You are on page 1of 6

CONRADO P. NAVARRO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUFINO G.

PINEDA, RAMONA
REYES, ET A., !efen!ants-appellants.
G.R. N". -#$%&' N"ve()e* +,, #-'+
FACTS.
Defendants Rufino G. Pineda and his mother Juana Gonzales, borrowed from plaintiff
Conrado P. Navarro, the sum of P2,5., pa!able after " months. #o se$ure the indebtedness,
Rufino e%e$uted a do$ument $aptioned &D''D () R'*+ ',#*#' and C-*##'+
.(R#G*G',&, whereb! Juana Gonzales, b! wa! of Real Estate Mortgage h!pothe$ated a
par$el of land, belon/in/ to her, and Rufino G. Pineda, by way of Chattel Mortgage, mort/a/ed
his two0stor! residential house, ere$ted on a lot belon/in/ to *tt!. 1i$ente Castro and one motor
tru$2, re/istered in his name.
3hen the mort/a/e debt be$ame due and pa!able, the defendants, after demands made
on them, failed to pa! and even after two e%tensions as to the period when pa!ments be$ame
due. 4n due $ourse, the plaintiff filed a $omplaint for fore$losure of the mort/a/e and for
dama/es. 3hile the $ase is bein/ heard, the parties submitted a ,tipulation of )a$ts, wherein the
defendants admitted the indebtedness, the authenti$it! and due e%e$ution of the Real 'state and
Chattel .ort/a/es and leavin/ the onl! issue in the $ase as whether or not the residential house,
sub5e$t of the mort/a/e $an be $onsidered a Chattel.
Despite su$h stipulation of fa$ts, the lower $ourt later on ruled and ordered defendants to
pa! the amount owin/ plus 627 $ompounded interest per annum to Navarro 89: da!s from
re$eipt of the (rder whi$h further ordered defendant to deliver immediatel! to the Provin$ial
,heriff of #arla$ the personal properties used as se$urit!.
ISSUE/S.
3hether or not the residential house, sub5e$t of the mort/a/e $an be $onsidered a $hattel and still
remain valid
RUING/RATIO.
;es, this Court a/rees with the trial $ourt in de$larin/ the deed of $hattel mort/a/e valid
solel! on the /round that the house mort/a/ed was ere$ted on the land whi$h belon/ed to a third
person, but also and prin$ipall! on the do$trine of estoppel, in that &the parties have so e%pressl!
a/reed& in the mort/a/e to $onsider the house as $hattel &for its smallness and mi%ed materials of
sawali and wood<.
4t is undeniable that the parties to a $ontra$t ma! b! a/reement treat as personal propert!
that whi$h b! nature would be real propert!. #here $annot be an! =uestion that a buildin/ of
mi%ed materials ma! be the sub5e$t of a $hattel mort/a/e, in whi$h $ase, it is $onsidered as
between the parties as personal propert!. #he matter depends on the $ir$umstan$es and the
intention of the parties. 4t should be noted, thou/h, that the view that parties to a deed of $hattel
mort/a/ee ma! a/ree to $onsider a house as personal propert! for the purposes of said $ontra$t,
is /ood onl! insofar as the $ontra$tin/ parties are $on$erned.
-en$e, if a house belon/in/ to a person stands on a rented land belon/in/ to another
person, it ma! be mort/a/ed as a personal propert! is so stipulated in the do$ument of mort/a/e.
4t should be noted, however, that the prin$iple is predi$ated on statements b! the owner de$larin/
his house to be a $hattel, a $ondu$t that ma! $on$eivabl! estop him from subse=uentl! $laimin/
otherwise. #he do$trine, therefore, /athered from these $ases is that althou/h in some instan$es,
a house of mi%ed materials has been $onsidered as a $hattel between them, has been re$o/nized,
it has been a $onstant $riterion nevertheless that, with respe$t to third persons, who are not
parties to the $ontra$t, and spe$iall! in e%e$ution pro$eedin/s, the house is $onsidered as an
immovable propert! 8*rt. 6>?6, New Civil Code:.
STANDARD OIL CO. vs. JARAMILLO
Facts:
On November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the lessee of a parcel of land situated in
the it! of "anila and owner of the house of stron# materials built thereon, upon which date she e$ecuted
a document in the form of a chattel mort#a#e to conve! to the %tandard Oil. o. b! wa! of mort#a#e both
the leasehold interest in said lot and the buildin# to which it stands
&fter said document had been dul! ac'nowled#ed and delivered, it was then presented to (oa)uin
(aramillo, Re#ister of *eeds of the it! of "anila, for the purpose of havin# the same recorded. +pon
e$amination of the instrument, the (aramillo was of the opinion that it was not chattel mort#a#e, for the
reason that the interest therein mort#a#ed did not appear to be personal propert!, within the meanin# of
the hattel "ort#a#e ,aw, and re#istration was refused on this #round onl!.
Issue:
-hether or not the deed ma! be re#istered in the chattel mort#a#e re#istr!.
Held:
/es it ma! be re#istered. 0he duties of a re#ister of deeds in respect to the re#istration of chattel
mort#a#es are purel! of a ministerial character, and he is clothed with no 1udicial or )uasi21udicial power to
determine the nature of the propert!, whether real or personal, which is the sub1ect of the mort#a#e.
Generall! spea'in#, he should accept the )ualification of the propert! adapted b! the person who
presents the instrument for re#istration and should place the instrument on record, upon pa!ment of the
proper fee, leavin# the effects of re#istration to be determined b! the court if such )uestion should arise
for le#al determination.
0he efficac! of the act of recordin# a chattel mort#a#e consists in the fact that re#istration operates as
constructive notice of the e$istence of the contract, and the le#al effects of the instrument must be
discovered in the document itself, in relation with the fact of notice. Re#istration adds nothin# to the
instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobod!3s ri#hts e$cept as a species of constructive
notice.
Bicerra v. Teneza
456RR& v 06N67& G.R. No. ,218219 November 29, 1982
:acts; appellants were the owners of the house, worth <2==.==, built on and owned b! them and situated
in the said municipalit! ,a#an#ilan#> that sometime in (anuar! 19?7 appealed forcibl! demolished the
house, claimin# to be the owners thereof> that the materials of the house, after it was dismantled, were
placed in the custod! of the barrio lieutenant of the place> and that as a result of appellate3s refusal to
restore the house or to deliver the material appellants the latter have suffered dama#es.
5ssue; whether the action involves title to real propert!.
Rulin#@ Rationale; & house is classified as immovable propert! b! reason of its adherence to the soil on
which it is built A&rt. B1?, par. 1, ivil odeC. 0his classification holds true re#ardless of the fact that the
house ma! be situated on land belon#in# to a different owner. 4ut once the house is demolished, as in
this case, it ceases to e$ist as such and hence its character as an immovable li'ewise ceases.
Bicerra v. Teneza !.R. N". L#$%&$'. N"ve()er &*+
$*%&.,
4icerra v. 0eneDa
EG.R. No. ,218219. November 29, 1982.F
6n 4anc, "a'alintal A(C; 1= concur.
:&0%; 0he 4icerras are supposedl! the owners of the house worth <2==, built on a lot owned b! them
in ,a#an#ilan#, &bra> which the 0eneDas forcibl! demolished in (anuar! 19?7, claimin# to be the owners
thereof. 0he materials of the house were placed in the custod! of the barrio lieutenant. 0he 4icerras filed
a complaint claimin# actual dama#es of <2==, moral and conse)uential dama#es amountin# to <8==,
and the costs. 0he :5 &bra dismissed the complaint claimin# that the action was within the e$clusive
Aori#inalC 1urisdiction of the (ustice of the <eace ourt of ,a#an#ilan#, &bra.
5%%+6;
-@N the action involves title to real propet!.
-@N the dismissal of the complaint was proper.
G6,*;
0he %upreme ourt affirmed the order appealed. Gavin# been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs were
ad1ud#ed.
1. Gouse is immovable propert! even if situated on land belon#in# to a different owner> 6$ception, when
demolished
& house is classified as immovable propert! b! reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built
A&rticle B1?, para#raph 1, ivil odeC. 0his classification holds true re#ardless of the fact that the house
ma! be situated on land belon#in# to a different owner. 4ut once the house is demolished, as in this case,
it ceases to e$ist as such and hence its character as an immovable li'ewise ceases.
2. Recover! of dama#es not e$ceedin# <2,=== and involvin# no real propert! belon# to the (ustice of the
<eace ourt
0he complaint is for recover! of dama#es, the onl! positive relief pra!ed for. :urther, a declaration of
bein# the owners of the dismantled house and@or of the materials in no wise constitutes the relief itself
which if #ranted b! final 1ud#ment could be enforceable b! e$ecution, but is onl! incidental to the real
cause of action to recover dama#es. &s this is a case for recover! of dama#es where the demand does
not e$ceed <h< 2,=== and that there is no real propert! liti#ated as the house has ceased to e$ist, the
case is within the 1urisdiction of the (ustice of the <eace ourt Aas per %ection 99, R& 298 as amendedC
and not the :5 A%ection BB, id.C
B"ard "- Asses(ent A..eals v. Manila /lectric C".
4oard of &ssesment &ppeals vs "anila 6lectric o.
:acts;
5n 19=2, <hilippine ommission enacted &ct No. B9B which authoriDed the "unicipal 4oard of "anila to
#rant a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric street railwa! and electric li#ht, heat and
power s!stem in the it! of "anila and its suburbs to the person or persons ma'in# the most favorable
bid. harles ". %wift was awarded the said franchise, the terms and conditions of which were embodied
in Ordinance No. BB in 19=H.
5n 19??, petitioner it! &ssessor of IueDon it! declared the aforesaid steel towers for real propert! ta$
under 0a$ declaration Nos. H1992 and 1??B9. &fter den!in# respondent3s petition to cancel these
declarations, an appeal was ta'en b! respondent to the 4oard of &ssessment &ppeals of IueDon it!,
which re)uired respondent to pa! the amount of <11,8?1.98 as real propert! ta$ on the said steel towers
for the !ears 19?2 to 19?8. Respondent paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for review in
the 0& which rendered a decision on *ecember 29, 19?9, orderin# the cancellation of the said ta$
declarations and the petitioner it! 0reasurer of IueDon it! to refund to the respondent the sum of
<11,8?1.98. 0he motion for reconsideration havin# been denied, on &pril 22, 19?9, the instant petition for
review was filed.
5ssue;
-hether the aforesaid steel towers is a real propert!, ma'in# petitioners liable for real propert! ta$.
Rulin#;
5n upholdin# the cause of respondents, the 0& held that; A1C the steel towers come within the term
JpolesJ which are declared e$empt from ta$es under part 55 para#raph 9 of respondent3s franchise> A2C the
steel towers are personal properties and are not sub1ect to real propert! ta$> and AHC the it! 0reasurer of
IueDon it! is held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. 0hese are assi#ned as errors b! the
petitioner in the brief.
6ven if steel supports or towers in )uestion are not embraced within the term poles, the lo#ical )uestion
posted is whether the! constitute real properties, so that the! can be sub1ect to a real propert! ta$. 0he
ta$ law does not provide for a definition of real propert! neither does it fall in an! of the definitions of real
propert! in &rt. B1? of the ivil ode.
Board of Assessment Appeals v.
MERALCO [G.R. No. L-15334.
an!ar" 31# 1$%4.&
!n 28
En Ban'# (aredes )*+ , 'on'!r# 1 'on'!r -n res!lt# 1 too. no part.

Facts: On /0 O'to1er 1$0/# t2e (2-l-pp-ne Comm-ss-on ena'ted A't 4,4 32-'2 a!t2or-4ed
t2e M!n-'-pal Board of Man-la to 5rant a fran'2-se to 'onstr!'t# ma-nta-n and operate an
ele'tr-' street ra-l3a" and ele'tr-' l-52t# 2eat and po3er s"stem -n t2e C-t" of Man-la and -ts
s!1!r1s to t2e person or persons ma.-n5 t2e most favora1le 1-d. C2arles M. 63-ft 3as
a3arded t2e sa-d fran'2-se on Mar'2 1$03# t2e terms and 'ond-t-ons of 32-'2 3ere
em1od-ed -n Ord-nan'e 44 approved on /4 Mar'2 1$03. Meral'o 1e'ame t2e transferee and
o3ner of t2e fran'2-se. Meral'o7s ele'tr-' po3er -s 5enerated 1" -ts 2"dro-ele'tr-' plant
lo'ated at Boto'an 8alls# La5!na and -s transm-tted to t2e C-t" of Man-la 1" means of ele'tr-'
transm-ss-on 3-res# r!nn-n5 from t2e prov-n'e of La5!na to t2e sa-d C-t". 92ese ele'tr-'
transm-ss-on 3-res 32-'2 'arr" 2-52 volta5e '!rrent# are fastened to -ns!lators atta'2ed on
steel to3ers 'onstr!'ted 1" respondent at -ntervals# from -ts 2"droele'tr-' plant -n t2e
prov-n'e of La5!na to t2e C-t" of Man-la. Meral'o 2as 'onstr!'ted 40 of t2ese steel to3ers
3-t2-n :!e4on C-t"# on land 1elon5-n5 to -t.
On 15 Novem1er 1$55# C-t" Assessor of :!e4on C-t" de'lared t2e aforesa-d steel to3ers for
real propert" ta; !nder 9a; <e'larat-on 31$$/ and 1554$. After den"-n5 Meral'o7s pet-t-on
to 'an'el t2ese de'larat-ons an appeal 3as ta.en 1" Meral'o to t2e Board of Assessment
Appeals of :!e4on C-t"# 32-'2 re=!-red Meral'o to pa" t2e amo!nt of (11#%51.,% as real
propert" ta; on t2e sa-d steel to3ers for t2e "ears 1$5/ to 1$5%. Meral'o pa-d t2e amo!nt
!nder protest# and >led a pet-t-on for rev-e3 -n t2e Co!rt of 9a; Appeals 32-'2 rendered a
de'-s-on on /$ <e'em1er 1$5,# order-n5 t2e 'an'ellat-on of t2e sa-d ta; de'larat-ons and
t2e C-t" 9reas!rer of :!e4on C-t" to ref!nd to Meral'o t2e s!m of (11#%51.,%. 92e mot-on for
re'ons-derat-on 2av-n5 1een den-ed# on // Apr-l 1$5$# t2e pet-t-on for rev-e3 3as >led.
?ss!e+ @2et2er or not t2e steel to3ers of an ele'tr-' 'ompan" 'onst-t!te real propert" for t2e
p!rposes of real propert" ta;.
Aeld+ 92e steel to3ers of an ele'tr-' 'ompan" don7t 'onst-t!te real propert" for t2e p!rposes
of real propert" ta;.
Steel towers are not immovable property under paragraph 1, 3 and 5 of rticle
!15"
92e steel to3ers or s!pports do not 'ome 3-t2-n t2e o1Be'ts ment-oned -n para5rap2 1#
1e'a!se t2e" do not 'onst-t!te 1!-ld-n5s or 'onstr!'t-ons ad2ered to t2e so-l. 92e" are not
'onstr!'t-ons analo5o!s to 1!-ld-n5s nor ad2er-n5 to t2e so-l. As per des'r-pt-on# 5-ven 1"
t2e lo3er 'o!rt# t2e" are remova1le and merel" atta'2ed to a s=!are metal frame 1" means
of 1olts# 32-'2 32en !ns're3ed 'o!ld eas-l" 1e d-smantled and moved from pla'e to pla'e.
92e" 'annot 1e -n'l!ded !nder para5rap2 3# as t2e" are not atta'2ed to an -mmova1le -n a
>;ed manner# and t2e" 'an 1e separated 3-t2o!t 1rea.-n5 t2e mater-al or 'a!s-n5
deter-orat-on !pon t2e o1Be't to 32-'2 t2e" are atta'2ed. Ea'2 of t2ese steel to3ers or
s!pports 'ons-sts of steel 1ars or metal str-ps# Bo-ned to5et2er 1" means of 1olts# 32-'2 'an
1e d-sassem1led 1" !ns're3-n5 t2e 1olts and reassem1led 1" s're3-n5 t2e same.
92ese steel to3ers or s!pports do not also fall !nder para5rap2 5# for t2e" are not
ma'2-ner-es or re'epta'les# -nstr!ments or -mplements# and even -f t2e" 3ere# t2e" are not
-ntended for -nd!str" or 3or.s on t2e land.
(et-t-oner -s not en5a5ed -n an -nd!str" or 3or.s on t2e land -n 32-'2 t2e steel s!pports or
to3ers are 'onstr!'ted.
92e 6!preme Co!rt aCrmed t2e de'-s-on appealed from# 3-t2 'osts a5a-nst t2e pet-t-oners.