Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Court of Appeals real property mortgaged by EVERTEX to PBCom, attached to the said contract a separate “LIST OF
make them ipso factoimmovable under Article 415 (3) MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT.” These facts, taken
G.R. No. 120098. October 2, 2001.* and (5) of the New Civil Code. This assertion, together, evince the conclusion that the parties’
however, does not settle the issue. Mere nuts and intention is to treat these units of machinery as
RUBY L. TSAI, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
bolts do not foreclose the controversy. We have to chattels. A fortiori, the contested after-acquired
APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and
look at the parties’ intent. While it is true that the properties, which are of the same description as the
MAMERTO R. VILLALUZ, respondents.
controverted properties appear to be immobile, a units enumerated under the title “LIST OF
G.R. No. 120109. October 2, 2001* perusal of the contract of Real and Chattel Mortgage MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT,” must also be
executed by the parties herein gives us a contrary treated as chattels.
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and the
petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER appellate courts reached the same finding that the Same; Same; Chattel Mortgage; A chattel
TEXTILE MILLS and MAMERTO R. VILLALUZ, true intention of PBCom and the owner, EVERTEX, is mortgage shall be deemed to cover only the
respondents. to treat machinery and equipment as chattels. property described therein and not like or
substituted property thereafter acquired by the
Appeals: The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Same; Same; Estoppel; Even if the properties are mortgagor and placed in the same depository as
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of immovable by nature, nothing detracts the parties the property originally mortgaged, anything in the
the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing from treating them as chattels to secure an mortgage to the contrary notwithstanding.—
only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual obligation under the principle of estoppel.—Too, Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the
findings complained of are devoid of support by assuming arguendo that the properties in question are respondent appellate court’s ruling that inasmuch as
the evidence on record or the assailed judgment immovable by nature, nothing detracts the parties the subject mortgages were intended by the parties to
is based on misapprehension of facts.—Well from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation involve chattels, insofar as equipment and machinery
settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme under the principle of estoppel. As far back asNavarro were concerned, the Chattel Mortgage Law applies,
Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule v. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631 (1963), an immovable may be which provides in Section 7 thereof that: “a chattel
45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to considered a personal property if there is a stipulation mortgage shall be deemed to coveronly the property
reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the as when it is used as security in the payment of an described therein and not like or substituted property
factual findings complained of are devoid of support obligation where a chattel mortgage is executed over thereafter acquired by the mortgagor and placed in
by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is it, as in the case at bar. the same depository as the property originally
based on misapprehension of facts. This rule is mortgaged, anything in the mortgage to the contrary
applied more stringently when the findings of fact of Same; Same; Same; Where the facts, taken notwithstanding.” And, since the disputed machineries
the RTC is affirmed by the Court of Appeals. together, evince the conclusion that the parties’ were acquired in 1981 and could not have been
intention is to treat the units of machinery as involved in the 1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, it was
Property; Mortgages; The nature of the disputed chattels, a fortiori, the after-acquired properties, consequently an error on the part of the Sheriff to
machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or which are of the same description as the units include subject machineries with the properties
cemented on the real property mortgaged, does referred to earlier, must also be treated as enumerated in said chattel mortgages.
not make them ipso facto immovable under Article chattels.—In the instant case, the parties herein: (1)
415 (3) and (5) of the New Civil Code, as the executed a contract styled as “Real Estate Mortgage Sales; Purchaser in Good Faith; Well-settled is the
parties’ intent has to be looked into.—Petitioners and Chattel Mortgage,” instead of just “Real Estate rule that the person who asserts the status of a
contend that the nature of the disputed machineries, Mortgage” if indeed their intention is to treat all purchaser in good faith and for value has the
i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or cemented on the properties included therein as immovable, and (2) burden of proving such assertion.—Petitioner Tsai
1|Page- Property Case 3
also argued that assuming that PBCom’s title over the and disputed properties stand in a person’s name Damages; In determining actual damages, the
contested properties is a nullity, she is nevertheless a does not automatically make such person the court cannot rely on mere assertions,
purchaser in good faith and for value who now has a owner of everything found therein.—Petitioner speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must
better right than EVERTEX. To the contrary, however, Tsai’s defense of indefeasibility of Torrens Title of the depend on competent proof and on the best
are the factual findings and conclusions of the trial lot where the disputed properties are located is evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount
court that she is not a purchaser in good faith. Well- equally unavailing. This defense refers to sale of of loss.—Basic is the rule that to recover actual
settled is the rule that the person who asserts the lands and not to sale of properties situated therein. damages, the amount of loss must not only be
status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has Likewise, the mere fact that the lot where the factory capable of proof but must actually be proven with
the burden of proving such assertion. Petitioner Tsai and the disputed properties stand is in PBCom’s reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon
failed to discharge this burden persuasively. name does not automatically make PBCom the owner competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the
of everything found therein, especially in view of actual amount thereof. However, the allegations of
Same; Same; A purchaser in good faith and for EVERTEX’s letter to Tsai enunciating its claim. respondent company as to the amount of unrealized
value is one who buys the property of another rentals due them as actual damages remain mere
without notice that some other person has a right Laches; Doctrine of Stale Demands; The doctrine assertions unsupported by documents and other
to or interest in such property and pays a full and of stale demands would apply only where by competent evidence. In determining actual damages,
fair price for the same, at the time of purchase, or reason of the lapse of time, it would be inequitable the court cannot rely on mere assertions,
before he has notice of the claims or interest of to allow a party to enforce his legal rights.— speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must
some other person in the property.—A purchaser in Petitioners’ defense of prescription and laches is less depend on competent proof and on the best evidence
good faith and for value is one who buys the property than convincing. We find no cogent reason to disturb obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.
of another without notice that some other person has the consistent findings of both courts below that the
a right to or interest in such property and pays a full case for the reconveyance of the disputed properties QUISUMBING, J.:
and fair price for the same, at the time of purchase, or was filed within the reglementary period. Here, in our
before he has notice of the claims or interest of some view, the doctrine of laches does not apply. Note that These consolidated cases assail the decision1 of the
other person in the property. Records reveal, upon petitioners’ adamant refusal to heed Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986, affirming
however, that when Tsai purchased the controverted EVERTEX’s claim, respondent company immediately the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
properties, she knew of respondent’s claim thereon. filed an action to recover possession and ownership Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 89-48265. Also assailed is
As borne out by the records, she received the letter of of the disputed properties. There is no evidence respondent court’s resolution denying petitioners’
respondent’s counsel, apprising her of respondent’s showing any failure or neglect on its part, for an motion for reconsideration.
claim, dated February 27, 1987. She replied thereto unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
On November 26, 1975, respondent Ever Textile
on March 9, 1987. Despite her knowledge of that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million peso
respondent’s claim, she proceeded to buy the should have been done earlier. The doctrine of stale
(P3,000,000.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank
contested units of machinery on May 3, 1988. Thus, demands would apply only where by reason of the
of Communications (PBCom). As security for the loan,
the RTC did not err in finding that she was not a lapse of time, it would be inequitable to allow a party
EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom, a deed of
purchaser in good faith. to enforce his legal rights. Moreover, except for very
Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot under TCT
strong reasons, this Court is not disposed to apply the
Same; Land Titles; Torrens System; The defense No. 372097, where its factory stands, and the chattels
doctrine of laches to prejudice or defeat the rights of
of indefeasibility of Torrens Title refers to sale of located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached
an owner.
lands and not to sale of properties situated to the mortgage contract. The pertinent portions of the
therein; The mere fact that the lot where a factory Real and Chattel Mortgage are quoted below:
xxx On April 23, 1979, PBCom granted a second loan of On March 7, 1984, PBCom consolidated its ownership
P3,356,000.00 to EVERTEX. The loan was secured over the lot and all the properties in it. In November
1. C.Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines made in by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties 1986, it leased the entire factory premises to
West Germany. enumerated in a list attached thereto. These listed petitioner Ruby L. Tsai for P50,000.00 a month. On
properties were similar to those listed in Annex A of May 3, 1988, PBCom sold the factory, lock, stock and
xxx
the first mortgage deed. barrel to Tsai for P9,000,000.00, including the
1. D.Four (4) Winding Machines. contested machineries.
After April 23, 1979, the date of the execution of the
xxx second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX On March 16, 1989, EVERTEX filed a complaint for
purchased various machines and equipments. annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages with
SCHEDULE “A” the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging inter