Santos Evangelista Vs Alto Surety Insurance Co

Santos Evangelista vs Alto Surety Insurance Co. Inc.
103 Phil 401 (1958)
Facts:
In 1949, Evangelista instituted Civil Case No. 8235 for a sum of money against Ricardo Rivera at the CFI
Manila. On the same day, Evangelista obtained a writ of attachment levied upon a house built by Rivera
on a land located in Manila that was leased to the latter. A copy of the writ and a corresponding notice
of attachment was filed at the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila. In due course, the case
judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who at the same time bought the levied house at a
public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued I the said case on October 8, 1951.
The definite deed of sale was issued on October 22, 1952, upon the expiration of the period of
redemption. Evangelista then tried to take possession of the house but Rivera refuses to surrender it
upon the ground that he had leased the property from Alto Surety & Insurance Co. Inc, and that the
latter is now the true owner of the said property. It appears that on May 10, 1952, a definite deed of
sale of the house has been issued to Alto Surety as the highest bidder at an auction sale held on
September 29, 1950, in compliance with another writ of execution issued in Civil Case 6268 of the same
court. (Alto Surety & Insurance vs Maximo Quiambao, Rosario Guevara and Ricardo Rivera) in which
judgment for a sum of money was rendered in favor of Alto Surety. Hence, Evangelista instituted an
action against Alto Surety and Ricardo Rivera on June 13, 1953, for the purpose of establishing his title
over the said house and to secure its possession, apart from receiving damages. The CFI of Manila
rendered judgment in favor of Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and Alto Surety to deliver the house in
question to Evangelista and to pay him, jointly and severally the amount of P40.00 a month from
October 1952 until the said delivery. The decision was however reversed by the CA, which absolved Alto
Surety from the complaint on account that although the writ of attachment in favor of Evangelista had
been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila, Evangelista did not acquire a preferential lien and the
attachment has been levied as if the house is an immovable property.
Issue:
Whether or not a house constructed by the lessee on the land of which it was built, should be treated as
immovable property for the purpose of attachment?
Ruling:
Yes. The court ruled that the house is not a personal property, much less a debt, credit or other
personal property not capable of manual delivery, but an immovable property. As held in Laddera vs
Hodges (48 OG 5374), “a true building is immovable or real property, whether it was built by the owner
of the land or by a usufructuary or lessee. In this case, it is untenable that the house of Rivera should
have been attached as a “personal property capable of manual delivery by taking and safely keeping in
his custody”, and that Evangelista could not have validly purchased the said house from an auction
conducted by the sheriff as the latter was not in possession of the said house.” Parties to a deed of
chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for the purpose of the said
contract, however, this view is only good insofar as the contracting parties are concerned, it does not
apply to strangers to the said contract. The rules on execution, do not allow, and should not be
interpreted as to allow, the special consideration that parties to a contract may have desired to impart
to real estate as personal property, when they are not. Sales on execution affect the public and third
persons. The regulation governing sales on execution are for public officials to follow. The form of
proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is suited to its character, not to the character which
the parties have given to it or desire to give. The regulations were never intended to suit the
consideration that parties may have privately given to the property levied upon. The SC therefore
affirms the decision of the CFI of Manila and with cost against Alto Surety.

Santos Evangelista Vs Alto Surety Insurance Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos Evangelista Vs Alto Surety Insurance Co

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos Evangelista Vs Alto Surety Insurance Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos Evangelista vs Alto Surety Insurance Co. Inc.

103 Phil 401 (1958)

You might also like