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.


LOPEZ V. OROSA AND
PLAZA THEATRE
103 SCRA 98
FACTS:
1. Lopez was engaged in business under the name Lopez-Castelo Sawmill.
2. Orosa, who lived in the same province as Lopez, one dayapproached Lopez and invited the latter to
make an investment inthe theatre business.
3. Orosa, his family and close friends apparently were forming acorporation named Plaza Theatre.
4. Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest. Nonetheless, therewas an oral agreement between Lopez
and Orosa that Lopezwould be supplying the lumber for the construction of the theatre.The terms were
the following: one, Orosa would be personallyliable for any account that the said construction would incur;
two,payment would be by demand and not by cash on delivery.
5. Pursuant to the agreement, Lopez delivered the lumber for theconstruction. Lopez was only paid one-
third of the total cost.
6. The land on which the building has been erected was previously owned by Orosa, which was later on
purchased by the corporation.
7. Due to the incessant demands of Lopez, the corporation mortgaged its properties.
8. On an earlier relevant date, the corporation obtained a loan with Luzon Surety Company as surety and
in turn, the corporation executed a mortgage over the land and building. In the registration of the land
under Act 496, such mortgage wasnt revealed.
9. Also due to the demands of Lopez, Orosa issued a deed of assignment over his shares of stock in the
corporation.
10. As there was still an unpaid balance, Lopez filed a case against Orosa and Plaza theatre. He asked
that Orosa and Plaza theatre be held liable solidarily for the unpaid balance; and in case defendants
failed to pay, the land and building should be sold in public auction with the proceeds to be applied to the
balance; or
that the shares of stock be sold in public auction. Lopez also had lis pendens be annotated in the OCT.
11. The trial court decided that there was joint liability between defendants and that the materialmans lien
was only confined tothe building.
ISSUES:
W/N the materialmens lien for the value of the materials used in the construction of the building attaches
to said structure alone and doesnt extend to the land on which the building is adhered to?
HELD:
The contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of materials used for the construction and
repair of a building is also extended to land on which the building was constructed is without merit. 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 in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties could
only mean one thingthat a building is by itself an immovable property. Moreover, in the absence of
any specific provision 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.
Appelant invoked Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, which providesWith respect to determinate
real property and real rights of the debtor, the following are preferred: xxx Credits for reflection, not
entered or recorded, and only with respect to other credits different from those mentioned in four next
preceding paragraphs. Close examination of the abovementioned provision reveals that the law gives
preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the
refectionary 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. 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.



G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE and SURETY COMPANY, INC., plaintiff,
vs.
ISABEL IYA, ADRIANO VALINO and LUCIA VALINO, defendants.
ISABEL IYA, plaintiff,
vs.
ADRIANO VALINO, LUCIA VALINO and ASSOCIATED INSURANCE and SURETY COMPANY.
INC., defendants.
Jovita L. de Dios for defendant Isabel Iya.
M. Perez Cardenas and Apolonio Abola for defendant Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc.
FELIX, J .:
Adriano Valino and Lucia A. Valino, husband and wife, were the owners and possessors of a house
of strong materials constructed on Lot No. 3, Block No. 80 of the Grace Park Subdivision in
Caloocan, Rizal, which they purchased on installment basis from the Philippine Realty Corporation.
On November 6, 1951, to enable her to purchase on credit rice from the NARIC, Lucia A. Valino filed
a bond in the sum of P11,000.00 (AISCO Bond No. G-971) subscribed by the Associated Insurance
and Surety Co., Inc., and as counter-guaranty therefor, the spouses Valino executed an
alleged chattel mortgage on the aforementioned house in favor of the surety company, which
encumbrance was duly registered with the Chattel Mortgage Register of Rizal on December 6, 1951.
It is admitted that at the time said undertaking took place, the parcel of land on which the house is
erected was still registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation. Having completed
payment on the purchase price of the lot, the Valinos were able to secure on October 18, 1958, a
certificate of title in their name (T.C.T. No. 27884). Subsequently, however, or on October 24, 1952,
the Valinos, to secure payment of an indebtedness in the amount of P12,000.00, executed a real
estate mortgage over the lot and the house in favor of Isabel Iya, which was duly registered and
annotated at the back of the certificate of title.
On the other hand, as Lucia A. Valino, failed to satisfy her obligation to the NARIC, the surety
company was compelled to pay the same pursuant to the undertaking of the bond. In turn, the surety
company demanded reimbursement from the spouses Valino, and as the latter likewise failed to do
so, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage over the house. As a result thereof, a public sale
was conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal on December 26, 1952, wherein the property was
awarded to the surety company for P8,000.00, the highest bid received therefor. The surety
company then caused the said house to be declared in its name for tax purposes (Tax Declaration
No. 25128).
Sometime in July, 1953, the surety company learned of the existence of the real estate mortgage
over the lot covered by T.C.T. No. 26884 together with the improvements thereon; thus, said surety
company instituted Civil Case No. 2162 of the Court of First Instance of Manila naming Adriano and
Lucia Valino and Isabel Iya, the mortgagee, as defendants. The complaint prayed for the exclusion
of the residential house from the real estate mortgage in favor of defendant Iya and the declaration
and recognition of plaintiff's right to ownership over the same in virtue of the award given by the
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal during the public auction held on December 26, 1952. Plaintiff likewise
asked the Court to sentence the spouses Valino to pay said surety moral and exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and costs. Defendant Isabel Iya filed her answer to the complaint alleging among
other things, that in virtue of the real estate mortgage executed by her co-defendants, she acquired
a real right over the lot and the house constructed thereon; that the auction sale allegedly conducted
by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal as a result of the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on the house
was null and void for non-compliance with the form required by law. She, therefore, prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint and anullment of the sale made by the Provincial Sheriff. She also
demanded the amount of P5,000.00 from plaintiff as counterclaim, the sum of P5,000.00 from her
co-defendants as crossclaim, for attorney's fees and costs.
Defendants spouses in their answer admitted some of the averments of the complaint and denied
the others. They, however, prayed for the dismissal of the action for lack of cause of action, it being
alleged that plaintiff was already the owner of the house in question, and as said defendants
admitted this fact, the claim of the former was already satisfied.
On October 29, 1953, Isabel Iya filed another civil action against the Valinos and the surety company
(Civil Case No. 2504 of the Court of First Instance of Manila) stating that pursuant to the contract of
mortgage executed by the spouses Valino on October 24, 1952, the latter undertook to pay a loan of
P12,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum or P120.00 a month, which indebtedness was payable in
4 years, extendible for only one year; that to secure payment thereof, said defendants mortgaged
the house and lot covered by T.C.T. No. 27884 located at No. 67 Baltazar St., Grace Park
Subdivision, Caloocan, Rizal; that the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., was included as a
party defendant because it claimed to have an interest on the residential house also covered by said
mortgage; that it was stipulated in the aforesaid real estate mortgage that default in the payment of
the interest agreed upon would entitle the mortgagee to foreclose the same even before the lapse of
the 4-year period; and as defendant spouses had allegedly failed to pay the interest for more than 6
months, plaintiff prayed the Court to order said defendants to pay the sum of P12,000.00 with
interest thereon at 12% per annum from March 25, 1953, until fully paid; for an additional sum
equivalent to 20% of the total obligation as damages, and for costs. As an alternative in case such
demand may not be met and satisfied plaintiff prayed for a decree of foreclosure of the land, building
and other improvements thereon to be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof applied to
satisfy the demands of plaintiff; that the Valinos, the surety company and any other person claiming
interest on the mortgaged properties be barred and foreclosed of all rights, claims or equity of
redemption in said properties; and for deficiency judgment in case the proceeds of the sale of the
mortgaged property would be insufficient to satisfy the claim of plaintiff.
Defendant surety company, in answer to this complaint insisted on its right over the building, arguing
that as the lot on which the house was constructed did not belong to the spouses at the time the
chattel mortgage was executed, the house might be considered only as a personal property and that
the encumbrance thereof and the subsequent foreclosure proceedings made pursuant to the
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law were proper and legal. Defendant therefore prayed that said
building be excluded from the real estate mortgage and its right over the same be declared superior
to that of plaintiff, for damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Taking side with the surety company, defendant spouses admitted the due execution of the
mortgage upon the land but assailed the allegation that the building was included thereon, it being
contended that it was already encumbered in favor of the surety company before the real estate
mortgage was executed, a fact made known to plaintiff during the preparation of said contract and to
which the latter offered no objection. As a special defense, it was asserted that the action was
premature because the contract was for a period of 4 years, which had not yet elapsed.
The two cases were jointly heard upon agreement of the parties, who submitted the same on a
stipulation of facts, after which the Court rendered judgment dated March 8, 1956, holding that the
chattel mortgage in favor of the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., was preferred and
superior over the real estate mortgage subsequently executed in favor of Isabel Iya. It was ruled that
as the Valinos were not yet the registered owner of the land on which the building in question was
constructed at the time the first encumbrance was made, the building then was still a personality and
a chattel mortgage over the same was proper. However, as the mortgagors were already the owner
of the land at the time the contract with Isabel Iya was entered into, the building was transformed
into a real property and the real estate mortgage created thereon was likewise adjudged as proper. It
is to be noted in this connection that there is no evidence on record to sustain the allegation of the
spouses Valino that at the time they mortgaged their house and lot to Isabel Iya, the latter was told
or knew that part of the mortgaged property, i.e., the house, had previously been mortgaged to the
surety company.
The residential building was, therefore, ordered excluded from the foreclosure prayed for by Isabel
Iya, although the latter could exercise the right of a junior encumbrance. So the spouses Valino were
ordered to pay the amount demanded by said mortgagee or in their default to have the parcel of land
subject of the mortgage sold at public auction for the satisfaction of Iya's claim.
There is no question as to appellant's right over the land covered by the real estate mortgage;
however, as the building constructed thereon has been the subject of 2 mortgages; controversy arise
as to which of these encumbrances should receive preference over the other. The decisive factor in
resolving the issue presented by this appeal is the determination of the nature of the structure
litigated upon, for where it be considered a personality, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and
the subsequent sale thereof at public auction, made in accordance with the Chattel Mortgage Law
would be valid and the right acquired by the surety company therefrom would certainly deserve prior
recognition; otherwise, appellant's claim for preference must be granted. The lower Court, deciding
in favor of the surety company, based its ruling on the premise that as the mortgagors were not the
owners of the land on which the building is erected at the time the first encumbrance was made, said
structure partook of the nature of a personal property and could properly be the subject of a chattel
mortgage. We find reason to hold otherwise, for as this Court, defining the nature or character of a
building, has said:
. . . 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 (Art. 415, new Civil Code) could only
mean one thing that a building is by itself an immovable property . . . Moreover, and in
view of the absence of any specific provision 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. (Lopez vs. Orosa, G.R. Nos. supra, p. 98).
A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it
is constructed belongs to another. To hold it the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would
result in confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made dependent on the
ownership of the land, would create a situation where a permanent fixture changes its nature or
character as the ownership of the land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties
could only be the subject of a chattel mortgage (Section 1, Act 3952) and as obviously the structure
in question is not one, the execution of the chattel mortgage covering said building is clearly invalid
and a nullity. While it is true that said document was correspondingly registered in the Chattel
Mortgage Register of Rizal, this act produced no effect whatsoever for where the interest conveyed
is in the nature of a real property, the registration of the document in the registry of chattels is merely
a futile act. Thus, the registration of the chattel mortgage of a building of strong materials produce no
effect as far as the building is concerned (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644). Nor
can we give any consideration to the contention of the surety that it has acquired ownership over the
property in question by reason of the sale conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, for as this
Court has aptly pronounced:
A mortgage creditor who purchases real properties at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
thereof by virtue of a chattel mortgage constituted in his favor, which mortgage has been
declared null and void with respect to said real properties, acquires no right thereto by virtue
of said sale (De la Riva vs. Ah Keo, 60 Phil., 899).
Wherefore the portion of the decision of the lower Court in these two cases appealed from holding
the rights of the surety company, over the building superior to that of Isabel Iya and excluding the
building from the foreclosure prayed for by the latter is reversed and appellant Isabel Iya's right to
foreclose not only the land but also the building erected thereon is hereby recognized, and the
proceeds of the sale thereof at public auction (if the land has not yet been sold), shall be applied to
the unsatisfied judgment in favor of Isabel Iya. This decision however is without prejudice to any right
that the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., may have against the spouses Adriano and
Lucia Valino on account of the mortgage of said building they executed in favor of said surety
company. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA, ET. AL
103 SCRA 972
G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958

FACTS:
Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from Philippine Realty Corporation.
To be able to purchase on credit rice from NARIC, they filed a surety bond subscribed by petitioner and
therefor, they executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the house in favor of the surety company. The
spouses didnt own yet the land on which the house was constructed on at the time of the undertaking.
After being able to purchase the land, to be able to secure payment for indebtedness, the spouses
executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya.

The spouses were not able to satisfy obligation with NARIC, petitioner was compelled to pay. The
spouses werent able to pay the surety company despite demands and thus, the company foreclosed the
chattel mortgage. It later learned of the real estate mortgage over the house and lot secured by the
spouses. This prompted the company to file an action against the spouses. Also, Iya filed another civil
action against the spouses, asserting that she has a better right over the property. The trial court heard
the two cases jointly and it held that the surety company had a preferred right over the building as since
when the chattel mortgage was secured, the land wasnt owned yet by the spouses making the building
then a chattel and not a real property.


ISSUE:

WON the auction sale was null and void
WON the house can be considered as personal property.
HELD:
A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it is
constructed belongs to another. To hold it the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would
result in confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made dependent on ownership of
the land, would create a situation where a permanent fixture changes its nature or character as the
ownership of the land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties may be the only subjects
of a chattel mortgage, the execution of the chattel mortgage covering said building is null and void.



G.R. No. L-16218 November 29, 1962
ANTONIA BICERRA, DOMINGO BICERRA, BERNARDO BICERRA, CAYETANO BICERRA,
LINDA BICERRA, PIO BICERRA and EUFRICINA BICERRA, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN BARBOSA, defendants-appellees.
Agripino Brillantes and Alberto B. Bravo for plaintiffs-appellants.
Ernesto Parol for defendants-appellees.
MAKALINTAL, J .:
This case is before us on appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Abra dismissing the
complaint filed by appellants, upon motion of defendants-appellate on the ground that the action was
within the exclude (original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, of the same
province.
The complaint alleges in substance that appellants were the owners of the house, worth P200.00,
built on and owned by them and situated in the said municipality Lagangilang; that sometime in
January 1957 appealed forcibly demolished the house, claiming to be the owners thereof; that the
materials of the house, after it was dismantled, were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant of
the place; and that as a result of appellate's refusal to restore the house or to deliver the material
appellants the latter have suffered actual damages the amount of P200.00, plus moral and
consequential damages in the amount of P600.00. The relief prayed for is that "the plaintiffs be
declared the owners of the house in question and/or the materials that resulted in (sic) its
dismantling; (and) that the defendants be orders pay the sum of P200.00, plus P600.00 as damages,
the costs."
The issue posed by the parties in this appeal is whether the action involves title to real property, as
appellants contend, and therefore is cognizable by the Court of First Instance (Sec. 44, par. [b], R.A.
296, as amended), whether it pertains to the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court, as stated
in the order appealed from, since there is no real property litigated, the house having ceased to
exist, and the amount of the demand does exceed P2,000.00 (Sec. 88, id.)
1

The dismissal of the complaint was proper. A house is classified as immovable property by reason of
its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Art. 415, par. 1, Civil Code). This classification holds true
regardless of the fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But
once the house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its character as
an immovable likewise ceases. It should be noted that the complaint here is for recovery of
damages. This is the only positive relief prayed for by appellants. To be sure, they also asked that
they be declared owners of the dismantled house and/or of the materials. However, such declaration
in no wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted by final judgment could be enforceable by
execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages.
The order appealed from is affirmed. The appeal having been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs
are adjudged.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes,
Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

BICERRA V. TENEZA

FACTS:

The Bicerras are supposedly the owners of the house (PhP 20,000) built on a lot owned by them in
Lagangilang, Abra; which the Tenezas forcibly demolished in January 1957, claiming to be the owners
thereof. The materials of the house were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras filed
a complaint claiming actual damages of P200, moral and consequential damages amounting to P600,
and the costs. The CFI Abra dismissed the complaint claiming that the action was within the exclusive
(original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, Abra.

The Supreme Court affirmed the order appealed. Having been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs were
adjudged.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the house is immovable property even if it is on the land of another

RULING:
Yes.

House is immovable property even if situated on land belonging to a different owner; Exception, when
demolished.

A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built
(Article 415, paragraph 1, Civil Code). This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the house
may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But once the house is demolished, as in this
case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its character as an immovable likewise ceases.



G.R. No. L-11658 February 15, 1918
LEUNG YEE, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY and J. G. WILLIAMSON, defendants-appellees.
Booram and Mahoney for appellant.
Williams, Ferrier and SyCip for appellees.
CARSON, J .:
The "Compaia Agricola Filipina" bought a considerable quantity of rice-cleaning machinery from the
defendant machinery company, and executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure payment of the
purchase price. It included in the mortgage deed the building of strong materials in which the
machinery was installed, without any reference to the land on which it stood. The indebtedness
secured by this instrument not having been paid when it fell due, the mortgaged property was sold
by the sheriff, in pursuance of the terms of the mortgage instrument, and was bought in by the
machinery company. The mortgage was registered in the chattel mortgage registry, and the sale of
the property to the machinery company in satisfaction of the mortgage was annotated in the same
registry on December 29, 1913.
A few weeks thereafter, on or about the 14th of January, 1914, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina"
executed a deed of sale of the land upon which the building stood to the machinery company, but
this deed of sale, although executed in a public document, was not registered. This deed makes no
reference to the building erected on the land and would appear to have been executed for the
purpose of curing any defects which might be found to exist in the machinery company's title to the
building under the sheriff's certificate of sale. The machinery company went into possession of the
building at or about the time when this sale took place, that is to say, the month of December, 1913,
and it has continued in possession ever since.
At or about the time when the chattel mortgage was executed in favor of the machinery company,
the mortgagor, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" executed another mortgage to the plaintiff upon the
building, separate and apart from the land on which it stood, to secure payment of the balance of its
indebtedness to the plaintiff under a contract for the construction of the building. Upon the failure of
the mortgagor to pay the amount of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, the plaintiff secured
judgment for that amount, levied execution upon the building, bought it in at the sheriff's sale on or
about the 18th of December, 1914, and had the sheriff's certificate of the sale duly registered in the
land registry of the Province of Cavite.
At the time when the execution was levied upon the building, the defendant machinery company,
which was in possession, filed with the sheriff a sworn statement setting up its claim of title and
demanding the release of the property from the levy. Thereafter, upon demand of the sheriff, the
plaintiff executed an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff in the sum of P12,000, in reliance upon
which the sheriff sold the property at public auction to the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder at the
sheriff's sale.
This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the building from the machinery
company.
The trial judge, relying upon the terms of article 1473 of the Civil Code, gave judgment in favor of the
machinery company, on the ground that the company had its title to the building registered prior to
the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate.
Article 1473 of the Civil Code is as follows:
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transfer
to the person who may have the first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
personal property.
Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the
registry.
Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of
it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.
The registry here referred to is of course the registry of real property, and it must be apparent that
the annotation or inscription of a deed of sale of real property in a chattel mortgage registry cannot
be given the legal effect of an inscription in the registry of real property. By its express terms, the
Chattel Mortgage Law contemplates and makes provision for mortgages of personal property; and
the sole purpose and object of the chattel mortgage registry is to provide for the registry of "Chattel
mortgages," that is to say, mortgages of personal property executed in the manner and form
prescribed in the statute. The building of strong materials in which the rice-cleaning machinery was
installed by the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" was real property, and the mere fact that the parties
seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its
character as real property. It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage of the
building and the machinery installed therein, not the annotation in that registry of the sale of the
mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building was concerned.
We conclude that the ruling in favor of the machinery company cannot be sustained on the ground
assigned by the trial judge. We are of opinion, however, that the judgment must be sustained on the
ground that the agreed statement of facts in the court below discloses that neither the purchase of
the building by the plaintiff nor his inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale in his favor was made
in good faith, and that the machinery company must be held to be the owner of the property under
the third paragraph of the above cited article of the code, it appearing that the company first took
possession of the property; and further, that the building and the land were sold to the machinery
company long prior to the date of the sheriff's sale to the plaintiff.
It has been suggested that since the provisions of article 1473 of the Civil Code require "good faith,"
in express terms, in relation to "possession" and "title," but contain no express requirement as to
"good faith" in relation to the "inscription" of the property on the registry, it must be presumed that
good faith is not an essential requisite of registration in order that it may have the effect
contemplated in this article. We cannot agree with this contention. It could not have been the
intention of the legislator to base the preferential right secured under this article of the code upon an
inscription of title in bad faith. Such an interpretation placed upon the language of this section would
open wide the door to fraud and collusion. The public records cannot be converted into instruments
of fraud and oppression by one who secures an inscription therein in bad faith. The force and effect
given by law to an inscription in a public record presupposes the good faith of him who enters such
inscription; and rights created by statute, which are predicated upon an inscription in a public
registry, do not and cannot accrue under an inscription "in bad faith," to the benefit of the person who
thus makes the inscription.
Construing the second paragraph of this article of the code, the supreme court of Spain held in its
sentencia of the 13th of May, 1908, that:
This rule is always to be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first
paragraph; therefore, it having been found that the second purchasers who record their
purchase had knowledge of the previous sale, the question is to be decided in accordance
with the following paragraph. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, Medina and Maranon [1911]
edition.)
Although article 1473, in its second paragraph, provides that the title of conveyance of
ownership of the real property that is first recorded in the registry shall have preference, this
provision must always be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first
paragraph; the legislator could not have wished to strike it out and to sanction bad faith, just
to comply with a mere formality which, in given cases, does not obtain even in real disputes
between third persons. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, issued by the publishers of the La
Revista de los Tribunales, 13th edition.)
The agreed statement of facts clearly discloses that the plaintiff, when he bought the building at the
sheriff's sale and inscribed his title in the land registry, was duly notified that the machinery company
had bought the building from plaintiff's judgment debtor; that it had gone into possession long prior to
the sheriff's sale; and that it was in possession at the time when the sheriff executed his levy. The
execution of an indemnity bond by the plaintiff in favor of the sheriff, after the machinery company
had filed its sworn claim of ownership, leaves no room for doubt in this regard. Having bought in the
building at the sheriff's sale with full knowledge that at the time of the levy and sale the building had
already been sold to the machinery company by the judgment debtor, the plaintiff cannot be said to
have been a purchaser in good faith; and of course, the subsequent inscription of the sheriff's
certificate of title must be held to have been tainted with the same defect.
Perhaps we should make it clear that in holding that the inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale
to the plaintiff was not made in good faith, we should not be understood as questioning, in any way,
the good faith and genuineness of the plaintiff's claim against the "Compaia Agricola Filipina." The
truth is that both the plaintiff and the defendant company appear to have had just and righteous
claims against their common debtor. No criticism can properly be made of the exercise of the utmost
diligence by the plaintiff in asserting and exercising his right to recover the amount of his claim from
the estate of the common debtor. We are strongly inclined to believe that in procuring the levy of
execution upon the factory building and in buying it at the sheriff's sale, he considered that he was
doing no more than he had a right to do under all the circumstances, and it is highly possible and
even probable that he thought at that time that he would be able to maintain his position in a contest
with the machinery company. There was no collusion on his part with the common debtor, and no
thought of the perpetration of a fraud upon the rights of another, in the ordinary sense of the word.
He may have hoped, and doubtless he did hope, that the title of the machinery company would not
stand the test of an action in a court of law; and if later developments had confirmed his unfounded
hopes, no one could question the legality of the propriety of the course he adopted.
But it appearing that he had full knowledge of the machinery company's claim of ownership when he
executed the indemnity bond and bought in the property at the sheriff's sale, and it appearing further
that the machinery company's claim of ownership was well founded, he cannot be said to have been
an innocent purchaser for value. He took the risk and must stand by the consequences; and it is in
this sense that we find that he was not a purchaser in good faith.
One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim
that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest
therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have
put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects
in the title of his vendor. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable
man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no
defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful
closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, will not make him
an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it
appears that he had such notice of the defects as would have led to its discovery had he acted with
that measure of precaution which may reasonably be acquired of a prudent man in a like situation.
Good faith, or lack of it, is in its analysis a question of intention; but in ascertaining the intention by
which one is actuated on a given occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the
conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. So it is
that "the honesty of intention," "the honest lawful intent," which constitutes good faith implies a
"freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry," and so it is
that proof of such knowledge overcomes the presumption of good faith in which the courts always
indulge in the absence of proof to the contrary. "Good faith, or the want of it, is not a visible, tangible
fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of
by actual or fancied tokens or signs." (Wilder vs. Gilman, 55 Vt., 504, 505; Cf. Cardenas Lumber
Co. vs. Shadel, 52 La. Ann., 2094-2098; Pinkerton Bros. Co. vs. Bromley, 119 Mich., 8, 10, 17.)
We conclude that upon the grounds herein set forth the disposing part of the decision and judgment
entered in the court below should be affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellant. So
ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
Torres, Avancea and Fisher, JJ., took no part.


G.R. No. L-11658: Leung Yee vs Strong Machinery Co.


MultipleSale to Different Vendees Real vs Personal Property

In 1913, Compania Agricola Filipina was indebted to two personalities: Leung Yee
and Strong Machinery Co. CAF purchased some rice cleaning machines from
SMCo. CAF installed the machines in a building. As security for the purchase
price, CAF executed a chattel mortgage on the rice cleaning machines including the
building where the machines were installed. CAF failed to pay SMCo, hence the
latter foreclosed the mortgage the same was registered in the chattel mortgage
registry.

CAF also sold the land (where the building was standing) to SMCo. SMCo took
possession of the building and the land.

On the other hand, Yee, another creditor of CAF who actually engaged in the
construction of the building, being the highest bidder in an auction conducted by
the sheriff, purchased the same building where the machines were installed.
Apparently CAF was also executed a chattel mortgage in favor Yee. Yee registered
the sale in the registry of land. Yee was however aware that prior to his buying, the
property has been sold in favor of SMCo evidence is the chattel mortgage already
registered by SMCo.

ISSUE: Who is the owner of the building?

HELD: The SC ruled that SMCo has a better right tothe contested property. Yee
cannot be regarded as a buyer in good faith as he was already aware of the fact that
there was a prior sale of the same property to SMCo.

The SC also noted that the Chattel Mortgage Law expressly contemplates
provisions for chattel mortgages which only deal with personal properties. The fact
that the parties dealt the building as if its a personal property does not change the
nature of the thing. It is still a real property. Its inscription in the Chattel Mortgage
registry does not modify its inscription the registry of real property.



March 16, 1923
G.R. No. L-20329
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, petitioner,
vs.
JOAQUIN JARAMILLO, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, respondent.
Ross, Lawrence and Selph for petitioner.
City Fiscal Revilla and Assistant City Fiscal Rodas for respondent.
Street, J .:
This cause is before us upon demurrer interposed by the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, register of
deeds of the City of Manila, to an original petition of the Standard Oil Company of New York, seeking
a peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent to record in the proper register a document
purporting to be a chattel mortgage executed in the City of Manila by Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de
Vera, in favor of the Standard Oil Company of New York.
It appears from the petition that on November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the
lessee of a parcel of land situated in the City of Manila and owner of the house of strong materials
built thereon, upon which date she executed a document in the form of a chattel mortgage,
purporting to convey to the petitioner by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said lot and
the building which stands thereon.
The clauses in said document describing the property intended to be thus mortgage are expressed
in the following words:
Now, therefore, the mortgagor hereby conveys and transfer to the mortgagee, by way of mortgage,
the following described personal property, situated in the City of Manila, and now in possession of
the mortgagor, to wit:
(1) All of the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in and to the contract of lease hereinabove
referred to, and in and to the premises the subject of the said lease;
(2) The building, property of the mortgagor, situated on the aforesaid leased premises.
After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the petitioner caused the same to
be presented to the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the
purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record of chattel mortgages. Upon examination
of the instrument, the respondent was of the opinion that it was not a chattel mortgage, for the
reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not appear to be personal property, within the
meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and registration was refused on this ground only.
We are of the opinion that the position taken by the respondent is untenable; and it is his duty to
accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record. The duties of a register of deeds in
respect to the registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely ministerial character; and no provision
of law can be cited which confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the
nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage.
The original provisions touching this matter are contained in section 15 of the Chattel Mortgage Law
(Act No. 1508), as amended by Act No. 2496; but these have been transferred to section 198 of the
Administrative Code, where they are now found. There is nothing in any of these provisions
conferring upon the register of deeds any authority whatever in respect to the qualification, as the
term is used in Spanish law, of chattel mortgage. His duties in respect to such instruments are
ministerial only. The efficacy of the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it
operates as constructive notice of the existence of the contract, and the legal effects of the contract
must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice. Registration adds
nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobodys rights except as a
specifies of notice.
Articles 334 and 335 of the Civil Code supply no absolute criterion for discriminating between real
property and personal property for purpose of the application of the Chattel Mortgage Law. Those
articles state rules which, considered as a general doctrine, are law in this jurisdiction; but it must not
be forgotten that under given conditions property may have character different from that imputed to it
in said articles. It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal
property that which by nature would be real property; and it is a familiar phenomenon to see things
classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered
personal property. Other situations are constantly arising, and from time to time are presented to this
court, in which the proper classification of one thing or another as real or personal property may be
said to be doubtful.
The point submitted to us in this case was determined on September 8, 1914, in an administrative
ruling promulgated by the Honorable James A. Ostrand, now a Justice of this Court, but acting at
that time in the capacity of Judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth
Judicial District, in the City of Manila; and little of value can be here added to the observations
contained in said ruling. We accordingly quote therefrom as follows:
It is unnecessary here to determine whether or not the property described in the document in
question is real or personal; the discussion may be confined to the point as to whether a register of
deeds has authority to deny the registration of a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage and
executed in the manner and form prescribed by the Chattel Mortgage Law.
Then, after quoting section 5 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), his Honor continued:
Based principally upon the provisions of section quoted the Attorney-General of the Philippine
Islands, in an opinion dated August 11, 1909, held that a register of deeds has no authority to pass
upon the capacity of the parties to a chattel mortgage which is presented to him for record. A fortiori
a register of deeds can have no authority to pass upon the character of the property sought to be
encumbered by a chattel mortgage. Of course, if the mortgaged property is real instead of personal
the chattel mortgage would no doubt be held ineffective as against third parties, but this is a question
to be determined by the courts of justice and not by the register of deeds.
In Leung Yee vs. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson (37 Phil., 644), this court held that
where the interest conveyed is of the nature of real, property, the placing of the document on record
in the chattel mortgage register is a futile act; but that decision is not decisive of the question now
before us, which has reference to the function of the register of deeds in placing the document on
record.
In the light of what has been said it becomes unnecessary for us to pass upon the point whether the
interests conveyed in the instrument now in question are real or personal; and we declare it to be the
duty of the register of deeds to accept the estimate placed upon the document by the petitioner and
to register it, upon payment of the proper fee.
The demurrer is overruled; and unless within the period of five days from the date of the notification
hereof, the respondent shall interpose a sufficient answer to the petition, the writ of mandamus will
be issued, as prayed, but without costs. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avancea, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.


Standard Oil Co. of New York vs Jaramillo
44 Phil 630
Date

FACTS:
Gervasia dela Rosa executed a document in the form of a Chattel Mortgage purporting
to convey to Standard Oil Co. by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest of the
land she leases in Manila and the building which stands thereon.

The clauses in said document describe the property as personal including the right,
title and interest of the mortgagor in and to the contract of lease and also the
building of the said premises therein.

After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the petitioner
presented it to Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the
purpose of having the same recorded. The respondent opined that it was not a chattel
mortgage for the interests mortgaged did not appear to be personal property within
the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law and registration was refused on this ground
only.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not said property could be a subject for mortgage.
2. Whether the respondent is clothe with authority to determine such.
.
RULING:
The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgages
are of purely ministerial character and no provision of law can be cited which confers
upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of any
document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. The efficacy of the
act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it operates as
constructive notice of the existence of the contract, and the legal effects of the
contract must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of
notice. Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title,
and affects nobodys rights except as a species of notice.

The parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by
nature would be real property and it is a familiar phenomenon to see things classed as
real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered
personal property.

It is unnecessary to determine whether or not the property described in the document
is real or personal. The issue is to be determined by the Court and not by the register
of deeds.



G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983
ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner,
vs.
REMEDIOS VDA. DE LACSAMANA and THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODOLFO A.
ORTIZ, respondents.
Benjamin S. Benito & Associates for petitioner.
Expedito Yummul for private respondent.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J .:
The sole issue presented by petitioner for resolution is whether or not respondent Court erred in
denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to respondent Remedios Vda. de
Lacsamana as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper venue upon motion of co-
respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB).
It appears that petitioner, Antonio Punsalan, Jr., was the former registered owner of a parcel of land
consisting of 340 square meters situated in Bamban, Tarlac. In 1963, petitioner mortgaged said land
to respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) in the amount of P10,000.00, but for failure to pay said amount,
the property was foreclosed on December 16, 1970. Respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) was the
highest bidder in said foreclosure proceedings. However, the bank secured title thereto only on
December 14, 1977.
In the meantime, in 1974, while the properly was still in the alleged possession of petitioner and with
the alleged acquiescence of respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch), and upon securing a permit from the
Municipal Mayor, petitioner constructed a warehouse on said property. Petitioner declared said
warehouse for tax purposes for which he was issued Tax Declaration No. 5619. Petitioner then
leased the warehouse to one Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting January 1975.
On July 26, 1978, a Deed of Sale was executed between respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) and
respondent Lacsamana over the property. This contract was amended on July 31, 1978, particularly
to include in the sale, the building and improvement thereon. By virtue of said instruments,
respondent - Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name (TCT No. 173744) as well as
separate tax declarations for the land and building.
1

On November 22, 1979, petitioner commenced suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages"
against herein respondents PNB and Lacsamana before respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Branch XXXI, Quezon City, essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied
in the Amended Deed of Sale. In this connection, petitioner alleged:
xxx xxx xxx
22. That defendant, Philippine National Bank, through its Branch Manager ... by
virtue of the request of defendant ... executed a document dated July 31, 1978,
entitled Amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale ... wherein said defendant bank as
Vendor sold to defendant Lacsamana the building owned by the plaintiff under Tax
Declaration No. 5619, notwithstanding the fact that said building is not owned by the
bank either by virtue of the public auction sale conducted by the Sheriff and sold to
the Philippine National Bank or by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by the bank
itself in its favor on September 21, 1977 ...;
23. That said defendant bank fraudulently mentioned ... that the sale in its favor
should likewise have included the building, notwithstanding no legal basis for the
same and despite full knowledge that the Certificate of Sale executed by the sheriff in
its favor ... only limited the sale to the land, hence, by selling the building which never
became the property of defendant, they have violated the principle against 'pactum
commisorium'.
Petitioner prayed that the Deed of Sale of the building in favor of respondent Lacsamana be
declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of P230,000.00, more or less, be awarded
to him.
2

In her Answer filed on March 4, 1980,-respondent Lacsamana averred the affirmative defense of
lack of cause of action in that she was a purchaser for value and invoked the principle in Civil Law
that the "accessory follows the principal".
3

On March 14, 1980, respondent PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that venue was
improperly laid considering that the building was real property under article 415 (1) of the New Civil
Code and therefore section 2(a) of Rule 4 should apply.
4

Opposing said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner contended that the action for annulment of deed of sale
with damages is in the nature of a personal action, which seeks to recover not the title nor
possession of the property but to compel payment of damages, which is not an action affecting title
to real property.
On April 25, 1980, respondent Court granted respondent PNB's Motion to Dismiss as follows:
Acting upon the 'Motion to Dismiss' of the defendant Philippine National Bank dated
March 13, 1980, considered against the plaintiff's opposition thereto dated April 1, 1980,
including the reply therewith of said defendant, this Court resolves to DISMISS the
plaintiff's complaint for improper venue considering that the plaintiff's complaint which
seeks for the declaration as null and void, the amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by the defendant Philippine National Bank in favor of the defendant Remedios
T. Vda. de Lacsamana, on July 31, 1978, involves a warehouse allegedly owned and
constructed by the plaintiff on the land of the defendant Philippine National Bank situated
in the Municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable
property pursuant to Article 415, No. 1 of the New Civil Code; and, as such the action of
the plaintiff is a real action affecting title to real property which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of
the New Rules of Court, must be tried in the province where the property or any part
thereof lies.
5

In his Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated Order, petitioner reiterated the argument that the
action to annul does not involve ownership or title to property but is limited to the validity of the deed
of sale and emphasized that the case should proceed with or without respondent PNB as
respondent Lacsamana had already filed her Answer to the Complaint and no issue on venue had
been raised by the latter.
On September 1, 1980,.respondent Court denied reconsideration for lack of merit.
Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial, in so far as respondent Lacsamana was
concerned, as the issues had already been joined with the filing of respondent Lacsamana's Answer.
In the Order of November 10, 1980 respondent Court denied said Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial as
the case was already dismissed in the previous Orders of April 25, 1980 and September 1, 1980.
Hence, this Petition for Certiorari, to which we gave due course.
We affirm respondent Court's Order denying the setting for pre-trial.
The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in
article 415(l) of the Civil Code.
6
Buildings are always immovable under the Code.
7
A building
treated separately from the land on which it stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the
parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in
no wise changed its character as immovable property.
8

While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property
in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with
the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the
recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the
annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and
prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action.
9

Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue
(Section 2, Rule 4)
10
, which was timely raised (Section 1, Rule 16)
11
.
Petitioner's other contention that the case should proceed in so far as respondent Lacsamana is
concerned as she had already filed an Answer, which did not allege improper venue and, therefore,
issues had already been joined, is likewise untenable. Respondent PNB is an indispensable party as
the validity of the Amended Contract of Sale between the former and respondent Lacsamana is in
issue. It would, indeed, be futile to proceed with the case against respondent Lacsamana alone.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner
Antonio Punsalan, Jr. in the proper forum.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.


PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE
LACSAMANA
121 SCRA 331


FACTS:
Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of PNB. Due to his failure to
pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was sold in a public auction to which PNB was the highest
bidder.

On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of the land, it secured a permit for the
construction of a warehouse.

A deed of sale was executed between PNB and Punsalan. This contract was amended to include the
warehouse and the improvement thereon. By virtue of these instruments, respondent Lacsamana
secured title over the property in her name.

Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his allegations was that the bank did
not own the building and thus, it should not be included in the said deed.

Petitioners complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court held that the action
being filed in actuality by petitioner is a real action involving his right over a real property.


HELD:
Warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property. Buildings are
always immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it is stood is
immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it
separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable
property.



G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987
PRUDENTIAL BANK, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of
Zambales and Olongapo City; FERNANDO MAGCALE & TEODULA BALUYUT-
MAGCALE, respondents.

PARAS, J .:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the November 13, 1978 Decision * of the then Court of
First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 2443-0 entitled "Spouses Fernando
A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut-Magcale vs. Hon. Ramon Y. Pardo and Prudential Bank" declaring
that the deeds of real estate mortgage executed by respondent spouses in favor of petitioner bank
are null and void.
The undisputed facts of this case by stipulation of the parties are as follows:
... on November 19, 1971, plaintiffs-spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula
Baluyut Magcale secured a loan in the sum of P70,000.00 from the defendant
Prudential Bank. To secure payment of this loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of
defendant on the aforesaid date a deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the following
described properties:
l. A 2-STOREY, SEMI-CONCRETE, residential building with warehouse spaces
containing a total floor area of 263 sq. meters, more or less, generally constructed of
mixed hard wood and concrete materials, under a roofing of cor. g. i. sheets;
declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax
Declaration No. 21109, issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed
value of P35,290.00. This building is the only improvement of the lot.
2. THE PROPERTY hereby conveyed by way of MORTGAGE includes the right of
occupancy on the lot where the above property is erected, and more particularly
described and bounded, as follows:
A first class residential land Identffied as Lot No. 720, (Ts-308,
Olongapo Townsite Subdivision) Ardoin Street, East Bajac-Bajac,
Olongapo City, containing an area of 465 sq. m. more or less,
declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under
Tax Duration No. 19595 issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City
with an assessed value of P1,860.00; bounded on the
NORTH: By No. 6, Ardoin Street
SOUTH: By No. 2, Ardoin Street
EAST: By 37 Canda Street, and
WEST: By Ardoin Street.
All corners of the lot marked by conc. cylindrical
monuments of the Bureau of Lands as visible limits. (
Exhibit "A, " also Exhibit "1" for defendant).
Apart from the stipulations in the printed portion of the aforestated
deed of mortgage, there appears a rider typed at the bottom of the
reverse side of the document under the lists of the properties
mortgaged which reads, as follows:
AND IT IS FURTHER AGREED that in the event the
Sales Patent on the lot applied for by the Mortgagors
as herein stated is released or issued by the Bureau
of Lands, the Mortgagors hereby authorize the
Register of Deeds to hold the Registration of same
until this Mortgage is cancelled, or to annotate this
encumbrance on the Title upon authority from the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
which title with annotation, shall be released in favor
of the herein Mortgage.
From the aforequoted stipulation, it is obvious that the mortgagee
(defendant Prudential Bank) was at the outset aware of the fact that
the mortgagors (plaintiffs) have already filed a Miscellaneous Sales
Application over the lot, possessory rights over which, were
mortgaged to it.
Exhibit "A" (Real Estate Mortgage) was registered under the
Provisions of Act 3344 with the Registry of Deeds of Zambales on
November 23, 1971.
On May 2, 1973, plaintiffs secured an additional loan from defendant
Prudential Bank in the sum of P20,000.00. To secure payment of this
additional loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of the said defendant
another deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the same properties
previously mortgaged in Exhibit "A." (Exhibit "B;" also Exhibit "2" for
defendant). This second deed of Real Estate Mortgage was likewise
registered with the Registry of Deeds, this time in Olongapo City, on
May 2,1973.
On April 24, 1973, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent
No. 4776 over the parcel of land, possessory rights over which were mortgaged to
defendant Prudential Bank, in favor of plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid Patent,
and upon its transcription in the Registration Book of the Province of Zambales,
Original Certificate of Title No. P-2554 was issued in the name of Plaintiff Fernando
Magcale, by the Ex-Oficio Register of Deeds of Zambales, on May 15, 1972.
For failure of plaintiffs to pay their obligation to defendant Bank after it became due,
and upon application of said defendant, the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibits
"A" and "B") were extrajudicially foreclosed. Consequent to the foreclosure was the
sale of the properties therein mortgaged to defendant as the highest bidder in a
public auction sale conducted by the defendant City Sheriff on April 12, 1978 (Exhibit
"E"). The auction sale aforesaid was held despite written request from plaintiffs
through counsel dated March 29, 1978, for the defendant City Sheriff to desist from
going with the scheduled public auction sale (Exhibit "D")." (Decision, Civil Case No.
2443-0, Rollo, pp. 29-31).
Respondent Court, in a Decision dated November 3, 1978 declared the deeds of Real Estate
Mortgage as null and void (Ibid., p. 35).
On December 14, 1978, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 41-53), opposed by
private respondents on January 5, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 54-62), and in an Order dated January 10, 1979
(Ibid., p. 63), the Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition
(Ibid., pp. 5-28).
The first Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated March 9, 1979, resolved to require the
respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 65), which order was complied with the Resolution dated May
18,1979, (Ibid., p. 100), petitioner filed its Reply on June 2,1979 (Ibid., pp. 101-112).
Thereafter, in the Resolution dated June 13, 1979, the petition was given due course and the parties
were required to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda. (Ibid., p. 114).
On July 18, 1979, petitioner filed its Memorandum (Ibid., pp. 116-144), while private respondents
filed their Memorandum on August 1, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 146-155).
In a Resolution dated August 10, 1979, this case was considered submitted for decision (Ibid., P.
158).
In its Memorandum, petitioner raised the following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ARE VALID; AND
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVENING ISSUANCE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT NO. 4776 ON APRIL 24, 1972 UNDER
ACT NO. 730 AND THE COVERING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-2554 ON MAY
15,1972 HAVE THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE.
(Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, p. 122).
This petition is impressed with merit.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the
building erected on the land belonging to another.
The answer is in the affirmative.
In the enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, this Court
ruled that, "it is obvious that the inclusion of "building" separate and distinct from the land, in said
provision of law can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable property." (Lopez vs. Orosa,
Jr., et al., L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958; Associated Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya, et al., L-10837-38,
May 30,1958).
Thus, while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the
improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on
which it has been built. Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would
still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land (Leung
Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). In the same manner, this Court has also established
that possessory rights over said properties before title is vested on the grantee, may be validly
transferred or conveyed as in a deed of mortgage (Vda. de Bautista vs. Marcos, 3 SCRA 438
[1961]).
Coming back to the case at bar, the records show, as aforestated that the original mortgage deed on
the 2-storey semi-concrete residential building with warehouse and on the right of occupancy on the
lot where the building was erected, was executed on November 19, 1971 and registered under the
provisions of Act 3344 with the Register of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971.
Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 on the land was issued on April 24, 1972, on the basis of
which OCT No. 2554 was issued in the name of private respondent Fernando Magcale on May 15,
1972. It is therefore without question that the original mortgage was executed before the issuance of
the final patent and before the government was divested of its title to the land, an event which takes
effect only on the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent registration in the Office of the
Register of Deeds (Visayan Realty Inc. vs. Meer, 96 Phil. 515; Director of Lands vs. De Leon, 110
Phil. 28; Director of Lands vs. Jurado, L-14702, May 23, 1961; Pena "Law on Natural Resources", p.
49). Under the foregoing considerations, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private
respondent on his own building which was erected on the land belonging to the government is to all
intents and purposes a valid mortgage.
As to restrictions expressly mentioned on the face of respondents' OCT No. P-2554, it will be noted
that Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act, refer to land already acquired under the
Public Land Act, or any improvement thereon and therefore have no application to the assailed
mortgage in the case at bar which was executed before such eventuality. Likewise, Section 2 of
Republic Act No. 730, also a restriction appearing on the face of private respondent's title has
likewise no application in the instant case, despite its reference to encumbrance or alienation before
the patent is issued because it refers specifically to encumbrance or alienation on the land itself and
does not mention anything regarding the improvements existing thereon.
But it is a different matter, as regards the second mortgage executed over the same properties on
May 2, 1973 for an additional loan of P20,000.00 which was registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Olongapo City on the same date. Relative thereto, it is evident that such mortgage executed after
the issuance of the sales patent and of the Original Certificate of Title, falls squarely under the
prohibitions stated in Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act and Section 2 of Republic
Act 730, and is therefore null and void.
Petitioner points out that private respondents, after physically possessing the title for five years,
voluntarily surrendered the same to the bank in 1977 in order that the mortgaged may be annotated,
without requiring the bank to get the prior approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources beforehand,
thereby implicitly authorizing Prudential Bank to cause the annotation of said mortgage on their title.
However, the Court, in recently ruling on violations of Section 124 which refers to Sections 118, 120,
122 and 123 of Commonwealth Act 141, has held:
... Nonetheless, we apply our earlier rulings because we believe that as in pari
delicto may not be invoked to defeat the policy of the State neither may the doctrine
of estoppel give a validating effect to a void contract. Indeed, it is generally
considered that as between parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by
estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy (19 Am. Jur. 802). It is not
within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law was to
preserve (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. De los Amas and Alino supra). ... (Arsenal
vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 54 [1986]).
This pronouncement covers only the previous transaction already alluded to and does not pass upon
any new contract between the parties (Ibid), as in the case at bar. It should not preclude new
contracts that may be entered into between petitioner bank and private respondents that are in
accordance with the requirements of the law. After all, private respondents themselves declare that
they are not denying the legitimacy of their debts and appear to be open to new negotiations under
the law (Comment; Rollo, pp. 95-96). Any new transaction, however, would be subject to whatever
steps the Government may take for the reversion of the land in its favor.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City
is hereby MODIFIED, declaring that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for P70,000.00 is valid but
ruling that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for an additional loan of P20,000.00 is null and void,
without prejudice to any appropriate action the Government may take against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Penned by Judge Domingo D. Panis.


PRUDENTIAL BANK V.
PANIS
153 SCRA 390


FACTS:
Spouses Magcale secured a loan from Prudential Bank. To secure payment, they executed a real
estate mortgage over a residential building. The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and
the information about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the building stood.
After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another from the same bank. To secure payment,
another real estate mortgage was executed over the same properties.

The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over the land which was later on
mortgaged to the bank.

The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public
auction despite opposition from the spouses. The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.


HELD:
A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another.

The inclusion of building distinct and separate from the land in the Civil Code can only mean that
the building itself is an immovable property.

While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence of stipulation of the
improvements thereon, buildings, still a building in itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the
land on which it is built. Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would
still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.

The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land was executed before the
issuance of the sales patent and before the government was divested of title to the land.
Under the foregoing, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own
building was a valid mortgage.

As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued and thus prohibits pertinent
provisions of the Public Land Act.



G.R. No. L-18456 November 30, 1963
CONRADO P. NAVARRO, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUFINO G. PINEDA, RAMONA REYES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Deogracias Taedo, Jr. for plaintiff-appellee.
Renato A. Santos for defendants-appellants.
PAREDES, J .:
On December 14, 1959, defendants Rufino G. Pineda and his mother Juana Gonzales (married to
Gregorio Pineda), borrowed from plaintiff Conrado P. Navarro, the sum of P2,500.00, payable 6
months after said date or on June 14, 1959. To secure the indebtedness, Rufino executed a
document captioned "DEED OF REAL ESTATE and CHATTEL MORTGAGES", whereby Juana
Gonzales, by way of Real Estate Mortgage hypothecated a parcel of land, belonging to her,
registered with the Register of Deeds of Tarlac, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25776, and
Rufino G. Pineda, by way of Chattel Mortgage, mortgaged his two-story residential house, having a
floor area of 912 square meters, erected on a lot belonging to Atty. Vicente Castro, located at Bo.
San Roque, Tarlac, Tarlac; and one motor truck, registered in his name, under Motor Vehicle
Registration Certificate No. A-171806. Both mortgages were contained in one instrument, which was
registered in both the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Motor Vehicles Office of Tarlac.
When the mortgage debt became due and payable, the defendants, after demands made on them,
failed to pay. They, however, asked and were granted extension up to June 30, 1960, within which to
pay. Came June 30, defendants again failed to pay and, for the second time, asked for another
extension, which was given, up to July 30, 1960. In the second extension, defendant Pineda in a
document entitled "Promise", categorically stated that in the remote event he should fail to make
good the obligation on such date (July 30, 1960), the defendant would no longer ask for further
extension and there would be no need for any formal demand, and plaintiff could proceed to take
whatever action he might desire to enforce his rights, under the said mortgage contract. In spite of
said promise, defendants, failed and refused to pay the obligation.
On August 10, 1960, plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage and for damages,
which consisted of liquidated damages in the sum of P500.00 and 12% per annum interest on the
principal, effective on the date of maturity, until fully paid.
Defendants, answering the complaint, among others, stated
Defendants admit that the loan is overdue but deny that portion of paragraph 4 of the First
Cause of Action which states that the defendants unreasonably failed and refuse to pay their
obligation to the plaintiff the truth being the defendants are hard up these days and pleaded
to the plaintiff to grant them more time within which to pay their obligation and the plaintiff
refused;
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable
Court render judgment granting the defendants until January 31, 1961, within which to pay
their obligation to the plaintiff.
On September 30, 1960, plaintiff presented a Motion for summary Judgment, claiming that the
Answer failed to tender any genuine and material issue. The motion was set for hearing, but the
record is not clear what ruling the lower court made on the said motion. On November 11, 1960,
however, the parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts, wherein the defendants admitted the
indebtedness, the authenticity and due execution of the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages; that the
indebtedness has been due and unpaid since June 14, 1960; that a liability of 12% per annum as
interest was agreed, upon failure to pay the principal when due and P500.00 as liquidated damages;
that the instrument had been registered in the Registry of Property and Motor Vehicles Office, both
of the province of Tarlac; that the only issue in the case is whether or not the residential house,
subject of the mortgage therein, can be considered a Chattel and the propriety of the attorney's fees.
On February 24, 1961, the lower court held
... WHEREFORE, this Court renders decision in this Case:
(a) Dismissing the complaint with regard to defendant Gregorio Pineda;
(b) Ordering defendants Juana Gonzales and the spouses Rufino Pineda and Ramon Reyes,
to pay jointly and severally and within ninety (90) days from the receipt of the copy of this
decision to the plaintiff Conrado P. Navarro the principal sum of P2,550.00 with 12%
compounded interest per annum from June 14, 1960, until said principal sum and interests
are fully paid, plus P500.00 as liquidated damages and the costs of this suit, with the warning
that in default of said payment of the properties mentioned in the deed of real estate
mortgage and chattel mortgage (Annex "A" to the complaint) be sold to realize said mortgage
debt, interests, liquidated damages and costs, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of
Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, and Art. 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, Act 1508; and
(c) Ordering the defendants Rufino Pineda and Ramona Reyes, to deliver immediately to the
Provincial Sheriff of Tarlac the personal properties mentioned in said Annex "A", immediately
after the lapse of the ninety (90) days above-mentioned, in default of such payment.
The above judgment was directly appealed to this Court, the defendants therein assigning only a
single error, allegedly committed by the lower court, to wit
In holding that the deed of real estate and chattel mortgages appended to the complaint is
valid, notwithstanding the fact that the house of the defendant Rufino G. Pineda was made
the subject of the chattel mortgage, for the reason that it is erected on a land that belongs to
a third person.
Appellants contend that article 415 of the New Civil Code, in classifying a house as immovable
property, makes no distinction whether the owner of the land is or not the owner of the building; the
fact that the land belongs to another is immaterial, it is enough that the house adheres to the land;
that in case of immovables by incorporation, such as houses, trees, plants, etc; the Code does not
require that the attachment or incorporation be made by the owner of the land, the only criterion
being the union or incorporation with the soil. In other words, it is claimed that "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" (Lopez v. Orosa, G.R. Nos. L-10817-8, Feb. 28, 1958). (See also the
case of Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). Appellants argue that since only
movables can be the subject of a chattel mortgage (sec. 1, Act No. 3952) then the mortgage in
question which is the basis of the present action, cannot give rise to an action for foreclosure,
because it is nullity. (Citing Associated Ins. Co., et al. v. Isabel Iya v. Adriano Valino, et al., L-10838,
May 30, 1958.)
The trial court did not predicate its decision declaring the deed of chattel mortgage valid solely on
the ground that the house mortgaged was erected on the land which belonged to a third person, but
also and principally on the doctrine of estoppel, in that "the parties have so expressly agreed" in the
mortgage to consider the house as chattel "for its smallness and mixed materials of sawali and
wood". In construing arts. 334 and 335 of the Spanish Civil Code (corresponding to arts. 415 and
416, N.C.C.), for purposes of the application of the Chattel Mortgage Law, it was held that under
certain conditions, "a property may have a character different from that imputed to it in said articles.
It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement, treat as personal property that
whichby nature would be real property" (Standard Oil Co. of N.Y. v. Jaranillo, 44 Phil. 632-
633)."There can not be any question that a building of mixed materials may be the subject of a
chattel mortgage, in which case, it is considered as between the parties as personal property. ... The
matter depends on the circumstances and the intention of the parties". "Personal property may retain
its character as such where it is so agreed by the parties interested even though annexed to the
realty ...". (42 Am. Jur. 209-210, cited in Manarang, et al. v. Ofilada, et al., G.R. No. L-8133, May 18,
1956; 52 O.G. No. 8, p. 3954.) The view that parties to a deed of chattel mortgagee 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 principles of estoppel ..." (Evangelista
v. Alto Surety, No. L-11139, Apr. 23, 1958). In a case, a mortgage 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 (Evangelista v. Abad [CA];36 O.G. 2913), for it is now
well settled that an object placed on land by one who has only a temporary right to the same, such
as a lessee or usufructuary, does not become immobilized by attachment (Valdez v. Central
Altagracia, 222 U.S. 58, cited in Davao Sawmill Co., Inc. v. 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 is so stipulated in the document of mortgage. (Evangelista v.
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, et al.. v. C. N. Hodges, et al., [CA]; 48 O.G. 5374). The
doctrine, therefore, gathered from these cases is that although in some instances, a house of mixed
materials has been considered as a chattel between them, has been recognized, it has been a
constant criterion nevertheless that, with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the contract,
and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as an immovable property (Art.
1431, New Civil Code).
In the case at bar, the house in question was treated as personal or movable property, by the parties
to the contract themselves. In the deed of chattel mortgage, appellant Rufino G. Pineda conveyed by
way of "Chattel Mortgage" "my personal properties", a residential house and a truck. The mortgagor
himself grouped the house with the truck, which is, inherently a movable property. The house which
was not even declared for taxation purposes was small and made of light construction materials: G.I.
sheets roofing, sawali and wooden walls and wooden posts; built on land belonging to another.
The cases cited by appellants are not applicable to the present case. The Iya cases (L-10837-
38, supra), refer to a building or a house of strong materials, permanently adhered to the land,
belonging to the owner of the house himself. In the case of Lopez v. Orosa, (L-10817-18), the
subject building was a theatre, built of materials worth more than P62,000, attached permanently to
the soil. In these cases and in the Leung Yee case, supra, third persons assailed the validity of the
deed of chattel mortgages; in the present case, it was one of the parties to the contract of mortgages
who assailed its validity.
CONFORMABLY WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from, should be, as it is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal,
JJ., concur.


NAVARRO V. PINEDA
9 SCRA 631


FACTS:
Pineda and his mother executed real estate and chattel mortgages in favor of Navarro, to secure a loan
they got from the latter. The REM covered a parcel of land owned by the mother while the chattel
mortgage covered a residential house. Due to the failure to pay the loan, they asked for
extensions to pay for the loan. On the second extension, Pineda executed a PROMISE wherein in case
of default in payment, he wouldnt ask for any additional extension and there would be no need for any
formal demand. In spite of this, they still failed to pay.
Navarro then filed for the foreclosure of the mortgages. The court decided in his favor.

HELD:
Where a house stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it may be the subject matter
of a chattel mortgage as personal property if so stipulated in the document of mortgage, and in an action
by the mortgagee for the foreclosure, the validity of the chattel mortgage cannot be assailed
by one of the parties to the contract of mortgage.

Furthermore, although in some instances, a house of mixed materials has been considered as a chattel
between the parties and that the validity of the contract between them, has been recognized, it has
been a constant criterion that with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the
contract, and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as immovable property.



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 become immediately 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.


TUMALAD V. VICENCIO
41 SCRA 143
FACTS:
Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs Tumalad over their house,
which was being rented by Madrigal and company. This was executed to guarantee a loan,
payable in one year with a 12% per annum interest.

The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan. The house was sold at a public
auction and the plaintiffs were the highest bidder. A corresponding certificate of sale was issued.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that the latter
vacate the house as they were the proper owners.

HELD:
Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that buildings are immovable
property such as when through stipulation, parties may agree to treat as personal property those by
their nature would be real property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the
principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as chattel, a conduct that may
conceivably stop him from subsequently claiming otherwise.

In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal
property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property through chattel mortgage could only have
meant that defendant conveys 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.



G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983
MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC., and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
Loreto C. Baduan for petitioner.
Ramon D. Bagatsing & Assoc. (collaborating counsel) for petitioner.
Jose V. Mancella for respondent.

DE CASTRO, J .:
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate
Court) promulgated on August 27, 1981 in CA-G.R. No. SP-12731, setting aside certain Orders later
specified herein, of Judge Ricardo J. Francisco, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First instance of
Rizal Branch VI, issued in Civil Case No. 36040, as wen as the resolution dated September 22, 1981
of the said appellate court, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
It appears that in order to obtain financial accommodations from herein petitioner Makati Leasing
and Finance Corporation, the private respondent Wearever Textile Mills, Inc., discounted and
assigned several receivables with the former under a Receivable Purchase Agreement. To secure
the collection of the receivables assigned, private respondent executed a Chattel Mortgage over
certain raw materials inventory as well as a machinery described as an Artos Aero Dryer Stentering
Range.
Upon private respondent's default, petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the
properties mortgage to it. However, the Deputy Sheriff assigned to implement the foreclosure failed
to gain entry into private respondent's premises and was not able to effect the seizure of the
aforedescribed machinery. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure with the
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, docketed as Civil Case No. 36040, the case before the
lower court.
Acting on petitioner's application for replevin, the lower court issued a writ of seizure, the
enforcement of which was however subsequently restrained upon private respondent's filing of a
motion for reconsideration. After several incidents, the lower court finally issued on February 11,
1981, an order lifting the restraining order for the enforcement of the writ of seizure and an order to
break open the premises of private respondent to enforce said writ. The lower court reaffirmed its
stand upon private respondent's filing of a further motion for reconsideration.
On July 13, 1981, the sheriff enforcing the seizure order, repaired to the premises of private
respondent and removed the main drive motor of the subject machinery.
The Court of Appeals, in certiorari and prohibition proceedings subsequently filed by herein private
respondent, set aside the Orders of the lower court and ordered the return of the drive motor seized
by the sheriff pursuant to said Orders, after ruling that the machinery in suit cannot be the subject of
replevin, much less of a chattel mortgage, because it is a real property pursuant to Article 415 of the
new Civil Code, the same being attached to the ground by means of bolts and the only way to
remove it from respondent's plant would be to drill out or destroy the concrete floor, the reason why
all that the sheriff could do to enfore the writ was to take the main drive motor of said machinery. The
appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that private respondent is estopped from claiming that
the machine is real property by constituting a chattel mortgage thereon.
A motion for reconsideration of this decision of the Court of Appeals having been denied, petitioner
has brought the case to this Court for review by writ of certiorari. It is contended by private
respondent, however, that the instant petition was rendered moot and academic by petitioner's act of
returning the subject motor drive of respondent's machinery after the Court of Appeals' decision was
promulgated.
The contention of private respondent is without merit. When petitioner returned the subject motor
drive, it made itself unequivocably clear that said action was without prejudice to a motion for
reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision, as shown by the receipt duly signed by
respondent's representative.
1
Considering that petitioner has reserved its right to question the
propriety of the Court of Appeals' decision, the contention of private respondent that this petition has
been mooted by such return may not be sustained.
The next and the more crucial question to be resolved in this Petition is whether the machinery in
suit is real or personal property from the point of view of the parties, with petitioner arguing that it is a
personality, while the respondent claiming the contrary, and was sustained by the appellate court,
which accordingly held that the chattel mortgage constituted thereon is null and void, as contended
by said respondent.
A similar, if not Identical issue was raised in Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143 where this Court,
speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, ruled:
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 defendants-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 personality.
Finally, unlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. & Plaza Theatre, Inc. & Leung
Yee vs. F.L. Strong Machinery & Williamson, wherein third persons assailed the
validity of the chattel mortgage, 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 personality.
Examining the records of the instant case, We find no logical justification to exclude the rule out, as
the appellate court did, the present case from the application of the abovequoted pronouncement. If
a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered
as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to
the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no
reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by
destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so
agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage.
In rejecting petitioner's assertion on the applicability of the Tumalad doctrine, the Court of Appeals
lays stress on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a land that did not belong to the
owner of such house. But the law makes no distinction with respect to the ownership of the land on
which the house is built and We should not lay down distinctions not contemplated by law.
It must be pointed out that the characterization of the subject machinery as chattel by the private
respondent is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by
the parties. As stated inStandard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it is undeniable that
the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be
real property, as long as no interest of third parties would be prejudiced thereby.
Private respondent contends that estoppel cannot apply against it because it had never represented
nor agreed that the machinery in suit be considered as personal property but was merely required
and dictated on by herein petitioner to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank
form at the time of signing. This contention lacks persuasiveness. As aptly pointed out by petitioner
and not denied by the respondent, the status of the subject machinery as movable or immovable
was never placed in issue before the lower court and the Court of Appeals except in a supplemental
memorandum in support of the petition filed in the appellate court. Moreover, even granting that the
charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for
rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a
proper action in court. 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. On the other hand, as pointed out by
petitioner and again not refuted by respondent, the latter has indubitably benefited from said
contract. Equity dictates that one should not benefit at the expense of another. Private respondent
could not now therefore, be allowed to impugn the efficacy of the chattel mortgage after it has
benefited therefrom,
From what has been said above, the error of the appellate court in ruling that the questioned
machinery is real, not personal property, becomes very apparent. Moreover, the case of Machinery
and Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. CA, 96 Phil. 70, heavily relied upon by said court is not applicable
to the case at bar, the nature of the machinery and equipment involved therein as real properties
never having been disputed nor in issue, and they were not the subject of a Chattel Mortgage.
Undoubtedly, the Tumalad case bears more nearly perfect parity with the instant case to be the
more controlling jurisprudential authority.
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby reversed
and set aside, and the Orders of the lower court are hereby reinstated, with costs against the private
respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero and Escolin JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., concurs in the result.

MAKATI LEASING AND
FINANCE CORPORATION
V. WEAREVER TEXTILE
MILLS
122 SCRA 296

FACTS:
To be able to secure financial accommodations from the petitioner, the private respondent
discounted and assigned several receivables under a Receivable Purchase Agreement. To
secure the collection of the receivables, a chattel mortgage was executed over machinery found in
the factory of the private respondent.

As the private respondent failed to pay, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. Nonetheless, the
sheriff was unable to seize the machinery. This prompted petitioner to file an action for replevin.
The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the return of the drive motor, after ruling that
the machinery may not be the subject of a chattel mortgage, given that it was an immovable under the
provisions of Article 415. The same was attached to the ground by means of bolts and the only way to
remove it from the plant would be to drill the ground.

HELD:
There is no logical justification to exclude the rule out that the machinery may be considered as
personal property, and subject to a chattel mortgage. If a house may be considered as personal
property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage, what more a machinery, which is movable
by nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as
such.

[G.R. No. 137705. August 22, 2000]
SERGS PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs. PCI
LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J .:
After agreeing to a contract stipulating that a real or immovable property be
considered as personal or movable, a party is estopped from subsequently claiming
otherwise. Hence, such property is a proper subject of a writ of replevin obtained by
the other contracting party.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 6, 1999
Decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA)
[2]
in CA-GR SP No. 47332 and its February 26,
1999 Resolution
[3]
denying reconsideration. The decretal portion of the CA Decision
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order dated February 18, 1998 and
Resolution dated March 31, 1998 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33500 are hereby AFFIRMED. The
writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 15, 1998 is hereby LIFTED.
[4]

In its February 18, 1998 Order,
[5]
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
(Branch 218)
[6]
issued a Writ of Seizure.
[7]
The March 18, 1998 Resolution
[8]
denied
petitioners Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the deputy sheriff be
enjoined from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners) factory in
Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or
equipments he may have removed.
[9]

The Facts
The undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:
[10]

On February 13, 1998, respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCI Leasing for short) filed
with the RTC-QC a complaint for [a] sum of money (Annex E), with an application for a writ of
replevin docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33500.
On March 6, 1998, upon an ex-parte application of PCI Leasing, respondent judge issued a
writ of replevin (Annex B) directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries and
equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses.
On March 24, 1998, in implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory,
seized one machinery with [the] word that he [would] return for the other machineries.
On March 25, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for special protective order (Annex C), invoking
the power of the court to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes,
praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin.
This motion was opposed by PCI Leasing (Annex F), on the ground that the properties [were]
still personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin.
In their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized [were] immovable as
defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding. They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to
innocent third parties. They further stated that PCI Leasing [was] estopped from treating these
machineries as personal because the contracts in which the alleged agreement [were]
embodied [were] totally sham and farcical.
On April 6, 1998, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of
the remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the workers
from taking the rest.
On April 7, 1998, they went to [the CA] via an original action for certiorari.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Citing the Agreement of the parties, the appellate court held that the subject
machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by
petitioners. It also ruled that the words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt
upon the true intention of the contracting parties. Observing that Petitioner Goquiolay
was an experienced businessman who was not unfamiliar with the ways of the
trade, it ruled that he should have realized the import of the document he
signed. The CA further held:
Furthermore, to accord merit to this petition would be to preempt the trial court in ruling upon
the case below, since the merits of the whole matter are laid down before us via a petition
whose sole purpose is to inquire upon the existence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the [RTC] in issuing the assailed Order and Resolution. The issues raised herein are proper
subjects of a full-blown trial, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The
contract is being enforced by one, and [its] validity is attacked by the other a matter x x x
which respondent court is in the best position to determine.
Hence, this Petition.
[11]

The Issues
In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration:
A. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERGS became real property
by virtue of immobilization.
B. Whether or not the contract between the parties is a loan or a lease.
[12]

In the main, the Court will resolve whether the said machines are personal, not
immovable, property which may be a proper subject of a writ of replevin. As a
preliminary matter, the Court will also address briefly the procedural points raised by
respondent.
The Courts Ruling
The Petition is not meritorious.
Preliminary Matter:Procedural Questions
Respondent contends that the Petition failed to indicate expressly whether it was
being filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It further alleges that the
Petition erroneously impleaded Judge Hilario Laqui as respondent.
There is no question that the present recourse is under Rule 45. This conclusion
finds support in the very title of the Petition, which is Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
[13]

While Judge Laqui should not have been impleaded as a
respondent,
[14]
substantial justice requires that such lapse by itself should not warrant
the dismissal of the present Petition. In this light, the Court deems it proper to
remove, motu proprio, the name of Judge Laqui from the caption of the present case.
Main Issue: Nature of the Subject Machinery
Petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper
subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real
property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary
characterization.
Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the
recovery of personal property only.
[15]
Section 3 thereof reads:
SEC. 3. Order. -- Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall
issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property alleged to
be wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property into his custody.
On the other hand, Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates immovable or real
property as follows:
ART. 415. The following are immovable property:
x x x....................................x x x....................................x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement
for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which
tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
x x x....................................x x x....................................x x x
In the present case, the machines that were the subjects of the Writ of Seizure
were placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they
were essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence,
although each of them was movable or personal property on its own, all of them have
become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements
in the industry.
[16]
In that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the said
machines are real, not personal, property pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil
Code.
[17]

Be that as it may, we disagree with the submission of the petitioners that the said
machines are not proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.
The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real
property be considered as personal.
[18]
After agreeing to such stipulation, they are
consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a
party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact
found therein.
Hence, in Tumalad v. Vicencio,
[19]
the Court upheld the intention of the parties to
treat a house as a personal property because it had been made the subject of a
chattel mortgage. The Court ruled:
x x x. 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.
Applying Tumalad, the Court in Makati Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Wearever
Textile Mills
[20]
also held that the machinery used in a factory and essential to the
industry, as in the present case, was a proper subject of a writ of replevin because it
was treated as personal property in a contract. Pertinent portions of the Courts ruling
are reproduced hereunder:
x x x. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may
be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as
long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced
thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and
becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This
is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel
mortgage.
In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in
question are to be considered as personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the
Agreement reads as follows:
[21]

12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and remain, personal property
notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in
any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting upon, real property or
any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent.
Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the
subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper
subjects of the Writ of Seizure.
It should be stressed, however, that our holding -- that the machines should be
deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as
the contracting parties are concerned.
[22]
Hence, while the parties are bound by the
Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation
characterizing the subject machinery as personal.
[23]
In any event, there is no showing
that any specific third party would be adversely affected.
Validity of the Lease Agreement
In their Memorandum, petitioners contend that the Agreement is a loan and not a
lease.
[24]
Submitting documents supposedly showing that they own the subject
machines, petitioners also argue in their Petition that the Agreement suffers from
intrinsic ambiguity which places in serious doubt the intention of the parties and the
validity of the lease agreement itself.
[25]
In their Reply to respondents Comment, they
further allege that the Agreement is invalid.
[26]

These arguments are unconvincing. The validity and the nature of the contract are
the lis mota of the civil action pending before the RTC. A resolution of these questions,
therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits of the case. Hence, they should be
threshed out in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the issuance of the Writ of
Seizure.
Indeed, in La Tondea Distillers v. CA,
[27]
the Court explained that the policy under
Rule 60 was that questions involving title to the subject property questions which
petitioners are now raising -- should be determined in the trial. In that case, the Court
noted that the remedy of defendants under Rule 60 was either to post a counter-bond
or to question the sufficiency of the plaintiffs bond. They were not allowed, however,
to invoke the title to the subject property. The Court ruled:
In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge
the writ of seizure (or delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds
relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction, and thereby put
at issue the matter of the title or right of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the
policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on
the merits.
[28]

Besides, these questions require a determination of facts and a presentation of
evidence, both of which have no place in a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule
65 or in a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45.
[29]

Reliance on the Lease Agreement
It should be pointed out that the Court in this case may rely on the Lease
Agreement, for nothing on record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact,
petitioners assailed it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been
instituted by respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the
law between the parties.
Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation
[30]
is also instructive on this point. In that
case, the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, which characterized the subject machinery as
personal property, was also assailed because respondent had allegedly been required
to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of
signing. The Court rejected the argument and relied on the Deed, ruling as follows:
x x x. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a
contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or
annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. 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. x x x
Alleged Injustice Committed on the Part of Petitioners
Petitioners contend that if the Court allows these machineries to be seized, then
its workers would be out of work and thrown into the streets.
[31]
They also allege that
the seizure would nullify all efforts to rehabilitate the corporation.
Petitioners arguments do not preclude the implementation of the Writ. As earlier
discussed, law and jurisprudence support its propriety. Verily, the above-mentioned
consequences, if they come true, should not be blamed on this Court, but on the
petitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remedy under Section 5 of Rule 60,
which allows the filing of a counter-bond. The provision states:
SEC. 5. Return of property. -- If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicants
bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the
property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to
the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a
bond executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicants
affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the
payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a
copy bond on the applicant.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.


SERGS PRODUCTS AND
GOQUIOLAY V. PCI
LEASING AND FINANCE

338 SCRA 499

FACTS:
PCI filed a case for collection of a sum of money as well as a writ of replevin for the seizure
of machineries, subject of a chattel mortgage executed by petitioner in favor of PCI.

Machineries of petitioner were seized and petitioner filed a motion for special protective order. It
asserts that the machineries were real property and could not be subject of a chattel mortgage.

HELD:
The machineries in question have become immobilized by destination because they are essential
and principal elements in the industry, and thus have become immovable in nature.

Nonetheless, they are still proper subjects for a chattel mortgage.

Contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal. After
agreement, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise.



EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-8133. May 18, 1956.]
MANUEL C. MANARANG and LUCIA D. MANARANG, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. MACARIO M. OFILADA,
Sheriff of the City of Manila and ERNESTO ESTEBAN, Respondents-Appellees.

D E C I S I O N
LABRADOR, J.:
On September 8, 1951, Petitioner Lucia D. Manarang obtained a loan of P200 from Ernesto Esteban, and
to secure its payment she executed a chattel mortgage over a house of mixed materials erected on a lot
on Alvarado Street, Manila. As Manarang did not pay the loan as agreed upon, Esteban brought an
action against her in the municipal court of Manila for its recovery, alleging that the loan was secured by
a chattel mortgage on her property. Judgment having been entered in Plaintiffs favor, execution was
issued against the same property mortgaged.
Before the property could be sold Manarang offered to pay the sum of P277, which represented the
amount of the judgment of P250, the interest thereon, the costs, and the sheriffs fees, but the sheriff
refused the tender unless the additional amount of P260 representing the publication of the notice of
sale in two newspapers be paid also. So Defendants therein brought this suit to compel the sheriff to
accept the amount of P277 as full payment of the judgment and to annul the published notice of sale.
It is to be noted that in the complaint filed in the municipal court, a copy of the chattel mortgage is
attached and mention made of its registration, and in the prayer request is made that the house
mortgaged be sold at public auction to satisfy the debt. It is also important to note that the house
mortgaged was levied upon at Plaintiffs request (Exhibit E).
On the basis of the above facts counsel for Manarang contended in the court below that the house in
question should be considered as personal property and the publication of the notice of its sale at public
auction in execution considered unnecessary. The Court of First Instance held that although real
property may sometimes be considered as personal property, the sheriff was in duty bound to cause the
publication of the notice of its sale in order to make the sale valid or to prevent its being declared void
or voidable, and he did not, therefore, err in causing such publication of the notice. So it denied the
petition.
There cannot be any question that a building of mixed materials may be the subject of a chattel
mortgage, in which case it is considered as between the parties as personal property. We held so
expressly in the cases of Luna vs. Encarnacion, et al., * 48 Off. Gaz., No. 7, p. 2664; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryStandard Oil Co. of
New York vs. Jaranillo, 44 Phil., 630; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand De Jesus vs. Guan Dee Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464. The matter
depends on the circumstances and the intention of the parties.
cralaw The general principle of law is that a building permanently fixed to the freehold becomes a part of it,
that prima facie a house is real estate, belonging to the owner of the land on which it stands, even
though it was erected against the will of the landowner, or without his consent cralaw . The general rule is
otherwise, however, where the improvement is made with the consent of the landowner, and pursuant
to an understanding either expressed or implied that it shall remain personal property. Nor does the
general rule apply to a building which is wrongfully removed from the land and placed on the land of the
person removing it. (42 Am. Jur. 199-200.)
cralaw Among the principal criteria for determining whether property remains personally or becomes realty
are annexation to the soil, either actual or construction, and the intention of the parties cralaw
Personal property may retain its character as such where it is so agreed by the parties interested even
though annexed to the realty, or where it is affixed in the soil to be used for a particular purpose for a
short period and then removed as soon as it has served its purpose cralaw. (Ibid., 209-210.)
The question now before us, however, is:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Does the fact that the parties entering into a contract
regarding a house gave said property the consideration of personal property in their contract, bind the
sheriff in advertising the propertys sale at public auction as personal property? It is to be remembered
that in the case at bar the action was to collect a loan secured by a chattel mortgage on the house. It is
also to be remembered that in practice it is the judgment creditor who points out to the sheriff the
properties that the sheriff is to levy upon in execution, and the judgment creditor in the case at bar is
the party in whose favor the owner of the house and conveyed it by way of chattel mortgage and,
therefore, knew its consideration as personal property.
These considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the rules on execution do not allow, and we should
not interpret them in such a way as to allow, the special consideration that parties to a contract may
have desired to impart to real estate, for example, as personal property, when they are not ordinarily so.
Sales on execution affect the public and third persons. The regulation governing sales on execution are
for public officials to follow. The form of proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is suited to its
character, not to the character which the parties have given to it or desire to give it. When the rules
speak of personal property, property which is ordinarily so considered is meant; yand when real property
is spoken of, it means property which is generally known as real property. The regulations were never
intended to suit the consideration that parties, may have privately given to the property levied upon.
Enforcement of regulations would be difficult were the convenience or agreement of private parties to
determine or govern the nature of the proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the mere fact that a house
was the subject of a chattel mortgage and was considered as personal property by the parties does not
make said house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale at public auction.
This ruling is demanded by the need for a definite, orderly and well- defined regulation for official and
public guidance and which would prevent confusion and misunderstanding.
We, therefore, declare that the house of mixed materials levied upon on execution, although subject of
a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third person, is real property within the
purview of Rule 39, section 16, of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture on the land,
which is real property. (42 Am. Jur. 199-200; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLeung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644; chan
roblesvirtualawlibraryRepublic vs. Ceniza, et al., 90 Phil., 544; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLadera, et al. vs. Hodges, et al., [C. A], 48 Off. Gaz., 5374.).
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs. SO ORDERED.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.
and Endencia, JJ., concur.


MANARANG AND
MANARANG V. OFILADA
AND ESTEBAN
99 SCRA 108


FACTS:
Manarang secured a loan from Esteban guaranteed by a chattel mortgage over a house of mixed
materials. Due to failure to pay, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed. Before the sale of the
property, Manarang tried to pay for the property but the sheriff refused to accept tender unless there
is payment for the publication of the notice of sale in the newspapers.

This prompted Manarang to bring this suit to compel the sheriff to accept payment. He averred that the
publication was unnecessary as the house should be considered as personal property per
agreement in the chattel mortgage, and the publication for notice of sale is unnecessary.


HELD:
There is no question that a building of mixed materials may be a subject of chattel mortgage, in which
case it is considered as between the parties as personal property.

The mere fact that a house was the subject of chattel mortgage and was considered as personal
property by the parties doesnt make the said house personal property for purposes of the notice to
be given for its sale in public auction. It is real property within the purview of Rule 39, Section
16 of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture on the land, which is real property.




G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958
SANTOS EVANGELISTA, petitioner,
vs.
ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent.
Gonzalo D. David for petitioner.
Raul A. Aristorenas and Benjamin Relova for respondent.
CONCEPCION, J .:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Briefly, the facts are: On June 4, 1949, petitioner herein, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case
No. 8235 of the Court of First, Instance of Manila entitled " Santos Evangelista vs. Ricardo Rivera,"
for a sum of money. On the same date, he obtained a writ of attachment, which levied upon a house,
built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, by filing copy of said writ and the
corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, on June 8,
1949. In due course, judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who, on October 8, 1951,
bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued in said case.
The corresponding definite deed of sale was issued to him on October 22, 1952, upon expiration of
the period of redemption. When Evangelista sought to take possession of the house, Rivera refused
to surrender it, upon the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety & Insurance
Co., Inc. respondent herein and that the latter is now the true owner of said property. It
appears that on May 10, 1952, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to
respondent, as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on September 29, 1950, in compliance
with a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6268 of the same court, entitled "Alto Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Maximo Quiambao, Rosario Guevara and Ricardo Rivera," in which
judgment, for the sum of money, had been rendered in favor respondent herein, as plaintiff therein.
Hence, on June 13, 1953, Evangelista instituted the present action against respondent and Ricardo
Rivera, for the purpose of establishing his (Evangelista) title over said house, securing possession
thereof, apart from recovering damages.
In its answer, respondent alleged, in substance, that it has a better right to the house, because the
sale made, and the definite deed of sale executed, in its favor, on September 29, 1950 and May 10,
1952, respectively, precede the sale to Evangelista (October 8, 1951) and the definite deed of sale
in his favor (October 22, 1952). It, also, made some special defenses which are discussed hereafter.
Rivera, in effect, joined forces with respondent. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila
rendered judgment for Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and respondent to deliver the house in
question to petitioner herein and to pay him, jointly and severally, forty pesos (P40.00) a month from
October, 1952, until said delivery, plus costs.
On appeal taken by respondent, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which absolved
said respondent from the complaint, upon the ground that, although the writ of attachment in favor of
Evangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila prior to the sale in favor of
respondent, Evangelista did not acquire thereby a preferential lien, the attachment having been
levied as if the house in question were immovable property, although in the opinion of the Court of
Appeals, it is "ostensibly a personal property." As such, the Court of Appeals held, "the order of
attachment . . . should have been served in the manner provided in subsection (e) of section 7 of
Rule 59," of the Rules of Court, reading:
The property of the defendant shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the
following manner:
(e) Debts and credits, and other personal property not capable of manual delivery, by leaving
with the person owing such debts, or having in his possession or under his control, such
credits or other personal property, or with, his agent, a copy of the order, and a notice that
the debts owing by him to the defendant, and the credits and other personal property in his
possession, or under his control, belonging to the defendant, are attached in pursuance of
such order. (Emphasis ours.)
However, the Court of Appeals seems to have been of the opinion, also, that the house of Rivera
should have been attached in accordance with subsection (c) of said section 7, as "personal
property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping in his custody", for it declared that
"Evangelists could not have . . . validly purchased Ricardo Rivera's house from the sheriff as the
latter was not in possession thereof at the time he sold it at a public auction."
Evangelista now seeks a review, by certiorari, of this decision of the Court of Appeals. In this
connection, it is not disputed that although the sale to the respondent preceded that made to
Evangelists, the latter would have a better right if the writ of attachment, issued in his
favor before the sale to the respondent, had been properly executed or enforced. This question, in
turn, depends upon whether the house of Ricardo Rivera is real property or not. In the affirmative
case, the applicable provision would be subsection (a) of section 7, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court,
pursuant to which the attachment should be made "by filing with the registrar of deeds a copy of the
order, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by
leaving a copy of such order, description, and notice with the occupant of the property, if any there
be."
Respondent maintains, however, and the Court of Appeals held, that Rivera's house is personal
property, the levy upon which must be made in conformity with subsections (c) and (e) of said
section 7 of Rule 59. Hence, the main issue before us is whether a house, constructed the lessee of
the land on which it is built, should be dealt with, for purpose, of attachment, as immovable property,
or as personal property.
It is, our considered opinion that said house is not personal property, much less a debt, credit or
other personal property not capable of manual delivery, but immovable property. As explicitly held, in
Laddera vs. Hodges (48 Off. Gaz., 5374), "a true building (not merely superimposed on the soil) is
immovable or real property, whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary
or lessee. This is the doctrine of our Supreme Court in Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Company,
37 Phil., 644. And it is amply supported by the rulings of the French Court. . . ."
It is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal
property for purposes of said contract (Luna vs. Encarnacion, * 48 Off. Gaz., 2664; Standard Oil Co.
of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil., 630; De Jesus vs. Juan Dee Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464). However,
this view is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the
principle of estoppel. Neither this principle, nor said view, is applicable to strangers to said contract.
Much less is it in point where there has been no contract whatsoever, with respect to the status of
the house involved, as in the case at bar. Apart from this, in Manarang vs. Ofilada (99 Phil., 108; 52
Off. Gaz., 3954), we held:
The question now before us, however, is: Does the fact that the parties entering into a
contract regarding a house gave said property the consideration of personal property in their
contract, bind the sheriff in advertising the property's sale at public auction as personal
property? It is to be remembered that in the case at bar the action was to collect a loan
secured by a chattel mortgage on the house. It is also to be remembered that in practice it is
the judgment creditor who points out to the sheriff the properties that the sheriff is to levy
upon in execution, and the judgment creditor in the case at bar is the party in whose favor
the owner of the house had conveyed it by way of chattel mortgage and, therefore, knew its
consideration as personal property.
These considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the rules on execution do not allow, and,
we should not interpret them in such a way as to allow, the special consideration that parties
to a contract may have desired to impart to real estate, for example, as personal property,
when they are, not ordinarily so. Sales on execution affect the public and third persons. The
regulation governing sales on execution are for public officials to follow. The form of
proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is suited to its character, not to the
character, which the parties have given to it or desire to give it. When the rules speak of
personal property, property which is ordinarily so considered is meant; and when real
property is spoken of, it means property which is generally known as real property. The
regulations were never intended to suit the consideration that parties may have privately
given to the property levied upon. Enforcement of regulations would be difficult were the
convenience or agreement of private parties to determine or govern the nature of the
proceedings. We therefore hold that the mere fact that a house was the subject of the chattel
mortgage and was considered as personal property by the parties does not make said house
personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale of public auction. This
ruling is demanded by the need for a definite, orderly and well defined regulation for official
and public guidance and would prevent confusion and misunderstanding.
We, therefore, declare that the house of mixed materials levied upon on execution, although
subject of a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third person, is real
property within the purview of Rule 39, section 16, of the Rules of Court as it has become a
permanent fixture of the land, which, is real property. (42 Am. Jur. 199-200; Leung
Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644; Republic vs. Ceniza, et al., 90 Phil., 544;
Ladera,, et al. vs. Hodges, et al., [C.A.] Off. Gaz. 5374.)" (Emphasis ours.)
The foregoing considerations apply, with equal force, to the conditions for the levy of attachment, for
it similarly affects the public and third persons.
It is argued, however, that, even if the house in question were immovable property, its attachment by
Evangelista was void or ineffective, because, in the language of the Court of Appeals, "after
presenting a Copy of the order of attachment in the Office of the Register of Deeds, the person who
might then be in possession of the house, the sheriff took no pains to serve Ricardo Rivera, or other
copies thereof." This finding of the Court of Appeals is neither conclusive upon us, nor accurate.
The Record on Appeal, annexed to the petition for Certiorari, shows that petitioner alleged, in
paragraph 3 of the complaint, that he acquired the house in question "as a consequence of the levy
of an attachment and execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235" of the Court of First Instance
of Manila. In his answer (paragraph 2), Ricardo Rivera admitted said attachment execution of
judgment. He alleged, however, by way a of special defense, that the title of respondent
"is superior to that of plaintiff because it is based on a public instrument," whereas Evangelista relied
upon a "promissory note" which "is only a private instrument"; that said Public instrument in favor of
respondent "is superior also to the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235"; and that plaintiff's claim against
Rivera amounted only to P866, "which is much below the real value" of said house, for which reason
it would be "grossly unjust to acquire the property for such an inadequate consideration."
Thus, Rivera impliedly admitted that his house had been attached, that the house had been sold to
Evangelista in accordance with the requisite formalities, and that said attachment was valid,
although allegedly inferior to the rights of respondent, and the consideration for the sale to
Evangelista was claimed to be inadequate.
Respondent, in turn, denied the allegation in said paragraph 3 of the complaint, but only " for the
reasons stated in its special defenses" namely: (1) that by virtue of the sale at public auction, and the
final deed executed by the sheriff in favor of respondent, the same became the "legitimate owner of
the house" in question; (2) that respondent "is a buyer in good faith and for value"; (3) that
respondent "took possession and control of said house"; (4) that "there was no valid attachment by
the plaintiff and/or the Sheriff of Manila of the property in question as neither took actual or
constructive possession or control of the property at any time"; and (5) "that the alleged registration
of plaintiff's attachment, certificate of sale and final deed in the Office of Register of Deeds, Manila, if
there was any, is likewise, not valid as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected
on land belonging to or leased from another." In this manner, respondent claimed a better right,
merely under the theory that, in case of double sale of immovable property, the purchaser who first
obtains possession in good faith, acquires title, if the sale has not been "recorded . . . in the Registry
of Property" (Art. 1544, Civil Code of the Philippines), and that the writ of attachment and the notice
of attachment in favor of Evangelista should be considered unregistered, "as there is no registry of
transactions covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from another." In fact, said
article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, governing double sales, was quoted on page 15 of
the brief for respondent in the Court of Appeals, in support of its fourth assignment of error therein,
to the effect that it "has preference or priority over the sale of the same property" to Evangelista.
In other words, there was no issue on whether copy of the writ and notice of attachment had been
served on Rivera. No evidence whatsoever, to the effect that Rivera had not been served with
copies of said writ and notice, was introduced in the Court of First Instance. In its brief in the Court of
Appeals, respondent did not aver, or even, intimate, that no such copies were served by the sheriff
upon Rivera. Service thereof on Rivera had been impliedly admitted by the defendants, in their
respective answers, and by their behaviour throughout the proceedings in the Court of First
Instance, and, as regards respondent, in the Court of Appeals. In fact, petitioner asserts in his brief
herein (p. 26) that copies of said writ and notice were delivered to Rivera, simultaneously with copies
of the complaint, upon service of summons, prior to the filing of copies of said writ and notice with
the register deeds, andthe truth of this assertion has not been directly and positively challenged or
denied in the brief filed before us by respondent herein. The latter did not dare therein to go beyond
making a statement for the first time in the course of these proceedings, begun almost five (5)
years ago (June 18, 1953) reproducing substantially the aforementioned finding of the Court of
Appeals and then quoting the same.
Considering, therefore, that neither the pleadings, nor the briefs in the Court of Appeals, raised an
issue on whether or not copies of the writ of attachment and notice of attachment had been served
upon Rivera; that the defendants had impliedly admitted-in said pleadings and briefs, as well as by
their conduct during the entire proceedings, prior to the rendition of the decision of the Court of
Appeals that Rivera had received copies of said documents; and that, for this reason, evidently,
no proof was introduced thereon, we, are of the opinion, and so hold that the finding of the Court of
Appeals to the effect that said copies had not been served upon Rivera is based upon a
misapprehension of the specific issues involved therein and goes beyond the range of such issues,
apart from being contrary to the aforementioned admission by the parties, and that, accordingly, a
grave abuse of discretion was committed in making said finding, which is, furthermore, inaccurate.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed, and another one shall be
entered affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Manila, with the costs of this instance against
respondent, the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia
and Felix, JJ.,concur.

EVANGELISTA vs. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.,
INC. G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958
EVANGELISTA vs. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958


FACTS:






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.
DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO G.R. No. L-
40411 August 7, 1935

DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO
G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935


MALCOLM, J .:
FACTS:
Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession. It operated a sawmill on a land, which it doesnt own.
Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation in which after the lease agreement, all buildings and
improvements would pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include machineries and
accessories. In connection to this, petitioner had in its sawmill machineries and other equipment
wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial judge erred in finding that the subject properties are personal in nature.
HELD:
The machinery must be classified as personal property.

The lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging to another, with the
understanding that the machinery was not included in the improvements which would pass to the lessor
on the expiration of the lease agreement. The lessee also treated the machinery as personal
property in executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. The machinery was levied upon
by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ of execution obtained without any protest being
registered.

Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property
or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any person having temporary right,
unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.




G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001
RUBY L. TSAI, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and MAMERTO R
VILLALUZ, respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
[G.R. No. 120109. October 2, 2001.]
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents.
QUISUMBING, J .:
These consolidated cases assail the decision
1
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986,
affirming the decision
2
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 89-48265.
Also assailed is respondent court's resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
On November 26, 1975, respondent Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million
peso (P3,000,000.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). As security
for the loan, EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom, a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the
lot under TCT No. 372097, where its factory stands, and the chattels located therein as enumerated
in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. The pertinent portions of the Real and Chattel
Mortgage are quoted below:
MORTGAGE
(REAL AND CHATTEL)
xxx xxx xxx
The MORTGAGOR(S) hereby transfer(s) and convey(s), by way of First Mortgage, to the
MORTGAGEE, . . . certain parcel(s) of land, together with all the buildings and improvements
now existing or which may hereafter exist thereon, situated in . . .
"Annex A"
(Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by Ever Textile Mills in favor of PBCommunications
continued)
LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT
A. Forty Eight (48) units of Vayrow Knitting Machines-Tompkins made in Hongkong:
Serial Numbers Size of Machines
xxx xxx xxx
B. Sixteen (16) sets of Vayrow Knitting Machines made in Taiwan.
xxx xxx xxx
C. Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines made in West Germany.
xxx xxx xxx
D. Four (4) Winding Machines.
xxx xxx xxx
SCHEDULE "A"
I. TCT # 372097 - RIZAL
xxx xxx xxx
II. Any and all buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter to exist on the above-
mentioned lot.
III. MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT situated, located and/or installed on the above-
mentioned lot located at . . .
(a) Forty eight sets (48) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . .
(b) Sixteen sets (16) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . .
(c) Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines . . .
(d) Two (2) Winding Machines . . .
(e) Two (2) Winding Machines . . .
IV. Any and all replacements, substitutions, additions, increases and accretions to above
properties.
xxx xxx xxx
3

On April 23, 1979, PBCom granted a second loan of P3,356,000.00 to EVERTEX. The loan was
secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached thereto.
These listed properties were similar to those listed in Annex A of the first mortgage deed.
After April 23, 1979, the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX
purchased various machines and equipments.
On November 19, 1982, due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed insolvency proceedings docketed
as SP Proc. No. LP-3091-P before the defunct Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXVIII.
The CFI issued an order on November 24, 1982 declaring the corporation insolvent. All its assets
were taken into the custody of the Insolvency Court, including the collateral, real and personal,
securing the two mortgages as abovementioned.
In the meantime, upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter commenced
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135, otherwise known as "An
Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate
Mortgages" and Act 1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". A Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued on
December 1, 1982.
On December 15, 1982, the first public auction was held where petitioner PBCom emerged as the
highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date. On December 23,
1982, another public auction was held and again, PBCom was the highest bidder. The sheriff issued
a Certificate of Sale on the same day.
On March 7, 1984, PBCom consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. In
November 1986, it leased the entire factory premises to petitioner Ruby L. Tsai for P50,000.00 a
month. On May 3, 1988, PBCom sold the factory, lock, stock and barrel to Tsai for P9,000,000.00,
including the contested machineries.
On March 16, 1989, EVERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages
with the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of
subject mortgage was in violation of the Insolvency Law. EVERTEX claimed that no rights having
been transmitted to PBCom over the assets of insolvent EVERTEX, therefore Tsai acquired no
rights over such assets sold to her, and should reconvey the assets.
Further, EVERTEX averred that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the
contested properties, which were not included in the Real and Chattel Mortgage of November 26,
1975 nor in the Chattel Mortgage of April 23, 1979, and neither were those properties included in the
Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated December 1, 1982 and Certificate of Sale . . . dated December 15,
1982.
The disputed properties, which were valued at P4,000,000.00, are: 14 Interlock Circular Knitting
Machines, 1 Jet Drying Equipment, 1 Dryer Equipment, 1 Raisin Equipment and 1 Heatset
Equipment.
The RTC found that the lease and sale of said personal properties were irregular and illegal because
they were not duly foreclosed nor sold at the December 15, 1982 auction sale since these were not
included in the schedules attached to the mortgage contracts. The trial court decreed:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff corporation and against the
defendants:
1. Ordering the annulment of the sale executed by defendant Philippine Bank of
Communications in favor of defendant Ruby L. Tsai on May 3, 1988 insofar as it affects the
personal properties listed in par. 9 of the complaint, and their return to the plaintiff
corporation through its assignee, plaintiff Mamerto R. Villaluz, for disposition by the
Insolvency Court, to be done within ten (10) days from finality of this decision;
2. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of
P5,200,000.00 as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question
from November 1986 to February 1991 and P100,000.00 every month thereafter, with
interest thereon at the legal rate per annum until full payment;
3. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of
P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation;
4. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of
P200,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;
5. Ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim of the defendants; and
6. Ordering the defendants to proportionately pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
4

Dissatisfied, both PBCom and Tsai appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its decision
dated August 31, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, except for the deletion therefrom of the award; for exemplary damages, and
reduction of the actual damages, from P100,000.00 to P20,000.00 per month, from November 1986
until subject personal properties are restored to appellees, the judgment appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED, in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.
5

Motion for reconsideration of the above decision having been denied in the resolution of April 28,
1995, PBCom and Tsai filed their separate petitions for review with this Court.
In G.R No. 120098, petitioner Tsai ascribed the following errors to the respondent court:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN EFFECT
MAKING A CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES BY TREATING THE 1981 ACQUIRED
MACHINERIES AS CHATTELS INSTEAD OF REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THEIR
EARLIER 1975 DEED OF REAL AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE OR 1979 DEED OF
CHATTEL MORTGAGE.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE DISPUTED 1981 MACHINERIES ARE NOT REAL PROPERTIES DEEMED
PART OF THE MORTGAGE DESPITE THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND
APPLICABLE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN DEEMING
PETITIONER A PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH.
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN ASSESSING
PETITIONER ACTUAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
FOR WANT OF VALID FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS.
V
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING
AGAINST PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS ON PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.
6

In G.R. No. 120098, PBCom raised the following issues:
I.
DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY DECREE THE MACHINERIES LISTED UNDER
PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE COMPLAINT BELOW AS PERSONAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE
1975 DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AND EXCLUDED THEM FROM THE REAL
PROPERTY EXTRAJUDICIALLY FORECLOSED BY PBCOM DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE
1975 DEED THAT ALL AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE
MORTGAGE SHALL FORM PART THEREOF, AND DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT
SAID MACHINERIES ARE BIG AND HEAVY, BOLTED OR CEMENTED ON THE REAL
PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY EVER TEXTILE MILLS TO PBCOM, AND WERE ASSESSED FOR
REAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES?
II
CAN PBCOM, WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE MACHINERIES IN QUESTION IN GOOD
FAITH, EXTENDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO EVER TEXTILE MILLS WHICH AS OF 1982
TOTALLED P9,547,095.28, WHO HAD SPENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY ON THE
DISPUTED MACHINERIES AND HAD TO PAY ALL THE BACK TAXES OF EVER TEXTILE MILLS
BE LEGALLY COMPELLED TO RETURN TO EVER THE SAID MACHINERIES OR IN LIEU
THEREOF BE ASSESSED DAMAGES. IS THAT SITUATION TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF
UNJUST ENRICHMENT?
7

The principal issue, in our view, is whether or not the inclusion of the questioned properties in the
foreclosed properties is proper. The secondary issue is whether or not the sale of these properties to
petitioner Ruby Tsai is valid.
For her part, Tsai avers that the Court of Appeals in effect made a contract for the parties by treating
the 1981 acquired units of machinery as chattels instead of real properties within their earlier 1975
deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage or 1979 deed of Chattel Mortgage.
8
Additionally, Tsai argues that
respondent court erred in holding that the disputed 1981 machineries are not real
properties.
9
Finally, she contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding against petitioner's
arguments on prescription and laches
10
and in assessing petitioner actual damages, attorney's fees
and expenses of litigation, for want of valid factual and legal basis.
11

Essentially, PBCom contends that respondent court erred in affirming the lower court's judgment
decreeing that the pieces of machinery in dispute were not duly foreclosed and could not be legally
leased nor sold to Ruby Tsai. It further argued that the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that the
pieces of machinery in question were personal properties have no factual and legal basis. Finally, it
asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in assessing damages and attorney's fees against PBCom.
In opposition, private respondents argue that the controverted units of machinery are not "real
properties" but chattels, and, therefore, they were not part of the foreclosed real properties,
rendering the lease and the subsequent sale thereof to Tsai a nullity.
12

Considering the assigned errors and the arguments of the parties, we find the petitions devoid of
merit and ought to be denied.
Well settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact,
unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the
assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.
13
This rule is applied more stringently when
the findings of fact of the RTC is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
14

The following are the facts as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that are
decisive of the issues: (1) the "controverted machineries" are not covered by, or included in, either of
the two mortgages, the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage, and the pure Chattel Mortgage; (2) the
said machineries were not included in the list of properties appended to the Notice of Sale, and
neither were they included in the Sheriff's Notice of Sale of the foreclosed properties.
15

Petitioners contend that the nature of the disputed machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or
cemented on the real property mortgaged by EVERTEX to PBCom, make them ipso
facto immovable under Article 415 (3) and (5) of the New Civil Code. This assertion, however, does
not settle the issue. Mere nuts and bolts do not foreclose the controversy. We have to look at the
parties' intent.
While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of
Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties herein gives us a contrary indication. In the case
at bar, both the trial and the appellate courts reached the same finding that the true intention of
PBCOM and the owner, EVERTEX, is to treat machinery and equipment as chattels. The pertinent
portion of respondent appellate court's ruling is quoted below:
As stressed upon by appellees, appellant bank treated the machineries as chattels; never as
real properties. Indeed, the 1975 mortgage contract, which was actually real and chattel
mortgage, militates against appellants' posture. It should be noted that the printed form used
by appellant bank was mainly for real estate mortgages. But reflective of the true intention of
appellant PBCOM and appellee EVERTEX was the typing in capital letters, immediately
following the printed caption of mortgage, of the phrase "real and chattel." So also, the
"machineries and equipment" in the printed form of the bank had to be inserted in the blank
space of the printed contract and connected with the word "building" by typewritten slash
marks. Now, then, if the machineries in question were contemplated to be included in the
real estate mortgage, there would have been no necessity to ink a chattel mortgage
specifically mentioning as part III of Schedule A a listing of the machineries covered thereby.
It would have sufficed to list them as immovables in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of the
land and building involved.
As regards the 1979 contract, the intention of the parties is clear and beyond question. It
refers solely tochattels. The inventory list of the mortgaged properties is an itemization of
sixty-three (63) individually described machineries while the schedule listed only machines
and 2,996,880.50 worth of finished cotton fabrics and natural cotton fabrics.
16

In the absence of any showing that this conclusion is baseless, erroneous or uncorroborated by the
evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to depart therefrom.
Too, assuming arguendo that the properties in question are immovable by nature, nothing detracts
the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. As far
back as Navarro v. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631 (1963), an immovable may be considered a personal
property if there is a stipulation as when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where
a chattel mortgage is executed over it, as in the case at bar.
In the instant case, the parties herein: (1) executed a contract styled as "Real Estate Mortgage and
Chattel Mortgage," instead of just "Real Estate Mortgage" if indeed their intention is to treat all
properties included therein as immovable, and (2) attached to the said contract a separate "LIST OF
MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT". These facts, taken together, evince the conclusion that the parties'
intention is to treat these units of machinery as chattels. A fortiori, the contested after-acquired
properties, which are of the same description as the units enumerated under the title "LIST OF
MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT," must also be treated as chattels.
Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the respondent appellate court's ruling that inasmuch as
the subject mortgages were intended by the parties to involve chattels, insofar as equipment and
machinery were concerned, the Chattel Mortgage Law applies, which provides in Section 7 thereof
that: "a chattel mortgage shall be deemed to cover only the property described therein and not like or
substituted property thereafter acquired by the mortgagor and placed in the same depository as the
property originally mortgaged, anything in the mortgage to the contrary notwithstanding."
And, since the disputed machineries were acquired in 1981 and could not have been involved in the
1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, it was consequently an error on the part of the Sheriff to include
subject machineries with the properties enumerated in said chattel mortgages.
As the auction sale of the subject properties to PBCom is void, no valid title passed in its favor.
Consequently, the sale thereof to Tsai is also a nullity under the elementary principle of nemo dat
quod non habet, one cannot give what one does not have.
17

Petitioner Tsai also argued that assuming that PBCom's title over the contested properties is a
nullity, she is nevertheless a purchaser in good faith and for value who now has a better right than
EVERTEX.
To the contrary, however, are the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court that she is not a
purchaser in good faith. Well-settled is the rule that the person who asserts the status of a purchaser
in good faith and for value has the burden of proving such assertion.
18
Petitioner Tsai failed to
discharge this burden persuasively.
Moreover, a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price
for the same, at the time of purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other
person in the property.
19
Records reveal, however, that when Tsai purchased the controverted
properties, she knew of respondent's claim thereon. As borne out by the records, she received the
letter of respondent's counsel, apprising her of respondent's claim, dated February 27, 1987.
20
She
replied thereto on March 9, 1987.
21
Despite her knowledge of respondent's claim, she proceeded to
buy the contested units of machinery on May 3, 1988. Thus, the RTC did not err in finding that she
was not a purchaser in good faith.
Petitioner Tsai's defense of indefeasibility of Torrens Title of the lot where the disputed properties
are located is equally unavailing. This defense refers to sale of lands and not to sale of properties
situated therein. Likewise, the mere fact that the lot where the factory and the disputed properties
stand is in PBCom's name does not automatically make PBCom the owner of everything found
therein, especially in view of EVERTEX's letter to Tsai enunciating its claim.
Finally, petitioners' defense of prescription and laches is less than convincing. We find no cogent
reason to disturb the consistent findings of both courts below that the case for the reconveyance of
the disputed properties was filed within the reglementary period. Here, in our view, the doctrine of
laches does not apply. Note that upon petitioners' adamant refusal to heed EVERTEX's claim,
respondent company immediately filed an action to recover possession and ownership of the
disputed properties. There is no evidence showing any failure or neglect on its part, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier. The doctrine of stale demands would apply only where by reason of
the lapse of time, it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. Moreover, except
for very strong reasons, this Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or
defeat the rights of an owner.
22

As to the award of damages, the contested damages are the actual compensation, representing
rentals for the contested units of machinery, the exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
As regards said actual compensation, the RTC awarded P100,000.00 corresponding to the unpaid
rentals of the contested properties based on the testimony of John Chua, who testified that the
P100,000.00 was based on the accepted practice in banking and finance, business and investments
that the rental price must take into account the cost of money used to buy them. The Court of
Appeals did not give full credence to Chua's projection and reduced the award to P20,000.00.
Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of
proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent
proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.
23
However, the allegations of
respondent company as to the amount of unrealized rentals due them as actual damages remain
mere assertions unsupported by documents and other competent evidence. In determining actual
damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but
must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount
of loss.
24
However, we are not prepared to disregard the following dispositions of the respondent
appellate court:
. . . In the award of actual damages under scrutiny, there is nothing on record warranting the
said award of P5,200,000.00, representing monthly rental income of P100,000.00 from
November 1986 to February 1991, and the additional award of P100,000.00 per month
thereafter.
As pointed out by appellants, the testimonial evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Jonh
(sic) Chua and Mamerto Villaluz, is shy of what is necessary to substantiate the actual
damages allegedly sustained by appellees, by way of unrealized rental income of subject
machineries and equipments.
The testimony of John Cua (sic) is nothing but an opinion or projection based on what is
claimed to be a practice in business and industry. But such a testimony cannot serve as the
sole basis for assessing the actual damages complained of. What is more, there is no
showing that had appellant Tsai not taken possession of the machineries and equipments in
question, somebody was willing and ready to rent the same for P100,000.00 a month.
xxx xxx xxx
Then, too, even assuming arguendo that the said machineries and equipments could have
generated a rental income of P30,000.00 a month, as projected by witness Mamerto Villaluz,
the same would have been a gross income. Therefrom should be deducted or removed,
expenses for maintenance and repairs . . . Therefore, in the determination of the actual
damages or unrealized rental income sued upon, there is a good basis to calculate that at
least four months in a year, the machineries in dispute would have been idle due to absence
of a lessee or while being repaired. In the light of the foregoing rationalization and
computation, We believe that a net unrealized rental income of P20,000.00 a month, since
November 1986, is more realistic and fair.
25

As to exemplary damages, the RTC awarded P200,000.00 to EVERTEX which the Court of Appeals
deleted. But according to the CA, there was no clear showing that petitioners acted malevolently,
wantonly and oppressively. The evidence, however, shows otherwise.It is a requisite to award
exemplary damages that the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith,
26
and the guilty acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, reckless or malevolent manner.
27
As previously stressed,
petitioner Tsai's act of purchasing the controverted properties despite her knowledge of EVERTEX's
claim was oppressive and subjected the already insolvent respondent to gross disadvantage.
Petitioner PBCom also received the same letters of Atty. Villaluz, responding thereto on March 24,
1987.
28
Thus, PBCom's act of taking all the properties found in the factory of the financially
handicapped respondent, including those properties not covered by or included in the mortgages, is
equally oppressive and tainted with bad faith. Thus, we are in agreement with the RTC that an award
of exemplary damages is proper.
The amount of P200,000.00 for exemplary damages is, however, excessive. Article 2216 of the Civil
Code provides that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for the adjudication of exemplary
damages, their assessment being left to the discretion of the court in accordance with the
circumstances of each case.
29
While the imposition of exemplary damages is justified in this case,
equity calls for its reduction. In Inhelder Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-52358, 122
SCRA 576, 585, (May 30, 1983), we laid down the rule that judicial discretion granted to the courts in
the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured
objectivity. Thus, here the award of exemplary damages by way of example for the public good
should be reduced to P100,000.00.
By the same token, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation may be recovered when
exemplary damages are awarded.
30
In our view, RTC's award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation is reasonable, given the circumstances in these cases.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners Philippine
Bank of Communications and Ruby L. Tsai are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally Ever
Textile Mills, Inc. the following: (1) P20,000.00 per month, as compensation for the use and
possession of the properties in question from November 1986
31
until subject personal properties are
restored to respondent corporation; (2) P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, and (3)
P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.


TSAI V. COURT OF
APPEALS
336 SCRA 324


FACTS:
EVERTEX secured a loan from PBC, guaranteed by a real estate and chattel mortgage over a parcel of
land where the factory stands, and the chattels located therein, as included in a schedule attached
to the mortgage contract. Another loan was obtained secured by a chattel mortgage over
properties with similar descriptions listed in the first schedule. During the date of execution of the
second mortgage, EVERTEX purchased machineries and equipment.

Due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed for insolvency proceedings. It failed to pay its obligation
and thus, PBC initiated extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages. PBC was the highest bidder in
the public auctions, making it the owner of the properties. It then leased the factory premises
to Tsai. Afterwards, EVERTEX sought the annulment of the sale and conveyance of the properties
to PBC as it was allegedly a violation of the INSOLVENCY LAW.

The RTC held that the lease and sale were irregular as it involved properties not included in the
schedule of the mortgage contract.
HELD:
While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of
REM and CM executed by the parties gives a contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial
and appellate courts show that the intention was to treat the machineries as movables or
personal property.

Assuming that the properties were considered immovables, nothing detracts the parties from
treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel.

G.R. No. L-17870 September 29, 1962
MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
THE CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER and the BOARD OF TAX APPEALS of Cagayan de Oro
City,respondents.
Binamira, Barria and Irabagon for petitioner.
Vicente E. Sabellina for respondents.

LABRADOR, J .:
This is a petition for the review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No.
710 holding that the petitioner Mindanao Bus Company is liable to the payment of the realty tax on
its maintenance and repair equipment hereunder referred to.
Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioner's above-
mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the respondent Board of Tax Appeals
on the ground that the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city
assessor, so petitioner herein filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the
assessment.
In the Court of Tax Appeals the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:
Petitioner and respondents, thru their respective counsels agreed to the following
stipulation of facts:
1. That petitioner is a public utility solely engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by
motor trucks, over its authorized lines in the Island of Mindanao, collecting rates approved by
the Public Service Commission;
2. That petitioner has its main office and shop at Cagayan de Oro City. It maintains Branch
Offices and/or stations at Iligan City, Lanao; Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur; Davao City and
Kibawe, Bukidnon Province;
3. That the machineries sought to be assessed by the respondent as real properties are the
following:
(a) Hobart Electric Welder Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked
Annex "A";
(b) Storm Boring Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "B";
(c) Lathe machine with motor, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex
"C";
(d) Black and Decker Grinder, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex
"D";
(e) PEMCO Hydraulic Press, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex
"E";
(f) Battery charger (Tungar charge machine) appearing in the attached photograph,
marked Annex "F"; and
(g) D-Engine Waukesha-M-Fuel, appearing in the attached photograph, marked
Annex "G".
4. That these machineries are sitting on cement or wooden platforms as may be seen in the
attached photographs which form part of this agreed stipulation of facts;
5. That petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its
TPU motor trucks; a repair shop; blacksmith and carpentry shops, and with these
machineries which are placed therein, its TPU trucks are made; body constructed; and same
are repaired in a condition to be serviceable in the TPU land transportation business it
operates;
6. That these machineries have never been or were never used as industrial equipments to
produce finished products for sale, nor to repair machineries, parts and the like offered to the
general public indiscriminately for business or commercial purposes for which petitioner has
never engaged in, to date.1awphl. nt
The Court of Tax Appeals having sustained the respondent city assessor's ruling, and having
denied a motion for reconsideration, petitioner brought the case to this Court assigning the following
errors:
1. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding respondents' contention that the
questioned assessments are valid; and that said tools, equipments or machineries are
immovable taxable real properties.
2. The Tax Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil
Code, and holding that pursuant thereto the movable equipments are taxable realties, by
reason of their being intended or destined for use in an industry.
3. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's contention that the respondent City
Assessor's power to assess and levy real estate taxes on machineries is further restricted by
section 31, paragraph (c) of Republic Act No. 521; and
4. The Tax Court erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Respondents contend that said equipments, tho movable, are immobilized by destination, in
accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code which provides:
Art. 415. The following are immovable properties:
x x x x x x x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. (Emphasis
ours.)
Note that the stipulation expressly states that the equipment are placed on wooden or cement
platforms. They can be moved around and about in petitioner's repair shop. In the case of B. H.
Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 663, the Supreme Court said:
Article 344 (Now Art. 415), 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
and 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
principle 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. (Emphasis ours.)
So that movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must first be
"essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works
would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established." We may
here distinguish, therefore, those movable which become immobilized by destination because they
are essential and principal elements in the industry for those which may not be so considered
immobilized because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. Thus, cash registers,
typewriters, etc., usually found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals
and are not and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for these businesses can
continue or carry on their functions without these equity comments. Airline companies use forklifts,
jeep-wagons, pressure pumps, IBM machines, etc. which are incidentals, not essentials, and thus
retain their movable nature. On the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of
liquor and soft drinks, though movable in nature, are immobilized because they are essential to said
industries; but the delivery trucks and adding machines which they usually own and use and are
found within their industrial compounds are merely incidental and retain their movable nature.
Similarly, the tools and equipments in question in this instant case are, by their nature, not
essential and principle municipal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and
cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals acquired as movables and used only for
expediency to facilitate and/or improve its service. Even without such tools and equipments, its
business may be carried on, as petitioner has carried on, without such equipments, before the war.
The transportation business could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rolling
equipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another.
The law that governs the determination of the question at issue is as follows:
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
x x x x x x x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of
land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works; (Civil Code of
the Phil.)
Aside from the element of essentiality the above-quoted provision also requires that the
industry or works be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. Thus in the case of Berkenkotter
vs. Cu Unjieng, supra, the "machinery, liquid containers, and instruments or implements" are found
in a building constructed on the land. A sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or
less permanently, and the sawing is conducted in the land or building.
But in the case at bar the equipments in question are destined only to repair or service the
transportation business, which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece of land, as
demanded by the law. Said equipments may not, therefore, be deemed real property.
Resuming what we have set forth above, we hold that the equipments in question are not
absolutely essential to the petitioner's transportation business, and petitioner's business is not
carried on in a building, tenement or on a specified land, so said equipment may not be considered
real estate within the meaning of Article 415 (c) of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the
equipment in question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real
estate tax. Without costs.
So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Regala, Concepcion and Barrera JJ., took no part.


Mindanao Bus Company v. The City Assessor and the Board of Tax Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City
116 Phil. 501
Facts:
Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioners above-mentioned
equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessmentto the respondent Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that
the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city assessor, so petitioner
herein filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the assessment. The Court of Tax
Appeals having sustained the respondent city assessors ruling, and having denied a motion for
reconsideration, petitioner brought the case to this Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the Tax Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code,
and holding that pursuant thereto the movable equipments are taxable realties, by reason of their being
intended or destined for use in an industry.
Held:
The law that governs the determination of the question at issue is as follows: Art. 415. The following
are immovable property:
x x x x x x x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an
industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to
meet the needs of the said industry or works; (Civil Code of the Phil.)
Aside from the element of essentiality the above-quoted provision also requires that the industry or works
be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. Thus in the case of Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, supra, the
machinery,liquid containers, and instruments or implements are found in a building constructed on the
land. A sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or less permanently, and the sawing is
conducted in the land or building. But in the case at bar the equipments in question are destined only to
repair or service the transportation business, which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece
of land, as demanded by the law. Said equipments may not, therefore, be deemed real property.
Resuming what we have set forth above, we hold that the equipments in question are not absolutely
essential to the petitioners transportation business, and petitioners business is not carried on in a building,
tenement or on a specified land, so said equipment may not be considered real estate within the meaning of
Article 415 (c) of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the equipment in
question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real estate tax.



G.R. No. L-15334 January 31, 1964
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CITY ASSESSOR and CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON
CITY, petitioners,
vs.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent.
Assistant City Attorney Jaime R. Agloro for petitioners.
Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for respondent.
PAREDES, J .:
From the stipulation of facts and evidence adduced during the hearing, the following appear:
On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 484 which authorized the
Municipal Board of Manila to grant a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric street
railway and electric light, heat and power system in the City of Manila and its suburbs to the person
or persons making the most favorable bid. Charles M. Swift was awarded the said franchise on
March 1903, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in Ordinance No. 44 approved on
March 24, 1903. Respondent Manila Electric Co. (Meralco for short), became the transferee and
owner of the franchise.
Meralco's electric power is generated by its hydro-electric plant located at Botocan Falls, Laguna
and is transmitted to the City of Manila by means of electric transmission wires, running from the
province of Laguna to the said City. These electric transmission wires which carry high voltage
current, are fastened to insulators attached on steel towers constructed by respondent at intervals,
from its hydro-electric plant in the province of Laguna to the City of Manila. The respondent Meralco
has constructed 40 of these steel towers within Quezon City, on land belonging to it. A photograph of
one of these steel towers is attached to the petition for review, marked Annex A. Three steel towers
were inspected by the lower court and parties and the following were the descriptions given there of
by said court:
The first steel tower is located in South Tatalon, Espaa Extension, Quezon City. The
findings were as follows: the ground around one of the four posts was excavated to a depth
of about eight (8) feet, with an opening of about one (1) meter in diameter, decreased to
about a quarter of a meter as it we deeper until it reached the bottom of the post; at the
bottom of the post were two parallel steel bars attached to the leg means of bolts; the tower
proper was attached to the leg three bolts; with two cross metals to prevent mobility; there
was no concrete foundation but there was adobe stone underneath; as the bottom of the
excavation was covered with water about three inches high, it could not be determined with
certainty to whether said adobe stone was placed purposely or not, as the place abounds
with this kind of stone; and the tower carried five high voltage wires without cover or any
insulating materials.
The second tower inspected was located in Kamuning Road, K-F, Quezon City, on land
owned by the petitioner approximate more than one kilometer from the first tower. As in the
first tower, the ground around one of the four legs was excavate from seven to eight (8) feet
deep and one and a half (1-) meters wide. There being very little water at the bottom, it
was seen that there was no concrete foundation, but there soft adobe beneath. The leg was
likewise provided with two parallel steel bars bolted to a square metal frame also bolted to
each corner. Like the first one, the second tower is made up of metal rods joined together by
means of bolts, so that by unscrewing the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and
reassembled.
The third tower examined is located along Kamias Road, Quezon City. As in the first two
towers given above, the ground around the two legs of the third tower was excavated to a
depth about two or three inches beyond the outside level of the steel bar foundation. It was
found that there was no concrete foundation. Like the two previous ones, the bottom
arrangement of the legs thereof were found to be resting on soft adobe, which, probably due
to high humidity, looks like mud or clay. It was also found that the square metal frame
supporting the legs were not attached to any material or foundation.
On November 15, 1955, petitioner City Assessor of Quezon City declared the aforesaid steel towers
for real property tax under Tax declaration Nos. 31992 and 15549. After denying respondent's
petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal was taken by respondent to the Board of
Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which required respondent to pay the amount of P11,651.86
as real property tax on the said steel towers for the years 1952 to 1956. Respondent paid the
amount under protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA for short)
which rendered a decision on December 29, 1958, ordering the cancellation of the said tax
declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund to the respondent the sum of
P11,651.86. The motion for reconsideration having been denied, on April 22, 1959, the instant
petition for review was filed.
In upholding the cause of respondents, the CTA held that: (1) the steel towers come within the term
"poles" which are declared exempt from taxes under part II paragraph 9 of respondent's franchise;
(2) the steel towers are personal properties and are not subject to real property tax; and (3) the City
Treasurer of Quezon City is held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. These are assigned
as errors by the petitioner in the brief.
The tax exemption privilege of the petitioner is quoted hereunder:
PAR 9. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes upon its real estate, buildings,
plant (not including poles, wires, transformers, and insulators), machinery and personal
property as other persons are or may be hereafter required by law to pay ... Said percentage
shall be due and payable at the time stated in paragraph nineteen of Part One hereof, ... and
shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatsoever nature and by whatsoever
authority upon the privileges, earnings, income, franchise, and poles, wires, transformers,
and insulators of the grantee from which taxes and assessments the grantee is hereby
expressly exempted. (Par. 9, Part Two, Act No. 484 Respondent's Franchise; emphasis
supplied.)
The word "pole" means "a long, comparatively slender usually cylindrical piece of wood or timber, as
typically the stem of a small tree stripped of its branches; also by extension, a similar typically
cylindrical piece or object of metal or the like". The term also refers to "an upright standard to the top
of which something is affixed or by which something is supported; as a dovecote set on a pole;
telegraph poles; a tent pole; sometimes, specifically a vessel's master (Webster's New International
Dictionary 2nd Ed., p. 1907.) Along the streets, in the City of Manila, may be seen cylindrical metal
poles, cubical concrete poles, and poles of the PLDT Co. which are made of two steel bars joined
together by an interlacing metal rod. They are called "poles" notwithstanding the fact that they are no
made of wood. It must be noted from paragraph 9, above quoted, that the concept of the "poles" for
which exemption is granted, is not determined by their place or location, nor by the character of the
electric current it carries, nor the material or form of which it is made, but the use to which they are
dedicated. In accordance with the definitions, pole is not restricted to a long cylindrical piece of wood
or metal, but includes "upright standards to the top of which something is affixed or by which
something is supported. As heretofore described, respondent's steel supports consists of a
framework of four steel bars or strips which are bound by steel cross-arms atop of which are cross-
arms supporting five high voltage transmission wires (See Annex A) and their sole function is to
support or carry such wires.
The conclusion of the CTA that the steel supports in question are embraced in the term "poles" is not
a novelty. Several courts of last resort in the United States have called these steel supports "steel
towers", and they denominated these supports or towers, as electric poles. In their decisions the
words "towers" and "poles" were used interchangeably, and it is well understood in that jurisdiction
that a transmission tower or pole means the same thing.
In a proceeding to condemn land for the use of electric power wires, in which the law provided that
wires shall be constructed upon suitable poles, this term was construed to mean either wood or
metal poles and in view of the land being subject to overflow, and the necessary carrying of
numerous wires and the distance between poles, the statute was interpreted to
include towers or poles. (Stemmons and Dallas Light Co. (Tex) 212 S.W. 222, 224; 32-A Words and
Phrases, p. 365.)
The term "poles" was also used to denominate the steel supports or towers used by an association
used to convey its electric power furnished to subscribers and members, constructed for the purpose
of fastening high voltage and dangerous electric wires alongside public highways. The steel supports
or towers were made of iron or other metals consisting of two pieces running from the ground up
some thirty feet high, being wider at the bottom than at the top, the said two metal pieces being
connected with criss-cross iron running from the bottom to the top, constructed like ladders and
loaded with high voltage electricity. In form and structure, they are like the steel towers in question.
(Salt River Valley Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 8 P. 2nd, 249-250.)
The term "poles" was used to denote the steel towers of an electric company engaged in the
generation of hydro-electric power generated from its plant to the Tower of Oxford and City of
Waterbury. These steel towers are about 15 feet square at the base and extended to a height of
about 35 feet to a point, and are embedded in the cement foundations sunk in the earth, the top of
which extends above the surface of the soil in the tower of Oxford, and to the towers are attached
insulators, arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the transmission of electric
power (Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Oxford, 101 Conn. 383, 126 Atl. p. 1).
In a case, the defendant admitted that the structure on which a certain person met his death was
built for the purpose of supporting a transmission wire used for carrying high-tension electric power,
but claimed that the steel towers on which it is carried were so large that their wire took their
structure out of the definition of a pole line. It was held that in defining the word pole, one should not
be governed by the wire or material of the support used, but was considering the danger from any
elevated wire carrying electric current, and that regardless of the size or material wire of its individual
members, any continuous series of structures intended and used solely or primarily for the purpose
of supporting wires carrying electric currents is a pole line (Inspiration Consolidation Cooper Co. v.
Bryan 252 P. 1016).
It is evident, therefore, that the word "poles", as used in Act No. 484 and incorporated in the
petitioner's franchise, should not be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to defeat the
very object for which the franchise was granted. The poles as contemplated thereon, should be
understood and taken as a part of the electric power system of the respondent Meralco, for the
conveyance of electric current from the source thereof to its consumers. If the respondent would be
required to employ "wooden poles", or "rounded poles" as it used to do fifty years back, then one
should admit that the Philippines is one century behind the age of space. It should also be conceded
by now that steel towers, like the ones in question, for obvious reasons, can better effectuate the
purpose for which the respondent's franchise was granted.
Granting for the purpose of argument that the steel supports or towers in question are not embraced
within the term poles, the logical question posited is whether they constitute real properties, so that
they can be subject to a real property tax. The tax law does not provide for a definition of real
property; but Article 415 of the Civil Code does, by stating the following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object;
x x x x x x x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works which may be carried in a building or on a piece of land,
and which tends directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
x x x x x x x x x
The steel towers or supports in question, do not come within the objects mentioned in paragraph 1,
because they do not constitute buildings or constructions adhered to the soil. They are not
construction analogous to buildings nor adhering to the soil. As per description, given by the lower
court, they are removable and merely attached to a square metal frame by means of bolts, which
when unscrewed could easily be dismantled and moved from place to place. They can not be
included under paragraph 3, as they are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, and they
can be separated without breaking the material or causing deterioration upon the object to which
they are attached. Each of these steel towers or supports consists of steel bars or metal strips,
joined together by means of bolts, which can be disassembled by unscrewing the bolts and
reassembled by screwing the same. These steel towers or supports do not also fall under paragraph
5, for they are not machineries, receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if they were, they
are not intended for industry or works on the land. Petitioner is not engaged in an industry or works
in the land in which the steel supports or towers are constructed.
It is finally contended that the CTA erred in ordering the City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund the
sum of P11,651.86, despite the fact that Quezon City is not a party to the case. It is argued that as
the City Treasurer is not the real party in interest, but Quezon City, which was not a party to the suit,
notwithstanding its capacity to sue and be sued, he should not be ordered to effect the refund. This
question has not been raised in the court below, and, therefore, it cannot be properly raised for the
first time on appeal. The herein petitioner is indulging in legal technicalities and niceties which do not
help him any; for factually, it was he (City Treasurer) whom had insisted that respondent herein pay
the real estate taxes, which respondent paid under protest. Having acted in his official capacity as
City Treasurer of Quezon City, he would surely know what to do, under the circumstances.
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Regala,
JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Dizon, J., took no part.

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS V. MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY
10 SCRA 68


FACTS:
City Assessor of QC declared the steel towers for real property tax under Tax Declarations. After denying
the respondents petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal was taken with the CTA which held that
the steel towers come under the exception of poles under the franchise given to MERALCO; the
steel towers are personal properties; and the City Treasurer is liable for the refund of the amount paid.


HELD:
The steel towers of an electric company dont constitute real property for the purposes of real property
tax.



G.R. No. L-50466 May 31, 1982
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS and CITY ASSESSOR OF
PASAY, respondents.

AQUINO, J .:
This case is about the realty tax on machinery and equipment installed by Caltex (Philippines) Inc. in
its gas stations located on leased land.
The machines and equipment consists of underground tanks, elevated tank, elevated water tanks,
water tanks, gasoline pumps, computing pumps, water pumps, car washer, car hoists, truck hoists,
air compressors and tireflators. The city assessor described the said equipment and machinery in
this manner:
A gasoline service station is a piece of lot where a building or shed is erected, a
water tank if there is any is placed in one corner of the lot, car hoists are placed in an
adjacent shed, an air compressor is attached in the wall of the shed or at the
concrete wall fence.
The controversial underground tank, depository of gasoline or crude oil, is dug deep
about six feet more or less, a few meters away from the shed. This is done to prevent
conflagration because gasoline and other combustible oil are very inflammable.
This underground tank is connected with a steel pipe to the gasoline pump and the
gasoline pump is commonly placed or constructed under the shed. The footing of the
pump is a cement pad and this cement pad is imbedded in the pavement under the
shed, and evidence that the gasoline underground tank is attached and connected to
the shed or building through the pipe to the pump and the pump is attached and
affixed to the cement pad and pavement covered by the roof of the building or shed.
The building or shed, the elevated water tank, the car hoist under a separate shed,
the air compressor, the underground gasoline tank, neon lights signboard, concrete
fence and pavement and the lot where they are all placed or erected, all of them
used in the pursuance of the gasoline service station business formed the entire
gasoline service-station.
As to whether the subject properties are attached and affixed to the tenement, it is
clear they are, for the tenement we consider in this particular case are (is) the
pavement covering the entire lot which was constructed by the owner of the gasoline
station and the improvement which holds all the properties under question, they are
attached and affixed to the pavement and to the improvement.
The pavement covering the entire lot of the gasoline service station, as well as all the
improvements, machines, equipments and apparatus are allowed by Caltex
(Philippines) Inc. ...
The underground gasoline tank is attached to the shed by the steel pipe to the pump,
so with the water tank it is connected also by a steel pipe to the pavement, then to
the electric motor which electric motor is placed under the shed. So to say that the
gasoline pumps, water pumps and underground tanks are outside of the service
station, and to consider only the building as the service station is grossly erroneous.
(pp. 58-60, Rollo).
The said machines and equipment are loaned by Caltex to gas station operators under an
appropriate lease agreement or receipt. It is stipulated in the lease contract that the operators, upon
demand, shall return to Caltex the machines and equipment in good condition as when received,
ordinary wear and tear excepted.
The lessor of the land, where the gas station is located, does not become the owner of the machines
and equipment installed therein. Caltex retains the ownership thereof during the term of the lease.
The city assessor of Pasay City characterized the said items of gas station equipment and
machinery as taxable realty. The realty tax on said equipment amounts to P4,541.10 annually (p. 52,
Rollo). The city board of tax appeals ruled that they are personalty. The assessor appealed to the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
The Board, which was composed of Secretary of Finance Cesar Virata as chairman, Acting
Secretary of Justice Catalino Macaraig, Jr. and Secretary of Local Government and Community
Development Jose Roo, held in its decision of June 3, 1977 that the said machines and equipment
are real property within the meaning of sections 3(k) & (m) and 38 of the Real Property Tax Code,
Presidential Decree No. 464, which took effect on June 1, 1974, and that the definitions of real
property and personal property in articles 415 and 416 of the Civil Code are not applicable to this
case.
The decision was reiterated by the Board (Minister Vicente Abad Santos took Macaraig's place) in its
resolution of January 12, 1978, denying Caltex's motion for reconsideration, a copy of which was
received by its lawyer on April 2, 1979.
On May 2, 1979 Caltex filed this certiorari petition wherein it prayed for the setting aside of the
Board's decision and for a declaration that t he said machines and equipment are personal property
not subject to realty tax (p. 16, Rollo).
The Solicitor General's contention that the Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over this case is not correct. When Republic act No. 1125 created the Tax Court in 1954, there was
as yet no Central Board of Assessment Appeals. Section 7(3) of that law in providing that the Tax
Court had jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of provincial or city boards of assessment
appeals had in mind the local boards of assessment appeals but not the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals which under the Real Property Tax Code has appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the said local boards of assessment appeals and is, therefore, in the same category as
the Tax Court.
Section 36 of the Real Property Tax Code provides that the decision of the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the receipt
of its decision by the appellant. Within that fifteen-day period, a petition for reconsideration may be
filed. The Code does not provide for the review of the Board's decision by this Court.
Consequently, the only remedy available for seeking a review by this Court of the decision of the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals is the special civil action of certiorari, the recourse resorted to
herein by Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
The issue is whether the pieces of gas station equipment and machinery already enumerated are
subject to realty tax. This issue has to be resolved primarily under the provisions of the Assessment
Law and the Real Property Tax Code.
Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due "on real property, including land,
buildings, machinery, and other improvements" not specifically exempted in section 3 thereof. This
provision is reproduced with some modification in the Real Property Tax Code which provides:
SEC. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. There shall be levied, assessed and
collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real
property, such as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or
attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted.
The Code contains the following definitions in its section 3:
k) Improvements is a valuable addition made to property or an amelioration in its
condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement of waste, costing
labor or capital and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for
new or further purposes.
m) Machinery shall embrace machines, mechanical contrivances, instruments,
appliances and apparatus attached to the real estate. It includes the physical
facilities available for production, as well as the installations and appurtenant service
facilities, together with all other equipment designed for or essential to its
manufacturing, industrial or agricultural purposes (See sec. 3[f], Assessment Law).
We hold that the said equipment and machinery, as appurtenances to the gas station building or
shed owned by Caltex (as to which it is subject to realty tax) and which fixtures are necessary to the
operation of the gas station, for without them the gas station would be useless, and which have been
attached or affixed permanently to the gas station site or embedded therein, are taxable
improvements and machinery within the meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax
Code.
Caltex invokes the rule 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 (Davao Saw Mill Co. vs. Castillo, 61 Phil 709).
That ruling is an interpretation of paragraph 5 of article 415 of the Civil Code regarding machinery
that becomes real property by destination. In the Davao Saw Mills case the question was whether
the machinery mounted on foundations of cement and installed by the lessee on leased land should
be regarded as real property forpurposes of execution of a judgment against the lessee. The sheriff
treated the machinery as personal property. This Court sustained the sheriff's action. (Compare with
Machinery & Engineering Supplies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 70, where in a replevin case
machinery was treated as realty).
Here, the question is whether the gas station equipment and machinery permanently affixed by
Caltex to its gas station and pavement (which are indubitably taxable realty) should be subject to the
realty tax. This question is different from the issue raised in the Davao Saw Mill case.
Improvements on land are commonly taxed as realty even though for some purposes they might be
considered personalty (84 C.J.S. 181-2, Notes 40 and 41). "It is a familiar phenomenon to see things
classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered
personal property" (Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, 633).
This case is also easily distinguishable from Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Co.,
119 Phil. 328, where Meralco's steel towers were considered poles within the meaning of paragraph
9 of its franchise which exempts its poles from taxation. The steel towers were considered
personalty because they were attached to square metal frames by means of bolts and could be
moved from place to place when unscrewed and dismantled.
Nor are Caltex's gas station equipment and machinery the same as tools and equipment in the
repair shop of a bus company which were held to be personal property not subject to realty tax
(Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 116 Phil. 501).
The Central Board of Assessment Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in upholding
the city assessor's is imposition of the realty tax on Caltex's gas station and equipment.
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
are affirmed. The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr. and Abad Santos, JJ., took no part.

CALTEX PHILS. V.
CENTRAL BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS
114 SCRA 296


FACTS:
The City Assessor characterized the items in gas stations of petitioner as taxable realty. These items
included underground tanks, elevated tank, elevated water tanks, water tanks, gasoline pumps,
computing pumps, etc. These items are not owned by the lessor of the land wherein the
equipment are installed. Upon expiration of the lease agreement, the equipment should be
returned in good condition.


HELD:
The equipment and machinery as appurtenances to the gas station building or shed owned by Caltex and
which fixtures are necessary to the operation of the gas station, for without them the gas station would be
useless, and which have been attached and fixed permanently to the gas station site or embedded
therein, are taxable improvements and machinery within the meaning of the Assessment Law and the
Real Property Tax Code.



G.R. No. L-47943 May 31, 1982
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF
BATANGAS and PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, respondents.

AQUINO, J .:
This case is about the imposition of the realty tax on two oil storage tanks installed in 1969 by Manila
Electric Company on a lot in San Pascual, Batangas which it leased in 1968 from Caltex (Phil.), Inc.
The tanks are within the Caltex refinery compound. They have a total capacity of 566,000 barrels.
They are used for storing fuel oil for Meralco's power plants.
According to Meralco, the storage tanks are made of steel plates welded and assembled on the
spot. Their bottoms rest on a foundation consisting of compacted earth as the outermost layer, a
sand pad as the intermediate layer and a two-inch thick bituminous asphalt stratum as the top layer.
The bottom of each tank is in contact with the asphalt layer,
The steel sides of the tank are directly supported underneath by a circular wall made of concrete,
eighteen inches thick, to prevent the tank from sliding. Hence, according to Meralco, the tank is not
attached to its foundation. It is not anchored or welded to the concrete circular wall. Its bottom plate
is not attached to any part of the foundation by bolts, screws or similar devices. The tank merely sits
on its foundation. Each empty tank can be floated by flooding its dike-inclosed location with water
four feet deep. (pp. 29-30, Rollo.)
On the other hand, according to the hearing commissioners of the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, the area where the two tanks are located is enclosed with earthen dikes with electric steel
poles on top thereof and is divided into two parts as the site of each tank. The foundation of the
tanks is elevated from the remaining area. On both sides of the earthen dikes are two separate
concrete steps leading to the foundation of each tank.
Tank No. 2 is supported by a concrete foundation with an asphalt lining about an inch thick.
Pipelines were installed on the sides of each tank and are connected to the pipelines of the Manila
Enterprises Industrial Corporation whose buildings and pumping station are near Tank No. 2.
The Board concludes that while the tanks rest or sit on their foundation, the foundation itself and the
walls, dikes and steps, which are integral parts of the tanks, are affixed to the land while the
pipelines are attached to the tanks. (pp. 60-61, Rollo.) In 1970, the municipal treasurer of Bauan,
Batangas, on the basis of an assessment made by the provincial assessor, required Meralco to pay
realty taxes on the two tanks. For the five-year period from 1970 to 1974, the tax and penalties
amounted to P431,703.96 (p. 27, Rollo). The Board required Meralco to pay the tax and penalties as
a condition for entertaining its appeal from the adverse decision of the Batangas board of
assessment appeals.
The Central Board of Assessment Appeals (composed of Acting Secretary of Finance Pedro M.
Almanzor as chairman and Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Secretary of Local
Government and Community Development Jose Roo as members) in its decision dated November
5, 1976 ruled that the tanks together with the foundation, walls, dikes, steps, pipelines and other
appurtenances constitute taxable improvements.
Meralco received a copy of that decision on February 28, 1977. On the fifteenth day, it filed a motion
for reconsideration which the Board denied in its resolution of November 25, 1977, a copy of which
was received by Meralco on February 28, 1978.
On March 15, 1978, Meralco filed this special civil action of certiorari to annul the Board's decision
and resolution. It contends that the Board acted without jurisdiction and committed a grave error of
law in holding that its storage tanks are taxable real property.
Meralco contends that the said oil storage tanks do not fall within any of the kinds of real property
enumerated in article 415 of the Civil Code and, therefore, they cannot be categorized as realty by
nature, by incorporation, by destination nor by analogy. Stress is laid on the fact that the tanks are
not attached to the land and that they were placed on leased land, not on the land owned by
Meralco.
This is one of those highly controversial, borderline or penumbral cases on the classification of
property where strong divergent opinions are inevitable. The issue raised by Meralco has to be
resolved in the light of the provisions of the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 470, and the
Real Property Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 464 which took effect on June 1, 1974.
Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due "on real property, including land,
buildings, machinery, and other improvements" not specifically exempted in section 3 thereof. This
provision is reproduced with some modification in the Real Property Tax Code which provides:
Sec. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. They shall be levied, assessed and
collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real
property, such as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or
attached to real property not hereinafter specifically exempted.
The Code contains the following definition in its section 3:
k) Improvements is a valuable addition made to property or an amelioration in its
condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement of waste, costing
labor or capital and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for
new or further purposes.
We hold that while the two storage tanks are not embedded in the land, they may, nevertheless, be
considered as improvements on the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful to the oil
industry. It is undeniable that the two tanks have been installed with some degree of permanence as
receptacles for the considerable quantities of oil needed by Meralco for its operations.
Oil storage tanks were held to be taxable realty in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. Atlantic City,
15 Atl. 2nd 271.
For purposes of taxation, the term "real property" may include things which should generally be
regarded as personal property(84 C.J.S. 171, Note 8). It is a familiar phenomenon to see things
classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered
personal property (Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, 633).
The case of Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Company, 119 Phil. 328, wherein
Meralco's steel towers were held not to be subject to realty tax, is not in point because in that case
the steel towers were regarded as poles and under its franchise Meralco's poles are exempt from
taxation. Moreover, the steel towers were not attached to any land or building. They were removable
from their metal frames.
Nor is there any parallelism between this case and Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 116 Phil.
501, where the tools and equipment in the repair, carpentry and blacksmith shops of a transportation
company were held not subject to realty tax because they were personal property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The Board's questioned decision and resolution are
affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.
Justice Abad Santos, J., took no part.


MANILA ELECTRIC CO. V.
CENTRAL BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS
114 SCRA 273


FACTS:
Petitioner owns two oil storage tanks, made of steel plates wielded and assembled on the spot.
Their bottoms rest on a foundation consisted of compacted earth, sand pad as immediate layer, and
asphalt stratum as top layer. The tanks merely sit on its foundation.

The municipal treasurer of Batangas made an assessment for realty tax on the two tanks, based on the
report of the Board of Assessors. MERALCO wished to oppose this assessment as they averred that the
tanks are not real properties.


HELD:
While the two storage tanks are not embodied in the land, they may nevertheless be considered
as improvements in the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry.

For purposes of taxation, the term real property may include things, which should generally be
considered as personal property. it is familiar phenomenon to see things classified as real
property for purposes of taxation which on general principle may be considered as personal
property.