Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 585 views

    Case Digest - Navarro v. Pineda

    Uploaded by

    grace
    This case digest summarizes Navarro v. Pineda, where Rufino Pineda and his mother borrowed money from Conrado Navarro and executed a deed of real estate and chattel mortgage to secure the loan. They failed to pay upon maturity or during two extensions. When Navarro filed for foreclosure, Pineda questioned the validity of including his house in the chattel mortgage. The Court held the mortgage valid, as the parties treated the house as movable property in the deed. The house was small and made of light materials, built on another's land and not declared for taxation. Prior cases Pineda cited involved stronger, permanently attached buildings and third parties challenging the mortgages,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Navarro v. Pineda

    Uploaded by

    grace
    585 views1 page
    This case digest summarizes Navarro v. Pineda, where Rufino Pineda and his mother borrowed money from Conrado Navarro and executed a deed of real estate and chattel mortgage to secure the loan. They failed to pay upon maturity or during two extensions. When Navarro filed for foreclosure, Pineda questioned the validity of including his house in the chattel mortgage. The Court held the mortgage valid, as the parties treated the house as movable property in the deed. The house was small and made of light materials, built on another's land and not declared for taxation. Prior cases Pineda cited involved stronger, permanently attached buildings and third parties challenging the mortgages,

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST_NAVARRO V. PINEDA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest summarizes Navarro v. Pineda, where Rufino Pineda and his mother borrowed money from Conrado Navarro and executed a deed of real estate and chattel mortgage to secure the loan. They failed to pay upon maturity or during two extensions. When Navarro filed for foreclosure, Pineda questioned the validity of including his house in the chattel mortgage. The Court held the mortgage valid, as the parties treated the house as movable property in the deed. The house was small and made of light materials, built on another's land and not declared for taxation. Prior cases Pineda cited involved stronger, permanently attached buildings and third parties challenging the mortgages,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    585 views1 page

    Case Digest - Navarro v. Pineda

    Uploaded by

    grace
    This case digest summarizes Navarro v. Pineda, where Rufino Pineda and his mother borrowed money from Conrado Navarro and executed a deed of real estate and chattel mortgage to secure the loan. They failed to pay upon maturity or during two extensions. When Navarro filed for foreclosure, Pineda questioned the validity of including his house in the chattel mortgage. The Court held the mortgage valid, as the parties treated the house as movable property in the deed. The house was small and made of light materials, built on another's land and not declared for taxation. Prior cases Pineda cited involved stronger, permanently attached buildings and third parties challenging the mortgages,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE DIGEST

    CASE NO. 4
    NAVARRO V. PINEDA
    GR NO. L-18456

    FACTS:

    Rufino Pineda and his mother, Juana Gonzales, borrowed from plaintiff Conrado Navarro, the sum of
    P2550.00, and payable 6 months after date. Pineda executed “Deed of Real Estate and Chattel
    Mortgages,” whereby his mother, by way of Real Estate Mortgage hypothecated a parcel of land, belonging
    to her. Both mortgages were contained in one instrument, which was registered in both the Office of the
    Register of Deeds and the Motor Vehicles Office of Tarlac. The defendants failed to pay when the
    mortgage became due and payable. The plaintiff gave two extensions. They still failed to pay.

    When the plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage, defendant questioned the validity of the
    chattel mortgage over his house on the ground that the house, being an immovable property, could not be
    the subject of a chattel mortgage. Defendant cited cases to prove their point (Lopez v. Ororsa; Associated
    Ins. & Surety Co. v. Iya; and Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co.)

    Additional note (for recit purposes):

    – In the second extension, the defendants promised that should they fail to pay the obligation on such date,
    they would no longer ask for further extension and there would be no need for any formal demand, and
    plaintiff could proceed to take whatever action he might desire to enforce his rights, under the said
    mortgage contract.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages is valid, particularly on the questions of
    whether or not the residential house, subject of the mortgage therein, can be considered a chattel and the
    propriety of the attorney’s fees.

    HELD:

    Yes. The Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage is valid. The parties to the contract treated the house
    in question as personal or movable property. In the deed of chattel mortgage, appellant Rufino G. Pineda
    conveyed by way of “Chattel Mortgage” “my personal properties,” a residential house and a truck. The
    mortgagor himself grouped the house with the truck, which is, inherently a movable property. The house
    which was not even declared for taxation purposes was small and made of light construction materials: G.I.
    sheets roofing, sawali and wooden walls and wooden posts; built on land belonging to another.

    The cases cited by appellants are not applicable to the present case. The Iya cases refer to a building or a
    house of strong materials, permanently adhered to the land, belonging to the owner of the house himself. In
    the case of Lopez vs. Orosa the subject building was a theater, built of materials worth more than
    P62,000.00 attached permanently to the soil. In these two cases and in the Leung Yee Case, supra, third
    persons assailed the validity of the deed of chattel mortgages; in the present case, it was one of the parties
    to the contract of mortgages who assailed its validity.

    You might also like