LADERA VS HODGES

- HODGES SOLD LAND TO LADERA, CONTRACT TO BE RESCINDED IF LADERA FAILS

TO PAY WITHIN 60 DAYS
- AFTER EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, LADERA CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE ON THE LOT,
FAILED TO PAY THE STIPULATED AMT, ACTION FOR EJECTMENT WAS FILED
- MTC RULED IN FAVOR OF HODGES, HOUSE WAS SOLD ON AUCTION TO MAGNO.
LADERA SOLD THE SAME LOT TO MANUEL VILLA ON THE SAME DAY AND
PURCHASED THE HOUSE FROM MAGNO FOR 200 PESOS OFF THE RECORD
- LADERA THEN BOUGHT BACK THE HOUS FROM MAGNO FOR 230 PESOS SINCE
OWNERSHIP OF THE HOUSE CAN STILL BE REDEEMED
- LADERA FILED AN ACTION AGAINST HODGES, THE SHERIFF, MAGNO AND VILLA
TO SET ASIDE THE SALE AND RECOVER THE HOUSE
- LOWER COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF LADERA. HODGES ON APPEAL CONTENDS
THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MOVABLE PROPERTY AS IT WAS
BUILT UPON THE LOT OF ANOTHER
ISSUE:

- W/ON THE HOUSE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS MOVABLE PROPERTY

RULING:

- HOUSE WAS RULED IMMOVABLE BY THE SC UNDER THE DEFINITION OF

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER THE CIVIL CODE. (ART. 415)
- LADERA DID NOT DECLARE THE HOUSE AS CHATTEL MORTGAGE. PUBLICATION
IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION WAS INDESPENSABLE FOR THE
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND FAILURE TO DO SO RENDERS THE EXECUTION OF
THE SALE VOID.

MAKATI LEASING VS WEAREVER TEXTILE

- WEAREVER DISCOUNTED AND ASSIGNED SEVERAL RECEIVABLES TO MAKATI

LEASING UNDER A RECEIVABLE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SECURED WITH A
CHATTEL MORTGAGE OF SEVERAL RAW MATS AND MACHINERY OF WEAREVER
- WEAREVER DEFAULTED AND PROPERTIES WERE EXTRAJUDICIALLY
FORECLOSED
- PETITIONER FILED FOR A REPLEVIN SUIT AND THE LOWER COURT ISSUED A WRIT
OF SEIZURE, SHERIFF WENT TO THE RESOPONDENTS PREMISES AND SEIZED A
DRYER MACHINE
- APPELLATE COURT RULED TO RETURN THE SEIZED MACHINERY AS THE
MACHINE WAS CONSIDERED AS REAL PROPERTY AND ALSO CANNOT BE
TREATED AS CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ISSUE:

- W/ON THE SEIZED MACHINERY IS CONSIDRED AS REAL PROPERTY

RULING:

- COURT RULED THAT THE DRYER CAN BE A SUBJECT OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE

- SINCE BOTH PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MACHINERY IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS
CHATTEL MORTGAGE AND NO INNOCENT THIRD PARTY WILL BE PREJUDICED,
THE MACHINERY IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAN BE
SEIZED