Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained loan from Philippine Bank

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/19
Tsai v. CA
FACTS:
Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained loan from Philippine Bank of Communications
(PBCom), secured by a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot where its factory stands, and the
chattels located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. PBCom again
granted a second loan to EVERTEX which was secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties
enumerated in a list attached thereto. These listed properties were similar to those listed in the first
mortgage deed. After the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX
purchased various machines and equipments. Upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom,
the latter commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135 and Act
1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". PBCom then consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the
properties in it. It leased the entire factory premises to Ruby Tsai and sold to the same the factory, lock,
stock and barrel including the contested machineries.
VERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages against PBCom,
alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage was not valid, and that PBCom,
without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the contested properties which were not included in the
Real and Chattel Mortgage of the first mortgage contract nor in the second contract which is a Chattel
Mortgage, and neither were those properties included in the Notice of Sheriff's Sale.
ISSUES:
1) W/N the contested properties are personal or movable properties
2) W/N the sale of these properties to a third person (Tsai) by the bank through an irregular foreclosure
sale is valid.
HELD:
1) Nature of the Properties and Intent of the Parties
The nature of the disputed machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or cemented on the real
property mortgaged does not make them ipso facto immovable under Article 415 (3) and (5) of the New
Civil Code. While it is true that the properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of Real
and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties herein reveal their intent, that is - to treat machinery and
equipment as chattels.
In the first mortgage contract, reflective of the true intention of PBCOM and 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

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/19
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
second contract, the intention of the parties is clear and beyond question. It refers solely to chattels.
The inventory list of the mortgaged properties is an itemization of 63 individually described machineries
while the schedule listed only machines and 2,996,880.50 worth of finished cotton fabrics and natural
cotton fabrics.
UNDER PRINCIPLE OF STOPPEL
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, 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.
2) Sale of the Properties Not Included in the Subject of Chattel Mortgage is Not Valid
The auction sale of the subject properties to PBCom is void. 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. Section 7 provides 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." Since the disputed machineries were acquired later after
the two mortgage contracts were executed, 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 lease and sale of said personal properties were irregular and illegal because they were not duly
foreclosed nor sold at the auction, no valid title passed in its favor. Consequently, the sale thereof to
Ruby Tsai is also a nullity under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet, one cannot give
what one does not have.
Serg's v. PCI Leasing
Serg’s Products, Inc. vs. PCI Leasing G.R. No. 137705. August 22, 2000
FACTS:
PCI Leasing and Finance filed a complaint for sum of money, with an application for a writ of replevin.
Judge issued a writ of replevin 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.
The sheriff proceeded to petitioner's factory, seized one machinery, with word that he would return for
other machineries.
Petitioner (Serg’s Products) filed a motion for special protective order to defer enforcement of the writ
of replevin.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/19

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 19 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Tsai v. CA FACTS: Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom), secured by a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot where its factory stands, and the chattels located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. PBCom again granted a second loan to EVERTEX which was secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached thereto. These listed properties were similar to those listed in the first mortgage deed. After the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX purchased various machines and equipments. Upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135 and Act 1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". PBCom then consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. It leased the entire factory premises to Ruby Tsai and sold to the same the factory, lock, stock and barrel including the contested machineries. VERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages against PBCom, alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage was not valid, and that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the contested properties which were not included in the Real and Chattel Mortgage of the first mortgage contract nor in the second contract which is a Chattel Mortgag ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents