Ladera v. Hodges G.R. No. 8027-R, September 23, 1952, Vol. 48, No.

12, Official Gazette

5374Reyes, J.B.L., J.
FACTS:
Paz G. Ladera entered into a contract with C.N. Hodges. Hodges promised to sell a lot with
an area of 278 square meters to Ladera, subject to certain terms and conditions . The
agreement called for a dow n payment of P 800.00 and monthly installments of P
5.00 each with interest of 1% per month, until P 2,085 is paid in full. Incase of failure of the
purchaser to make any monthly payment within 60 days after it fell due, the contract may be
considered as rescinded or annulled.Ladera built a house on the lot. Later on, she defaulted
in the payment of the agreedmonthly installment. Hodges filed an action for the ejectment of
Ladera.The court issued an alias writ of execution and pursuant thereto, the city sheriff
leviedupon all rights, interests, and participation over the house of Ladera. At the auction
sale,Ladera’s house was sold to Avelino A. Magno. Manuel P. Villa, later on, purchased
thehouse from Magno.Ladera filed an action against Hodges and the judgment sale
purchasers. Judgmentwas rendered in favor of Ladera, setting aside the sale for non-
compliance with Rule 39,Rules of Court regarding judicial sales of real property. On
appeal, Hodges contendsthat the house, being built on a lot owned by another, should be
regarded as movable orpersonal property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ladera’s house is an immovable property.
HELD:
YES. The old Civil Code numerates among the things declared by it
a s immovable property the following: lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all
kindadhered to the soil. The law does not make any distinction whether or not the owner
ofthe lot is the one who built. Also, since the principles of accession regard buildings
andconstructions as mere accessories to the land on which it isbuilt, it is logical that
saidaccessories should partake the nature of the principal thing

LADERA VS. HODGES (G.R. NO. 8027-R, VOL.

48, NO. 12, O.G. 5374, SEPTEMBER 23, 1952)
APRIL 23, 2015  | YUMMY

FACTS:
1. Hodges entered into a contract promising to sell a lot to Ladera under
certain terms and conditions. One of which is that the contract may be
rescinded and annulled in case Ladera failed to make the monthly
payment 60 days after it is due.
2. After the execution of the contract, Ladera built a house on the lot
assessed at 4,500 pesos. However, Ladera failed to pay the agreed
installments so Hodges rescinded the contract and filed an action for
ejectment.
3. The MTC ruled in favor of Hodges and issued an alias writ of
execution. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff levied upon all rights, interests and
participation over the house. Notices of sale were posted, however, were
not published in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. An auction sale was then conducted but Ladera was not able to attend
as she had gone to Manila. The house was then sold to one Avelina
Magno as the highest bidder. Meanwhile, Ladera sold the same lot to one
Manuel Villa and on the same day purchased the house from Magno for
200 pesos. This, however, was not recorded.
5. Ladera then returned to Iloilo and learned what happened. She went to
see the sheriff and represented that the property can still be redeemed and
so she gave him 230 pesos. It does not appear, however, that it was turned
over to Hodges. Thereupon, Ladera filed an action against Hodges, the
sheriff, Magno and Villa to set aside the sale and recover the house.
6. The lower court ruled in favor of Ladera on the ground of non-
compliance based on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On appeal, Hodges
contends that the house, built on a lot owned by another, should be
regarded as movable or personal property. The sale of the land was also
made without proper publication required by law.
REPORT THIS AD

ISSUE: Was the house movable or immovable?

RULING: Immovable.
1. As enumerated in the Civil Code, immovable property includes lands,
buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil. The law
does not make any distinction whether or not the owner of the lot was the
one who built the construction.
2. Also, Ladera did not declare his house to be a chattel mortgage. The
object of the levy or sale was real property and its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation was indespensible. Without it, the
execution sale was void.
3. In addition, Magno, the alleged purchaser at the auction sale, was a
mere employee of Hodges and the low bid made by her as well as the fact
that she sold the house to Villa on the same day Hodges sold him the land,
proves that she was merely acting for and in behalf of Hodges.
4. In the sale of immovables, the lack of title of the vendor taints the
rights of the subsequent purchasers. Possession in good faith is not
equivalent to title.
5. The principles of accession regard buildings and constructions as mere
accessories to the land on which it is built, it is logical that said
accessories should partake the nature of the principal thing.