Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Property Chattel Mortgage Over Immovables 1994 No. 15

    Uploaded by

    Shazna Sendico
    O excavated on Lot B, the adjoining vacant lot owned by spouses X and Y, and found gold and precious stones buried there. O knew the treasure was likely buried in Lot B. The treasures will not be divided as outlined in any of the answer choices and will instead belong to spouses X and Y as the owners of Lot B. While finders can sometimes claim a share of treasures found by chance on another's land, O's finding was not by chance since she knew the location of the buried treasures in Lot B.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Property Chattel Mortgage Over Immovables 1994 No. 15

    Uploaded by

    Shazna Sendico
    67 views2 pages
    O excavated on Lot B, the adjoining vacant lot owned by spouses X and Y, and found gold and precious stones buried there. O knew the treasure was likely buried in Lot B. The treasures will not be divided as outlined in any of the answer choices and will instead belong to spouses X and Y as the owners of Lot B. While finders can sometimes claim a share of treasures found by chance on another's land, O's finding was not by chance since she knew the location of the buried treasures in Lot B.

    Original Description:

    bar

    Original Title

    prop5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    O excavated on Lot B, the adjoining vacant lot owned by spouses X and Y, and found gold and precious stones buried there. O knew the treasure was likely buried in Lot B. The treasures will not be divided as outlined in any of the answer choices and will instead belong to spouses X and Y as the owners of Lot B. While finders can sometimes claim a share of treasures found by chance on another's land, O's finding was not by chance since she knew the location of the buried treasures in Lot B.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views2 pages

    Property Chattel Mortgage Over Immovables 1994 No. 15

    Uploaded by

    Shazna Sendico
    O excavated on Lot B, the adjoining vacant lot owned by spouses X and Y, and found gold and precious stones buried there. O knew the treasure was likely buried in Lot B. The treasures will not be divided as outlined in any of the answer choices and will instead belong to spouses X and Y as the owners of Lot B. While finders can sometimes claim a share of treasures found by chance on another's land, O's finding was not by chance since she knew the location of the buried treasures in Lot B.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    B) O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese soldiers may have buried gold and other treasures at the

    adjoining vacant Lot B belonging to spouses X & Y, excavated in Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing
    gold and precious stones. How will the treasures found by O be divided? (1%) (1). 100% to O as finder (2). 50%
    to O and 50% to the spouses X and Y (3). 50% to O and 50% to the state (4). None of the above.

    SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. 4. None of the above.


    The general rule is that the treasure shall belong to the spouses X and Y, the owner of Lot B. Under
    Article 438 (NCC), the exception is that when the discovery of a hidden treasure is made on the
    property of another and by chance, one-half thereof shall belong to the owner of the land and the other
    one-half is allowed to the finder. In the problem, the finding of the treasure was not by chance because
    O knew that the treasure was in Lot B. While a trespasser is also not entitled to any share, and there is
    no indication in the problem whether or not O was a trespasser, O is not entitled to a share because the
    finding was not “by chance.”

    Property; chattel mortgage over immovables


    1994 No. 15:
    Vini constructed a building on a parcel of land he leased from Andrea. He
    chattel mortgaged the land to Felicia. When he could not pay Felicia. Felicia initiated
    foreclosure proceedings. Vini claimed that the building he had constructed on the
    leased land cannot be validly foreclosed because the building was, by law, an
    immovable.
    Is Vini correct? Alternative Answers':

    a) The Chattel Mortgage is void and cannot be foreclosed because the


    building is an immovable and cannot be an object of a chattel mortgage.
    b) It depends. If the building was intended and is built of light materials, the
    chattel mortgage may be considered as valid as between the parties and it may be
    considered in respect to them as movable property, since it can be removed from
    one place to another. But if the building is of strong material and is not capable of
    being removed or transferred without being destroyed, the chattel mortgage is void
    and cannot be foreclosed.

    c) If it was the land which Vini chattel mortgaged, such mortgage would be
    void, or at least unenforceable, since he was not the owner of the land.
    If what was mortgaged as a chattel is the building, the chattel mortgage is
    valid as between the parties only, on grounds of estoppel which would preclude the
    mortgagor from assailing the contract on the ground that its subject-matter Is an
    immovable. Therefore Vini's defense is untenable, and Felicia can foreclose the
    mortgage over the building, observing, however, the procedure prescribed for the
    execution of sale of a judgment debtor's immovable under Rule 39, Rules of Court,
    specifically, that the notice of auction sale should be published in a newspaper of
    general circulation.

    d) The problem that Vini mortgaged the land by way of a chattel mortgage is
    untenable. Land can only be the subject matter of a real estate mortgage and only
    an absolute owner of real property may mortgage a parcel of land. (Article 2085 (2)
    Civil Code). Hence, there can be no foreclosure.

    But on the assumption that what was mortgaged by way of chattel mortgage
    was the building on leased land, then the parties are treating the building as chattel.
    A building that uis not merely superimposed on the ground is an immovable property
    and a chattel mortgage on said building is legally void but the parties cannot be
    allowed to disavow their contract on account of estoppel by deed. However, if third
    parties are involved such chattel mortgage Is void and has no effect.

    You might also like