PAUL STROCHECKER

vs
ILDEFONSO RAMIREZ
GR No. 18700, Sept. 26, 1922

Facts:
The half-interest in the business (Antigua Botica Ramirez) was mortgaged
with Fidelity & Surety Co.
On 10 March 1919, and registered in due time in the registry of property,
while another mortgage was made with Ildefonso Ramirez on 22 September
1919 and registered also in the registry. The trial court declared the mortgage
of Fidelity & Surety Co. entitled to preference over that of Ildefonso Ramirez
and another mortgage by Concepcion Ayala. Ayala did not appeal, but
Ramirez did.

Issue:
Whether or not half-interest over a business is a movable property

Ruling:
Yes. Interest in business may be subject of mortgage With regard to the
nature of the property mortgaged which is one-half interest in the business,
such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and not included
in the enumeration of real properties in articles 335 of the Civil Code, and may
be the subject of mortgage. All personal property may be mortgaged. (Sec. 7,
Act 1508.)
Description of mortgage property is sufficient. The description contained in
the document is sufficient. The law (sec. 7, Act 1508) requires only a
description of the mortgaged property shall be such as to enable the parties to
the mortgage, or any other person, after reasonable inquiry and investigation,
to identify the same.
In the case at bar, “his half interest in the drug business known as Antigua
Botica Ramirez, located at Calle Real Nos. 123 and 125, District of
Intramuros, Manila Philippine Islands" is sufficient.
Article 1922 (1-3) of the Civil Code applicable only to mortgage property in
possession Numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the article 1922 of the Civil Code are not
applicable as neither the debtor, nor himself, is in possession of the property
mortgaged, which is, and since the registration of the mortgage has been,
legally in possession of the surety company
Stipulation about personal property not a mortgage upon property - In no
way can the mortgage executed be given effect as of the date of the sale of
the store in question; as there was a mere stipulation about personal security
during said date, but not a mortgage upon property, and much less upon the
property in question.