Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1916 > December 1916 Decisions > G.R. No. 11607 December 14, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS, ET AL

035 Phil 753:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 11607. December 14, 1916. ]

PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (LTD.) , Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS and J. S. LI TSUNG LING, Defendants. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS, Appellant.

Recaredo Ma. Calvo for Appellant.

Eusebio Orense for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MORTGAGES; MORTGAGE ON REAL PROPERTY INCLUDES BUILDING THEREON UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED. — Held: Following the decision in the case of Bischoff v. Pomar and Cia. rel. de Tabacos (12 Phil. Rep., 690), that a mortgage on real property includes the buildings erected thereon, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary between the parties, provided said buildings belong to the mortgagor.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the sale under execution by the sheriff, of certain real property including the buildings thereon, should be confirmed. The facts pertinent to that question and out of which it arose are undisputed and are a follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That on the 2d of October, 1912, the defendant, in order to guarantee the payment of a certain sum of money, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a mortgage on certain real estate, which is particularly described therein, including "the buildings erected thereon." (See Exhibit A.)

Second. That on the 11th of June, 1913, to secure the payment of an additional sum of money, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff another mortgage upon the same property, which mortgage contained substantially the same conditions as those stated in the first. (See Exhibit B.)

Third. That, neither of said sums of money secured by said mortgages having been fully paid and satisfied, the plaintiff on the 11th of March, 1915, commenced an action to recover said sums and to foreclose said mortgages.

Fourth. That on the 4th of May, 1915, the defendant and appellant, Armando Camps y Camps, presented the execution and delivery of said mortgages (Exhibits A and B), denied each and all of the facts stated in the complaint. The defendant further alleged that the sum of P3,000, included in said mortgages for the payment of expenses, etc., was excessive.

Fifth. That upon the issue presented by the petition and answer, the cause was submitted to the court on the 23d of July, 1915, and, after hearing the respective parties, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, judge, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the foreclosure of aid mortgages and requiring the defendant to deposit in the court, in accordance with the provisions of law, the amount of said judgment.

Sixth. That later the said judgment not having been paid an execution was issued out of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, on the 5th of October, 1915, for the purpose of recovering the amount of said judgment.

Seventh. That, during the effort of the sheriff to sell the property included in said mortgages, the defendant interposed an objection that a certain cinematograph which had been constructed upon the property mortgaged was not included therein and that it should not, therefore, be sold under said execution.

Eighth. That notwithstanding said objection the sheriff did sell the property mortgaged "together with the buildings erected thereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ninth. That later the return of the sheriff on said execution was made to the court and the defendant then objected to the confirmation of said sale.

Tenth. That, after a consideration of the judgment theretofore rendered by Judge Ostrand, the execution, the sale, and the objection made by the defendant, the Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, on the 18th of November, 1915, confirmed said sale.

From the order of Judge Harvey confirming said sale the defendant appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) The lower court erred in declaring that the sale by the sheriff was accomplished in fulfillment of the judgment, the writ of execution, and the law; (2) the lower that the building ’Cine Manila’ ought to be excluded from sale by the sheriff inferred the revision, amendment, or modification of the judgment, now final, pronounced by the court; (3) that the same court erred in confirming the sale accomplished by the sheriff, without excluding or declaring excluded from said sale the building ’Cine Manila.’"

The appellant admitted that the said cinematograph in question was created by simply reforming a building located on the land at the time said mortgage was executed and delivered; that it was not a new structure on said land; that it was the result of changing and altering a building already upon the land, for the purpose of making it into a cinematograph.

After a careful examination of the record and the brief of the appellant, we find that the questions which he presents have heretofore been discussed by this court and decided against his contention in the case of Bischoff v. Pomar and Compania General de Tabacos (12 Phil. Re., 690). In that case this court discussed the very articles of the Mortgage Law upon which the appellant now seeks relief. In that case the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"So that even though no mention had been made of said machinery and tramway in the mortgage instrument, the mortgage of the property whereon they are located is understood by law to extend to them and they must be considered as included therein, as well as all other improvements, unless there was an express stipulation between the parties that they should be excluded."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the present case "the buildings erected thereon" were expressly included in the mortgage. Nothing in the form of buildings was excluded. The buildings, therefore, were manifestly included in the mortgage.

In view of the decision in the case of Bischoff v. Pomar and Compania General de Tabacos (12 Phil. Rep., 690), we find it unnecessary to rediscuss the articles cited by the appellant in support of his contention. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Torres, J., concurs.

Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur in the result.

Trent, J., reserved his vote.

Araullo, J., dissents.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12102 December 1, 1916 - GABINO BUSTOS v. PERCY M. MOIR

    035 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 12109 December 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AMZI B. KELLY

    035 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 11643 December 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TIAP CO, ET AL.

    035 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 11422 December 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELA VICENTE

    035 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 11941 December 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ALVEAR, ET AL.

    035 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 12197 December 8, 1916 - MARTIN MAYO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL

    035 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 12222 December 8, 1916 - FELICIANO TAMONDONG v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL

    035 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 12235 December 8, 1916 - PROTASIO SANTOS v. VICENTE MIRANDA, ET AL

    035 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 10905 December 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIANO MARFORI

    035 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 7397 December 11, 1916 - AMPARO NABLE JOSE, ET AL. v. MARIANO NABLE JOSE, ET AL.

    041 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. 10195 December 29, 1916 - YU CON v. GLICERIO IPIL, ET AL.

    041 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. 10832 December 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON RAMOS

    035 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11054 December 11, 1916 - NAZARIA ALCALA, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME ALCALA, ET AL.

    035 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 11411 December 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LI KIENG

    035 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 10366 December 12, 1916 - ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING v. CARMEN MANUEL, ET AL.

    035 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 10953 December 12, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. ESTEBAN VICTORIO

    035 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. 11034 December 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO REMIGIO, ET AL.

    035 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 9959 December 13, 1916 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    035 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 11607 December 14, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS, ET AL

    035 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 10695 December 15, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. VICENTE LUKBAN, ET AL

    035 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. 10028 December 16, 1916 - JOSE VALES v. SIMEON A. VILLA

    035 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 11095 December 16, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF TIGBAUAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    035 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. 11426 December 18, 1916 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    035 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 11433 December 20, 1916 - ARTHUR F. ALLEN v. PROVINCE OF ALBAY, ET AL

    035 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. 11434 December 20, 1916 - ARTHUR F. ALLEN v. PROVINCE OF BULACAN

    035 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. 11734 December 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO FUENTEBELLA

    035 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. 11895 December 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA TOPIÑO, ET AL

    035 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. 9819 December 21, 1916 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

    035 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. 11715 December 21, 1916 - In re: AMZI B. KELLY

    035 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. 10765 December 22, 1916 - PACIENTE TAMAYO v. CARLOS GSELL

    035 Phil 953