Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Tsai v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Domski Fatima Candolita
    The document discusses a case regarding whether certain disputed properties were considered movable or immovable. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the contract between the parties, which described the properties as chattels and attached a list of machinery and equipment, the intention was to treat the disputed properties as movable chattels covered by a chattel mortgage, not real property.

    Copyright:

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

    Tsai v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Domski Fatima Candolita
    10 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case regarding whether certain disputed properties were considered movable or immovable. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the contract between the parties, which described the properties as chattels and attached a list of machinery and equipment, the intention was to treat the disputed properties as movable chattels covered by a chattel mortgage, not real property.

    Original Title

    5. Tsai v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case regarding whether certain disputed properties were considered movable or immovable. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the contract between the parties, which described the properties as chattels and attached a list of machinery and equipment, the intention was to treat the disputed properties as movable chattels covered by a chattel mortgage, not real property.

    Copyright:

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

    Tsai v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Domski Fatima Candolita
    The document discusses a case regarding whether certain disputed properties were considered movable or immovable. The Supreme Court ruled that based on the contract between the parties, which described the properties as chattels and attached a list of machinery and equipment, the intention was to treat the disputed properties as movable chattels covered by a chattel mortgage, not real property.

    Copyright:

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

    PROPERTY

    Tsai v. Court of Appeals


    1.
    (Topic: Movable & Immovable Property)
    G.R. No. 120098 and 120109 Date: October 2, 2001

    Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
    DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Sec. 7 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, an immovable may be deemed 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. 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.

    NATURE OF THE CASE: Consolidated cases assailing the decision of the CA ine decision of the RTC
    Manila in Civil Case No. 89-48 CA-G.R. CV No. 32986, affirming th265, and the respondent court's
    resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

    FACTS:

    Herein respondent Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (Evertex) obtained two loans from petitioner Philippine Bank
    of Communications (PBCom). The security for the first loan involves the deed of Real and Chattel
    Mortgage executed by Evertex over the lot where its factory is erected, along with chattels located therein
    as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. The same was quoted to wit;
    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

    1
    PROPERTY

    The second loan was secured by a chattel mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached
    thereto. Due to business reverses, Evertex filed insolvency proceeding, where it was declared insolvent.
    Due to the failure of Evertex to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter instituted extrajudicial
    foreclosure proceedings. PBCom was the highest bidder on the two public auctions held. It leased the
    entire factory premises to herein petitioner Ruby L. Tsai, and subsequently sold it to her, including the
    contested machineries. Evertex filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages with
    the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage
    was in violation of the Insolvency Law. Evertex claimed that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis,
    appropriated the contested properties, which were not included in the real and chattel mortgage and
    neither were those properties included in the notice of sheriff's sale. The RTC ruled in favor of Evertex.
    The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

    ISSUE/S: Whether or not the properties in dispute are deemed chattels and not real properties - YES

    RULING: 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. However, mere nuts and bolts do not
    foreclose the controversy. The parties' intent should not be devoid of merit.

    Therefore, an immovable may be deemed 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.
    Section 7 of the Chattel Mortgage Law provides 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. While it was true that the controverted properties appeared to be immobile, a
    perusal of the contract executed by the parties intended to treat the subject machinery and equipment as
    chattels. 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." Thence, the facts 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. As such, the machineries in dispute were acquired in
    1981 and could not have been involved in the 1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, the petitions were denied.

    WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of
    Appeals are AFFIRMED

    You might also like