LADERA VS. HODGES (G.R. NO. 8027-R, VOL.

48, NO. 12, O.G. 5374, SEPTEMBER 23, 1952)

APRIL 23, 2015 | YUMMY

FACTS:

1. Hodges entered into a contract promising to sell a lot to Ladera under

certain terms and conditions. One of which is that the contract may be
rescinded and annulled in case Ladera failed to make the monthly
payment 60 days after it is due.
2. After the execution of the contract, Ladera built a house on the lot
assessed at 4,500 pesos. However, Ladera failed to pay the agreed
installments so Hodges rescinded the contract and filed an action for
ejectment.
3. The MTC ruled in favor of Hodges and issued an alias writ of execution.
Pursuant thereto, the sheriff levied upon all rights, interests and
participation over the house. Notices of sale were posted, however, were
not published in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. An auction sale was then conducted but Ladera was not able to attend as
she had gone to Manila. The house was then sold to one Avelina Magno
as the highest bidder. Meanwhile, Ladera sold the same lot to one Manuel
Villa and on the same day purchased the house from Magno for 200
pesos. This, however, was not recorded.
5. Ladera then returned to Iloilo and learned what happened. She went to see
the sheriff and represented that the property can still be redeemed and so
she gave him 230 pesos. It does not appear, however, that it was turned
over to Hodges. Thereupon, Ladera filed an action against Hodges, the
sheriff, Magno and Villa to set aside the sale and recover the house.
6. The lower court ruled in favor of Ladera on the ground of non-compliance
based on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On appeal, Hodges contends that
the house, built on a lot owned by another, should be regarded as movable
 or personal property. The sale of the land was also made without proper
publication required by law.
ISSUE: Was the house movable or immovable?

RULING: Immovable.

1. As enumerated in the Civil Code, immovable property includes lands,

buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil. The law
does not make any distinction whether or not the owner of the lot was the
one who built the construction.
2. Also, Ladera did not declare his house to be a chattel mortgage. The
object of the levy or sale was real property and its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation was indespensible. Without it, the
execution sale was void.
3. In addition, Magno, the alleged purchaser at the auction sale, was a mere
employee of Hodges and the low bid made by her as well as the fact that
she sold the house to Villa on the same day Hodges sold him the land,
proves that she was merely acting for and in behalf of Hodges.
4. In the sale of immovables, the lack of title of the vendor taints the rights
of the subsequent purchasers. Possession in good faith is not equivalent to
title.
5. The principles of accession regard buildings and constructions as mere
accessories to the land on which it is built, it is logical that said
accessories should partake the nature of the principal thing.