lot Nos. 6-B and 7-B, Block No. 2554, which were being
rented from Madrigal & Company, Inc. The mortgage was registered in the Registry of Deeds of
Manila on 2 September 1955. The herein mortgage was executed to guarantee a loan of P4,800.00
received from plaintiffs-appellees, payable within one year at 12% per annum. The mode of payment
was P150.00 monthly, starting September, 1955, up to July 1956, and the lump sum of P3,150 was
payable on or before August, 1956. It was also agreed that default in the payment of any of the
amortizations, would cause the remaining unpaid balance to becomeimmediately due and Payable
and
the Chattel Mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Special
Act No. 3135, and for this purpose, the Sheriff of the City of Manila or any of his
deputies is hereby empowered and authorized to sell all the Mortgagor's property
after the necessary publication in order to settle the financial debts of P4,800.00, plus
12% yearly interest, and attorney's fees...
2

When defendants-appellants defaulted in paying, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and
on 27 March 1956, the house was sold at public auction pursuant to the said contract. As highest
bidder, plaintiffs-appellees were issued the corresponding certificate of sale.
3
Thereafter, on 18 April
1956, plaintiffs-appellant commenced Civil Case No. 43073 in the municipal court of Manila, praying,
among other things, that the house be vacated and its possession surrendered to them, and for
defendants-appellants to pay rent of P200.00 monthly from 27 March 1956 up to the time the possession
is surrendered.
4
On 21 September 1956, the municipal court rendered its decision
... ordering the defendants to vacate the premises described in the complaint;
ordering further to pay monthly the amount of P200.00 from March 27, 1956, until
such (time that) the premises is (sic) completely vacated; plus attorney's fees of
P100.00 and the costs of the suit.
5

Defendants-appellants, in their answers in both the municipal court and court a quo impugned the
legality of the chattel mortgage, claiming that they are still the owners of the house; but they waived
the right to introduce evidence, oral or documentary. Instead, they relied on their memoranda in
support of their motion to dismiss, predicated mainly on the grounds that: (a) the municipal court did
not have jurisdiction to try and decide the case because (1) the issue involved, is ownership, and (2)
there was no allegation of prior possession; and (b) failure to prove prior demand pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 72, of the Rules of Court.
6

During the pendency of the appeal to the Court of First Instance, defendants-appellants failed to
deposit the rent for November, 1956 within the first 10 days of December, 1956 as ordered in the
decision of the municipal court. As a result, the court granted plaintiffs-appellees' motion for
execution, and it was actually issued on 24 January 1957. However, the judgment regarding the
surrender of possession to plaintiffs-appellees could not be executed because the subject house had
been already demolished on 14 January 1957 pursuant to the order of the court in a separate civil
case (No. 25816) for ejectment against the present defendants for non-payment of rentals on the
land on which the house was constructed.
The motion of plaintiffs for dismissal of the appeal, execution of the supersedeas bond and
withdrawal of deposited rentals was denied for the reason that the liability therefor was disclaimed
and was still being litigated, and under Section 8, Rule 72, rentals deposited had to be held until final
disposition of the appeal.
7

On 7 October 1957, the appellate court of First Instance rendered its decision, the dispositive portion
of which is quoted earlier. The said decision was appealed by defendants to the Court of Appeals
which, in turn, certified the appeal to this Court. Plaintiffs-appellees failed to file a brief and this
appeal was submitted for decision without it.
Defendants-appellants submitted numerous assignments of error which can be condensed into two
questions, namely: .
(a) Whether the municipal court from which the case originated had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the same;
(b) Whether the defendants are, under the law, legally bound to pay rentals to the
plaintiffs during the period of one (1) year provided by law for the redemption of the
extrajudicially foreclosed house.
We will consider these questions seriatim.
(a) Defendants-appellants mortgagors question the jurisdiction of the municipal court from which the
case originated, and consequently, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance a quo, on
the theory that the chattel mortgage is void ab initio; whence it would follow that the extrajudicial
foreclosure, and necessarily the consequent auction sale, are also void. Thus, the ownership of the
house still remained with defendants-appellants who are entitled to possession and not plaintiffs-
appellees. Therefore, it is argued by defendants-appellants, the issue of ownership will have to be
adjudicated first in order to determine possession. lt is contended further that ownership being in
issue, it is the Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction and not the municipal court.
Defendants-appellants predicate their theory of nullity of the chattel mortgage on two grounds, which
are: (a) that, their signatures on the chattel mortgage were obtained through fraud, deceit, or
trickery; and (b) that the subject matter of the mortgage is a house of strong materials, and, being an
immovable, it can only be the subject of a real estate mortgage and not a chattel mortgage.
On the charge of fraud, deceit or trickery, the Court of First Instance found defendants-appellants'
contentions as not supported by evidence and accordingly dismissed the charge,
8
confirming the
earlier finding of the municipal court that "the defense of ownership as well as the allegations of fraud and
deceit ... are mere allegations."
9

It has been held in Supia and Batiaco vs. Quintero and Ayala
10
that "the answer is a mere statement of
the facts which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence;
11
and further, that when the
question to be determined is one of title, the Court is given the authority to proceed with the hearing of the
cause until this fact is clearly established. In the case of Sy vs. Dalman,
12
wherein the defendant was also
a successful bidder in an auction sale, it was likewise held by this Court that in detainer cases the aim of
ownership "is a matter of defense and raises an issue of fact which should be determined from the
evidence at the trial." What determines jurisdiction are the allegations or averments in the complaint and
the relief asked for.
13

Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, fraud or deceit does not render a contract void ab
initio, and can only be a ground for rendering the contract voidable or annullable pursuant to Article
1390 of the New Civil Code, by a proper action in court.
14
There is nothing on record to show that the
mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. Hence,
defendants-appellants' claim of ownership on the basis of a voidable contract which has not been voided
fails.
It is claimed in the alternative by defendants-appellants that even if there was no fraud, deceit or
trickery, the chattel mortgage was still null and void ab initio because only personal properties can
be subject of a chattel mortgage. The rule about the status of buildings as immovable property is
stated in Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc.,
15
cited in Associated Insurance Surety Co., Inc.
vs. Iya, et al.
16
to the effect that
... it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land,
in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties (art. 415, New Civil Code)
could only mean one thing that a building is by itself an immovable
property irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is
adhered to belong to the same owner.
Certain deviations, however, have been allowed for various reasons. In the case of Manarang and
Manarang vs. Ofilada,
17
this Court stated that "it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by
agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property", citing Standard Oil
Company of New York vs. Jaramillo.
18
In the latter case, the mortgagor conveyed and transferred to the
mortgagee by way of mortgage "the following described personal property."
19
The "personal property"
consisted of leasehold rights and a building. Again, in the case of Luna vs. Encarnacion,
20
the subject of
the contract designated as Chattel Mortgage was a house of mixed materials, and this Court hold therein
that it was a valid Chattel mortgage because it was so expressly designated and specifically that the
property given as security "is a house of mixed materials, which by its very nature is considered personal
property." In the later case of Navarro vs. Pineda,
21
this Court stated that
The view that parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house
as personal property for the purposes of said contract, "is good only insofar as the
contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel"
(Evangelista vs. Alto Surety, No. L-11139, 23 April 1958). In a case, a mortgaged
house built on a rented land was held to be a personal property, not only because
the deed of mortgage considered it as such, but also because it did not form part of
the land (Evangelists vs. Abad, [CA]; 36 O.G. 2913), for it is now settled that an
object placed on land by one who had only a temporary right to the same, such as
the lessee or usufructuary, does not become immobilized by attachment (Valdez vs.
Central Altagracia, 222 U.S. 58, cited in Davao Sawmill Co., Inc. vs. Castillo, et al.,
61 Phil. 709). Hence, if a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land
belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal property as so
stipulated in the document of mortgage. (Evangelista vs. Abad, Supra.) It should be
noted, however that the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring
his house to be a chattel, a conduct that may conceivably estop him from
subsequently claiming otherwise. (Ladera vs. C.N. Hodges, [CA] 48 O.G. 5374):
22

In the contract now before Us, the house on rented land is not only expressly designated as Chattel
Mortgage; it specifically provides that "the mortgagor ... voluntarily CEDES, SELLS and
TRANSFERS by way of Chattel Mortgage
23
the property together with its leasehold rights over the lot
on which it is constructed and participation ..."
24
Although there is no specific statement referring to the
subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel
mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least,
intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand
by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendats-appellants
merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of
the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties,
particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personalty. Finally unlike in the Iya
cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre, Inc.
25
and Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery and
Williamson,
26
wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage,
27
it is the defendants-
appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in
this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated
the subject house as personalty.
(b) Turning to the question of possession and rentals of the premises in question. The Court of First
Instance noted in its decision that nearly a year after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had
been demolished on 14 and 15 January 1957 by virtue of a decision obtained by the lessor of the
land on which the house stood. For this reason, the said court limited itself to sentencing the
erstwhile mortgagors to pay plaintiffs a monthly rent of P200.00 from 27 March 1956 (when the
chattel mortgage was foreclosed and the house sold) until 14 January 1957 (when it was torn down
by the Sheriff), plus P300.00 attorney's fees.
Appellants mortgagors question this award, claiming that they were entitled to remain in possession
without any obligation to pay rent during the one year redemption period after the foreclosure sale,
i.e., until 27 March 1957. On this issue, We must rule for the appellants.
Chattel mortgages are covered and regulated by the Chattel Mortgage Law, Act No. 1508.
28
Section
14 of this Act allows the mortgagee to have the property mortgaged sold at public auction through a
public officer in almost the same manner as that allowed by Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118,
provided that the requirements of the law relative to notice and registration are complied with.
29
In the
instant case, the parties specifically stipulated that "the chattel mortgage will be enforceable in
accordance with the provisions of Special Act No. 3135 ... ."
30
(Emphasis supplied).
Section 6 of the Act referred to
31
provides that the debtor-mortgagor (defendants-appellants herein)
may, at any time within one year from and after the date of the auction sale, redeem the property sold at
the extra judicial foreclosure sale. Section 7 of the same Act
32
allows the purchaser of the property to
obtain from the court the possession during the period of redemption: but the same provision expressly
requires the filing of a petition with the proper Court of First Instance and the furnishing of a bond. It is
only upon filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond that the order for a writ
of possession issues as a matter of course. No discretion is left to the court.
33
In the absence of such a
compliance, as in the instant case, the purchaser can not claim possession during the period of
redemption as a matter of right. In such a case, the governing provision is Section 34, Rule 39, of the
Revised Rules of Court
34
which also applies to properties purchased in extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings.
35
Construing the said section, this Court stated in the aforestated case of Reyes vs.
Hamada.
In other words, before the expiration of the 1-year period within which the judgment-
debtor or mortgagor may redeem the property, the purchaser thereof is not entitled,
as a matter of right, to possession of the same. Thus, while it is true that the Rules of
Court allow the purchaser to receive the rentals if the purchased property is occupied
by tenants, he is, nevertheless, accountable to the judgment-debtor or mortgagor as
the case may be, for the amount so received and the same will be duly credited
against the redemption price when the said debtor or mortgagor effects the
redemption.Differently stated, the rentals receivable from tenants, although they may
be collected by the purchaser during the redemption period, do not belong to the
latter but still pertain to the debtor of mortgagor. The rationale for the Rule, it seems,
is to secure for the benefit of the debtor or mortgagor, the payment of the redemption
amount and the consequent return to him of his properties sold at public auction.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Hamada case reiterates the previous ruling in Chan vs. Espe.
36

Since the defendants-appellants were occupying the house at the time of the auction sale, they are
entitled to remain in possession during the period of redemption or within one year from and after 27
March 1956, the date of the auction sale, and to collect the rents or profits during the said period.
It will be noted further that in the case at bar the period of redemption had not yet expired when
action was instituted in the court of origin, and that plaintiffs-appellees did not choose to take
possession under Section 7, Act No. 3135, as amended, which is the law selected by the parties to
govern the extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Neither was there an allegation to that
effect. Since plaintiffs-appellees' right to possess was not yet born at the filing of the complaint, there
could be no violation or breach thereof. Wherefore, the original complaint stated no cause of action
and was prematurely filed. For this reason, the same should be ordered dismissed, even if there was
no assignment of error to that effect. The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review
palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a
just decision of the cases.
37

It follows that the court below erred in requiring the mortgagors to pay rents for the year following the
foreclosure sale, as well as attorney's fees.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision appealed from is reversed and another one
entered, dismissing the complaint. With costs against plaintiffs-appellees.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Exhibit "A," page 1, Folder of Exhibits.
2 See paragraph "G," Exhibit "A," supra.
3 Exhibit "B," page 4, Folder of Exhibits.
4 Page 2, Defendants' Record on appeal, page 97, Rollo.
5 Page 20, Id., page 115, Rollo.
6 Now Section 2, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court, which reads that
"SEC. 2. Landlord, to proceed against tenant only after demand. No landlord, or
his legal representative or assign, shall bring such action against a tenant for failure
to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall
have failed to pay such rent or comply with such conditions for a period of ... five (5)
days in the case of building, after demand therefor, made upon him personally, or by
serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by
posting such notice on the premises if no persons be found thereon."
7 See CFI order of 20 February 1957, pages 21-25, Defendants' Record on Appeal.
8 Page 31, Defendants' Record on Appeal, page 213, Rollo.
9 See Municipal court decision, pages 17-18, Defendants' Record on Appeal, pages
199-200, Rollo.
10 59 Phil. 320-321.
11 Emphasis supplied.
12 L-19200, 27 February 1958, 22 SCRA 834; See also Aquino vs. Deala, 63 Phil.
582 and De los Reyes vs. Elepao, et al., G.R. No. L-3466, 13 October 1950.
13 See Canaynay vs. Sarmiento, L-1246, 27 August 1947, 79 Phil. 36.
14 Last paragraph, Article 1290, N.C.C., supra.
15 No. L-10817-18, 28 February 1958, 103 Phil. 98.
16 No. L-10827-38, 30 May 1958, 103 Phil. 972.
17 No. L-8133, 18 May 1956, 99 Phil. 109.
18 No. L-20329, 16 March 1923, 44 Phil. 632.
20 No. L-4637, 30 June 1952, 91 Phil. 531.
21 No. L-18456, 30 November 1963, 9 SCRA 631.
24 See paragraph 2 of Exhibit "A," page 1, Folder of Exhibits.
25 Supra.
26 Supra.
27 See Navarro vs. Pineda, supra.
28 Effective 1 August 1906.
29 See Luna vs. Encarnacion, et al., No. L-4637, 30 June 1952, 91 Phil. 531.
31 Section 6, Act No. 3135, as amended, provides:
"In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power
hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successor in interest or any judicial creditor
or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may
redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of
the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four
hundredand sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
(Emphasis supplied) .
32 Section 7, Act No. 3135, as amended, states: .
"In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the
Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof
is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing
bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve
months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without
violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act..."
33 See De Gracia vs. San Jose, et al., No. L-6493, 25 March 1954.
34 "SEC. 34. Rents and profits pending redemption. Statement thereof and credit
therefor on redemption. The purchaser, from the time of the sale until a
redemption, and a redemptioner, from the time of his redemption until another
redemption, is entitled to receive the rents of the property sold or the value of the use
and occupation thereof when such property is in possession of a tenant. But when
any such rents and profits have been received by the judgment creditor or purchaser,
or by a redemptioner, or by the assignee or either of them, from property thus sold
preceding such redemption, the amounts of such rents and profits shall be a credit
upon the redemption money to be paid; ..."
35 See Reyes vs. Hamada, No. L-19967, 31 May 1965, 14 SCRA 215; Emphasis
supplied.
36 No. L-16777, 20 April 1961, 1 SCRA 1004.
37 Saura Import & Export Co. vs. Philippine International Surety Co., et al., No. L-
15184, 31 May 1963, 8 SCRA 143, 148; Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 Phil.198, See also
Sec. 7, Rule 51, of the Revised Rules of Court. Cf. Santaells vs.Otto Lange Co., 155
Fed. 719; Mast vs. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed., 45, Francisco, Rules of Court (1965
Ed), Vol. 3, page 765.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30173 September 30, 1971
GAVINO A. TUMALAD and GENEROSA R. TUMALAD, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
ALBERTA VICENCIO and EMILIANO SIMEON, defendants-appellants.
Castillo & Suck for plaintiffs-appellees.
Jose Q. Calingo for defendants-appellants.

REYES, J.B.L., J .:
Case certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 27824-R) for the reason that only
questions of law are involved.
This case was originally commenced by defendants-appellants in the municipal court of Manila in
Civil Case No. 43073, for ejectment. Having lost therein, defendants-appellants appealed to the
court a quo (Civil Case No. 30993) which also rendered a decision against them, the dispositive
portion of which follows:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the former a
monthly rent of P200.00 on the house, subject-matter of this action, from March 27,
1956, to January 14, 1967, with interest at the legal rate from April 18, 1956, the filing
of the complaint, until fully paid, plus attorney's fees in the sum of P300.00 and to
pay the costs.
It appears on the records that on 1 September 1955 defendants-appellants executed a chattel
mortgage in favor of plaintiffs-appellees over their house of strong materials located at No. 550 Int.
3, Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, over Lot Nos. 6-B and 7-B, Block No. 2554, which were being
rented from Madrigal & Company, Inc. The mortgage was registered in the Registry of Deeds of
Manila on 2 September 1955. The herein mortgage was executed to guarantee a loan of P4,800.00
received from plaintiffs-appellees, payable within one year at 12% per annum. The mode of payment
was P150.00 monthly, starting September, 1955, up to July 1956, and the lump sum of P3,150 was
payable on or before August, 1956. It was also agreed that default in the payment of any of the
amortizations, would cause the remaining unpaid balance to becomeimmediately due and Payable
and
the Chattel Mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Special
Act No. 3135, and for this purpose, the Sheriff of the City of Manila or any of his
deputies is hereby empowered and authorized to sell all the Mortgagor's property
after the necessary publication in order to settle the financial debts of P4,800.00, plus
12% yearly interest, and attorney's fees...
2

When defendants-appellants defaulted in paying, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and
on 27 March 1956, the house was sold at public auction pursuant to the said contract. As highest
bidder, plaintiffs-appellees were issued the corresponding certificate of sale.
3
Thereafter, on 18 April
1956, plaintiffs-appellant commenced Civil Case No. 43073 in the municipal court of Manila, praying,
among other things, that the house be vacated and its possession surrendered to them, and for
defendants-appellants to pay rent of P200.00 monthly from 27 March 1956 up to the time the possession
is surrendered.
4
On 21 September 1956, the municipal court rendered its decision
... ordering the defendants to vacate the premises described in the complaint;
ordering further to pay monthly the amount of P200.00 from March 27, 1956, until
such (time that) the premises is (sic) completely vacated; plus attorney's fees of
P100.00 and the costs of the suit.
5

Defendants-appellants, in their answers in both the municipal court and court a quo impugned the
legality of the chattel mortgage, claiming that they are still the owners of the house; but they waived
the right to introduce evidence, oral or documentary. Instead, they relied on their memoranda in
support of their motion to dismiss, predicated mainly on the grounds that: (a) the municipal court did
not have jurisdiction to try and decide the case because (1) the issue involved, is ownership, and (2)
there was no allegation of prior possession; and (b) failure to prove prior demand pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 72, of the Rules of Court.
6

During the pendency of the appeal to the Court of First Instance, defendants-appellants failed to
deposit the rent for November, 1956 within the first 10 days of December, 1956 as ordered in the
decision of the municipal court. As a result, the court granted plaintiffs-appellees' motion for
execution, and it was actually issued on 24 January 1957. However, the judgment regarding the
surrender of possession to plaintiffs-appellees could not be executed because the subject house had
been already demolished on 14 January 1957 pursuant to the order of the court in a separate civil
case (No. 25816) for ejectment against the present defendants for non-payment of rentals on the
land on which the house was constructed.
The motion of plaintiffs for dismissal of the appeal, execution of the supersedeas bond and
withdrawal of deposited rentals was denied for the reason that the liability therefor was disclaimed
and was still being litigated, and under Section 8, Rule 72, rentals deposited had to be held until final
disposition of the appeal.
7

On 7 October 1957, the appellate court of First Instance rendered its decision, the dispositive portion
of which is quoted earlier. The said decision was appealed by defendants to the Court of Appeals
which, in turn, certified the appeal to this Court. Plaintiffs-appellees failed to file a brief and this
appeal was submitted for decision without it.
Defendants-appellants submitted numerous assignments of error which can be condensed into two
questions, namely: .
(a) Whether the municipal court from which the case originated had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the same;
(b) Whether the defendants are, under the law, legally bound to pay rentals to the
plaintiffs during the period of one (1) year provided by law for the redemption of the
extrajudicially foreclosed house.
We will consider these questions seriatim.
(a) Defendants-appellants mortgagors question the jurisdiction of the municipal court from which the
case originated, and consequently, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance a quo, on
the theory that the chattel mortgage is void ab initio; whence it would follow that the extrajudicial
foreclosure, and necessarily the consequent auction sale, are also void. Thus, the ownership of the
house still remained with defendants-appellants who are entitled to possession and not plaintiffs-
appellees. Therefore, it is argued by defendants-appellants, the issue of ownership will have to be
adjudicated first in order to determine possession. lt is contended further that ownership being in
issue, it is the Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction and not the municipal court.
Defendants-appellants predicate their theory of nullity of the chattel mortgage on two grounds, which
are: (a) that, their signatures on the chattel mortgage were obtained through fraud, deceit, or
trickery; and (b) that the subject matter of the mortgage is a house of strong materials, and, being an
immovable, it can only be the subject of a real estate mortgage and not a chattel mortgage.
On the charge of fraud, deceit or trickery, the Court of First Instance found defendants-appellants'
contentions as not supported by evidence and accordingly dismissed the charge,
8
confirming the
earlier finding of the municipal court that "the defense of ownership as well as the allegations of fraud and
deceit ... are mere allegations."
9

It has been held in Supia and Batiaco vs. Quintero and Ayala
10
that "the answer is a mere statement of
the facts which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence;
11
and further, that when the
question to be determined is one of title, the Court is given the authority to proceed with the hearing of the
cause until this fact is clearly established. In the case of Sy vs. Dalman,
12
wherein the defendant was also
a successful bidder in an auction sale, it was likewise held by this Court that in detainer cases the aim of
ownership "is a matter of defense and raises an issue of fact which should be determined from the
evidence at the trial." What determines jurisdiction are the allegations or averments in the complaint and
the relief asked for.
13

Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, fraud or deceit does not render a contract void ab
initio, and can only be a ground for rendering the contract voidable or annullable pursuant to Article
1390 of the New Civil Code, by a proper action in court.
14
There is nothing on record to show that the
mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. Hence,
defendants-appellants' claim of ownership on the basis of a voidable contract which has not been voided
fails.
It is claimed in the alternative by defendants-appellants that even if there was no fraud, deceit or
trickery, the chattel mortgage was still null and void ab initio because only personal properties can
be subject of a chattel mortgage. The rule about the status of buildings as immovable property is
stated in Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc.,
15
cited in Associated Insurance Surety Co., Inc.
vs. Iya, et al.
16
to the effect that
... it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land,
in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties (art. 415, New Civil Code)
could only mean one thing that a building is by itself an immovable
property irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is
adhered to belong to the same owner.
Certain deviations, however, have been allowed for various reasons. In the case of Manarang and
Manarang vs. Ofilada,
17
this Court stated that "it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by
agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property", citing Standard Oil
Company of New York vs. Jaramillo.
18
In the latter case, the mortgagor conveyed and transferred to the
mortgagee by way of mortgage "the following described personal property."
19
The "personal property"
consisted of leasehold rights and a building. Again, in the case of Luna vs. Encarnacion,
20
the subject of
the contract designated as Chattel Mortgage was a house of mixed materials, and this Court hold therein
that it was a valid Chattel mortgage because it was so expressly designated and specifically that the
property given as security "is a house of mixed materials, which by its very nature is considered personal
property." In the later case of Navarro vs. Pineda,
21
this Court stated that
The view that parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house
as personal property for the purposes of said contract, "is good only insofar as the
contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel"
(Evangelista vs. Alto Surety, No. L-11139, 23 April 1958). In a case, a mortgaged
house built on a rented land was held to be a personal property, not only because
the deed of mortgage considered it as such, but also because it did not form part of
the land (Evangelists vs. Abad, [CA]; 36 O.G. 2913), for it is now settled that an
object placed on land by one who had only a temporary right to the same, such as
the lessee or usufructuary, does not become immobilized by attachment (Valdez vs.
Central Altagracia, 222 U.S. 58, cited in Davao Sawmill Co., Inc. vs. Castillo, et al.,
61 Phil. 709). Hence, if a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land
belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal property as so
stipulated in the document of mortgage. (Evangelista vs. Abad, Supra.) It should be
noted, however that the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring
his house to be a chattel, a conduct that may conceivably estop him from
subsequently claiming otherwise. (Ladera vs. C.N. Hodges, [CA] 48 O.G. 5374):
22

In the contract now before Us, the house on rented land is not only expressly designated as Chattel
Mortgage; it specifically provides that "the mortgagor ... voluntarily CEDES, SELLS and
TRANSFERS by way of Chattel Mortgage
23
the property together with its leasehold rights over the lot
on which it is constructed and participation ..."
24
Although there is no specific statement referring to the
subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel
mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least,
intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand
by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendats-appellants
merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of
the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties,
particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personalty. Finally unlike in the Iya
cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre, Inc.
25
and Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery and
Williamson,
26
wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage,
27
it is the defendants-
appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in
this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated
the subject house as personalty.
(b) Turning to the question of possession and rentals of the premises in question. The Court of First
Instance noted in its decision that nearly a year after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had
been demolished on 14 and 15 January 1957 by virtue of a decision obtained by the lessor of the
land on which the house stood. For this reason, the said court limited itself to sentencing the
erstwhile mortgagors to pay plaintiffs a monthly rent of P200.00 from 27 March 1956 (when the
chattel mortgage was foreclosed and the house sold) until 14 January 1957 (when it was torn down
by the Sheriff), plus P300.00 attorney's fees.
Appellants mortgagors question this award, claiming that they were entitled to remain in possession
without any obligation to pay rent during the one year redemption period after the foreclosure sale,
i.e., until 27 March 1957. On this issue, We must rule for the appellants.
Chattel mortgages are covered and regulated by the Chattel Mortgage Law, Act No. 1508.
28
Section
14 of this Act allows the mortgagee to have the property mortgaged sold at public auction through a
public officer in almost the same manner as that allowed by Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118,
provided that the requirements of the law relative to notice and registration are complied with.
29
In the
instant case, the parties specifically stipulated that "the chattel mortgage will be enforceable in
accordance with the provisions of Special Act No. 3135 ... ."
30
(Emphasis supplied).
Section 6 of the Act referred to
31
provides that the debtor-mortgagor (defendants-appellants herein)
may, at any time within one year from and after the date of the auction sale, redeem the property sold at
the extra judicial foreclosure sale. Section 7 of the same Act
32
allows the purchaser of the property to
obtain from the court the possession during the period of redemption: but the same provision expressly
requires the filing of a petition with the proper Court of First Instance and the furnishing of a bond. It is
only upon filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond that the order for a writ
of possession issues as a matter of course. No discretion is left to the court.
33
In the absence of such a
compliance, as in the instant case, the purchaser can not claim possession during the period of
redemption as a matter of right. In such a case, the governing provision is Section 34, Rule 39, of the
Revised Rules of Court
34
which also applies to properties purchased in extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings.
35
Construing the said section, this Court stated in the aforestated case of Reyes vs.
Hamada.
In other words, before the expiration of the 1-year period within which the judgment-
debtor or mortgagor may redeem the property, the purchaser thereof is not entitled,
as a matter of right, to possession of the same. Thus, while it is true that the Rules of
Court allow the purchaser to receive the rentals if the purchased property is occupied
by tenants, he is, nevertheless, accountable to the judgment-debtor or mortgagor as
the case may be, for the amount so received and the same will be duly credited
against the redemption price when the said debtor or mortgagor effects the
redemption.Differently stated, the rentals receivable from tenants, although they may
be collected by the purchaser during the redemption period, do not belong to the
latter but still pertain to the debtor of mortgagor. The rationale for the Rule, it seems,
is to secure for the benefit of the debtor or mortgagor, the payment of the redemption
amount and the consequent return to him of his properties sold at public auction.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Hamada case reiterates the previous ruling in Chan vs. Espe.
36

Since the defendants-appellants were occupying the house at the time of the auction sale, they are
entitled to remain in possession during the period of redemption or within one year from and after 27
March 1956, the date of the auction sale, and to collect the rents or profits during the said period.
It will be noted further that in the case at bar the period of redemption had not yet expired when
action was instituted in the court of origin, and that plaintiffs-appellees did not choose to take
possession under Section 7, Act No. 3135, as amended, which is the law selected by the parties to
govern the extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Neither was there an allegation to that
effect. Since plaintiffs-appellees' right to possess was not yet born at the filing of the complaint, there
could be no violation or breach thereof. Wherefore, the original complaint stated no cause of action
and was prematurely filed. For this reason, the same should be ordered dismissed, even if there was
no assignment of error to that effect. The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review
palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a
just decision of the cases.
37

It follows that the court below erred in requiring the mortgagors to pay rents for the year following the
foreclosure sale, as well as attorney's fees.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision appealed from is reversed and another one
entered, dismissing the complaint. With costs against plaintiffs-appellees.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Exhibit "A," page 1, Folder of Exhibits.
3 Exhibit "B," page 4, Folder of Exhibits.
4 Page 2, Defendants' Record on appeal, page 97, Rollo.
5 Page 20, Id., page 115, Rollo.
6 Now Section 2, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court, which reads that
"SEC. 2. Landlord, to proceed against tenant only after demand. No landlord, or
his legal representative or assign, shall bring such action against a tenant for failure
to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall
have failed to pay such rent or comply with such conditions for a period of ... five (5)
days in the case of building, after demand therefor, made upon him personally, or by
serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by
posting such notice on the premises if no persons be found thereon."
7 See CFI order of 20 February 1957, pages 21-25, Defendants' Record on Appeal.
8 Page 31, Defendants' Record on Appeal, page 213, Rollo.
9 See Municipal court decision, pages 17-18, Defendants' Record on Appeal, pages
199-200, Rollo.
10 59 Phil. 320-321.
12 L-19200, 27 February 1958, 22 SCRA 834; See also Aquino vs. Deala, 63 Phil.
582 and De los Reyes vs. Elepao, et al., G.R. No. L-3466, 13 October 1950.
13 See Canaynay vs. Sarmiento, L-1246, 27 August 1947, 79 Phil. 36.
14 Last paragraph, Article 1290, N.C.C., supra.
15 No. L-10817-18, 28 February 1958, 103 Phil. 98.
16 No. L-10827-38, 30 May 1958, 103 Phil. 972.
17 No. L-8133, 18 May 1956, 99 Phil. 109.
18 No. L-20329, 16 March 1923, 44 Phil. 632.
20 No. L-4637, 30 June 1952, 91 Phil. 531.
21 No. L-18456, 30 November 1963, 9 SCRA 631.
24 See paragraph 2 of Exhibit "A," page 1, Folder of Exhibits.
25 Supra.
26 Supra.
27 See Navarro vs. Pineda, supra.
28 Effective 1 August 1906.
29 See Luna vs. Encarnacion, et al., No. L-4637, 30 June 1952, 91 Phil. 531.
31 Section 6, Act No. 3135, as amended, provides:
"In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power
hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successor in interest or any judicial creditor
or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may
redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of
the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four
hundredand sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
32 Section 7, Act No. 3135, as amended, states: .
"In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the
Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof
is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing
bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve
months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without
violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act..."
33 See De Gracia vs. San Jose, et al., No. L-6493, 25 March 1954.
34 "SEC. 34. Rents and profits pending redemption. Statement thereof and credit
therefor on redemption. The purchaser, from the time of the sale until a
redemption, and a redemptioner, from the time of his redemption until another
redemption, is entitled to receive the rents of the property sold or the value of the use
and occupation thereof when such property is in possession of a tenant. But when
any such rents and profits have been received by the judgment creditor or purchaser,
or by a redemptioner, or by the assignee or either of them, from property thus sold
preceding such redemption, the amounts of such rents and profits shall be a credit
upon the redemption money to be paid; ..."
35 See Reyes vs. Hamada, No. L-19967, 31 May 1965, 14 SCRA 215; Emphasis
supplied.
36 No. L-16777, 20 April 1961, 1 SCRA 1004.
37 Saura Import & Export Co. vs. Philippine International Surety Co., et al., No. L-
15184, 31 May 1963, 8 SCRA 143, 148; Hernandez vs. Andal, 78 Phil.198, See also
Sec. 7, Rule 51, of the Revised Rules of Court. Cf. Santaells vs.Otto Lange Co., 155
Fed. 719; Mast vs. Superior Drill Co., 154 Fed., 45, Francisco, Rules of Court (1965
Ed), Vol. 3, page 765.

Cases For Property

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Cases For Property

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Republic of the Philippines

Anda mungkin juga menyukai