1. Serg's Products v. PCIB Leasing, 338 SCRA 499

G.R. No. 137705               August 22, 2000SERG'S PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs.PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent.D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:After agreeing to a contract stipulating that a real or immovable property be considered as personal or movable, a party is estopped from subsequently claiming otherwise. Hence, such property is a proper subject of a writ of replevin obtained by the other contracting party.The CaseBefore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 6, 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)2 in CA-GR SP No. 47332 and its February 26, 1999 Resolution3 denying reconsideration. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order dated February 18, 1998 and Resolution dated March 31, 1998 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33500 are hereby AFFIRMED. The writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 15, 1998 is hereby LIFTED."4

In its February 18, 1998 Order,5 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 218)6 issued a Writ of Seizure.7 The March 18, 1998 Resolution8 denied petitioners’ Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the deputy sheriff be enjoined "from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners’) factory in Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or equipments he may have removed."9

The FactsThe undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:10

"On February 13, 1998, respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. ("PCI Leasing" for short) filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for [a] sum of money (Annex ‘E’), with an application for a writ of replevin docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33500."On March 6, 1998, upon an ex-parte application of PCI Leasing, respondent judge issued a writ of replevin (Annex ‘B’) directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses."On March 24, 1998, in implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioner’s factory, seized one machinery with [the] word that he [would] return for the other machineries."On March 25, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for special protective order (Annex ‘C’), invoking the power of the court to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes, praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin."This motion was opposed by PCI Leasing (Annex ‘F’), on the ground that the properties [were] still personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin."In their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized [were] immovable as defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties’ agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to innocent third parties. They further stated that PCI Leasing [was] estopped from treating these machineries as personal because the contracts in which the alleged agreement [were] embodied [were] totally sham and farcical."On April 6, 1998, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the workers from taking the rest."On April 7, 1998, they went to [the CA] via an original action for certiorari."Ruling of the Court of AppealsCiting the Agreement of the parties, the appellate court held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by petitioners. It also ruled that the "words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the true intention of the contracting parties." Observing that Petitioner Goquiolay was an experienced businessman who was "not unfamiliar with the ways of the trade," it ruled that he "should have realized the import of the document he signed." The CA further held:"Furthermore, to accord merit to this petition would be to preempt the trial court in ruling upon the case below, since the merits of the whole matter are laid down before us via a petition whose sole purpose is to inquire upon the existence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [RTC] in issuing the assailed Order and Resolution. The issues raised herein are proper subjects of a full-blown trial, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The contract is being enforced by one, and [its] validity is attacked by the other – a matter x x x which respondent court is in the best position to determine."Hence, this Petition.11

The IssuesIn their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration:"A. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERG’S became real property by virtue of immobilization.B. Whether or not the contract between the parties is a loan or a lease."12

In the main, the Court will resolve whether the said machines are personal, not immovable, property which may be a proper subject of a writ of replevin. As a preliminary matter, the Court will also address briefly the procedural points raised by respondent.The Court’s RulingThe Petition is not meritorious.Preliminary Matter: Procedural Questions Respondent contends that the Petition failed to indicate expressly whether it was being filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It further alleges that the Petition erroneously impleaded Judge Hilario Laqui as respondent.There is no question that the present recourse is under Rule 45. This conclusion finds support in the very title of the Petition, which is "Petition for Review on Certiorari."13

While Judge Laqui should not have been impleaded as a respondent,14 substantial justice requires that such lapse by itself should not warrant the dismissal of the present Petition. In this light, the Court deems it proper to remove,motu proprio, the name of Judge Laqui from the caption of the present case.Main Issue:   Nature of the Subject Machinery Petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary characterization.Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property only. 15Section 3 thereof reads:"SEC. 3. Order. -- Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property into his custody."On the other hand, Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates immovable or real property as follows:

"ART. 415. The following are immovable property:x x x           x x x          x x x(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;x x x           x x x          x x x"In the present case, the machines that were the subjects of the Writ of Seizure were placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they were essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, although each of them was movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become "immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry."16 In that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the said machines are real, not personal, property pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.17

Be that as it may, we disagree with the submission of the petitioners that the said machines are not proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal. 18After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein.Hence, in Tumalad v. Vicencio,19 the Court upheld the intention of the parties to treat a house as a personal property because it had been made the subject of a chattel mortgage. The Court ruled:"x x x. Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise."Applying Tumalad, the Court in Makati Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Wearever Textile Mills20 also held that the machinery used in a factory and essential to the industry, as in the present case, was a proper subject of a writ of replevin because it was treated as personal property in a contract. Pertinent portions of the Court’s ruling are reproduced hereunder:"x x x. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage."In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Agreement reads as follows:21

"12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and remain, personal property notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting upon, real property or any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent."Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.It should be stressed, however, that our holding -- that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement – is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned.22 Hence, while the parties are bound by the Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characterizing the subject machinery as personal.23 In any event, there is no showing that any specific third party would be adversely affected.Validity of the Lease AgreementIn their Memorandum, petitioners contend that the Agreement is a loan and not a lease. 24 Submitting documents supposedly showing that they own the subject machines, petitioners also argue in their Petition that the Agreement suffers from "intrinsic ambiguity which places in serious doubt the intention of the parties and the validity of the lease agreement itself."25 In their Reply to respondent’s Comment, they further allege that the Agreement is invalid.26

These arguments are unconvincing. The validity and the nature of the contract are the lis mota of the civil action pending before the RTC. A resolution of these questions, therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits of the case. Hence, they should be threshed out in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the issuance of the Writ of Seizure.Indeed, in La Tondeña Distillers v. CA,27 the Court explained that the policy under Rule 60 was that questions involving title to the subject property – questions which petitioners are now raising -- should be determined in the trial. In that case, the Court noted that the remedy of defendants under Rule 60 was either to post a counter-bond or to question the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s bond. They were not allowed, however, to invoke the title to the subject property. The Court ruled:"In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge the writ of seizure (or delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction, and thereby put at issue the matter of the title or right of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on the merits."28

Besides, these questions require a determination of facts and a presentation of evidence, both of which have no place in a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 or in a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45.29

Reliance on the Lease AgreementIt should be pointed out that the Court in this case may rely on the Lease Agreement, for nothing on record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact, petitioners assailed it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been instituted by respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the law between the parties.Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation30 is also instructive on this point. In that case, the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, which characterized the subject machinery as personal property, was also assailed because respondent had allegedly been required "to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing." The Court rejected the argument and relied on the Deed, ruling as follows:"x x x. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void  ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. x x x"Alleged Injustice Committed on the Part of PetitionersPetitioners contend that "if the Court allows these machineries to be seized, then its workers would be out of work and thrown into the streets."31 They also allege that the seizure would nullify all efforts to rehabilitate the corporation.Petitioners’ arguments do not preclude the implementation of the Writ.1âwphi1 As earlier discussed, law and jurisprudence support its propriety. Verily, the above-mentioned consequences, if they come true, should not be blamed on this Court, but on the petitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remedy under Section 5 of Rule 60, which allows the filing of a counter-bond. The provision states:"SEC. 5. Return of property. -- If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicant’s bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond

executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicant’s affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a copy bond on the applicant."WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

2. TSAI v. CA, 366 SCRA 324

G.R. No. 120098            October 2, 2001RUBY L. TSAI, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents.x---------------------------------------------------------x[G.R. No. 120109. October 2, 2001.]PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents.QUISUMBING, J.:These consolidated cases assail the decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986, affirming the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 89-48265. Also assailed is respondent court's resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.On November 26, 1975, respondent Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million peso (P3,000,000.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). As security for the loan, EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom, a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot under TCT No. 372097, where its factory stands, and the chattels located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. The pertinent portions of the Real and Chattel Mortgage are quoted below:MORTGAGE(REAL AND CHATTEL)xxx           xxx           xxx

The MORTGAGOR(S) hereby transfer(s) and convey(s), by way of First Mortgage, to the MORTGAGEE, . . . certain parcel(s) of land, together with all the buildings and improvements now existing or which may hereafter exist thereon, situated in . . .

"Annex A"(Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by Ever Textile Mills in favor of PBCommunications — continued)

LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENTA. Forty Eight (48) units of Vayrow Knitting Machines-Tompkins made in Hongkong:Serial Numbers Size of Machines

xxx           xxx           xxxB. Sixteen (16) sets of Vayrow Knitting Machines made in Taiwan.

xxx           xxx           xxxC. Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines made in West Germany.

xxx           xxx           xxxD. Four (4) Winding Machines.

xxx           xxx           xxxSCHEDULE "A"

I. TCT # 372097 - RIZALxxx           xxx           xxx

II. Any and all buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter to exist on the above-mentioned lot.III. MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT situated, located and/or installed on the above-mentioned lot located at . . .(a) Forty eight sets (48) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . .(b) Sixteen sets (16) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . .(c) Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines . . .(d) Two (2) Winding Machines . . .(e) Two (2) Winding Machines . . .IV. Any and all replacements, substitutions, additions, increases and accretions to above properties.

xxx           xxx           xxx3

On April 23, 1979, PBCom granted a second loan of P3,356,000.00 to EVERTEX. The loan was secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached thereto. These listed properties were similar to those listed in Annex A of the first mortgage deed.After April 23, 1979, the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX purchased various machines and equipments.On November 19, 1982, due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed insolvency proceedings docketed as SP Proc. No. LP-3091-P before the defunct Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXVIII. The CFI issued an order on November 24, 1982 declaring the corporation insolvent. All its assets were taken into the custody of the Insolvency Court, including the collateral, real and personal, securing the two mortgages as abovementioned.In the meantime, upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135, otherwise known as "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages" and Act 1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". A Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued on December 1, 1982.On December 15, 1982, the first public auction was held where petitioner PBCom emerged as the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date. On December 23, 1982, another public auction was held and again, PBCom was the highest bidder. The sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale on the same day.On March 7, 1984, PBCom consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. In November 1986, it leased the entire factory premises to petitioner Ruby L. Tsai for P50,000.00 a month. On May 3, 1988, PBCom sold the factory, lock, stock and barrel to Tsai for P9,000,000.00, including the contested machineries.On March 16, 1989, EVERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages with the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage was in violation of the Insolvency Law. EVERTEX claimed that no rights having been transmitted to PBCom over the assets of insolvent EVERTEX, therefore Tsai acquired no rights over such assets sold to her, and should reconvey the assets.

Further, EVERTEX averred that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the contested properties, which were not included in the Real and Chattel Mortgage of November 26, 1975 nor in the Chattel Mortgage of April 23, 1979, and neither were those properties included in the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated December 1, 1982 and Certificate of Sale . . . dated December 15, 1982.The disputed properties, which were valued at P4,000,000.00, are: 14 Interlock Circular Knitting Machines, 1 Jet Drying Equipment, 1 Dryer Equipment, 1 Raisin Equipment and 1 Heatset Equipment.The RTC found that the lease and sale of said personal properties were irregular and illegal because they were not duly foreclosed nor sold at the December 15, 1982 auction sale since these were not included in the schedules attached to the mortgage contracts. The trial court decreed:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff corporation and against the defendants:1. Ordering the annulment of the sale executed by defendant Philippine Bank of Communications in favor of defendant Ruby L. Tsai on May 3, 1988 insofar as it affects the personal properties listed in par. 9 of the complaint, and their return to the plaintiff corporation through its assignee, plaintiff Mamerto R. Villaluz, for disposition by the Insolvency Court, to be done within ten (10) days from finality of this decision;2. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P5,200,000.00 as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 1986 to February 1991 and P100,000.00 every month thereafter, with interest thereon at the legal rate per annum until full payment;3. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation;4. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P200,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;5. Ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim of the defendants; and6. Ordering the defendants to proportionately pay the costs of suit.SO ORDERED.4

Dissatisfied, both PBCom and Tsai appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its decision dated August 31, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, except for the deletion therefrom of the award; for exemplary damages, and reduction of the actual damages, from P100,000.00 to P20,000.00 per month, from November 1986 until subject personal properties are restored to appellees, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.5

Motion for reconsideration of the above decision having been denied in the resolution of April 28, 1995, PBCom and Tsai filed their separate petitions for review with this Court.In G.R No. 120098, petitioner Tsai ascribed the following errors to the respondent court:I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN EFFECT MAKING A CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES BY TREATING THE 1981 ACQUIRED MACHINERIES AS CHATTELS INSTEAD OF REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THEIR EARLIER 1975 DEED OF REAL AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE OR 1979 DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE.

IITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISPUTED 1981 MACHINERIES ARE NOT REAL PROPERTIES DEEMED PART OF THE MORTGAGE — DESPITE THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND APPLICABLE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

IIITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN DEEMING PETITIONER A PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH.

IVTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN ASSESSING PETITIONER ACTUAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION — FOR WANT OF VALID FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS.

VTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING AGAINST PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS ON PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.6

In G.R. No. 120098, PBCom raised the following issues:I.DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY DECREE THE MACHINERIES LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE COMPLAINT BELOW AS PERSONAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE 1975 DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AND EXCLUDED THEM FROM THE REAL PROPERTY EXTRAJUDICIALLY FORECLOSED BY PBCOM DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE 1975 DEED THAT ALL AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE MORTGAGE SHALL FORM PART THEREOF, AND DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SAID MACHINERIES ARE BIG AND HEAVY, BOLTED OR CEMENTED ON THE REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY EVER TEXTILE MILLS TO PBCOM, AND WERE ASSESSED FOR REAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES?IICAN PBCOM, WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE MACHINERIES IN QUESTION IN GOOD FAITH, EXTENDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO EVER TEXTILE MILLS WHICH AS OF 1982 TOTALLED P9,547,095.28, WHO HAD SPENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY ON THE DISPUTED MACHINERIES AND HAD TO PAY ALL THE BACK TAXES OF EVER TEXTILE MILLS BE LEGALLY COMPELLED TO RETURN TO EVER THE SAID MACHINERIES OR IN LIEU THEREOF BE ASSESSED DAMAGES. IS THAT SITUATION TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT?7

The principal issue, in our view, is whether or not the inclusion of the questioned properties in the foreclosed properties is proper. The secondary issue is whether or not the sale of these properties to petitioner Ruby Tsai is valid.For her part, Tsai avers that the Court of Appeals in effect made a contract for the parties by treating the 1981 acquired units of machinery as chattels instead of real properties within their earlier 1975 deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage or 1979 deed of Chattel Mortgage.8 Additionally, Tsai argues that respondent court erred in holding that the disputed 1981 machineries are not real properties.9 Finally, she contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding against petitioner's arguments on prescription and laches10 and in assessing petitioner actual damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, for want of valid factual and legal basis.11

Essentially, PBCom contends that respondent court erred in affirming the lower court's judgment decreeing that the pieces of machinery in dispute were not duly foreclosed and could not be legally leased nor sold to Ruby Tsai. It further argued that the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that the pieces of machinery in question were personal properties have no factual and legal basis. Finally, it asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in assessing damages and attorney's fees against PBCom.

In opposition, private respondents argue that the controverted units of machinery are not "real properties" but chattels, and, therefore, they were not part of the foreclosed real properties, rendering the lease and the subsequent sale thereof to Tsai a nullity.12

Considering the assigned errors and the arguments of the parties, we find the petitions devoid of merit and ought to be denied.Well settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.13 This rule is applied more stringently when the findings of fact of the RTC is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.14

The following are the facts as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that are decisive of the issues: (1) the "controverted machineries" are not covered by, or included in, either of the two mortgages, the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage, and the pure Chattel Mortgage; (2) the said machineries were not included in the list of properties appended to the Notice of Sale, and neither were they included in the Sheriff's Notice of Sale of the foreclosed properties.15

Petitioners contend that the nature of the disputed machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or cemented on the real property mortgaged by EVERTEX to PBCom, make them ipso facto immovable under Article 415 (3) and (5) of the New Civil Code. This assertion, however, does not settle the issue. Mere nuts and bolts do not foreclose the controversy. We have to look at the parties' intent.While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties herein gives us a contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and the appellate courts reached the same finding that the true intention of PBCOM and the owner, EVERTEX, is to treat machinery and equipment as chattels. The pertinent portion of respondent appellate court's ruling is quoted below:

As stressed upon by appellees, appellant bank treated the machineries as chattels; never as real properties. Indeed, the 1975 mortgage contract, which was actually real and chattel mortgage, militates against appellants' posture. It should be noted that the printed form used by appellant bank was mainly for real estate mortgages. But reflective of the true intention of appellant PBCOM and appellee EVERTEX was the typing in capital letters, immediately following the printed caption of mortgage, of the phrase "real and chattel." So also, the "machineries and equipment" in the printed form of the bank had to be inserted in the blank space of the printed contract and connected with the word "building" by typewritten slash marks. Now, then, if the machineries in question were contemplated to be included in the real estate mortgage, there would have been no necessity to ink a chattel mortgage specifically mentioning as part III of Schedule A a listing of the machineries covered thereby. It would have sufficed to list them as immovables in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of the land and building involved.As regards the 1979 contract, the intention of the parties is clear and beyond question. It refers solely tochattels. The inventory list of the mortgaged properties is an itemization of sixty-three (63) individually described machineries while the schedule listed only machines and 2,996,880.50 worth of finished cotton fabrics and natural cotton fabrics.16

In the absence of any showing that this conclusion is baseless, erroneous or uncorroborated by the evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to depart therefrom.Too, assuming arguendo that the properties in question are immovable by nature, nothing detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. As far back as Navarro v. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631 (1963), an immovable may be considered a personal property if there is a stipulation as when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where a chattel mortgage is executed over it, as in the case at bar.In the instant case, the parties herein: (1) executed a contract styled as "Real Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage," instead of just "Real Estate Mortgage" if indeed their intention is to treat all properties included therein as immovable, and (2) attached to the said contract a separate "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT". These facts, taken together, evince the conclusion that the parties' intention is to treat these units of machinery as chattels. A fortiori, the contested after-acquired properties, which are of the same description as the units enumerated under the title "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT," must also be treated as chattels.Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the respondent appellate court's ruling that inasmuch as the subject mortgages were intended by the parties to involve chattels, insofar as equipment and machinery were concerned, the Chattel Mortgage Law applies, which provides in Section 7 thereof that: "a chattel mortgage shall be deemed to cover only the property described therein and not like or substituted property thereafter acquired by the mortgagor and placed in the same depository as the property originally mortgaged, anything in the mortgage to the contrary notwithstanding."And, since the disputed machineries were acquired in 1981 and could not have been involved in the 1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, it was consequently an error on the part of the Sheriff to include subject machineries with the properties enumerated in said chattel mortgages.As the auction sale of the subject properties to PBCom is void, no valid title passed in its favor. Consequently, the sale thereof to Tsai is also a nullity under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet, one cannot give what one does not have.17

Petitioner Tsai also argued that assuming that PBCom's title over the contested properties is a nullity, she is nevertheless a purchaser in good faith and for value who now has a better right than EVERTEX.To the contrary, however, are the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court that she is not a purchaser in good faith. Well-settled is the rule that the person who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving such assertion.18 Petitioner Tsai failed to discharge this burden persuasively.Moreover, a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.19 Records reveal, however, that when Tsai purchased the controverted properties, she knew of respondent's claim thereon. As borne out by the records, she received the letter of respondent's counsel, apprising her of respondent's claim, dated February 27, 1987.20 She replied thereto on March 9, 1987.21 Despite her knowledge of respondent's claim, she proceeded to buy the contested units of machinery on May 3, 1988. Thus, the RTC did not err in finding that she was not a purchaser in good faith.Petitioner Tsai's defense of indefeasibility of Torrens Title of the lot where the disputed properties are located is equally unavailing. This defense refers to sale of lands and not to sale of properties situated therein. Likewise, the mere fact that the lot where the factory and the disputed properties stand is in PBCom's name does not automatically make PBCom the owner of everything found therein, especially in view of EVERTEX's letter to Tsai enunciating its claim.Finally, petitioners' defense of prescription and laches is less than convincing. We find no cogent reason to disturb the consistent findings of both courts below that the case for the reconveyance of the disputed properties was filed within the reglementary period. Here, in our view, the doctrine of laches does not apply. Note that upon petitioners' adamant refusal to heed EVERTEX's claim, respondent company immediately filed an action to recover possession and ownership of the disputed properties. There is no evidence showing any failure or neglect on its part, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The doctrine of stale demands would apply only where by reason of the lapse of time, it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. Moreover, except for very strong reasons, this Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or defeat the rights of an owner.22

As to the award of damages, the contested damages are the actual compensation, representing rentals for the contested units of machinery, the exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.As regards said actual compensation, the RTC awarded P100,000.00 corresponding to the unpaid rentals of the contested properties based on the testimony of John Chua, who testified that the P100,000.00 was based on the accepted practice in banking and finance, business and investments that the rental price must take into account the cost of money used to buy them. The Court of Appeals did not give full credence to Chua's projection and reduced the award to P20,000.00.Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.23 However, the allegations of respondent company as to the amount of unrealized rentals due them as actual damages remain mere assertions unsupported by documents and other competent evidence. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.24 However, we are not prepared to disregard the following dispositions of the respondent appellate court:

. . . In the award of actual damages under scrutiny, there is nothing on record warranting the said award of P5,200,000.00, representing monthly rental income of P100,000.00 from November 1986 to February 1991, and the additional award of P100,000.00 per month thereafter.As pointed out by appellants, the testimonial evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Jonh (sic) Chua and Mamerto Villaluz, is shy of what is necessary to substantiate the actual damages allegedly sustained by appellees, by way of unrealized rental income of subject machineries and equipments.The testimony of John Cua (sic) is nothing but an opinion or projection based on what is claimed to be a practice in business and industry. But such a testimony cannot serve as the sole basis for assessing the actual damages complained of. What is more, there is no showing that had appellant Tsai not taken possession of the machineries and equipments in question, somebody was willing and ready to rent the same for P100,000.00 a month.xxx           xxx           xxxThen, too, even assuming arguendo that the said machineries and equipments could have generated a rental income of P30,000.00 a month, as projected by witness Mamerto Villaluz, the same would have been a gross income. Therefrom should be deducted or removed, expenses for maintenance and repairs . . . Therefore, in the determination of the actual damages or unrealized rental income sued upon, there is a good basis to calculate that at least four months in a year, the machineries in dispute would have been idle due to absence of a lessee or while being repaired. In the light of the foregoing rationalization and computation, We believe that a net unrealized rental income of P20,000.00 a month, since November 1986, is more realistic and fair.25

As to exemplary damages, the RTC awarded P200,000.00 to EVERTEX which the Court of Appeals deleted. But according to the CA, there was no clear showing that petitioners acted malevolently, wantonly and oppressively. The evidence, however, shows otherwise.It is a requisite to award exemplary damages that the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith,26 and the guilty acted in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, reckless or malevolent manner.27 As previously stressed, petitioner Tsai's act of purchasing the controverted properties despite her knowledge of EVERTEX's claim was oppressive and subjected the already insolvent respondent to gross disadvantage. Petitioner PBCom also received the same letters of Atty. Villaluz, responding thereto on March 24, 1987.28 Thus, PBCom's act of taking all the properties found in the factory of the financially handicapped respondent, including those properties not covered by or included in the mortgages, is equally oppressive and tainted with bad faith. Thus, we are in agreement with the RTC that an award of exemplary damages is proper.The amount of P200,000.00 for exemplary damages is, however, excessive. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for the adjudication of exemplary damages, their assessment being left to the discretion of the court in accordance with the circumstances of each case.29 While the imposition of exemplary damages is justified in this case, equity calls for its reduction. In Inhelder Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-52358, 122 SCRA 576, 585, (May 30, 1983), we laid down the rule that judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity. Thus, here the award of exemplary damages by way of example for the public good should be reduced to P100,000.00.By the same token, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded.30 In our view, RTC's award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is reasonable, given the circumstances in these cases.WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners Philippine Bank of Communications and Ruby L. Tsai are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally Ever Textile Mills, Inc. the following: (1) P20,000.00 per month, as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 198631 until subject personal properties are restored to respondent corporation; (2) P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, and (3) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

3. FELS Energy, Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R. 168557 Feb. 16, 2007

G.R. No. 168557             February 16, 2007FELS ENERGY, INC., Petitioner, vs.THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS andTHE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, Respondents.x----------------------------------------------------xG.R. No. 170628            February 16, 2007NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS, LAURO C. ANDAYA, in his capacity as the Assessor of the Province of Batangas, and the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS represented by its Provincial Assessor, Respondents.D E C I S I O NCALLEJO, SR., J.:Before us are two consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 168557 and G.R. No. 170628, which were filed by petitioners FELS Energy, Inc. (FELS) and National Power Corporation (NPC), respectively. The first is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 25, 2004 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and its Resolution2 dated June 20, 2005; the second, also a petition for review on certiorari, challenges the February 9, 2005 Decision3 and November 23, 2005 Resolution4 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. Both petitions were dismissed on the ground of prescription.The pertinent facts are as follows:

On January 18, 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy, Inc. over 3x30 MW diesel engine power barges moored at Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract, denominated as an Energy Conversion Agreement5 (Agreement), was for a period of five years. Article 10 reads:10.1 RESPONSIBILITY. NAPOCOR shall be responsible for the payment of (a) all taxes, import duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by the National Government of the Republic of the Philippines or any agency or instrumentality thereof to which POLAR may be or become subject to or in relation to the performance of their obligations under this agreement (other than (i) taxes imposed or calculated on the basis of the net income of POLAR and Personal Income Taxes of its employees and (ii) construction permit fees, environmental permit fees and other similar fees and charges) and (b) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Power Barges.6

Subsequently, Polar Energy, Inc. assigned its rights under the Agreement to FELS. The NPC initially opposed the assignment of rights, citing paragraph 17.2 of Article 17 of the Agreement.On August 7, 1995, FELS received an assessment of real property taxes on the power barges from Provincial Assessor Lauro C. Andaya of Batangas City. The assessed tax, which likewise covered those due for 1994, amounted to  P56,184,088.40 per annum. FELS referred the matter to NPC, reminding it of its obligation under the Agreement to pay all real estate taxes. It then gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any conference regarding the real property assessment of the Provincial Assessor.In a letter7 dated September 7, 1995, NPC sought reconsideration of the Provincial Assessor’s decision to assess real property taxes on the power barges. However, the motion was denied on September 22, 1995, and the Provincial Assessor advised NPC to pay the assessment.8 This prompted NPC to file a petition with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) for the setting aside of the assessment and the declaration of the barges as non-taxable items; it also prayed that should LBAA find the barges to be taxable, the Provincial Assessor be directed to make the necessary corrections.9

In its Answer to the petition, the Provincial Assessor averred that the barges were real property for purposes of taxation under Section 199(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160.Before the case was decided by the LBAA, NPC filed a Manifestation, informing the LBAA that the Department of Finance (DOF) had rendered an opinion10 dated May 20, 1996, where it is clearly stated that power barges are not real property subject to real property assessment.On August 26, 1996, the LBAA rendered a Resolution11 denying the petition. The fallo reads:WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. FELS is hereby ordered to pay the real estate tax in the amount ofP56,184,088.40, for the year 1994.SO ORDERED.12

The LBAA ruled that the power plant facilities, while they may be classified as movable or personal property, are nevertheless considered real property for taxation purposes because they are installed at a specific location with a character of permanency. The LBAA also pointed out that the owner of the barges–FELS, a private corporation–is the one being taxed, not NPC. A mere agreement making NPC responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments will not justify the exemption of FELS; such a privilege can only be granted to NPC and cannot be extended to FELS. Finally, the LBAA also ruled that the petition was filed out of time.Aggrieved, FELS appealed the LBAA’s ruling to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA).On August 28, 1996, the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas City issued a Notice of Levy and Warrant by Distraint13over the power barges, seeking to collect real property taxes amounting to P232,602,125.91 as of July 31, 1996. The notice and warrant was officially served to FELS on November 8, 1996. It then filed a Motion to Lift Levy dated November 14, 1996, praying that the Provincial Assessor be further restrained by the CBAA from enforcing the disputed assessment during the pendency of the appeal.On November 15, 1996, the CBAA issued an Order14 lifting the levy and distraint on the properties of FELS in order not to preempt and render ineffectual, nugatory and illusory any resolution or judgment which the Board would issue.Meantime, the NPC filed a Motion for Intervention15 dated August 7, 1998 in the proceedings before the CBAA. This was approved by the CBAA in an Order16 dated September 22, 1998.During the pendency of the case, both FELS and NPC filed several motions to admit bond to guarantee the payment of real property taxes assessed by the Provincial Assessor (in the event that the judgment be unfavorable to them). The bonds were duly approved by the CBAA.On April 6, 2000, the CBAA rendered a Decision17 finding the power barges exempt from real property tax. The dispositive portion reads:WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Batangas is hereby reversed. Respondent-appellee Provincial Assessor of the Province of Batangas is hereby ordered to drop subject property under ARP/Tax Declaration No. 018-00958 from the List of Taxable Properties in the Assessment Roll. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas is hereby directed to act accordingly.SO ORDERED.18

Ruling in favor of FELS and NPC, the CBAA reasoned that the power barges belong to NPC; since they are actually, directly and exclusively used by it, the power barges are covered by the exemptions under Section 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160.19 As to the other jurisdictional issue, the CBAA ruled that prescription did not preclude the NPC from pursuing its claim for tax exemption in accordance with Section 206 of R.A. No. 7160. The Provincial Assessor filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by FELS and NPC.In a complete volte face, the CBAA issued a Resolution20 on July 31, 2001 reversing its earlier decision. The fallo of the resolution reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the resolution of this Board that:

(a) The decision of the Board dated 6 April 2000 is hereby reversed.(b) The petition of FELS, as well as the intervention of NPC, is dismissed.(c) The resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas is hereby affirmed,(d) The real property tax assessment on FELS by the Provincial Assessor of Batangas is likewise hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED.21

FELS and NPC filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were timely opposed by the Provincial Assessor. The CBAA denied the said motions in a Resolution22 dated October 19, 2001.Dissatisfied, FELS filed a petition for review before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. Meanwhile, NPC filed a separate petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67491.On January 17, 2002, NPC filed a Manifestation/Motion for Consolidation in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 praying for the consolidation of its petition with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. In a Resolution23 dated February 12, 2002, the appellate court directed NPC to re-file its motion for consolidation with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491, since it is the ponente of the latter petition who should resolve the request for reconsideration.NPC failed to comply with the aforesaid resolution. On August 25, 2004, the Twelfth Division of the appellate court rendered judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 denying the petition on the ground of prescription. The decretal portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Resolutions dated July 31, 2001 and October 19, 2001 of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals are AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.24

On September 20, 2004, FELS timely filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490.Thereafter, NPC filed a petition for review dated October 19, 2004 before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165113, assailing the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. The petition was, however, denied in this Court’s Resolution25 of November 8, 2004, for NPC’s failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution26 dated January 19, 2005.Meantime, the appellate court dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. It held that the right to question the assessment of the Provincial Assessor had already prescribed upon the failure of FELS to appeal the disputed assessment to the LBAA within the period prescribed by law. Since FELS had lost the right to question the assessment, the right of the Provincial Government to collect the tax was already absolute.NPC filed a motion for reconsideration dated March 8, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the February 5, 2005 ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The motion was denied in a Resolution27 dated November 23, 2005.The motion for reconsideration filed by FELS in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 had been earlier denied for lack of merit in a Resolution28 dated June 20, 2005.On August 3, 2005, FELS filed the petition docketed as G.R. No. 168557 before this Court, raising the following issues:A.Whether power barges, which are floating and movable, are personal properties and therefore, not subject to real property tax.B.Assuming that the subject power barges are real properties, whether they are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code ("LGC").C.Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are subject to real estate tax, whether or not it should be NPC which should be made to pay the same under the law.D.Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are real properties, whether or not the same is subject to depreciation just like any other personal properties.E.Whether the right of the petitioner to question the patently null and void real property tax assessment on the petitioner’s personal properties is imprescriptible.29

On January 13, 2006, NPC filed its own petition for review before this Court (G.R. No. 170628), indicating the following errors committed by the CA:ITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL TO THE LBAA WAS FILED OUT OF TIME.IITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE POWER BARGES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES.IIITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE POWER BARGES WAS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.30

Considering that the factual antecedents of both cases are similar, the Court ordered the consolidation of the two cases in a Resolution31 dated March 8, 2006.1awphi1.netIn an earlier Resolution dated February 1, 2006, the Court had required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 30 days from notice. Almost a year passed but the parties had not submitted their respective memoranda. Considering that taxes—the lifeblood of our economy—are involved in the present controversy, the Court was prompted to dispense with the said pleadings, with the end view of advancing the interests of justice and avoiding further delay.In both petitions, FELS and NPC maintain that the appeal before the LBAA was not time-barred. FELS argues that when NPC moved to have the assessment reconsidered on September 7, 1995, the running of the period to file an appeal with the LBAA was tolled. For its part, NPC posits that the 60-day period for appealing to the LBAA should be reckoned from its receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration.Petitioners’ contentions are bereft of merit.Section 226 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.We note that the notice of assessment which the Provincial Assessor sent to FELS on August 7, 1995, contained the following statement:If you are not satisfied with this assessment, you may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province by filing a petition under oath on the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of ARP/Tax Declaration and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.32

Instead of appealing to the Board of Assessment Appeals (as stated in the notice), NPC opted to file a motion for reconsideration of the Provincial Assessor’s decision, a remedy not sanctioned by law.The remedy of appeal to the LBAA is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of the property. It follows then that the determination made by the respondent Provincial Assessor with regard to the taxability of the subject real properties falls within its power to assess properties for taxation purposes subject to appeal before the LBAA.33

We fully agree with the rationalization of the CA in both CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The two divisions of the appellate court cited the case of Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman,34 where we ruled that under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160,35 the last action of the local assessor on a particular assessment shall be the notice of assessment; it is this last action which gives the owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The procedure likewise does not permit the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor. The pertinent holding of the Court in Callanta is as follows:x x x [T]he same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where

values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be prevented and excised from our system.36

For its part, the appellate court declared in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491:x x x. The Court announces: Henceforth, whenever the local assessor sends a notice to the owner or lawful possessor of real property of its revised assessed value, the former shall no longer have any jurisdiction to entertain any request for a review or readjustment. The appropriate forum where the aggrieved party may bring his appeal is the LBAA as provided by law. It follows ineluctably that the 60-day period for making the appeal to the LBAA runs without interruption. This is what We held in SP 67490 and reaffirm today in SP 67491.37

To reiterate, if the taxpayer fails to appeal in due course, the right of the local government to collect the taxes due with respect to the taxpayer’s property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the period to appeal.38 It also bears stressing that the taxpayer’s failure to question the assessment in the LBAA renders the assessment of the local assessor final, executory and demandable, thus, precluding the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment, or from invoking any defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.39

In fine, the LBAA acted correctly when it dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for having been filed out of time; the CBAA and the appellate court were likewise correct in affirming the dismissal. Elementary is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the period therefor is both mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure in this regard renders the decision final and executory.40

In the Comment filed by the Provincial Assessor, it is asserted that the instant petition is barred by res judicata; that the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 165113 (where there was a final determination on the issue of prescription), effectively precludes the claims herein; and that the filing of the instant petition after an adverse judgment in G.R. No. 165113 constitutes forum shopping.FELS maintains that the argument of the Provincial Assessor is completely misplaced since it was not a party to the erroneous petition which the NPC filed in G.R. No. 165113. It avers that it did not participate in the aforesaid proceeding, and the Supreme Court never acquired jurisdiction over it. As to the issue of forum shopping, petitioner claims that no forum shopping could have been committed since the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not present.We do not agree.Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of theState that there should be an end to litigation – republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause – nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.41 As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:42

x x x An existing final judgment or decree – rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction acting upon a matter within its authority – is conclusive on the rights of the parties and their privies. This ruling holds in all other actions or suits, in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, touching on the points or matters in issue in the first suit.x x xCourts will simply refuse to reopen what has been decided. They will not allow the same parties or their privies to litigate anew a question once it has been considered and decided with finality. Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties.This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.43

To recall, FELS gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any proceeding regarding real property assessment. Therefore, when petitioner NPC filed its petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 165113, it did so not only on its behalf but also on behalf of FELS. Moreover, the assailed decision in the earlier petition for review filed in this Court was the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490, in which FELS was the petitioner. Thus, the decision in G.R. No. 165116 is binding on petitioner FELS under the principle of privity of interest. In fine, FELS and NPC are substantially "identical parties" as to warrant the application of res judicata. FELS’s argument that it is not bound by the erroneous petition filed by NPC is thus unavailing.On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.44

Petitioner FELS alleges that there is no forum shopping since the elements of res judicata are not present in the cases at bar; however, as already discussed, res judicata may be properly applied herein. Petitioners engaged in forum shopping when they filed G.R. Nos. 168557 and 170628 after the petition for review in G.R. No. 165116. Indeed, petitioners went from one court to another trying to get a favorable decision from one of the tribunals which allowed them to pursue their cases.It must be stressed that an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.45 The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.46

Thus, there is forum shopping when there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.47

Having found that the elements of res judicata and forum shopping are present in the consolidated cases, a discussion of the other issues is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, for the peace and contentment of petitioners, we shall shed light on the merits of the case.As found by the appellate court, the CBAA and LBAA power barges are real property and are thus subject to real property tax. This is also the inevitable conclusion, considering that G.R. No. 165113 was dismissed for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error. Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise.48 Besides, factual findings of administrative bodies, which have acquired expertise in their field, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court; we will not assume to interfere with the sensible exercise of the judgment of

men especially trained in appraising property. Where the judicial mind is left in doubt, it is a sound policy to leave the assessment undisturbed.49 We find no reason to depart from this rule in this case.In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York, et al., 50 a power company brought an action to review property tax assessment. On the city’s motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court of New York held that the barges on which were mounted gas turbine power plants designated to generate electrical power, the fuel oil barges which supplied fuel oil to the power plant barges, and the accessory equipment mounted on the barges were subject to real property taxation.Moreover, Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that "[d]ocks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast" are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work.51

Petitioners maintain nevertheless that the power barges are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160 because they are actually, directly and exclusively used by petitioner NPC, a government- owned and controlled corporation engaged in the supply, generation, and transmission of electric power.We affirm the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that the owner of the taxable properties is petitioner FELS, which in fine, is the entity being taxed by the local government. As stipulated under Section 2.11, Article 2 of the Agreement:OWNERSHIP OF POWER BARGES. POLAR shall own the Power Barges and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site used in connection with the Power Barges which have been supplied by it at its own cost. POLAR shall operate, manage and maintain the Power Barges for the purpose of converting Fuel of NAPOCOR into electricity.52

It follows then that FELS cannot escape liability from the payment of realty taxes by invoking its exemption in Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160, which reads:SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:x x x(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; x x xIndeed, the law states that the machinery must be actually, directly and exclusively used by the government owned or controlled corporation; nevertheless, petitioner FELS still cannot find solace in this provision because Section 5.5, Article 5 of the Agreement provides:OPERATION. POLAR undertakes that until the end of the Lease Period, subject to the supply of the necessary Fuel pursuant to Article 6 and to the other provisions hereof, it will operate the Power Barges to convert such Fuel into electricity in accordance with Part A of Article 7.53

It is a basic rule that obligations arising from a contract have the force of law between the parties. Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the parties to the contract are bound by its terms and conditions.54

Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. 55 The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.56 Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity.The mere undertaking of petitioner NPC under Section 10.1 of the Agreement, that it shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not justify the exemption. The privilege granted to petitioner NPC cannot be extended to FELS. The covenant is between FELS and NPC and does not bind a third person not privy thereto, in this case, the Province of Batangas.It must be pointed out that the protracted and circuitous litigation has seriously resulted in the local government’s deprivation of revenues. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its magnitude, acknowledging in its very nature no perimeter so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay for it.57 The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe tax erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy of local governments58 and the objective of the Local Government Code that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.59

In conclusion, we reiterate that the power to tax is the most potent instrument to raise the needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of the local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people.60

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED and the assailed Decisions and Resolutions AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

4. Prudential Bank v. Panis, 153 SCRA 390

G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987PRUDENTIAL BANK, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City; FERNANDO MAGCALE & TEODULA BALUYUT-MAGCALE, respondents. PARAS, J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari of the November 13, 1978 Decision * of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 2443-0 entitled "Spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut-Magcale vs. Hon. Ramon Y. Pardo and Prudential Bank" declaring that the deeds of real estate mortgage executed by respondent spouses in favor of petitioner bank are null and void.The undisputed facts of this case by stipulation of the parties are as follows:

... on November 19, 1971, plaintiffs-spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut Magcale secured a loan in the sum of P70,000.00 from the defendant Prudential Bank. To secure payment of this loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of defendant on the aforesaid date a deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the following described properties:l. A 2-STOREY, SEMI-CONCRETE, residential building with warehouse spaces containing a total floor area of 263 sq. meters, more or less, generally constructed of mixed hard wood and concrete materials, under a roofing of cor. g. i. sheets; declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Declaration No. 21109, issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P35,290.00. This building is the only improvement of the lot.

2. THE PROPERTY hereby conveyed by way of MORTGAGE includes the right of occupancy on the lot where the above property is erected, and more particularly described and bounded, as follows:

A first class residential land Identffied as Lot No. 720, (Ts-308, Olongapo Townsite Subdivision) Ardoin Street, East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City, containing an area of 465 sq. m. more or less, declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Duration No. 19595 issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P1,860.00; bounded on the

NORTH: By No. 6, Ardoin StreetSOUTH: By No. 2, Ardoin StreetEAST: By 37 Canda Street, andWEST: By Ardoin Street.

All corners of the lot marked by conc. cylindrical monuments of the Bureau of Lands as visible limits. ( Exhibit "A, " also Exhibit "1" for defendant).

Apart from the stipulations in the printed portion of the aforestated deed of mortgage, there appears a rider typed at the bottom of the reverse side of the document under the lists of the properties mortgaged which reads, as follows:

AND IT IS FURTHER AGREED that in the event the Sales Patent on the lot applied for by the Mortgagors as herein stated is released or issued by the Bureau of Lands, the Mortgagors hereby authorize the Register of Deeds to hold the Registration of same until this Mortgage is cancelled, or to annotate this encumbrance on the Title upon authority from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which title with annotation, shall be released in favor of the herein Mortgage.

From the aforequoted stipulation, it is obvious that the mortgagee (defendant Prudential Bank) was at the outset aware of the fact that the mortgagors (plaintiffs) have already filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot, possessory rights over which, were mortgaged to it.Exhibit "A" (Real Estate Mortgage) was registered under the Provisions of Act 3344 with the Registry of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971.On May 2, 1973, plaintiffs secured an additional loan from defendant Prudential Bank in the sum of P20,000.00. To secure payment of this additional loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of the said defendant another deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the same properties previously mortgaged in Exhibit "A." (Exhibit "B;" also Exhibit "2" for defendant). This second deed of Real Estate Mortgage was likewise registered with the Registry of Deeds, this time in Olongapo City, on May 2,1973.

On April 24, 1973, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 over the parcel of land, possessory rights over which were mortgaged to defendant Prudential Bank, in favor of plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid Patent, and upon its transcription in the Registration Book of the Province of Zambales, Original Certificate of Title No. P-2554 was issued in the name of Plaintiff Fernando Magcale, by the Ex-Oficio Register of Deeds of Zambales, on May 15, 1972.For failure of plaintiffs to pay their obligation to defendant Bank after it became due, and upon application of said defendant, the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibits "A" and "B") were extrajudicially foreclosed. Consequent to the foreclosure was the sale of the properties therein mortgaged to defendant as the highest bidder in a public auction sale conducted by the defendant City Sheriff on April 12, 1978 (Exhibit "E"). The auction sale aforesaid was held despite written request from plaintiffs through counsel dated March 29, 1978, for the defendant City Sheriff to desist from going with the scheduled public auction sale (Exhibit "D")." (Decision, Civil Case No. 2443-0, Rollo, pp. 29-31).

Respondent Court, in a Decision dated November 3, 1978 declared the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage as null and void (Ibid., p. 35).On December 14, 1978, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 41-53), opposed by private respondents on January 5, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 54-62), and in an Order dated January 10, 1979 (Ibid., p. 63), the Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition (Ibid., pp. 5-28).The first Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated March 9, 1979, resolved to require the respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 65), which order was complied with the Resolution dated May 18,1979, (Ibid., p. 100), petitioner filed its Reply on June 2,1979 (Ibid., pp. 101-112).Thereafter, in the Resolution dated June 13, 1979, the petition was given due course and the parties were required to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda. (Ibid., p. 114).On July 18, 1979, petitioner filed its Memorandum (Ibid., pp. 116-144), while private respondents filed their Memorandum on August 1, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 146-155).In a Resolution dated August 10, 1979, this case was considered submitted for decision (Ibid., P. 158).In its Memorandum, petitioner raised the following issues:1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ARE VALID; AND2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVENING ISSUANCE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT NO. 4776 ON APRIL 24, 1972 UNDER ACT NO. 730 AND THE COVERING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-2554 ON MAY 15,1972 HAVE THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE. (Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, p. 122).This petition is impressed with merit.The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another.The answer is in the affirmative.In the enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, this Court ruled that, "it is obvious that the inclusion of "building" separate and distinct from the land, in said provision of law can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable property." (Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr., et al., L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958; Associated Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya, et al., L-10837-38, May 30,1958).Thus, while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). In the same manner, this Court has also established that

possessory rights over said properties before title is vested on the grantee, may be validly transferred or conveyed as in a deed of mortgage (Vda. de Bautista vs. Marcos, 3 SCRA 438 [1961]).Coming back to the case at bar, the records show, as aforestated that the original mortgage deed on the 2-storey semi-concrete residential building with warehouse and on the right of occupancy on the lot where the building was erected, was executed on November 19, 1971 and registered under the provisions of Act 3344 with the Register of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971. Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 on the land was issued on April 24, 1972, on the basis of which OCT No. 2554 was issued in the name of private respondent Fernando Magcale on May 15, 1972. It is therefore without question that the original mortgage was executed before the issuance of the final patent and before the government was divested of its title to the land, an event which takes effect only on the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds (Visayan Realty Inc. vs. Meer, 96 Phil. 515; Director of Lands vs. De Leon, 110 Phil. 28; Director of Lands vs. Jurado, L-14702, May 23, 1961; Pena "Law on Natural Resources", p. 49). Under the foregoing considerations, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own building which was erected on the land belonging to the government is to all intents and purposes a valid mortgage.As to restrictions expressly mentioned on the face of respondents' OCT No. P-2554, it will be noted that Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act, refer to land already acquired under the Public Land Act, or any improvement thereon and therefore have no application to the assailed mortgage in the case at bar which was executed before such eventuality. Likewise, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 730, also a restriction appearing on the face of private respondent's title has likewise no application in the instant case, despite its reference to encumbrance or alienation before the patent is issued because it refers specifically to encumbrance or alienation on the land itself and does not mention anything regarding the improvements existing thereon.But it is a different matter, as regards the second mortgage executed over the same properties on May 2, 1973 for an additional loan of P20,000.00 which was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Olongapo City on the same date. Relative thereto, it is evident that such mortgage executed after the issuance of the sales patent and of the Original Certificate of Title, falls squarely under the prohibitions stated in Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act and Section 2 of Republic Act 730, and is therefore null and void.Petitioner points out that private respondents, after physically possessing the title for five years, voluntarily surrendered the same to the bank in 1977 in order that the mortgaged may be annotated, without requiring the bank to get the prior approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources beforehand, thereby implicitly authorizing Prudential Bank to cause the annotation of said mortgage on their title.However, the Court, in recently ruling on violations of Section 124 which refers to Sections 118, 120, 122 and 123 of Commonwealth Act 141, has held:

... Nonetheless, we apply our earlier rulings because we believe that as in pari delicto may not be invoked to defeat the policy of the State neither may the doctrine of estoppel give a validating effect to a void contract. Indeed, it is generally considered that as between parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy (19 Am. Jur. 802). It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law was to preserve (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. De los Amas and Alino supra). ... (Arsenal vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 54 [1986]).

This pronouncement covers only the previous transaction already alluded to and does not pass upon any new contract between the parties (Ibid), as in the case at bar. It should not preclude new contracts that may be entered into between petitioner bank and private respondents that are in accordance with the requirements of the law. After all, private respondents themselves declare that they are not denying the legitimacy of their debts and appear to be open to new negotiations under the law (Comment; Rollo, pp. 95-96). Any new transaction, however, would be subject to whatever steps the Government may take for the reversion of the land in its favor.PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City is hereby MODIFIED, declaring that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for P70,000.00 is valid but ruling that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for an additional loan of P20,000.00 is null and void, without prejudice to any appropriate action the Government may take against private respondents.SO ORDERED.Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur. Footnotes

* Penned by Judge Domingo D. Panis.

5. Makati Leasing & Finance Corp. v. Wearever Textile, 122 SCRA 296

G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC., and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.Loreto C. Baduan for petitioner.Ramon D. Bagatsing & Assoc. (collaborating counsel) for petitioner.Jose V. Mancella for respondent. DE CASTRO, J.:Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) promulgated on August 27, 1981 in CA-G.R. No. SP-12731, setting aside certain Orders later specified herein, of Judge Ricardo J. Francisco, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First instance of Rizal Branch VI, issued in Civil Case No. 36040, as wen as the resolution dated September 22, 1981 of the said appellate court, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.It appears that in order to obtain financial accommodations from herein petitioner Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation, the private respondent Wearever Textile Mills, Inc., discounted and assigned several receivables with the former under a Receivable Purchase Agreement. To secure the collection of the receivables assigned, private respondent executed a Chattel Mortgage over certain raw materials inventory as well as a machinery described as an Artos Aero Dryer Stentering Range.Upon private respondent's default, petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties mortgage to it. However, the Deputy Sheriff assigned to implement the foreclosure failed to gain entry into private respondent's premises and was not able to effect the seizure of the aforedescribed machinery. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, docketed as Civil Case No. 36040, the case before the lower court.Acting on petitioner's application for replevin, the lower court issued a writ of seizure, the enforcement of which was however subsequently restrained upon private respondent's filing of a motion for reconsideration. After several incidents, the lower court finally issued on February 11, 1981, an order lifting the restraining order for the enforcement of the writ of seizure and an order to break open the premises of private respondent to enforce said writ. The lower court reaffirmed its stand upon private respondent's filing of a further motion for reconsideration.

On July 13, 1981, the sheriff enforcing the seizure order, repaired to the premises of private respondent and removed the main drive motor of the subject machinery.The Court of Appeals, in certiorari and prohibition proceedings subsequently filed by herein private respondent, set aside the Orders of the lower court and ordered the return of the drive motor seized by the sheriff pursuant to said Orders, after ruling that the machinery in suit cannot be the subject of replevin, much less of a chattel mortgage, because it is a real property pursuant to Article 415 of the new Civil Code, the same being attached to the ground by means of bolts and the only way to remove it from respondent's plant would be to drill out or destroy the concrete floor, the reason why all that the sheriff could do to enfore the writ was to take the main drive motor of said machinery. The appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that private respondent is estopped from claiming that the machine is real property by constituting a chattel mortgage thereon.A motion for reconsideration of this decision of the Court of Appeals having been denied, petitioner has brought the case to this Court for review by writ of certiorari. It is contended by private respondent, however, that the instant petition was rendered moot and academic by petitioner's act of returning the subject motor drive of respondent's machinery after the Court of Appeals' decision was promulgated.The contention of private respondent is without merit. When petitioner returned the subject motor drive, it made itself unequivocably clear that said action was without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision, as shown by the receipt duly signed by respondent's representative. 1 Considering that petitioner has reserved its right to question the propriety of the Court of Appeals' decision, the contention of private respondent that this petition has been mooted by such return may not be sustained.The next and the more crucial question to be resolved in this Petition is whether the machinery in suit is real or personal property from the point of view of the parties, with petitioner arguing that it is a personality, while the respondent claiming the contrary, and was sustained by the appellate court, which accordingly held that the chattel mortgage constituted thereon is null and void, as contended by said respondent.A similar, if not Identical issue was raised in Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143 where this Court, speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, ruled:

Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendants-appellants merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties, particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personality. Finally, unlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. & Plaza Theatre, Inc. & Leung Yee vs. F.L. Strong Machinery & Williamson, wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage, it is the defendants-appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated the subject house as personality.

Examining the records of the instant case, We find no logical justification to exclude the rule out, as the appellate court did, the present case from the application of the abovequoted pronouncement. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage.In rejecting petitioner's assertion on the applicability of the Tumalad doctrine, the Court of Appeals lays stress on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a land that did not belong to the owner of such house. But the law makes no distinction with respect to the ownership of the land on which the house is built and We should not lay down distinctions not contemplated by law.It must be pointed out that the characterization of the subject machinery as chattel by the private respondent is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. As stated inStandard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property, as long as no interest of third parties would be prejudiced thereby.Private respondent contends that estoppel cannot apply against it because it had never represented nor agreed that the machinery in suit be considered as personal property but was merely required and dictated on by herein petitioner to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing. This contention lacks persuasiveness. As aptly pointed out by petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the status of the subject machinery as movable or immovable was never placed in issue before the lower court and the Court of Appeals except in a supplemental memorandum in support of the petition filed in the appellate court. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. On the other hand, as pointed out by petitioner and again not refuted by respondent, the latter has indubitably benefited from said contract. Equity dictates that one should not benefit at the expense of another. Private respondent could not now therefore, be allowed to impugn the efficacy of the chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom,From what has been said above, the error of the appellate court in ruling that the questioned machinery is real, not personal property, becomes very apparent. Moreover, the case of Machinery and Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. CA, 96 Phil. 70, heavily relied upon by said court is not applicable to the case at bar, the nature of the machinery and equipment involved therein as real properties never having been disputed nor in issue, and they were not the subject of a Chattel Mortgage. Undoubtedly, the Tumalad case bears more nearly perfect parity with the instant case to be the more controlling jurisprudential authority.WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby reversed and set aside, and the Orders of the lower court are hereby reinstated, with costs against the private respondent.SO ORDERED.Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero and Escolin JJ., concur.Abad Santos, J., concurs in the result. Footnotes

1 p. 52, Rollo.

6. Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61 Phil 709 G.R. No. L-40411             August 7, 1935

DAVAO SAW MILL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs.APRONIANO G. CASTILLO and DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., defendants-appellees.Arsenio Suazo and Jose L. Palma Gil and Pablo Lorenzo and Delfin Joven for appellant.J.W. Ferrier for appellees.MALCOLM, J.:The issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of the decision in the trial court and as set forth by counsel for the parties on appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the properties described in the complaint. The trial judge found that those properties were personal in nature, and as a consequence absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.The Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the Philippine Islands. It has operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu, municipality of Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business was conducted belonged to another person. On the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning machines which were placed and mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of lease between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there appeared the following provision:

That on the expiration of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and buildings introduced and erected by the party of the second part shall pass to the exclusive ownership of the party of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any amount for said improvements and buildings; also, in the event the party of the second part should leave or abandon the land leased before the time herein stipulated, the improvements and buildings shall likewise pass to the ownership of the party of the first part as though the time agreed upon had expired: Provided, however, That the machineries and accessories are not included in the improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the expiration or abandonment of the land leased.

In another action, wherein the Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw, Mill Co., Inc., was the defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action against the defendant in that action; a writ of execution issued thereon, and the properties now in question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. No third party claim was filed for such properties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein. Indeed the bidder, which was the plaintiff in that action, and the defendant herein having consummated the sale, proceeded to take possession of the machinery and other properties described in the corresponding certificates of sale executed in its favor by the sheriff of Davao.As connecting up with the facts, it should further be explained that the Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., has on a number of occasions treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. One of such persons is the appellee by assignment from the original mortgages.Article 334, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Civil Code, is in point. According to the Code, real property consists of —

1. Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil;x x x           x x x           x x x5. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of industry.

Appellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last mentioned paragraph. We entertain no doubt that the trial judge and appellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines flowing from the facts.In the first place, it must again be pointed out that the appellant should have registered its protest before or at the time of the sale of this property. It must further be pointed out that while not conclusive, the characterization of the property as chattels by the appellant is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. In this connection the decision of this court in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Yorkvs. Jaramillo ( [1923], 44 Phil., 630), whether obiter dicta or not, furnishes the key to such a situation.It is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the resolution of this appeal on side issues. It is machinery which is involved; moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a lessee for use in a building erected on the land by the latter to be returned to the lessee on the expiration or abandonment of the lease.A similar question arose in Puerto Rico, and on appeal being taken to the United States Supreme Court, it was held that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the opinion written by Chief Justice White, whose knowledge of the Civil Law is well known, it was in part said:

To determine this question involves fixing the nature and character of the property from the point of view of the rights of Valdes and its nature and character from the point of view of Nevers & Callaghan as a judgment creditor of the Altagracia Company and the rights derived by them from the execution levied on the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant. Following the Code Napoleon, the Porto Rican Code treats as immovable (real) property, not only land and buildings, but also attributes immovability in some cases to property of a movable nature, that is, personal property, because of the destination to which it is applied. "Things," says section 334 of the Porto Rican Code, "may be immovable either by their own nature or by their destination or the object to which they are applicable." Numerous illustrations are given in the fifth subdivision of section 335, which is as follows: "Machinery, vessels, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenements for the industrial or works that they may carry on in any building or upon any land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works." (See also Code Nap., articles 516, 518 et seq. to and inclusive of article 534, recapitulating the things which, though in themselves movable, may be immobilized.) So far as the subject-matter with which we are dealing — machinery placed in the plant — it is plain, both under the provisions of the Porto Rican Law and of the Code Napoleon, that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant. Such result would not be accomplished, therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a usufructuary or any person having only a temporary right. (Demolombe, Tit. 9, No. 203; Aubry et Rau, Tit. 2, p. 12, Section 164; Laurent, Tit. 5, No. 447; and decisions quoted in Fuzier-Herman ed. Code Napoleon under articles 522 et seq.) The distinction rests, as pointed out by Demolombe, upon the fact that one only having a temporary right to the possession or enjoyment of property is not presumed by the law to have applied movable property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by causing it by an act of immobilization to become the property of another. It follows that abstractly speaking the machinery put by the Altagracia Company in the plant belonging to Sanchez did not lose its character of movable property and become immovable by destination. But in the concrete immobilization took place because of the express provisions of the lease under which the Altagracia held, since the lease in substance required the putting in of improved machinery, deprived the tenant of any right to charge against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was expressly stipulated that the machinery so put in should become a part of the plant belonging to the owner without compensation

to the lessee. Under such conditions the tenant in putting in the machinery was acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with the obligations resting upon him, and the immobilization of the machinery which resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the owner in giving by contract a permanent destination to the machinery.x x x           x x x           x x xThe machinery levied upon by Nevers & Callaghan, that is, that which was placed in the plant by the Altagracia Company, being, as regards Nevers & Callaghan, movable property, it follows that they had the right to levy on it under the execution upon the judgment in their favor, and the exercise of that right did not in a legal sense conflict with the claim of Valdes, since as to him the property was a part of the realty which, as the result of his obligations under the lease, he could not, for the purpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately against. (Valdes vs. Central Altagracia [192], 225 U.S., 58.)

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, the costs of this instance to be paid by the appellant.Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

7. Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143

G.R. No. L-30173 September 30, 1971GAVINO A. TUMALAD and GENEROSA R. TUMALAD, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.ALBERTA VICENCIO and EMILIANO SIMEON, defendants-appellants.Castillo & Suck for plaintiffs-appellees.Jose Q. Calingo for defendants-appellants. REYES, J.B.L., J.:Case certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 27824-R) for the reason that only questions of law are involved.This case was originally commenced by defendants-appellants in the municipal court of Manila in Civil Case No. 43073, for ejectment. Having lost therein, defendants-appellants appealed to the court a quo (Civil Case No. 30993) which also rendered a decision against them, the dispositive portion of which follows:

WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the former a monthly rent of P200.00 on the house, subject-matter of this action, from March 27, 1956, to January 14, 1967, with interest at the legal rate from April 18, 1956, the filing of the complaint, until fully paid, plus attorney's fees in the sum of P300.00 and to pay the costs.

It appears on the records that on 1 September 1955 defendants-appellants executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs-appellees over their house of strong materials located at No. 550 Int. 3, Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, over Lot Nos. 6-B and 7-B, Block No. 2554, which were being rented from Madrigal & Company, Inc. The mortgage was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Manila on 2 September 1955. The herein mortgage was executed to guarantee a loan of P4,800.00 received from plaintiffs-appellees, payable within one year at 12% per annum. The mode of payment was P150.00 monthly, starting September, 1955, up to July 1956, and the lump sum of P3,150 was payable on or before August, 1956. It was also agreed that default in the payment of any of the amortizations, would cause the remaining unpaid balance to becomeimmediately due and Payable and —

the Chattel Mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Special Act No. 3135, and for this purpose, the Sheriff of the City of Manila or any of his deputies is hereby empowered and authorized to sell all the Mortgagor's property after the necessary publication in order to settle the financial debts of P4,800.00, plus 12% yearly interest, and attorney's fees... 2

When defendants-appellants defaulted in paying, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and on 27 March 1956, the house was sold at public auction pursuant to the said contract. As highest bidder, plaintiffs-appellees were issued the corresponding certificate of sale. 3 Thereafter, on 18 April 1956, plaintiffs-appellant commenced Civil Case No. 43073 in the municipal court of Manila, praying, among other things, that the house be vacated and its possession surrendered to them, and for defendants-appellants to pay rent of P200.00 monthly from 27 March 1956 up to the time the possession is surrendered.  4 On 21 September 1956, the municipal court rendered its decision —

... ordering the defendants to vacate the premises described in the complaint; ordering further to pay monthly the amount of P200.00 from March 27, 1956, until such (time that) the premises is (sic) completely vacated; plus attorney's fees of P100.00 and the costs of the suit. 5

Defendants-appellants, in their answers in both the municipal court and court a quo  impugned the legality of the chattel mortgage, claiming that they are still the owners of the house; but they waived the right to introduce evidence, oral or documentary. Instead, they relied on their memoranda in support of their motion to dismiss, predicated mainly on the grounds that: (a) the municipal court did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the case because (1) the issue involved, is ownership, and (2) there was no allegation of prior possession; and (b) failure to prove prior demand pursuant to Section 2, Rule 72, of the Rules of Court. 6

During the pendency of the appeal to the Court of First Instance, defendants-appellants failed to deposit the rent for November, 1956 within the first 10 days of December, 1956 as ordered in the decision of the municipal court. As a result, the court granted plaintiffs-appellees' motion for execution, and it was actually issued on 24 January 1957. However, the judgment regarding the surrender of possession to plaintiffs-appellees could not be executed because the subject house had been already demolished on 14 January 1957 pursuant to the order of the court in a separate civil case (No. 25816) for ejectment against the present defendants for non-payment of rentals on the land on which the house was constructed.The motion of plaintiffs for dismissal of the appeal, execution of the supersedeas bond and withdrawal of deposited rentals was denied for the reason that the liability therefor was disclaimed and was still being litigated, and under Section 8, Rule 72, rentals deposited had to be held until final disposition of the appeal. 7

On 7 October 1957, the appellate court of First Instance rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which is quoted earlier. The said decision was appealed by defendants to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, certified the appeal to this Court. Plaintiffs-appellees failed to file a brief and this appeal was submitted for decision without it.Defendants-appellants submitted numerous assignments of error which can be condensed into two questions, namely: .

(a) Whether the municipal court from which the case originated had jurisdiction to adjudicate the same;(b) Whether the defendants are, under the law, legally bound to pay rentals to the plaintiffs during the period of one (1) year provided by law for the redemption of the extrajudicially foreclosed house.

We will consider these questions seriatim.

(a) Defendants-appellants mortgagors question the jurisdiction of the municipal court from which the case originated, and consequently, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance a quo, on the theory that the chattel mortgage is void ab initio; whence it would follow that the extrajudicial foreclosure, and necessarily the consequent auction sale, are also void. Thus, the ownership of the house still remained with defendants-appellants who are entitled to possession and not plaintiffs-appellees. Therefore, it is argued by defendants-appellants, the issue of ownership will have to be adjudicated first in order to determine possession. lt is contended further that ownership being in issue, it is the Court of First Instance which has jurisdiction and not the municipal court.Defendants-appellants predicate their theory of nullity of the chattel mortgage on two grounds, which are: (a) that, their signatures on the chattel mortgage were obtained through fraud, deceit, or trickery; and (b) that the subject matter of the mortgage is a house of strong materials, and, being an immovable, it can only be the subject of a real estate mortgage and not a chattel mortgage.On the charge of fraud, deceit or trickery, the Court of First Instance found defendants-appellants' contentions as not supported by evidence and accordingly dismissed the charge, 8 confirming the earlier finding of the municipal court that "the defense of ownership as well as the allegations of fraud and deceit ... are mere allegations." 9

It has been held in Supia and Batiaco vs. Quintero and Ayala 10 that "the answer is a mere statement of the facts which the party filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence; 11 and further, that when the question to be determined is one of title, the Court is given the authority to proceed with the hearing of the cause until this fact is clearly established. In the case of  Sy vs. Dalman, 12 wherein the defendant was also a successful bidder in an auction sale, it was likewise held by this Court that in detainer cases the aim of ownership "is a matter of defense and raises an issue of fact which should be determined from the evidence at the trial." What determines jurisdiction are the allegations or averments in the complaint and the relief asked for. 13

Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, fraud or deceit does not render a contract void  ab initio, and can only be a ground for rendering the contract voidable or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the New Civil Code, by a proper action in court. 14 There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. Hence, defendants-appellants' claim of ownership on the basis of a voidable contract which has not been voided fails.It is claimed in the alternative by defendants-appellants that even if there was no fraud, deceit or trickery, the chattel mortgage was still null and void ab initio because only personal properties can be subject of a chattel mortgage. The rule about the status of buildings as immovable property is stated in Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre Inc., 15cited in Associated Insurance Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya, et al. 16 to the effect that —

... it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties (art. 415, New Civil Code) could only mean one thing — that a building is by itself an immovable property  irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner.

Certain deviations, however, have been allowed for various reasons. In the case of Manarang and Manarang vs. Ofilada, 17 this Court stated that "it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property", citingStandard Oil Company of New York vs. Jaramillo. 18 In the latter case, the mortgagor conveyed and transferred to the mortgagee by way of mortgage "the following describedpersonal property." 19 The "personal property" consisted of leasehold rights and a building. Again, in the case of Luna vs. Encarnacion, 20 the subject of the contract designated as Chattel Mortgage was a house of mixed materials, and this Court hold therein that it was a valid Chattel mortgage because it was so expressly designated and specifically that the property given as security "is a house of mixed materials, which by its very nature is considered personal property." In the later case of Navarro vs. Pineda, 21 this Court stated that —

The view that parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for the purposes of said contract, "is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel" (Evangelista vs. Alto Surety, No. L-11139, 23 April 1958). In a case, a mortgaged house built on a rented land was held to be a personal property, not only because the deed of mortgage considered it as such, but also because it did not form part of the land (Evangelists vs. Abad, [CA]; 36 O.G. 2913), for it is now settled that an object placed on land by one who had only a temporary right to the same, such as the lessee or usufructuary, does not become immobilized by attachment (Valdez vs. Central Altagracia, 222 U.S. 58, cited in Davao Sawmill Co., Inc. vs. Castillo, et al., 61 Phil. 709). Hence, if a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it may be mortgaged as a personal property as so stipulated in the document of mortgage. (Evangelista vs. Abad, Supra.) It should be noted, however that the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house to be a chattel, a conduct that may conceivably estop him from subsequently claiming otherwise. (Ladera vs. C.N. Hodges, [CA] 48 O.G. 5374): 22

In the contract now before Us, the house on rented land is not only expressly designated as Chattel Mortgage; it specifically provides that "the mortgagor ... voluntarily CEDES, SELLS and TRANSFERS by way of Chattel Mortgage 23 the property together with its leasehold rights over the lot on which it is constructed and participation ..."  24 Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendats-appellants merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties, particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personalty. Finally unlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre, Inc. 25 and Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery and Williamson, 26 wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage, 27 it is the defendants-appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated the subject house as personalty.(b) Turning to the question of possession and rentals of the premises in question. The Court of First Instance noted in its decision that nearly a year after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had been demolished on 14 and 15 January 1957 by virtue of a decision obtained by the lessor of the land on which the house stood. For this reason, the said court limited itself to sentencing the erstwhile mortgagors to pay plaintiffs a monthly rent of P200.00 from 27 March 1956 (when the chattel mortgage was foreclosed and the house sold) until 14 January 1957 (when it was torn down by the Sheriff), plus P300.00 attorney's fees.Appellants mortgagors question this award, claiming that they were entitled to remain in possession without any obligation to pay rent during the one year redemption period after the foreclosure sale, i.e., until 27 March 1957. On this issue, We must rule for the appellants.Chattel mortgages are covered and regulated by the Chattel Mortgage Law, Act No. 1508.  28 Section 14 of this Act allows the mortgagee to have the property mortgaged sold at public auction through a public officer in almost the same manner as that allowed by Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, provided that the requirements of the law relative to notice and registration are complied with. 29 In the instant case, the parties specifically stipulated that "the chattel mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Special Act No. 3135  ... ." 30 (Emphasis supplied).

Section 6 of the Act referred to 31 provides that the debtor-mortgagor (defendants-appellants herein) may, at any time within one year from and after the date of the auction sale, redeem the property sold at the extra judicial foreclosure sale. Section 7 of the same Act 32allows the purchaser of the property to obtain from the court the possession during the period of redemption: but the same provision expressly requires the filing of a petition with the proper Court of First Instance and the furnishing of a bond. It is only upon filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond that the order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course. No discretion is left to the court. 33 In the absence of such a compliance, as in the instant case, the purchaser can not claim possession during the period of redemption as a matter of right. In such a case, the governing provision is Section 34, Rule 39, of the Revised Rules of Court 34 which also applies to properties purchased in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. 35 Construing the said section, this Court stated in the aforestated case of Reyes vs. Hamada.

In other words, before the expiration of the 1-year period within which the judgment-debtor or mortgagor may redeem the property, the purchaser thereof is not entitled, as a matter of right, to possession of the same. Thus, while it is true that the Rules of Court allow the purchaser to receive the rentals if the purchased property is occupied by tenants, he is, nevertheless, accountable to the judgment-debtor or mortgagor as the case may be, for the amount so received and the same will be duly credited against the redemption price when the said debtor or mortgagor effects the redemption.Differently stated, the rentals receivable from tenants, although they may be collected by the purchaser during the redemption period, do not belong to the latter but still pertain to the debtor of mortgagor. The rationale for the Rule, it seems, is to secure for the benefit of the debtor or mortgagor, the payment of the redemption amount and the consequent return to him of his properties sold at public auction. (Emphasis supplied)

The Hamada case reiterates the previous ruling in Chan vs. Espe. 36

Since the defendants-appellants were occupying the house at the time of the auction sale, they are entitled to remain in possession during the period of redemption or within one year from and after 27 March 1956, the date of the auction sale, and to collect the rents or profits during the said period.It will be noted further that in the case at bar the period of redemption had not yet expired when action was instituted in the court of origin, and that plaintiffs-appellees did not choose to take possession under Section 7, Act No. 3135, as amended, which is the law selected by the parties to govern the extrajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Neither was there an allegation to that effect. Since plaintiffs-appellees' right to possess was not yet born at the filing of the complaint, there could be no violation or breach thereof. Wherefore, the original complaint stated no cause of action and was prematurely filed. For this reason, the same should be ordered dismissed, even if there was no assignment of error to that effect. The Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the cases. 37

It follows that the court below erred in requiring the mortgagors to pay rents for the year following the foreclosure sale, as well as attorney's fees.FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision appealed from is reversed and another one entered, dismissing the complaint. With costs against plaintiffs-appellees.Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

8. Associated Insurance Co. v. Iya, 103 Phil 972

G.R. Nos. L-10837-38             May 30, 1958ASSOCIATED INSURANCE and SURETY COMPANY, INC., plaintiff, vs.ISABEL IYA, ADRIANO VALINO and LUCIA VALINO, defendants.ISABEL IYA, plaintiff, vs.ADRIANO VALINO, LUCIA VALINO and ASSOCIATED INSURANCE and SURETY COMPANY. INC.,defendants.Jovita L. de Dios for defendant Isabel Iya.M. Perez Cardenas and Apolonio Abola for defendant Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc.FELIX, J.:Adriano Valino and Lucia A. Valino, husband and wife, were the owners and possessors of a house of strong materials constructed on Lot No. 3, Block No. 80 of the Grace Park Subdivision in Caloocan, Rizal, which they purchased on installment basis from the Philippine Realty Corporation. On November 6, 1951, to enable her to purchase on credit rice from the NARIC, Lucia A. Valino filed a bond in the sum of P11,000.00 (AISCO Bond No. G-971) subscribed by the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., and as counter-guaranty therefor, the spouses Valino executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the aforementioned house in favor of the surety company, which encumbrance was duly registered with the Chattel Mortgage Register of Rizal on December 6, 1951. It is admitted that at the time said undertaking took place, the parcel of land on which the house is erected was still registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation. Having completed payment on the purchase price of the lot, the Valinos were able to secure on October 18, 1958, a certificate of title in their name (T.C.T. No. 27884). Subsequently, however, or on October 24, 1952, the Valinos, to secure payment of an indebtedness in the amount of P12,000.00, executed a real estate mortgage over the lot and the house in favor of Isabel Iya, which was duly registered and annotated at the back of the certificate of title.On the other hand, as Lucia A. Valino, failed to satisfy her obligation to the NARIC, the surety company was compelled to pay the same pursuant to the undertaking of the bond. In turn, the surety company demanded reimbursement from the spouses Valino, and as the latter likewise failed to do so, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage over the house. As a result thereof, a public sale was conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal on December 26, 1952, wherein the property was awarded to the surety company for P8,000.00, the highest bid received therefor. The surety company then caused the said house to be declared in its name for tax purposes (Tax Declaration No. 25128).Sometime in July, 1953, the surety company learned of the existence of the real estate mortgage over the lot covered by T.C.T. No. 26884 together with the improvements thereon; thus, said surety company instituted Civil Case No. 2162 of the Court of First Instance of Manila naming Adriano and Lucia Valino and Isabel Iya, the mortgagee, as defendants. The complaint prayed for the exclusion of the residential house from the real estate mortgage in favor of defendant Iya and the declaration and recognition of plaintiff's right to ownership over the same in virtue of the award given by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal during the public auction held on December 26, 1952. Plaintiff likewise asked the Court to sentence the spouses Valino to pay said surety moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs. Defendant Isabel Iya filed her answer to the complaint alleging among other things, that in virtue of the real estate mortgage executed by her co-defendants, she acquired a real right over the lot and the house constructed thereon; that the auction sale allegedly conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal as a result of the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on the house was null and void for non-compliance with the form required by law. She, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and anullment of the sale made by the Provincial Sheriff. She also

demanded the amount of P5,000.00 from plaintiff as counterclaim, the sum of P5,000.00 from her co-defendants as crossclaim, for attorney's fees and costs.Defendants spouses in their answer admitted some of the averments of the complaint and denied the others. They, however, prayed for the dismissal of the action for lack of cause of action, it being alleged that plaintiff was already the owner of the house in question, and as said defendants admitted this fact, the claim of the former was already satisfied.On October 29, 1953, Isabel Iya filed another civil action against the Valinos and the surety company (Civil Case No. 2504 of the Court of First Instance of Manila) stating that pursuant to the contract of mortgage executed by the spouses Valino on October 24, 1952, the latter undertook to pay a loan of P12,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum or P120.00 a month, which indebtedness was payable in 4 years, extendible for only one year; that to secure payment thereof, said defendants mortgaged the house and lot covered by T.C.T. No. 27884 located at No. 67 Baltazar St., Grace Park Subdivision, Caloocan, Rizal; that the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., was included as a party defendant because it claimed to have an interest on the residential house also covered by said mortgage; that it was stipulated in the aforesaid real estate mortgage that default in the payment of the interest agreed upon would entitle the mortgagee to foreclose the same even before the lapse of the 4-year period; and as defendant spouses had allegedly failed to pay the interest for more than 6 months, plaintiff prayed the Court to order said defendants to pay the sum of P12,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from March 25, 1953, until fully paid; for an additional sum equivalent to 20% of the total obligation as damages, and for costs. As an alternative in case such demand may not be met and satisfied plaintiff prayed for a decree of foreclosure of the land, building and other improvements thereon to be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof applied to satisfy the demands of plaintiff; that the Valinos, the surety company and any other person claiming interest on the mortgaged properties be barred and foreclosed of all rights, claims or equity of redemption in said properties; and for deficiency judgment in case the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property would be insufficient to satisfy the claim of plaintiff.Defendant surety company, in answer to this complaint insisted on its right over the building, arguing that as the lot on which the house was constructed did not belong to the spouses at the time the chattel mortgage was executed, the house might be considered only as a personal property and that the encumbrance thereof and the subsequent foreclosure proceedings made pursuant to the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law were proper and legal. Defendant therefore prayed that said building be excluded from the real estate mortgage and its right over the same be declared superior to that of plaintiff, for damages, attorney's fees and costs.Taking side with the surety company, defendant spouses admitted the due execution of the mortgage upon the land but assailed the allegation that the building was included thereon, it being contended that it was already encumbered in favor of the surety company before the real estate mortgage was executed, a fact made known to plaintiff during the preparation of said contract and to which the latter offered no objection. As a special defense, it was asserted that the action was premature because the contract was for a period of 4 years, which had not yet elapsed.The two cases were jointly heard upon agreement of the parties, who submitted the same on a stipulation of facts, after which the Court rendered judgment dated March 8, 1956, holding that the chattel mortgage in favor of the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., was preferred and superior over the real estate mortgage subsequently executed in favor of Isabel Iya. It was ruled that as the Valinos were not yet the registered owner of the land on which the building in question was constructed at the time the first encumbrance was made, the building then was still a personality and a chattel mortgage over the same was proper. However, as the mortgagors were already the owner of the land at the time the contract with Isabel Iya was entered into, the building was transformed into a real property and the real estate mortgage created thereon was likewise adjudged as proper. It is to be noted in this connection that there is no evidence on record to sustain the allegation of the spouses Valino that at the time they mortgaged their house and lot  to Isabel Iya, the latter was told or knew that part of the mortgaged property, i.e., thehouse, had previously been mortgaged to the surety company.The residential building was, therefore, ordered excluded from the foreclosure prayed for by Isabel Iya, although the latter could exercise the right of a junior encumbrance. So the spouses Valino were ordered to pay the amount demanded by said mortgagee or in their default to have the parcel of land subject of the mortgage sold at public auction for the satisfaction of Iya's claim.There is no question as to appellant's right over the land covered by the real estate mortgage; however, as the building constructed thereon has been the subject of 2 mortgages; controversy arise as to which of these encumbrances should receive preference over the other. The decisive factor in resolving the issue presented by this appeal is the determination of the nature of the structure litigated upon, for where it be considered a personality, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and the subsequent sale thereof at public auction, made in accordance with the Chattel Mortgage Law would be valid and the right acquired by the surety company therefrom would certainly deserve prior recognition; otherwise, appellant's claim for preference must be granted. The lower Court, deciding in favor of the surety company, based its ruling on the premise that as the mortgagors were not the owners of the land on which the building is erected at the time the first encumbrance was made, said structure partook of the nature of a personal property and could properly be the subject of a chattel mortgage. We find reason to hold otherwise, for as this Court, defining the nature or character of a building, has said:

. . . while it is true that generally, real estate connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties (Art. 415, new Civil Code) could only mean one thing — that a building is by  itself an immovable property . . . Moreover, and in view of the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, a building is an immovable property irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner. (Lopez vs. Orosa, G.R. Nos. supra, p. 98).

A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs to another. To hold it the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would result in confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made dependent on the ownership of the land, would create a situation where a permanent fixture changes its nature or character as the ownership of the land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties could only be the subject of a chattel mortgage (Section 1, Act 3952) and as obviously the structure in question is not one, the execution of the chattel mortgage covering said building is clearly invalid and a nullity. While it is true that said document was correspondingly registered in the Chattel Mortgage Register of Rizal, this act produced no effect whatsoever for where the interest conveyed is in the nature of a real property, the registration of the document in the registry of chattels is merely a futile act. Thus, the registration of the chattel mortgage of a building of strong materials produce no effect as far as the building is concerned (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644). Nor can we give any consideration to the contention of the surety that it has acquired ownership over the property in question by reason of the sale conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, for as this Court has aptly pronounced:

A mortgage creditor who purchases real properties at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale thereof by virtue of a chattel mortgage constituted in his favor, which mortgage has been declared null and void with respect to said real properties, acquires no right thereto by virtue of said sale (De la Riva vs. Ah Keo, 60 Phil., 899).

Wherefore the portion of the decision of the lower Court in these two cases appealed from holding the rights of the surety company, over the building superior to that of Isabel Iya and excluding the building from the foreclosure prayed for by the latter is reversed and appellant Isabel Iya's right to foreclose not only the land but also the building erected thereon is hereby

recognized, and the proceeds of the sale thereof at public auction (if the land has not yet been sold), shall be applied to the unsatisfied judgment in favor of Isabel Iya. This decision however is without prejudice to any right that the Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., may have against the spouses Adriano and Lucia Valino on account of the mortgage of said building they executed in favor of said surety company. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

9. Santos Evangelista v. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.,103 Phil 401

G.R. No. L-11139             April 23, 1958SANTOS EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs.ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent.Gonzalo D. David for petitioner.Raul A. Aristorenas and Benjamin Relova for respondent.CONCEPCION, J.:This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.Briefly, the facts are: On June 4, 1949, petitioner herein, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case No. 8235 of the Court of First, Instance of Manila entitled " Santos Evangelista vs. Ricardo Rivera," for a sum of money. On the same date, he obtained a writ of attachment, which levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, by filing copy of said writ and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, on June 8, 1949. In due course, judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who, on October 8, 1951, bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued in said case. The corresponding definite deed of sale was issued to him on October 22, 1952, upon expiration of the period of redemption. When Evangelista sought to take possession of the house, Rivera refused to surrender it, upon the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. — respondent herein — and that the latter is now the true owner of said property. It appears that on May 10, 1952, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to respondent, as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on September 29, 1950, in compliance with a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6268 of the same court, entitled "Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Maximo Quiambao, Rosario Guevara and Ricardo Rivera," in which judgment, for the sum of money, had been rendered in favor respondent herein, as plaintiff therein. Hence, on June 13, 1953, Evangelista instituted the present action against respondent and Ricardo Rivera, for the purpose of establishing his (Evangelista) title over said house, securing possession thereof, apart from recovering damages.In its answer, respondent alleged, in substance, that it has a better right to the house, because the sale made, and the definite deed of sale executed, in its favor, on September 29, 1950 and May 10, 1952, respectively, precede the sale to Evangelista (October 8, 1951) and the definite deed of sale in his favor (October 22, 1952). It, also, made some special defenses which are discussed hereafter. Rivera, in effect, joined forces with respondent. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and respondent to deliver the house in question to petitioner herein and to pay him, jointly and severally, forty pesos (P40.00) a month from October, 1952, until said delivery, plus costs.On appeal taken by respondent, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which absolved said respondent from the complaint, upon the ground that, although the writ of attachment in favor of Evangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila prior to the sale in favor of respondent, Evangelista did not acquire thereby a preferential lien, the attachment having been levied as if the house in question were immovable property, although in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is "ostensibly a personal property." As such, the Court of Appeals held, "the order of attachment . . . should have been served in the manner provided in subsection (e) of section 7 of Rule 59," of the Rules of Court, reading:

The property of the defendant shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner:(e) Debts and credits, and other personal property not capable of manual delivery, by leaving with the person owing such debts, or having in his possession or under his control, such credits or other personal property, or with, his agent, a copy of the order, and a notice that the debts owing by him to the defendant , and the credits and other personal property in his possession, or under his control, belonging to the defendant, are attached in pursuance of such order. (Emphasis ours.)

However, the Court of Appeals seems to have been of the opinion, also, that the house of Rivera should have been attached in accordance with subsection (c) of said section 7, as "personal property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping in his custody", for it declared that "Evangelists could not have . . . validly purchased Ricardo Rivera's house from the sheriff as the latter was not in possession thereof at the time he sold it at a public auction."Evangelista now seeks a review, by certiorari, of this decision of the Court of Appeals. In this connection, it is not disputed that although the sale to the respondent preceded that made to Evangelists, the latter would have a better right if the writ of attachment, issued in his favor before  the sale to the respondent, had been properly executed or enforced. This question, in turn, depends upon whether the house of Ricardo Rivera is real property or not. In the affirmative case, the applicable provision would be subsection (a) of section 7, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to which the attachment should be made "by filing with the registrar of deeds a copy of the order, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by leaving a copy of such order, description, and notice with the occupant of the property, if any there be."Respondent maintains, however, and the Court of Appeals held, that Rivera's house is personal property, the levy upon which must be made in conformity with subsections (c) and (e) of said section 7 of Rule 59. Hence, the main issue before us is whether a house, constructed the lessee of the land on which it is built, should be dealt with, for purpose, of attachment, as immovable property, or as personal property.It is, our considered opinion that said house is not personal property, much less a debt, credit or other personal property not capable of manual delivery, but immovable property. As explicitly held, in Laddera vs. Hodges (48 Off. Gaz., 5374), "a true building (not merely superimposed on the soil) is immovable or real property, whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary or  lessee. This is the doctrine of our Supreme Court in Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Company, 37 Phil., 644. And it is amply supported by the rulings of the French Court. . . ."It is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for purposes of said contract (Luna vs. Encarnacion, * 48 Off. Gaz., 2664; Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil., 630; De Jesus vs. Juan Dee Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464). However, this view is good only insofar as thecontracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel. Neither this principle, nor said view, is applicable to strangers to said contract. Much less is it in point where there has been no contractwhatsoever, with respect to the status of the house involved, as in the case at bar. Apart from this, in Manarang vs. Ofilada (99 Phil., 108; 52 Off. Gaz., 3954), we held:

The question now before us, however, is: Does the fact that the parties entering into a contract regarding a house gave said property the consideration of personal property in their contract, bind the sheriff in advertising the property's sale at public auction as personal property? It is to be remembered that in the case at bar the action was to collect a loan secured by a chattel mortgage on the house. It is also to be remembered that in practice it is the judgment creditor who points out to the sheriff the properties that the sheriff is to levy upon in execution, and the judgment creditor in the case at bar is the party in whose favor the owner of the house had conveyed it by way of chattel mortgage and, therefore, knew its consideration as personal property.These considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the rules on execution do not allow, and, we should notinterpret them in such a way as to allow, the special consideration that parties to a contract may have desired to impart to real estate, for example, as personal property, when they are, not ordinarily so. Sales on execution affect the public and third persons. The regulation governing sales on execution are for public officials to follow. The form of proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is suited to its character, not to the character, which the parties have given to it or desire to give it. When the rules speak of personal property, property which is ordinarily so considered is meant; and when real property is spoken of, it means property which is generally known as real property. The regulations were never intended to suit the consideration that parties may have privately given to the property levied upon. Enforcement of regulations would be difficult were the convenience or agreement of private parties to determine or govern the nature of the proceedings. We therefore hold that the mere fact that a house was the subject of the chattel mortgage and was considered as personal property by the parties does not make said house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale of public auction. This ruling is demanded by the need for a definite, orderly and well defined regulation for official and public guidance and would prevent confusion and misunderstanding.We, therefore, declare that the house of mixed materials levied upon on execution, although subject of a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third person, is real property within the purview of Rule 39, section 16, of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture of the land, which, is real property . (42 Am. Jur. 199-200; Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644; Republic vs. Ceniza, et al., 90 Phil., 544; Ladera,, et al. vs. Hodges, et al., [C.A.] Off. Gaz. 5374.)" (Emphasis ours.)

The foregoing considerations apply, with equal force, to the conditions for the levy of attachment, for it similarly affects the public and third persons.It is argued, however, that, even if the house in question were immovable property, its attachment by Evangelista was void or ineffective, because, in the language of the Court of Appeals, "after presenting a Copy of the order of attachment in the Office of the Register of Deeds, the person who might then be in possession of the house, the sheriff took no pains to serve Ricardo Rivera, or other copies thereof." This finding of the Court of Appeals is neither conclusive upon us, nor accurate.The Record on Appeal, annexed to the petition for Certiorari, shows that petitioner alleged, in paragraph 3 of the complaint, that he acquired the house in question "as a consequence of the levy of an attachment and execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235" of the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his answer (paragraph 2), Ricardo Rivera admitted said attachment execution of judgment. He alleged, however, by way a of special defense, that the title of respondent "is superior  to that of plaintiff because it is based on a public instrument," whereas Evangelista relied upon a "promissory note" which "is only a private instrument"; that said Public instrument in favor of respondent "is superior also to the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235"; and that plaintiff's claim against Rivera amounted only to P866, "which is much below the real value" of said house, for which reason it would be "grossly unjust to acquire the property for such an inadequate consideration." Thus, Rivera impliedly admitted that his house had been attached, that the house had been sold to Evangelista in accordance with the requisite formalities, and that said attachment was valid, although allegedly inferior to the rights of respondent, and the consideration for the sale to Evangelista was claimed to be inadequate.Respondent, in turn, denied the allegation in said paragraph 3 of the complaint, but only "  for the reasons stated in its special defenses" namely: (1) that by virtue of the sale at public auction, and the final deed executed by the sheriff in favor of respondent, the same became the "legitimate owner of the house" in question; (2) that respondent "is a buyer in good faith and for value"; (3) that respondent "took possession and control of said house"; (4) that "there was no valid attachment by the plaintiff and/or the Sheriff of Manila of the property in question as neither took actual or constructive possession or control of the property at any time"; and (5) "that the alleged registration of plaintiff's attachment, certificate of sale and final deed in the Office of Register of Deeds, Manila, if there was any, is likewise, not valid as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from another." In this manner, respondent claimed a better right, merely under the theory that, in case of double sale of immovable property, the purchaser who first obtains possession in good faith, acquires title, if the sale has not been "recorded . . . in the Registry of Property" (Art. 1544, Civil Code of the Philippines), and that the writ of attachment and the notice of attachment in favor of Evangelista should be considered unregistered, "as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from another." In fact, said article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, governing double sales, was quoted on page 15 of the brief for respondent in the Court of Appeals, in support of its fourth assignment of error therein, to the effect that it "has preference or priority over the sale of the same property" to Evangelista.In other words, there was no issue on whether copy of the writ and notice of attachment had been served on Rivera.No evidence whatsoever, to the effect that Rivera had not been served with copies of said writ and notice, was introduced in the Court of First Instance. In its brief in the Court of Appeals, respondent did not aver, or even, intimate, that no such copies were served by the sheriff upon Rivera. Service thereof on Rivera had been impliedly admitted by the defendants, in their respective answers, and by their behaviour throughout the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, and, as regards respondent, in the Court of Appeals. In fact, petitioner asserts in his brief herein (p. 26) that copies of said writ and notice were delivered to Rivera, simultaneously with copies of the complaint, upon service of summons, prior to the filing of copies of said writ and notice with the register deeds, andthe truth of this assertion has not been directly and positively challenged or denied in the brief filed before us by respondent herein. The latter did not dare therein to go beyond making a statement — for the first time in the course of these proceedings, begun almost five (5) years ago (June 18, 1953) — reproducing substantially the aforementioned finding of the Court of Appeals and then quoting the same.Considering, therefore, that neither the pleadings, nor the briefs in the Court of Appeals, raised an issue on whether or not copies of the writ of attachment and notice of attachment had been served upon Rivera; that the defendants had impliedly admitted-in said pleadings and briefs, as well as by their conduct during the entire proceedings, prior to the rendition of the decision of the Court of Appeals — that Rivera had received copies of said documents; and that, for this reason, evidently, no proof was introduced thereon, we, are of the opinion, and so hold that the finding of the Court of Appeals to the effect that said copies had not been served upon Rivera is based upon a misapprehension of the specific issues involved therein and goes beyond  the range of such issues, apart from beingcontrary  to the aforementioned admission by the parties, and that, accordingly, a grave abuse of discretion was committed in making said finding, which is, furthermore, inaccurate.Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Manila, with the costs of this instance against respondent, the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. It is so ordered.Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ.,concur.

10. Sibal v. Valdez, 50 Phil 512

11. Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor, 6 SCRA 197 G.R. No. L-17870             September 29, 1962MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, petitioner, vs.THE CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER and the BOARD OF TAX APPEALS of Cagayan de Oro City,respondents.Binamira, Barria and Irabagon for petitioner.Vicente E. Sabellina for respondents.

LABRADOR, J.:This is a petition for the review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 710 holding that the petitioner Mindanao Bus Company is liable to the payment of the realty tax on its maintenance and repair equipment hereunder referred to.Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioner's above-mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the respondent Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city assessor, so petitioner herein filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the assessment.In the Court of Tax Appeals the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:

Petitioner and respondents, thru their respective counsels agreed to the following stipulation of facts:1. That petitioner is a public utility solely engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks, over its authorized lines in the Island of Mindanao, collecting rates approved by the Public Service Commission;2. That petitioner has its main office and shop at Cagayan de Oro City. It maintains Branch Offices and/or stations at Iligan City, Lanao; Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur; Davao City and Kibawe, Bukidnon Province;3. That the machineries sought to be assessed by the respondent as real properties are the following:

(a) Hobart Electric Welder Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "A";(b) Storm Boring Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "B";(c) Lathe machine with motor, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "C";(d) Black and Decker Grinder, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "D";(e) PEMCO Hydraulic Press, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "E";(f) Battery charger (Tungar charge machine) appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "F"; and(g) D-Engine Waukesha-M-Fuel, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "G".

4. That these machineries are sitting on cement or wooden platforms as may be seen in the attached photographs which form part of this agreed stipulation of facts;5. That petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its TPU motor trucks; a repair shop; blacksmith and carpentry shops, and with these machineries which are placed therein, its TPU trucks are made; body constructed; and same are repaired in a condition to be serviceable in the TPU land transportation business it operates;6. That these machineries have never been or were never used as industrial equipments to produce finished products for sale, nor to repair machineries, parts and the like offered to the general public indiscriminately for business or commercial purposes for which petitioner has never engaged in, to date.1awphîl.nèt

The Court of Tax Appeals having sustained the respondent city assessor's ruling, and having denied a motion for reconsideration, petitioner brought the case to this Court assigning the following errors:

1. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding respondents' contention that the questioned assessments are valid; and that said tools, equipments or machineries are immovable taxable real properties.2. The Tax Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, and holding that pursuant thereto the movable equipments are taxable realties, by reason of their being intended or destined for use in an industry.3. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's contention that the respondent City Assessor's power to assess and levy real estate taxes on machineries is further restricted by section 31, paragraph (c) of Republic Act No. 521; and4. The Tax Court erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Respondents contend that said equipments, tho movable, are immobilized by destination, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code which provides:

Art. 415. — The following are immovable properties:x x x           x x x           x x x(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. (Emphasis ours.)

Note that the stipulation expressly states that the equipment are placed on wooden or cement platforms. They can be moved around and about in petitioner's repair shop. In the case of B. H. Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 663, the Supreme Court said:

Article 344 (Now Art. 415), paragraph (5) of the Civil Code, gives the character of real property to "machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade or industry."If the installation of the machinery and equipment in question in the central of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., in lieu of the other of less capacity existing therein, for its sugar and industry, converted them into real property by reason of their purpose, it cannot be said that their incorporation therewith was not permanent in character because, as essential and principle elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar central would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established. Inasmuch as the central is permanent in character, the necessary machinery and equipment installed for carrying on the sugar industry for which it has been established must necessarily be permanent. (Emphasis ours.)

So that movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must first be "essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established." We may here distinguish, therefore, those movable which become immobilized by destination because they

are essential and principal elements in the industry for those which may not be so considered immobilized because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. Thus, cash registers, typewriters, etc., usually found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals and are not and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these equity comments. Airline companies use forklifts, jeep-wagons, pressure pumps, IBM machines, etc. which are incidentals, not essentials, and thus retain their movable nature. On the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of liquor and soft drinks, though movable in nature, are immobilized because they are essential to said industries; but the delivery trucks and adding machines which they usually own and use and are found within their industrial compounds are merely incidental and retain their movable nature.Similarly, the tools and equipments in question in this instant case are, by their nature, not essential and principle municipal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals — acquired as movables and used only for expediency to facilitate and/or improve its service. Even without such tools and equipments, its business may be carried on, as petitioner has carried on, without such equipments, before the war. The transportation business could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rolling equipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another.The law that governs the determination of the question at issue is as follows:

Art. 415. The following are immovable property:x x x           x x x           x x x(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works; (Civil Code of the Phil.)

Aside from the element of essentiality the above-quoted provision also requires that the industry or works be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. Thus in the case of Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, supra, the "machinery, liquid containers, and instruments or implements" are found in a building constructed on the land. A sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or less permanently, and the sawing is conducted in the land or building.But in the case at bar the equipments in question are destined only to repair or service the transportation business,which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece of land, as demanded by the law. Said equipments may not, therefore, be deemed real property.Resuming what we have set forth above, we hold that the equipments in question are not absolutely essential to the petitioner's transportation business, and petitioner's business is not carried on in a building, tenement or on a specified land, so said equipment may not be considered real estate within the meaning of Article 415 (c) of the Civil Code.WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the equipment in question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real estate tax. Without costs.So ordered.Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.Regala, Concepcion and Barrera JJ., took no part.

12. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Manila Electric Company, 10 SCRA 68

G.R. No. L-15334             January 31, 1964BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CITY ASSESSOR and CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY,petitioners, vs.MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent.Assistant City Attorney Jaime R. Agloro for petitioners.Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for respondent.PAREDES, J.:From the stipulation of facts and evidence adduced during the hearing, the following appear:On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 484 which authorized the Municipal Board of Manila to grant a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric street railway and electric light, heat and power system in the City of Manila and its suburbs to the person or persons making the most favorable bid. Charles M. Swift was awarded the said franchise on March 1903, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in Ordinance No. 44 approved on March 24, 1903. Respondent Manila Electric Co. (Meralco for short), became the transferee and owner of the franchise.Meralco's electric power is generated by its hydro-electric plant located at Botocan Falls, Laguna and is transmitted to the City of Manila by means of electric transmission wires, running from the province of Laguna to the said City. These electric transmission wires which carry high voltage current, are fastened to insulators attached on steel towers constructed by respondent at intervals, from its hydro-electric plant in the province of Laguna to the City of Manila. The respondent Meralco has constructed 40 of these steel towers within Quezon City, on land belonging to it. A photograph of one of these steel towers is attached to the petition for review, marked Annex A. Three steel towers were inspected by the lower court and parties and the following were the descriptions given there of by said court:

The first steel tower is located in South Tatalon, España Extension, Quezon City. The findings were as follows: the ground around one of the four posts was excavated to a depth of about eight (8) feet, with an opening of about one (1) meter in diameter, decreased to about a quarter of a meter as it we deeper until it reached the bottom of the post; at the bottom of the post were two parallel steel bars attached to the leg means of bolts; the tower proper was attached to the leg three bolts; with two cross metals to prevent mobility; there was no concrete foundation but there was adobe stone underneath; as the bottom of the excavation was covered with water about three inches high, it could not be determined with certainty to whether said adobe stone was placed purposely or not, as the place abounds with this kind of stone; and the tower carried five high voltage wires without cover or any insulating materials.The second tower inspected was located in Kamuning Road, K-F, Quezon City, on land owned by the petitioner approximate more than one kilometer from the first tower. As in the first tower, the ground around one of the four legs was excavate from seven to eight (8) feet deep and one and a half (1-½) meters wide. There being very little water at the bottom, it was seen that there was no concrete foundation, but there soft adobe beneath. The leg was likewise provided with two parallel steel bars bolted to a square metal frame also bolted to each corner. Like the first one, the second tower is made up of metal rods joined together by means of bolts, so that by unscrewing the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and reassembled.The third tower examined is located along Kamias Road, Quezon City. As in the first two towers given above, the ground around the two legs of the third tower was excavated to a depth about two or three inches beyond the outside level of the steel bar foundation. It was found that there was no concrete foundation. Like the two previous ones, the bottom arrangement of the legs thereof were found to be resting on soft adobe, which, probably due to high humidity,

looks like mud or clay. It was also found that the square metal frame supporting the legs were not attached to any material or foundation.

On November 15, 1955, petitioner City Assessor of Quezon City declared the aforesaid steel towers for real property tax under Tax declaration Nos. 31992 and 15549. After denying respondent's petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal was taken by respondent to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which required respondent to pay the amount of P11,651.86 as real property tax on the said steel towers for the years 1952 to 1956. Respondent paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA for short) which rendered a decision on December 29, 1958, ordering the cancellation of the said tax declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund to the respondent the sum of P11,651.86. The motion for reconsideration having been denied, on April 22, 1959, the instant petition for review was filed.In upholding the cause of respondents, the CTA held that: (1) the steel towers come within the term "poles" which are declared exempt from taxes under part II paragraph 9 of respondent's franchise; (2) the steel towers are personal properties and are not subject to real property tax; and (3) the City Treasurer of Quezon City is held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. These are assigned as errors by the petitioner in the brief.The tax exemption privilege of the petitioner is quoted hereunder:

PAR 9. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes upon its real estate, buildings, plant (not including poles, wires, transformers, and insulators), machinery and personal property as other persons are or may be hereafter required by law to pay ... Said percentage shall be due and payable at the time stated in paragraph nineteen of Part One hereof, ... and shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatsoever nature and by whatsoever authority upon the privileges, earnings, income, franchise, and poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the grantee from which taxes and assessments the grantee is hereby expressly exempted. (Par. 9, Part Two, Act No. 484 Respondent's Franchise; emphasis supplied.)

The word "pole" means "a long, comparatively slender usually cylindrical piece of wood or timber, as typically the stem of a small tree stripped of its branches; also by extension, a similar typically cylindrical piece or object of metal or the like". The term also refers to "an upright standard to the top of which something is affixed or by which something is supported ; as a dovecote set on a pole; telegraph poles; a tent pole; sometimes, specifically a vessel's master (Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd Ed., p. 1907.) Along the streets, in the City of Manila, may be seen cylindrical metal poles, cubical concrete poles, and poles of the PLDT Co. which are made of two steel bars joined together by an interlacing metal rod. They are called "poles" notwithstanding the fact that they are no made of wood. It must be noted from paragraph 9, above quoted, that the concept of the "poles" for which exemption is granted, is not determined by their place or location, nor by the character of the electric current it carries, nor the material or form of which it is made, but the use to which they are dedicated. In accordance with the definitions, pole is not restricted to a long cylindrical piece of wood or metal, but includes "upright standards to the top of which something is affixed or by which something is supported. As heretofore described, respondent's steel supports consists of a framework of four steel bars or strips which are bound by steel cross-arms atop of which are cross-arms supporting five high voltage transmission wires (See Annex A) and their sole function is to support or carry such wires.The conclusion of the CTA that the steel supports in question are embraced in the term "poles" is not a novelty. Several courts of last resort in the United States have called these steel supports "steel towers", and they denominated these supports or towers, as electric poles. In their decisions the words "towers" and "poles" were used interchangeably, and it is well understood in that jurisdiction that a transmission tower or pole means the same thing.In a proceeding to condemn land for the use of electric power wires, in which the law provided that wires shall be constructed upon suitable poles, this term was construed to mean either wood or metal poles and in view of the land being subject to overflow, and the necessary carrying of numerous wires and the distance between poles, the statute was interpreted to include towers or poles. (Stemmons and Dallas Light Co. (Tex) 212 S.W. 222, 224; 32-A Words and Phrases, p. 365.)The term "poles" was also used to denominate the steel supports or towers used by an association used to convey its electric power furnished to subscribers and members, constructed for the purpose of fastening high voltage and dangerous electric wires alongside public highways. The steel supports or towers were made of iron or other metals consisting of two pieces running from the ground up some thirty feet high, being wider at the bottom than at the top, the said two metal pieces being connected with criss-cross iron running from the bottom to the top, constructed like ladders and loaded with high voltage electricity. In form and structure, they are like the steel towers in question. (Salt River Valley Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 8 P. 2nd, 249-250.)The term "poles" was used to denote the steel towers of an electric company engaged in the generation of hydro-electric power generated from its plant to the Tower of Oxford and City of Waterbury. These steel towers are about 15 feet square at the base and extended to a height of about 35 feet to a point, and are embedded in the cement foundations sunk in the earth, the top of which extends above the surface of the soil in the tower of Oxford, and to the towers are attached insulators, arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the transmission of electric power (Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Oxford, 101 Conn. 383, 126 Atl. p. 1).In a case, the defendant admitted that the structure on which a certain person met his death was built for the purpose of supporting a transmission wire used for carrying high-tension electric power, but claimed that the steel towers on which it is carried were so large that their wire took their structure out of the definition of a pole line. It was held that in defining the word pole, one should not be governed by the wire or material of the support used, but was considering the danger from any elevated wire carrying electric current, and that regardless of the size or material wire of its individual members, any continuous series of structures intended and used solely or primarily for the purpose of supporting wires carrying electric currents is a pole line (Inspiration Consolidation Cooper Co. v. Bryan 252 P. 1016).It is evident, therefore, that the word "poles", as used in Act No. 484 and incorporated in the petitioner's franchise, should not be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to defeat the very object for which the franchise was granted. The poles as contemplated thereon, should be understood and taken as a part of the electric power system of the respondent Meralco, for the conveyance of electric current from the source thereof to its consumers. If the respondent would be required to employ "wooden poles", or "rounded poles" as it used to do fifty years back, then one should admit that the Philippines is one century behind the age of space. It should also be conceded by now that steel towers, like the ones in question, for obvious reasons, can better effectuate the purpose for which the respondent's franchise was granted.Granting for the purpose of argument that the steel supports or towers in question are not embraced within the termpoles, the logical question posited is whether they constitute real properties, so that they can be subject to a real property tax. The tax law does not provide for a definition of real property; but Article 415 of the Civil Code does, by stating the following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;x x x           x x x           x x x(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object;x x x           x x x           x x x

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried in a building or on a piece of land, and which tends directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;x x x           x x x           x x x

The steel towers or supports in question, do not come within the objects mentioned in paragraph 1, because they do not constitute buildings or constructions adhered to the soil. They are not construction analogous to buildings nor adhering to the soil. As per description, given by the lower court, they are removable and merely attached to a square metal frame by means of bolts, which when unscrewed could easily be dismantled and moved from place to place. They can not be included under paragraph 3, as they are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, and they can be separated without breaking the material or causing deterioration upon the object to which they are attached. Each of these steel towers or supports consists of steel bars or metal strips, joined together by means of bolts, which can be disassembled by unscrewing the bolts and reassembled by screwing the same. These steel towers or supports do not also fall under paragraph 5, for they are not machineries, receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if they were, they are not intended for industry or works on the land. Petitioner is not engaged in an industry or works in the land in which the steel supports or towers are constructed.It is finally contended that the CTA erred in ordering the City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund the sum of P11,651.86, despite the fact that Quezon City is not a party to the case. It is argued that as the City Treasurer is not the real party in interest, but Quezon City, which was not a party to the suit, notwithstanding its capacity to sue and be sued, he should not be ordered to effect the refund. This question has not been raised in the court below, and, therefore, it cannot be properly raised for the first time on appeal. The herein petitioner is indulging in legal technicalities and niceties which do not help him any; for factually, it was he (City Treasurer) whom had insisted that respondent herein pay the real estate taxes, which respondent paid under protest. Having acted in his official capacity as City Treasurer of Quezon City, he would surely know what to do, under the circumstances.IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Regala, JJ., concur.Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.Dizon, J., took no part.