UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ALAIN JUNIAT
G.R. No. 171569, August 1, 2011
FACTS:
Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 57, a Complaint with prayer
for the issuance of ex-parte writs of preliminary attachment and replevin against Juniat, Winwood,
Wingyan, and the person in possession of the mortgaged motorized sewing machines and
equipment.Petitioner alleged that Juniat, acting for and in behalf of Winwood and Wingyan, executed a
promissory note and a Chattel Mortgage dated over several motorized sewing machines and other allied
equipment to secure their obligation arising from export bills transactions to petitioner that as additional
security for the obligation, Juniat executed a Continuing Surety Agreement in favor of petitioner that the
loan remains unpaid and that the mortgaged motorized sewing machines are insufficient to answer for
the obligation.
The RTC issued writs of preliminary attachment and replevin in favor of petitioner.The writs were served
by the Sheriff upon Nonwoven as it was in possession of the motorized sewing machines and
equipment.Nonwoven filed an Answer,contending that the unnotarized Chattel Mortgage executed in
favor of petitioner has no binding effect on Nonwoven and that it has a better title over the motorized
sewing machines and equipment because these were assigned to it by Juniat pursuant to their Agreement
dated May 9, 1992.

ISSUE:
Whether the unnotarized mortgage executed in favor of petitioner may also indicate that the
sewing machines, snap machines and boilers were pledged to Nonwoven.

HELD:
A perusal of the Agreement dated May 9, 1992 clearly shows that the sewing machines, snap
machines and boilers were pledged to Nonwoven by Juniat to guarantee his obligation. However, under
Article 2096 of the Civil Code, "[a] pledge shall not take effect against third persons if a description of the
thing pledged and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public instrument." Hence, just like the
chattel mortgage executed in favor of petitioner, the pledge executed by Juniat in favor of Nonwoven
cannot bind petitioner.

Also, there is nothing in the Agreement dated May 9, 1992 to indicate that the motorized sewing
machines, snap machines and boilers were ceded to Nonwoven as payment for the Wingyan’s and
Winwood’s obligation. It bears stressing that there can be no transfer of ownership if the delivery of the
property to the creditor is by way of security. In fact, in case of doubt as to whether a transaction is one of
pledge or dacion en pago, the presumption is that it is a pledge as this involves a lesser transmission of
rights and interests.