Property

Associated Insurance v. Iya

Facts:
 Valino & Valino were the owners and possessors of a house of strong materials in Rizal, which
they purchased on installment basis. To enable her to purchase on credit rice from NARIC,
Valino filed a bond (P11,000) subscribed by Associated Insurance and Surety Co Inc, and as a
counter-guaranty, Valino executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the aforementioned house in
favour of the surety company. At the same time, the parcel of land which the house was erected
was registered in the name of Philippine Realty Corporation.
 Valino, to secure payment of an indebtedness (P12,000) executed a real estate mortgage over
the lot and the house in favour of Iya.
 Valino failed to satisfy her obligation to NARIC, so the surety company was compelled to pay the
same pursuant to the undertaking of the bond. In turn, surety company demanded
reimbursement from Valino, and as they failed to do so, the company foreclosed the chattel
mortgage over the house. As a result, public sale was conducted and the property was awarded
to the surety company.
 The surety company then learned of the existence of the real estate mortgage over the lot and
the improvements thereon; thus, they prayed for the exclusion of the residential house from the
real estate mortgage and the declaration of its ownership in virtue of the award given during
bidding.
 Iya alleged that she acquired a real right over the lot and the house constructed thereon, and
that the auction sale resulting from the foreclosure of chattel mortgage was null and void.
 Surety company argued 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 as
personal property, and they prayed that the said building be excluded from the real estate
mortgage.

ISSUE:
THERE IS NO QUESTION OVER IYA’S RIGHT OVER THE LAND BY REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; HOWEVER, AS
THE BUILDING INSTRUCTED THEREON HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO MORTGAGES, CONTROVERSY
ARISE AS TO WHICH OF THESE ENCUMBRANCES SHOULD RECEIVE PREFERENCE OVER THE OTHER.

Ruling:

The building is subject to the real estate mortgage, in favour of Iya. Iya’s right to foreclose not
only the land but also the building erected thereon is recognised.
 While it is true that 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 (Article 415), could only mean that a
building is by itself an immovable property. Moreover, 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.
 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.
 In the case at bar, as personal properties could only be the subject of a chattel mortgage 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 Chattel Mortgage Registry of Rizal, this act produced no effect
whatsoever, for where the interest conveyed is in the nature of 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 produced no effect as far as the building is
concerned. 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