Ladera v.

Hodges
G.R. No. 8027-R, September 23, 1952,
Vol. 48, No. 12,
Official Gazette 5374Reyes, J.B.L
FACTS:
Paz G. Ladera entered into a contract with C.N. Hodges. Hodges promised to sell a lot with an area of
278 square meters to Ladera, subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreement called for a down
payment of P 800.00 and monthly installments of P 5.00 each with interest of 1% per month, until P 2,085
is paid in full. In case of failure of the purchaser to make a monthly payment within 60 days after it fell due,
this contract may be taken and considered as rescinded and annulled, in which case all sums of money paid
would be considered rentals and the vendor shall be at liberty to dispose of the parcel of land with all the
improvements thereon to any other person in a manner as if this contract had never been made. After the
execution of the contract, Ladera built on a lot a house of mixed materials assessed at P4500.
Unfortunately, Ladera failed to pay the agreed installments, whereupon the appellant rescinded the contract and
filed an action for ejectment. The MTC rendered a decision upon agreement of the parties- Ladera to vacate and
surrender possession of the lot and pay P10 a month until delivery of the premises. Also, on that day, Ladera
paid Hodges P188.50 which the latter recorded as rental payment. The court issued an alias writ of execution
and pursuant thereto the sheriff levied upon all rights, interests, and participation over your house standing on
the lot. The sheriff posted the notices of the sale but did not publish the same in a newspaper of general
circulation.
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.
Ladera returned to Iloilo after the sale and learned of its results. She went to see the sheriff and upon the latters
representation that she could redeem the property, she paid him P230 and the sheriff issued a receipt. It does not
appear, however, that this money was turned over to Hodges. Thereupon, Ladera spouses filed an action against
Hodges, the sheriff, and the judgment sale purchasers, Magno and Villa to set aside the sale and recover the
house.
Judgment was rendered in favor of Ladera, setting aside the sale for non-compliance with Rule 39,Rules of
Court regarding judicial sales of real property. On appeal, Hodges contends that the house, being built on a lot
owned by another, should be regarded as movable or personal property.
ISSUE: Whether or not the house being built on land owned by another should be regarded as movable
property.
RULING:
No. According to Article 334 of the Civil Code (now 415), Immovable property are the
following: Lands, building, roads, and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil; Applying the principle
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemu, the law makes no distinction as to whether the owner of the
land is or is not the owner of the building. In view of the plain terms of the statute, the only possible doubt
could arise in the case of a house sold for demolition.
In the case of immovables by destination, the code requires that they be placed by the owner of the tenement, in
order to acquire the same nature or consideration of real property. In cases of immovable by incorporation, the
code nowhere requires that the attachment or incorporation be made by the owner of the land. The only criterion
is union or incorporation with the soil.
Ladera did not declare his house to be a chattel mortgage. The object of the levy or sale was real property. The
publication in a newspaper of general circulation was indispensible. It being admitted that no publication was
ever made, the execution sale was void and conferred no title on the purchaser.
The alleged purchaser at the auction sale, Magno, is a mere employee of the creditor Hodges and the low bid
made by her as well as the fact that she sold the house to Villa on the same day that Hodges sold him the land,
proves that she was merely acting for and in behalf of Hodges.
It should be noted that in sales of immovables, the lack of title of the vendor taints the rights of subsequent
purchasers. Unlike in sales of chattels and personality, in transactions covering real property, possession in good
faith is not equivalent to title.