Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 200 views

    GR No. L-18456 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    Rufino Pineda and his mother Juana borrowed money from the plaintiff and used Rufino's house and truck as collateral in a deed of mortgage. When they failed to repay the loan, the plaintiff filed for foreclosure. The lower court ordered Rufino and the other defendants to repay the loan and deliver the collateral. Rufino appealed, arguing that his house should not be considered movable property subject to delivery since it was built on someone else's land. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that in the deed Rufino classified the house as his personal property, and as it was made of light materials and small in size, it should be considered movable property according to

    Copyright:

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

    GR No. L-18456 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    200 views1 page
    Rufino Pineda and his mother Juana borrowed money from the plaintiff and used Rufino's house and truck as collateral in a deed of mortgage. When they failed to repay the loan, the plaintiff filed for foreclosure. The lower court ordered Rufino and the other defendants to repay the loan and deliver the collateral. Rufino appealed, arguing that his house should not be considered movable property subject to delivery since it was built on someone else's land. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that in the deed Rufino classified the house as his personal property, and as it was made of light materials and small in size, it should be considered movable property according to

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rufino Pineda and his mother Juana borrowed money from the plaintiff and used Rufino's house and truck as collateral in a deed of mortgage. When they failed to repay the loan, the plaintiff filed for foreclosure. The lower court ordered Rufino and the other defendants to repay the loan and deliver the collateral. Rufino appealed, arguing that his house should not be considered movable property subject to delivery since it was built on someone else's land. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that in the deed Rufino classified the house as his personal property, and as it was made of light materials and small in size, it should be considered movable property according to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    200 views1 page

    GR No. L-18456 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Raym Trabajo
    Rufino Pineda and his mother Juana borrowed money from the plaintiff and used Rufino's house and truck as collateral in a deed of mortgage. When they failed to repay the loan, the plaintiff filed for foreclosure. The lower court ordered Rufino and the other defendants to repay the loan and deliver the collateral. Rufino appealed, arguing that his house should not be considered movable property subject to delivery since it was built on someone else's land. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that in the deed Rufino classified the house as his personal property, and as it was made of light materials and small in size, it should be considered movable property according to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GR No.

    L-18456

    CONRADO P. NAVARRO v. RUFINO G. PINEDA, RAMONA REYES, ET AL., 

    FACTS:

    On December 14, 1959, defendant Rufino and his mother, Juana Gonzales borrowed legal
    tender from the plaintiff worth P2,550.00, payable for 6 months. As a security, the defendant
    executed the Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages. Juana hypothecated her land and
    Rufino mortgaged his two-story residential house constructed on Atty. Castro’s lot and his motor
    truck. 

    Defendants failed to pay on the demand date and 2 extension dates. First extension is on June
    30, 1960. Again, the defendant failed to pay. They seek a second time extension. Defendant
    Pineda wrote a document entitled “Promise” not seeking for another extension and explicitly
    pronounced that the plaintiff could proceed to enforce the provision in the mortgage contract.
    For the third time, defendants refused to obey the obligation.

    On August 10, 1960, plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage and its
    corresponding damages. Defendants admitted that the loan was overdue. Defendants only
    denied that they unreasonably failed and refused to pay their obligation. Lower court grant
    defendants to pay the unsettled debt until January 31, 1961.

    On September 30, 1960, plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that the
    Answer failed to tender any genuine and material issue. On November 11, 1960, parties
    submitted a Stipulation of Facts. Defendants admitted their indebtedness, the authenticity and
    due execution of the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages. Lower court ordered Juana Gonzales
    and spouses Rufino Pineda and Ramona Reyes to pay jointly to the Plaintiff and deliver the
    personal properties to the Provincial Sheriff. Defendant saw a single error of the Judgement by
    the lower court, that the House of defendant Rufino Pineda was erected on Atty. Castro’s lot, a
    third person, be subject to delivery of the property.

    Hence, this petition was born.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the mortgaged house of Rufino Pineda be not considered as movable property.

    HELD:

    Yes.

    In this case, the house in question was treated as personal or movable property. Tracing in the
    Deed of Chattel Mortgage made by Rufino Pineda, he classified his residential house and a
    truck as “my personal properties.” Rufino Pineda himself grouped the house with the truck,
    inherently a movable property. The subject house was made of light materials and its size is
    small.

    Applying the doctrine of estoppel, the deed of chattel was clear that parties expressly agreed to
    consider the house as a chattel due to its smallness and light materials. Such expression in the
    deed estop him from claiming.

    A house be considered immovable when a building or a house used strong materials which
    intended the structure permanently adhered to the land (citing Iya cases) and a building is worth
    more than Php 62,000 attached permanently to the soil (citing Lopez v Orosa)

    The decision appealed from is affirmed.

    You might also like