G.R. No. L-11658 February 15, 1918LEUNG YEE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANK L. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY and J. G. WILLIAMSON, defendants-appellees. CARSON, J.:The "Compaia Agricola Filipina" bought a considerable quantity of rice-cleaning machinery company from the defendant machinery company, and executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure payment of the purchase price. It included in the mortgage deed the building of strong materials in which the machinery was installed, without any reference to the land on which it stood. The indebtedness secured by this instrument not having been paid when it fell due, the mortgaged property was sold by the sheriff, in pursuance of the terms of the mortgage instrument, and was bought in by the machinery company. The mortgage was registered in the chattel mortgage registry, and the sale of the property to the machinery company in satisfaction of the mortgage was annotated in the same registry on December 29, 1913. A few weeks thereafter, on or about the 14th of January, 1914, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" executed a deed of sale of the land upon which the building stood to the machinery company, but this deed of sale, although executed in a public document, was not registered. This deed makes no reference to the building erected on the land and would appear to have been executed for the purpose of curing any defects which might be found to exist in the machinery company's title to the building under the sheriff's certificate of sale. The machinery company went into possession of the building at or about the time when this sale took place, that is to say, the month of December, 1913, and it has continued in possession ever since. At or about the time when the chattel mortgage was executed in favor of the machinery company, the mortgagor, the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" executed another mortgage to the plaintiff upon the building, separate and apart from the land on which it stood, to secure payment of the balance of its indebtedness to the plaintiff under a contract for the construction of the building. Upon the failure of the mortgagor to pay the amount of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, the plaintiff secured judgment for that amount, levied execution upon the building, bought it in at the sheriff's sale on or about the 18th of December, 1914, and had the sheriff's certificate of the sale duly registered in the land registry of the Province of Cavite. At the time when the execution was levied upon the building, the defendant machinery company, which was in possession, filed with the sheriff a sworn statement setting up its claim of title and demanding the release of the property from the levy. Thereafter, upon demand of the sheriff, the plaintiff executed an indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff in the sum of P12,000, in reliance upon which the sheriff sold the property at public auction to the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder at the sheriff's sale. This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the building from the machinery company. The trial judge, relying upon the terms of article 1473 of the Civil Code, gave judgment in favor of the machinery company, on the ground that the company had its title to the building registered prior to the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate. Article 1473 of the Civil Code is as follows: If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transfer to the person who may have the first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be personal property. Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry.Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.The registry her referred to is of course the registry of real property, and it must be apparent that the annotation or inscription of a deed of sale of real property in a chattel mortgage registry cannot be given the legal effect of an inscription in the registry of real property. By its express terms, the Chattel Mortgage Law contemplates and makes provision for mortgages of personal property; and the sole purpose and object of the chattel mortgage registry is to provide for the registry of "Chattel mortgages," that is to say, mortgages of personal property executed in the manner and form prescribed in the statute. The building of strong materials in which the rice-cleaning machinery was installed by the "Compaia Agricola Filipina" was real property, and the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as real property. It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage of the building and the machinery installed therein, not the annotation in that registry of the sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building was concerned. We conclude that the ruling in favor of the machinery company cannot be sustained on the ground assigned by the trial judge. We are of opinion, however, that the judgment must be sustained on the ground that the agreed statement of facts in the court below discloses that neither the purchase of the building by the plaintiff nor his inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale in his favor was made in good faith, and that the machinery company must be held to be the owner of the property under the third paragraph of the above cited article of the code, it appearing that the company first took possession of the property; and further, that the building and the land were sold to the machinery company long prior to the date of the sheriff's sale to the plaintiff. It has been suggested that since the provisions of article 1473 of the Civil Code require "good faith," in express terms, in relation to "possession" and "title," but contain no express requirement as to "good faith" in relation to the "inscription" of the property on the registry, it must be presumed that good faith is not an essential requisite of registration in order that it may have the effect contemplated in this article. We cannot agree with this contention. It could not have been the intention of the legislator to base the preferential right secured under this article of the code upon an inscription of title in bad faith. Such an interpretation placed upon the language of this section would open wide the door to fraud and collusion. The public records cannot be converted into instruments of fraud and oppression by one who secures an inscription therein in bad faith. The force and effect given by law to an inscription in a public record presupposes the good faith of him who enters such inscription; and rights created by statute, which are predicated upon an inscription in a public registry, do not and cannot accrue under an inscription "in bad faith," to the benefit of the person who thus makes the inscription. Construing the second paragraph of this article of the code, the supreme court of Spain held in its sentencia of the 13th of May, 1908, that: This rule is always to be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first paragraph; therefore, it having been found that the second purchasers who record their purchase had knowledge of the previous sale, the question is to be decided in accordance with the following paragraph. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, Medina and Maranon [1911] edition.) Although article 1473, in its second paragraph, provides that the title of conveyance of ownership of the real property that is first recorded in the registry shall have preference, this provision must always be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first paragraph; the legislator could not have wished to strike it out and to sanction bad faith, just to comply with a mere formality which, in given cases, does not obtain even in real disputes between third persons. (Note 2, art. 1473, Civ. Code, issued by the publishers of the La Revista de los Tribunales, 13th edition.) The agreed statement of facts clearly discloses that the plaintiff, when he bought the building at the sheriff's sale and inscribed his title in the land registry, was duly notified that the machinery company had bought the building from plaintiff's judgment debtor; that it had gone into possession long prior to the sheriff's sale; and that it was in possession at the time when the sheriff executed his levy. The execution of an indemnity bond by the plaintiff in favor of the sheriff, after the machinery company had filed its sworn claim of ownership, leaves no room for doubt in this regard. Having bought in the building at the sheriff's sale with full knowledge that at the time of the levy and sale the building had already been sold to the machinery company by the judgment debtor, the plaintiff cannot be said to have been a purchaser in good faith; and of course, the subsequent inscription of the sheriff's certificate of title must be held to have been tainted with the same defect. Perhaps we should make it clear that in holding that the inscription of the sheriff's certificate of sale to the plaintiff was not made in good faith, we should not be understood as questioning, in any way, the good faith and genuineness of the plaintiff's claim against the "Compaia Agricola Filipina." The truth is that both the plaintiff and the defendant company appear to have had just and righteous claims against their common debtor. No criticism can properly be made of the exercise of the utmost diligence by the plaintiff in asserting and exercising his right to recover the amount of his claim from the estate of the common debtor. We are strongly inclined to believe that in procuring the levy of execution upon the factory building and in buying it at the sheriff's sale, he considered that he was doing no more than he had a right to do under all the circumstances, and it is highly possible and even probable that he thought at that time that he would be able to maintain his position in a contest with the machinery company. There was no collusion on his part with the common debtor, and no thought of the perpetration of a fraud upon the rights of another, in the ordinary sense of the word. He may have hoped, and doubtless he did hope, that the title of the machinery company would not stand the test of an action in a court of law; and if later developments had confirmed his unfounded hopes, no one could question the legality of the propriety of the course he adopted.But it appearing that he had full knowledge of the machinery company's claim of ownership when he executed the indemnity bond and bought in the property at the sheriff's sale, and it appearing further that the machinery company's claim of ownership was well founded, he cannot be said to have been an innocent purchaser for value. He took the risk and must stand by the consequences; and it is in this sense that we find that he was not a purchaser in good faith.One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defects as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be acquired of a prudent man in a like situation. Good faith, or lack of it, is in its analysis a question of intention; but in ascertaining the intention by which one is actuated on a given occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. So it is that "the honesty of intention," "the honest lawful intent," which constitutes good faith implies a "freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry," and so it is that proof of such knowledge overcomes the presumption of good faith in which the courts always indulge in the absence of proof to the contrary. "Good faith, or the want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs." (Wilder vs. Gilman, 55 Vt., 504, 505; Cf. Cardenas Lumber Co. vs. Shadel, 52 La. Ann., 2094-2098; Pinkerton Bros. Co. vs. Bromley, 119 Mich., 8, 10, 17.) We conclude that upon the grounds herein set forth the disposing part of the decision and judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.Torres, Avancea and Fisher, JJ., took no part.G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 February 28, 1958ENRIQUE LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. VICENTE OROSA, JR., and PLAZA THEATRE, INC., respondents.FELIX, J.:Enrique Lopez is a resident of Balayan, Batangas, doing business under the trade name of Lopez-Castelo Sawmill. Sometime in May, 1946, Vicente Orosa, Jr., also a resident of the same province, dropped at Lopez' house and invited him to make an investment in the theatre business. It was intimated that Orosa, his family and close friends were organizing a corporation to be known as Plaza Theatre, Inc., that would engage in such venture. Although Lopez expressed his unwillingness to invest of the same, he agreed to supply the lumber necessary for the construction of the proposed theatre, and at Orosa's behest and assurance that the latter would be personally liable for any account that the said construction might incur, Lopez further agreed that payment therefor would be on demand and not cash on delivery basis. Pursuant to said verbal agreement, Lopez delivered the lumber which was used for the construction of the Plaza Theatre on May 17, 1946, up to December 4 of the same year. But of the total cost of the materials amounting to P62,255.85, Lopez was paid only P20,848.50, thus leaving a balance of P41,771.35.We may state at this juncture that the Plaza Theatre was erected on a piece of land with an area of 679.17 square meters formerly owned by Vicente Orosa, Jr., and was acquired by the corporation on September 25, 1946, for P6,000. As Lopez was pressing Orosa for payment of the remaining unpaid obligation, the latter and Belarmino Rustia, the president of the corporation, promised to obtain a bank loan by mortgaging the properties of the Plaza Theatre., out of which said amount of P41,771.35 would be satisfied, to which assurance Lopez had to accede. Unknown to him, however, as early as November, 1946, the corporation already got a loan for P30,000 from the Philippine National Bank with the Luzon Surety Company as surety, and the corporation in turn executed a mortgage on the land and building in favor of said company as counter-security. As the land at that time was not yet brought under the operation of the Torrens System, the mortgage on the same was registered on November 16, 1946, under Act No. 3344. Subsequently, when the corporation applied for the registration of the land under Act 496, such mortgage was not revealed and thus Original Certificate of Title No. O-391 was correspondingly issued on October 25, 1947, without any encumbrance appearing thereon.Persistent demand from Lopez for the payment of the amount due him caused Vicente Orosa, Jr. to execute on March 17, 1947, an alleged "deed of assignment" of his 420 shares of stock of the Plaza Theater, Inc., at P100 per share or with a total value of P42,000 in favor of the creditor, and as the obligation still remained unsettled, Lopez filed on November 12, 1947, a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Civil Case No. 4501 which later became R-57) against Vicente Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theater, Inc., praying that defendants be sentenced to pay him jointly and severally the sum of P41,771.35, with legal interest from the firing of the action; that in case defendants fail to pay the same, that the building and the land covered by OCT No. O-391 owned by the corporation be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof be applied to said indebtedness; or that the 420 shares of the capital stock of the Plaza Theatre, Inc., assigned by Vicente Orosa, Jr., to said plaintiff be sold at public auction for the same purpose; and for such other remedies as may be warranted by the circumstances. Plaintiff also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on said properties with the Register of Deeds.Defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr. and Plaza Theatre, Inc., filed separate answers, the first denying that the materials were delivered to him as a promoter and later treasurer of the corporation, because he had purchased and received the same on his personal account; that the land on which the movie house was constructed was not charged with a lien to secure the payment of the aforementioned unpaid obligation; and that the 420 shares of stock of the Plaza Theatre, Inc., was not assigned to plaintiff as collaterals but as direct security for the payment of his indebtedness. As special defense, this defendant contended that as the 420 shares of stock assigned and conveyed by the assignor and accepted by Lopez as direct security for the payment of the amount of P41,771.35 were personal properties, plaintiff was barred from recovering any deficiency if the proceeds of the sale thereof at public auction would not be sufficient to cover and satisfy the obligation. It was thus prayed that he be declared exempted from the payment of any deficiency in case the proceeds from the sale of said personal properties would not be enough to cover the amount sought to be collected.Defendant Plaza Theatre, Inc., on the other hand, practically set up the same line of defense by alleging that the building materials delivered to Orosa were on the latter's personal account; and that there was no understanding that said materials would be paid jointly and severally by Orosa and the corporation, nor was a lien charged on the properties of the latter to secure payment of the same obligation. As special defense, defendant corporation averred that while it was true that the materials purchased by Orosa were sold by the latter to the corporation, such transactions were in good faith and for valuable consideration thus when plaintiff failed to claim said materials within 30 days from the time of removal thereof from Orosa, lumber became a different and distinct specie and plaintiff lost whatever rights he might have in the same and consequently had no recourse against the Plaza Theatre, Inc., that the claim could not have been refectionary credit, for such kind of obligation referred to an indebtedness incurred in the repair or reconstruction of something already existing and this concept did not include an entirely new work; and that the Plaza Theatre, Inc., having been incorporated on October 14, 1946, it could not have contracted any obligation prior to said date. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed; that said defendant be awarded the sum P 5,000 for damages, and such other relief as may be just and proper in the premises.The surety company, in the meantime, upon discovery that the land was already registered under the Torrens System and that there was a notice of lis pendens thereon, filed on August 17, 1948, or within the 1-year period after the issuance of the certificate of title, a petition for review of the decree of the land registration court dated October 18, 1947, which was made the basis of OCT No. O-319, in order to annotate the rights and interests of the surety company over said properties (Land Registration Case No. 17 GLRO Rec. No. 296). Opposition thereto was offered by Enrique Lopez, asserting that the amount demanded by him constituted a preferred lien over the properties of the obligors; that the surety company was guilty of negligence when it failed to present an opposition to the application for registration of the property; and that if any violation of the rights and interest of said surety would ever be made, same must be subject to the lien in his favor.The two cases were heard jointly and in a decision dated October 30, 1952, the lower Court, after making an exhaustive and detailed analysis of the respective stands of the parties and the evidence adduced at the trial, held that defendants Vicente Orosa, Jr., and the Plaza Theatre, Inc., were jointly liable for the unpaid balance of the cost of lumber used in the construction of the building and the plaintiff thus acquired the materialman's lien over the same. In making the pronouncement that the lien was merely confined to the building and did not extend to the land on which the construction was made, the trial judge took into consideration the fact that when plaintiff started the delivery of lumber in May, 1946, the land was not yet owned by the corporation; that the mortgage in favor of Luzon Surety Company was previously registered under Act No. 3344; that the codal provision (Art. 1923 of the old Spanish Civil Code) specifying that refection credits are preferred could refer only to buildings which are also classified as real properties, upon which said refection was made. It was, however, declared that plaintiff's lien on the building was superior to the right of the surety company. And finding that the Plaza Theatre, Inc., had no objection to the review of the decree issued in its favor by the land registration court and the inclusion in the title of the encumbrance in favor of the surety company, the court a quo granted the petition filed by the latter company. Defendants Orosa and the Plaza Theatre, Inc., were thus required to pay jointly the amount of P41,771.35 with legal interest and costs within 90 days from notice of said decision; that in case of default, the 420 shares of stock assigned by Orosa to plaintiff be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof be applied to the payment of the amount due the plaintiff, plus interest and costs; and that the encumbrance in favor of the surety company be endorsed at the back of OCT No. O-391, with notation I that with respect to the building, said mortgage was subject to the materialman's lien in favor of Enrique Lopez.Plaintiff tried to secure a modification of the decision in so far as it declared that the obligation of therein defendants was joint instead of solidary, and that the lien did not extend to the land, but same was denied by order the court of December 23, 1952. The matter was thus appealed to the Court of appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling, and then to this Tribunal. In this instance, plaintiff-appellant raises 2 issues: (1) whether a materialman's lien for the value of the materials used in the construction of a building attaches to said structure alone and does not extend to the land on which the building is adhered to; and (2) whether the lower court and the Court of Appeals erred in not providing that the material mans liens is superior to the mortgage executed in favor surety company not only on the building but also on the land.It is to be noted in this appeal that Enrique Lopez has not raised any question against the part of the decision sentencing defendants Orosa and Plaza Theatre, Inc., to pay jointly the sum of P41,771.35, so We will not take up or consider anything on that point. Appellant, however, contends that the lien created in favor of the furnisher of the materials used for the construction, repair or refection of a building, is also extended to the land which the construction was made, and in support thereof he relies on Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, pertinent law on the matter, which reads as follows:ART. 1923. With respect to determinate real property and real rights of the debtor, the following are preferred:x x x x x x x x x5. Credits for refection, not entered or recorded, with respect to the estate upon which the refection was made, and only with respect to other credits different from those mentioned in four preceding paragraphs.It is argued that in view of the employment of the phrase real estate, or immovable property, and inasmuch as said provision does not contain any specification delimiting the lien to the building, said article must be construed as to embrace both the land and the building or structure adhering thereto. We cannot subscribe to this view, for while it is true that generally, 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 properties1 could mean only one thing that a building is by itself an immovable property, a doctrine already pronounced by this Court in the case of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil., 644. Moreover, and in view of the absence of any specific provision of law 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 close examination of the provision of the Civil Code invoked by appellant reveals that the law gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the refection or work was made. This being so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which the obligation was incurred. Evidently, therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the obligors.Considering the conclusion thus arrived at, i.e., that the materialman's lien could be charged only to the building for which the credit was made or which received the benefit of refection, the lower court was right in, holding at the interest of the mortgagee over the land is superior and cannot be made subject to the said materialman's lien.Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.Footnotes1 Article 415 of the new Civil Code (Art. 334 of the old) enumerates what are considered immovable property, among which are land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.G.R. No. 137705 August 22, 2000SERG'S PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs. PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent.PANGANIBAN, J.:After agreeing to a contract stipulating that a real or immovable property be considered as personal or movable, a party is estopped from subsequently claiming otherwise. Hence, such property is a proper subject of a writ of replevin obtained by the other contracting party.The CaseBefore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 6, 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)2 in CA-GR SP No. 47332 and its February 26, 1999 Resolution3 denying reconsideration. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order dated February 18, 1998 and Resolution dated March 31, 1998 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33500 are hereby AFFIRMED. The writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 15, 1998 is hereby LIFTED."4In its February 18, 1998 Order,5 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 218)6 issued a Writ of Seizure.7 The March 18, 1998 Resolution8 denied petitioners Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the deputy sheriff be enjoined "from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners) factory in Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or equipments he may have removed."9The FactsThe undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:10"On February 13, 1998, respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. ("PCI Leasing" for short) filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for [a] sum of money (Annex E), with an application for a writ of replevin docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33500."On March 6, 1998, upon an ex-parte application of PCI Leasing, respondent judge issued a writ of replevin (Annex B) directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses."On March 24, 1998, in implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory, seized one machinery with [the] word that he [would] return for the other machineries."On March 25, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for special protective order (Annex C), invoking the power of the court to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes, praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin."This motion was opposed by PCI Leasing (Annex F), on the ground that the properties [were] still personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin."In their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized [were] immovable as defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to innocent third parties. They further stated that PCI Leasing [was] estopped from treating these machineries as personal because the contracts in which the alleged agreement [were] embodied [were] totally sham and farcical."On April 6, 1998, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the workers from taking the rest."On April 7, 1998, they went to [the CA] via an original action for certiorari."Ruling of the Court of AppealsCiting the Agreement of the parties, the appellate court held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by petitioners. It also ruled that the "words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the true intention of the contracting parties." Observing that Petitioner Goquiolay was an experienced businessman who was "not unfamiliar with the ways of the trade," it ruled that he "should have realized the import of the document he signed." The CA further held:"Furthermore, to accord merit to this petition would be to preempt the trial court in ruling upon the case below, since the merits of the whole matter are laid down before us via a petition whose sole purpose is to inquire upon the existence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [RTC] in issuing the assailed Order and Resolution. The issues raised herein are proper subjects of a full-blown trial, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The contract is being enforced by one, and [its] validity is attacked by the other a matter x x x which respondent court is in the best position to determine."Hence, this Petition.11The IssuesIn their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration:"A. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERGS became real property by virtue of immobilization.B. Whether or not the contract between the parties is a loan or a lease."12In the main, the Court will resolve whether the said machines are personal, not immovable, property which may be a proper subject of a writ of replevin. As a preliminary matter, the Court will also address briefly the procedural points raised by respondent.The Courts RulingThe Petition is not meritorious.Preliminary Matter:Procedural QuestionsRespondent contends that the Petition failed to indicate expressly whether it was being filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It further alleges that the Petition erroneously impleaded Judge Hilario Laqui as respondent.There is no question that the present recourse is under Rule 45. This conclusion finds support in the very title of the Petition, which is "Petition for Review on Certiorari."13While Judge Laqui should not have been impleaded as a respondent,14 substantial justice requires that such lapse by itself should not warrant the dismissal of the present Petition. In this light, the Court deems it proper to remove, motu proprio, the name of Judge Laqui from the caption of the present case.Main Issue: Nature of the Subject MachineryPetitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary characterization.Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property only.15 Section 3 thereof reads:"SEC. 3. Order. -- Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property into his custody."On the other hand, Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates immovable or real property as follows:"ART. 415. The following are immovable property:x x x x x x x x x(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;x x x x x x x x x"In the present case, the machines that were the subjects of the Writ of Seizure were placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they were essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, although each of them was movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become "immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry."16 In that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the said machines are real, not personal, property pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.17Be that as it may, we disagree with the submission of the petitioners that the said machines are not proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal.18 After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein.Hence, in Tumalad v. Vicencio,19 the Court upheld the intention of the parties to treat a house as a personal property because it had been made the subject of a chattel mortgage. The Court ruled:"x x x. Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise."Applying Tumalad, the Court in Makati Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Wearever Textile Mills20 also held that the machinery used in a factory and essential to the industry, as in the present case, was a proper subject of a writ of replevin because it was treated as personal property in a contract. Pertinent portions of the Courts ruling are reproduced hereunder:"x x x. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage."In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Agreement reads as follows:21"12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and remain, personal property notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting upon, real property or any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent."Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure.It should be stressed, however, that our holding -- that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned.22 Hence, while the parties are bound by the Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characterizing the subject machinery as personal.23 In any event, there is no showing that any specific third party would be adversely affected.Validity of the Lease AgreementIn their Memorandum, petitioners contend that the Agreement is a loan and not a lease.24 Submitting documents supposedly showing that they own the subject machines, petitioners also argue in their Petition that the Agreement suffers from "intrinsic ambiguity which places in serious doubt the intention of the parties and the validity of the lease agreement itself."25 In their Reply to respondents Comment, they further allege that the Agreement is invalid.26These arguments are unconvincing. The validity and the nature of the contract are the lis mota of the civil action pending before the RTC. A resolution of these questions, therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits of the case. Hence, they should be threshed out in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the issuance of the Writ of Seizure.Indeed, in La Tondea Distillers v. CA,27 the Court explained that the policy under Rule 60 was that questions involving title to the subject property questions which petitioners are now raising -- should be determined in the trial. In that case, the Court noted that the remedy of defendants under Rule 60 was either to post a counter-bond or to question the sufficiency of the plaintiffs bond. They were not allowed, however, to invoke the title to the subject property. The Court ruled:"In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge the writ of seizure (or delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction, and thereby put at issue the matter of the title or right of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on the merits."28Besides, these questions require a determination of facts and a presentation of evidence, both of which have no place in a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 or in a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45.29Reliance on the Lease AgreementIt should be pointed out that the Court in this case may rely on the Lease Agreement, for nothing on record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact, petitioners assailed it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been instituted by respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the law between the parties.Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation30 is also instructive on this point. In that case, the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, which characterized the subject machinery as personal property, was also assailed because respondent had allegedly been required "to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing." The Court rejected the argument and relied on the Deed, ruling as follows:"x x x. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. x x x"Alleged Injustice Committed on the Part of PetitionersPetitioners contend that "if the Court allows these machineries to be seized, then its workers would be out of work and thrown into the streets."31 They also allege that the seizure would nullify all efforts to rehabilitate the corporation.Petitioners arguments do not preclude the implementation of the Writ.1wphi1 As earlier discussed, law and jurisprudence support its propriety. Verily, the above-mentioned consequences, if they come true, should not be blamed on this Court, but on the petitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remedy under Section 5 of Rule 60, which allows the filing of a counter-bond. The provision states:"SEC. 5. Return of property. -- If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicants bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicants affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a copy bond on the applicant."WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.G.R. No. L-20329 March 16, 1923THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, respondent.STREET, J.:This cause is before us upon demurrer interposed by the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, register of deeds of the City of Manila, to an original petition of the Standard Oil Company of New York, seeking a peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent to record in the proper register a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage executed in the City of Manila by Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, in favor of the Standard Oil Company of New York. It appears from the petition that on November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the lessee of a parcel of land situated in the City of Manila and owner of the house of strong materials built thereon, upon which date she executed a document in the form of a chattel mortgage, purporting to convey to the petitioner by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said lot and the building which stands thereon. The clauses in said document describing the property intended to be thus mortgage are expressed in the following words: Now, therefore, the mortgagor hereby conveys and transfer to the mortgage, by way of mortgage, the following described personal property, situated in the City of Manila, and now in possession of the mortgagor, to wit: (1) All of the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in and to the contract of lease hereinabove referred to, and in and to the premises the subject of the said lease; (2) The building, property of the mortgagor, situated on the aforesaid leased premises.After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the petitioner caused the same to be presented to the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record of chattel mortgages. Upon examination of the instrument, the respondent was of the opinion that it was not a chattel mortgage, for the reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not appear to be personal property, within the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and registration was refused on this ground only. We are of the opinion that the position taken by the respondent is untenable; and it is his duty to accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record. The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely ministerial character; and no provision of law can be cited which confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. The original provisions touching this matter are contained in section 15 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), as amended by Act No. 2496; but these have been transferred to section 198 of the Administrative Code, where they are now found. There is nothing in any of these provisions conferring upon the register of deeds any authority whatever in respect to the "qualification," as the term is used in Spanish law, of chattel mortgage. His duties in respect to such instruments are ministerial only. The efficacy of the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it operates as constructive notice of the existence of the contract, and the legal effects of the contract must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice. Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobody's rights except as a specifies of notice. Articles 334 and 335 of the Civil Code supply no absolute criterion for discriminating between real property and personal property for purpose of the application of the Chattel Mortgage Law. Those articles state rules which, considered as a general doctrine, are law in this jurisdiction; but it must not be forgotten that under given conditions property may have character different from that imputed to it in said articles. It is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property; and it is a familiar phenomenon to see things classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered personal property. Other situations are constantly arising, and from time to time are presented to this court, in which the proper classification of one thing or another as real or personal property may be said to be doubtful. The point submitted to us in this case was determined on September 8, 1914, in an administrative ruling promulgated by the Honorable James A. Ostrand, now a Justice of this Court, but acting at that time in the capacity of Judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District, in the City of Manila; and little of value can be here added to the observations contained in said ruling. We accordingly quote therefrom as follows: It is unnecessary here to determine whether or not the property described in the document in question is real or personal; the discussion may be confined to the point as to whether a register of deeds has authority to deny the registration of a document purporting to be a chattel mortgage and executed in the manner and form prescribed by the Chattel Mortgage Law.Then, after quoting section 5 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), his Honor continued: Based principally upon the provisions of section quoted the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, in an opinion dated August 11, 1909, held that a register of deeds has no authority to pass upon the capacity of the parties to a chattel mortgage which is presented to him for record. A fortiori a register of deeds can have no authority to pass upon the character of the property sought to be encumbered by a chattel mortgage. Of course, if the mortgaged property is real instead of personal the chattel mortgage would no doubt be held ineffective as against third parties, but this is a question to be determined by the courts of justice and not by the register of deeds.In Leung Yee vs. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson (37 Phil., 644), this court held that where the interest conveyed is of the nature of real, property, the placing of the document on record in the chattel mortgage register is a futile act; but that decision is not decisive of the question now before us, which has reference to the function of the register of deeds in placing the document on record. In the light of what has been said it becomes unnecessary for us to pass upon the point whether the interests conveyed in the instrument now in question are real or personal; and we declare it to be the duty of the register of deeds to accept the estimate placed upon the document by the petitioner and to register it, upon payment of the proper fee. The demurrer is overruled; and unless within the period of five days from the date of the notification hereof, the respondent shall interpose a sufficient answer to the petition, the writ of mandamus will be issued, as prayed, but without costs. So ordered. Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avancea, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR., petitioner, vs. REMEDIOS VDA. DE LACSAMANA and THE HONORABLE JUDGE RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, respondents. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:The sole issue presented by petitioner for resolution is whether or not respondent Court erred in denying the Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial with respect to respondent Remedios Vda. de Lacsamana as the case had been dismissed on the ground of improper venue upon motion of co-respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB). It appears that petitioner, Antonio Punsalan, Jr., was the former registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of 340 square meters situated in Bamban, Tarlac. In 1963, petitioner mortgaged said land to respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) in the amount of P10,000.00, but for failure to pay said amount, the property was foreclosed on December 16, 1970. Respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) was the highest bidder in said foreclosure proceedings. However, the bank secured title thereto only on December 14, 1977. In the meantime, in 1974, while the properly was still in the alleged possession of petitioner and with the alleged acquiescence of respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch), and upon securing a permit from the Municipal Mayor, petitioner constructed a warehouse on said property. Petitioner declared said warehouse for tax purposes for which he was issued Tax Declaration No. 5619. Petitioner then leased the warehouse to one Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years starting January 1975. On July 26, 1978, a Deed of Sale was executed between respondent PNB (Tarlac Branch) and respondent Lacsamana over the property. This contract was amended on July 31, 1978, particularly to include in the sale, the building and improvement thereon. By virtue of said instruments, respondent - Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name (TCT No. 173744) as well as separate tax declarations for the land and building. 1On November 22, 1979, petitioner commenced suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages" against herein respondents PNB and Lacsamana before respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI, Quezon City, essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied in the Amended Deed of Sale. In this connection, petitioner alleged: xxx xxx xxx22. That defendant, Philippine National Bank, through its Branch Manager ... by virtue of the request of defendant ... executed a document dated July 31, 1978, entitled Amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale ... wherein said defendant bank as Vendor sold to defendant Lacsamana the building owned by the plaintiff under Tax Declaration No. 5619, notwithstanding the fact that said building is not owned by the bank either by virtue of the public auction sale conducted by the Sheriff and sold to the Philippine National Bank or by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by the bank itself in its favor on September 21, 1977 ...; 23. That said defendant bank fraudulently mentioned ... that the sale in its favor should likewise have included the building, notwithstanding no legal basis for the same and despite full knowledge that the Certificate of Sale executed by the sheriff in its favor ... only limited the sale to the land, hence, by selling the building which never became the property of defendant, they have violated the principle against 'pactum commisorium'. Petitioner prayed that the Deed of Sale of the building in favor of respondent Lacsamana be declared null and void and that damages in the total sum of P230,000.00, more or less, be awarded to him. 2 In her Answer filed on March 4, 1980,-respondent Lacsamana averred the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action in that she was a purchaser for value and invoked the principle in Civil Law that the "accessory follows the principal". 3On March 14, 1980, respondent PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid considering that the building was real property under article 415 (1) of the New Civil Code and therefore section 2(a) of Rule 4 should apply. 4Opposing said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner contended that the action for annulment of deed of sale with damages is in the nature of a personal action, which seeks to recover not the title nor possession of the property but to compel payment of damages, which is not an action affecting title to real property. On April 25, 1980, respondent Court granted respondent PNB's Motion to Dismiss as follows: Acting upon the 'Motion to Dismiss' of the defendant Philippine National Bank dated March 13, 1980, considered against the plaintiff's opposition thereto dated April 1, 1980, including the reply therewith of said defendant, this Court resolves to DISMISS the plaintiff's complaint for improper venue considering that the plaintiff's complaint which seeks for the declaration as null and void, the amendment to Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the defendant Philippine National Bank in favor of the defendant Remedios T. Vda. de Lacsamana, on July 31, 1978, involves a warehouse allegedly owned and constructed by the plaintiff on the land of the defendant Philippine National Bank situated in the Municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable property pursuant to Article 415, No. 1 of the New Civil Code; and, as such the action of the plaintiff is a real action affecting title to real property which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court, must be tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies. 5 In his Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated Order, petitioner reiterated the argument that the action to annul does not involve ownership or title to property but is limited to the validity of the deed of sale and emphasized that the case should proceed with or without respondent PNB as respondent Lacsamana had already filed her Answer to the Complaint and no issue on venue had been raised by the latter. On September 1, 1980,.respondent Court denied reconsideration for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed a Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial, in so far as respondent Lacsamana was concerned, as the issues had already been joined with the filing of respondent Lacsamana's Answer. In the Order of November 10, 1980 respondent Court denied said Motion to Set Case for Pre-trial as the case was already dismissed in the previous Orders of April 25, 1980 and September 1, 1980. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari, to which we gave due course. We affirm respondent Court's Order denying the setting for pre-trial. The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in article 415(l) of the Civil Code. 6 Buildings are always immovable under the Code. 7 A building treated separately from the land on which it stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable property. 8 While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. 9 Respondent Court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue (Section 2, Rule 4) 10, which was timely raised (Section 1, Rule 16) 11. Petitioner's other contention that the case should proceed in so far as respondent Lacsamana is concerned as she had already filed an Answer, which did not allege improper venue and, therefore, issues had already been joined, is likewise untenable. Respondent PNB is an indispensable party as the validity of the Amended Contract of Sale between the former and respondent Lacsamana is in issue. It would, indeed, be futile to proceed with the case against respondent Lacsamana alone. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied without prejudice to the refiling of the case by petitioner Antonio Punsalan, Jr. in the proper forum. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-14597 March 27, 1961PASTOR TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. BASILIO BALTAZAR, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LANDS and ESTATE OF ANGEL BALTAZAR, deceased, respondents.CONCEPCION, J.:Review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.The object of this litigation is a parcel of land located in the barrio of Sagana, municipality of Laur, province of Nueva Ecija. Angel Baltazar filed therefore a homestead application which was approved by the Director of Lands on August 14, 1940. Subsequently, or on April 1, 1941, he mortgaged the present and future improvements on said land to Pastor Tolentino, for the sum of P1,500, with the understanding that if the same were not paid, with interest thereon at the rate of 12% a year, within six (6) years, Tolentino could elect, either to foreclose the mortgage or to compel the debtor to execute a deed of absolute sale of said improvements. After the death of Angel Baltazar in 1945, his widow and children conveyed to his son Basilio Baltazar their rights and interest in and to said land. Apparently relying upon this conveyance, on August 28, 1946, Basilio Baltazar filed with the Bureau of Lands a petition praying that the homestead application in his father's name be cancelled, and that, in lieu thereof, his own (Basilio's)application be admitted. This petition was soon granted. Subsequently, Homestead Patent No. V-8832 was issued to Basilio Baltazar, and upon the authority thereof, he secured, on October 23, 1951, Original Certificate of Title No. P-790 in his name.On October 20, 1952, Tolentino instituted the present action against the estate of Angel Baltazar, deceased, his son Basilio Baltazar, and the Director of Lands, for the cancellation of said Original Certificate of Title No. P790, upon the ground that Basilio Baltazar had secured it by fraud. The Director of Lands filed a cross-claim, joining Tolentino in praying for the aforementioned relief. Basilio Baltazar denied the allegation of fraud and maintained that Tolentino had no cause of action except against the deceased, Angel Baltazar, and that this is neither the proper action nor the proper court to settle Tolentino's claim.Subsequently the complaint was amended by including Monica Marcelo, the widow of Angel Baltazar, and their children, Damiana, Mariano, Amando and John Doe, all surnamed Baltazar, as defendants. Mariano and Amando filed an answer admitting some allegations and denying other allegations of the amended complaint and setting up a counterclaim. Although Monica Marcelo submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court by filing a motion to dismiss, which was eventually denied, neither she nor her other children (Damiana and John Doe Baltazar) appear to have answered the amended complaint.In due course, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a decision holding that Basilio Baltazar had not been guilty of fraud in securing the homestead patent and certificate of title in his name; that the Director of Lands was stopped from imputing fraud to Basilio Baltazar, it being the duty of said office to know that the land in question had been originally applied for, not Basilio Baltazar, but by Angel Baltazar; that said land is no longer part of the public domain, and, hence, beyond the jurisdiction and concern of said officer, a patent an a certificate of title having already been issued to Basilio Baltazar; that Tolentino has merely a money claim that should be filed against the estate of the deceased, Angel Baltazar, and does not warrant cancellation of Basilio Baltazar's patent and certificate of title, and consequently dismissing plaintiff's complaint, as well as the cross-claim of the Director of Lands, and sentencing Tolentino to pay P1,000.00 to Basilio Baltazar "as damages for attorney' fees", apart from the costs.Tolentino appealed from this decision. The Director of Lands, likewise, gave notice of his intent to, appeal there from and then asked that Tolentino's record on appeal be considered his (Director of Lands') own record on appeal Although this request had not been officially approved the court, the clerk thereof later notified the parties the said record on appeal had been forwarded to the Court Appeals for purposes of the appeal taken by Tolentino an the Director of Lands. Subsequently, however, the Court of Appeals excused the Solicitor General from filing a brief on behalf of the Director of Lands, upon the ground that his appeal had not been duly perfected.After appropriate proceedings, the Court of Appeals a firmed the decision of the Court of First Instance except as to the P1,000.00 award of damages in favor of Basilio Baltazar upon the ground that Tolentino ha no personality to bring the present action, the same being, in effect, one for reversion under section 101 of Common wealth Act No. 141, which may be initiated only by the Solicitor General, and the Director of Lands not having appealed from the decision of the court of first instance; that an action for cancellation of a title issued by virtue of a homestead patent should be initiated within one (1) year from the issuance thereof, which had elapsed prior to the commencement of this case; that section 105 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 does not prohibit the issuance of a patent in the name of one of the heirs of the applicant for homestead patent who died prior thereto; that the instrument executed by Angel Baltazar in favor of Pastor Tolentino seems to partake of the nature of a chattel mortgage; that as such it is defective and cannot be registered owing to its failure to describe properly the improvements sought to be encumbered thereby; that a homestead cannot become liable for the satisfaction of a debt contracted within five (5) years from and after the date of issuance of the corresponding patent; that the monetary obligation of Angel Baltazar in favor of Pastor Tolentino was contracted within said period of time, and, hence, the homestead in question cannot be annotated on Basilio Baltazar's certificate of title, even if it had been issued in favor of the heirs of Angel Baltazar, for otherwise, said mortgage would will be an encumbrance upon the very homestead, and would thus contravene the spirit of Commonwealth Act No. 141; that although there is a valid and subsisting obligation in favor of Pastor Tolentino in the sum of P1,500, it is not proper to sentence the heirs of Angel Baltazar to pay said amount, for the court did not know whether the deceased had left sufficient properties to pay the aforementioned debt and that Tolentino had brought this action in good faith and, should not be sentenced, therefore, to pay damages.The case is now before us on plaintiff's petition for review by certiorari.Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 reads:Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.Pursuant to this provision a land acquired by homestead patent may neither be encumbered or alienated from the date of the approval of the corresponding homestead application and for a period of five (5) years after the issuance of the patent, nor be held liable for any debt contract within such period of time. However, said section 118 explicitly permits the encumbrance, by mortgage or pledge of the improvements and crops on the land, without limitation in point of time. Although the parties to a contract may treat certain improvements and crops as chattels, insofar as they are concerned, it is now settled in this jurisdiction that, in general, and insofar as the public a concerned, such improvements, if falling under the provisions of Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines are immovable property (Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., L-11139, April 23, 1958; Manarag vs. Ofilada, 52 Off. Gaz., 3954; Republic vs. Ceniza, et al., L-4169, December 17, 1951; Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). As a consequence, a mortgage constituted on said improvements must be susceptible registration as a real estate mortgage and of annotate on the certificate of title to the land of which they for part, although the land itself may not be subject to said encumbrance, if the debt guaranteed thereby was co traded within the period stated in said section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Otherwise, the provision authorizing the mortgage of the improvements would be defeated.The Court of Appeals held that Tolentino had no personality to bring this action, and that it could not order the cancellation of the certificate of title of Basilio Baltazar because the only person who could apply for such relief, the Director of Lands, had abandoned his appeal from the decision of the court of first instance. However, the legal provision granting said right exclusively to the Director of Lands affects plaintiff's cause of action, not his personality to institute the present case. Moreover the Director of Lands did not abandon his appeal. The record shows that he gave notice of his intention to appeal and asked that plaintiff's record on appeal be considered, as his own record on appeal. It is true that this petition was not officially approved by the court. However, it would appear that the Director of Lands had been led to believe the contrary, for the clerk of court of Nueva Ecija notified the parties that the record on appeal had been forwarded to the Court of Appeals for purposes of the appeal taken by the plaintiff and the Director of Lands. Although such belief was erroneous, and the appeal of such officer had not been duly perfected, this condition was the result, evidently, not of intent to abandon the appeal, but of error or negligence of the officer called upon to take the steps necessary therefor.At any rate, even if Basilio Baltazar had not been guilty of fraud in securing the homestead patent and the certificate of title in his favor, it has been established that when plaintiff saw the children of Angel Baltazar shortly after his death, they promised to pay his debt in favor of Pastor Tolentino. In other words, Basilio Baltazar knew, before he got said patent and the certificate of title, that the present and future improvements on the land were subject to a valid and subsisting mortgage in favor of Pastor Tolentino and acknowledged the same. Hence, he must be deemed to have secured such patent and title subject to a subsisting trust, insofar as plaintiff's mortgage is concerned, and, under plaintiff's prayer for such relief as may be deemed just and equitable, this action may be considered as one to compel the defendant to execute the instrument necessary for the registration of said mortgage and its annotation on plaintiff's certificate of title.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed, and another one shall be entered sentencing defendant Basilio Baltazar to execute, within one (1) month from the date on which this decision shall have become final, the corresponding deed of mortgage of said improvements in favor of plaintiff Pastor Tolentino and, should Basilio Baltazar fail to execute said deed of mortgage within the aforementioned period, authorizing the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to execute said deed on behalf of Basilio Baltazar, with the same force and effect as if he had personally signed it. Upon demand by the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, Basilio Baltazar shall moreover, surrender to him the owner's duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. P-790, for annotation thereon of the mortgage thus constituted.Costs against defendant Basilio Baltazar. It is so ordered.G.R. No. L-58469 May 16, 1983MAKATI LEASING and FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC., and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. DE CASTRO, J.:Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) promulgated on August 27, 1981 in CA-G.R. No. SP-12731, setting aside certain Orders later specified herein, of Judge Ricardo J. Francisco, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First instance of Rizal Branch VI, issued in Civil Case No. 36040, as wen as the resolution dated September 22, 1981 of the said appellate court, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. It appears that in order to obtain financial accommodations from herein petitioner Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation, the private respondent Wearever Textile Mills, Inc., discounted and assigned several receivables with the former under a Receivable Purchase Agreement. To secure the collection of the receivables assigned, private respondent executed a Chattel Mortgage over certain raw materials inventory as well as a machinery described as an Artos Aero Dryer Stentering Range. Upon private respondent's default, petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties mortgage to it. However, the Deputy Sheriff assigned to implement the foreclosure failed to gain entry into private respondent's premises and was not able to effect the seizure of the aforedescribed machinery. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, docketed as Civil Case No. 36040, the case before the lower court. Acting on petitioner's application for replevin, the lower court issued a writ of seizure, the enforcement of which was however subsequently restrained upon private respondent's filing of a motion for reconsideration. After several incidents, the lower court finally issued on February 11, 1981, an order lifting the restraining order for the enforcement of the writ of seizure and an order to break open the premises of private respondent to enforce said writ. The lower court reaffirmed its stand upon private respondent's filing of a further motion for reconsideration. On July 13, 1981, the sheriff enforcing the seizure order, repaired to the premises of private respondent and removed the main drive motor of the subject machinery. The Court of Appeals, in certiorari and prohibition proceedings subsequently filed by herein private respondent, set aside the Orders of the lower court and ordered the return of the drive motor seized by the sheriff pursuant to said Orders, after ruling that the machinery in suit cannot be the subject of replevin, much less of a chattel mortgage, because it is a real property pursuant to Article 415 of the new Civil Code, the same being attached to the ground by means of bolts and the only way to remove it from respondent's plant would be to drill out or destroy the concrete floor, the reason why all that the sheriff could do to enfore the writ was to take the main drive motor of said machinery. The appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that private respondent is estopped from claiming that the machine is real property by constituting a chattel mortgage thereon. A motion for reconsideration of this decision of the Court of Appeals having been denied, petitioner has brought the case to this Court for review by writ of certiorari. It is contended by private respondent, however, that the instant petition was rendered moot and academic by petitioner's act of returning the subject motor drive of respondent's machinery after the Court of Appeals' decision was promulgated. The contention of private respondent is without merit. When petitioner returned the subject motor drive, it made itself unequivocably clear that said action was without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision, as shown by the receipt duly signed by respondent's representative. 1 Considering that petitioner has reserved its right to question the propriety of the Court of Appeals' decision, the contention of private respondent that this petition has been mooted by such return may not be sustained. The next and the more crucial question to be resolved in this Petition is whether the machinery in suit is real or personal property from the point of view of the parties, with petitioner arguing that it is a personality, while the respondent claiming the contrary, and was sustained by the appellate court, which accordingly held that the chattel mortgage constituted thereon is null and void, as contended by said respondent. A similar, if not Identical issue was raised in Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143 where this Court, speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, ruled: Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendants-appellants merely had a temporary right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of the property, it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation that the parties, particularly the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as personality. Finally, unlike in the Iya cases, Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr. & Plaza Theatre, Inc. & Leung Yee vs. F.L. Strong Machinery & Williamson, wherein third persons assailed the validity of the chattel mortgage, it is the defendants-appellants themselves, as debtors-mortgagors, who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in this case. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein defendants-appellants, having treated the subject house as personality. Examining the records of the instant case, We find no logical justification to exclude the rule out, as the appellate court did, the present case from the application of the abovequoted pronouncement. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage. In rejecting petitioner's assertion on the applicability of the Tumalad doctrine, the Court of Appeals lays stress on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a land that did not belong to the owner of such house. But the law makes no distinction with respect to the ownership of the land on which the house is built and We should not lay down distinctions not contemplated by law. It must be pointed out that the characterization of the subject machinery as chattel by the private respondent is indicative of intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. As stated in Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property, as long as no interest of third parties would be prejudiced thereby. Private respondent contends that estoppel cannot apply against it because it had never represented nor agreed that the machinery in suit be considered as personal property but was merely required and dictated on by herein petitioner to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing. This contention lacks persuasiveness. As aptly pointed out by petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the status of the subject machinery as movable or immovable was never placed in issue before the lower court and the Court of Appeals except in a supplemental memorandum in support of the petition filed in the appellate court. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. On the other hand, as pointed out by petitioner and again not refuted by respondent, the latter has indubitably benefited from said contract. Equity dictates that one should not benefit at the expense of another. Private respondent could not now therefore, be allowed to impugn the efficacy of the chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom, From what has been said above, the error of the appellate court in ruling that the questioned machinery is real, not personal property, becomes very apparent. Moreover, the case of Machinery and Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. CA, 96 Phil. 70, heavily relied upon by said court is not applicable to the case at bar, the nature of the machinery and equipment involved therein as real properties never having been disputed nor in issue, and they were not the subject of a Chattel Mortgage. Undoubtedly, the Tumalad case bears more nearly perfect parity with the instant case to be the more controlling jurisprudential authority. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby reversed and set aside, and the Orders of the lower court are hereby reinstated, with costs against the private respondent. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983JOSE B.L. REYES, in behalf of the ANTI-BASES COALITION (ABC), petitioner, vs. RAMON BAGATSING, as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondent. FERNANDO, C.J.This Court, in this case of first impression, at least as to some aspects, is called upon to delineate the boundaries of the protected area of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, 1 against an alleged intrusion by respondent Mayor Ramon Bagatsing. Petitioner, retired Justice JB L. Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon, starting from the Luneta, a public park, to the gates of the United States Embassy, hardly two blocks away. Once there, and in an open space of public property, a short program would be held. 2 During the course of the oral argument, 3 it was stated that after the delivery of two brief speeches, a petition based on the resolution adopted on the last day by the International Conference for General Disbarmament, World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign Military Bases held in Manila, would be presented to a representative of the Embassy or any of its personnel who may be there so that it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. The march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of such conference. There was likewise an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken by it "to ensure a peaceful march and rally." 4 The filing of this suit for mandamus with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on October 20, 1983 was due to the fact that as of that date, petitioner had not been informed of any action taken on his request on behalf of the organization to hold a rally. On October 25, 1983, the answer of respondent Mayor was filed on his behalf by Assistant Solicitor General Eduardo G. Montenegro. 5 It turned out that on October 19, such permit was denied. Petitioner was unaware of such a fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. The reason for refusing a permit was due to police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for." 6 To be more specific, reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirm[ing] the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people is expected to attend." 7 Respondent Mayor suggested, however, in accordance with the recommendation of the police authorities, that "a permit may be issued for the rally if it is to be held at the Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed area where the safety of the participants themselves and the general public may be ensured." 8 The oral argument was heard on October 25, 1983, the very same day the answer was filed. The Court then deliberated on the matter. That same afternoon, a minute resolution was issued by the Court granting the mandatory injunction prayed for on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of a permit. On this point, the Court was unanimous, but there was a dissent by Justice Aquino on the ground that the holding of a rally in front of the US Embassy would be violative of Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila. The last sentence of such minute resolution reads: "This resolution is without prejudice to a more extended opinion." 9 Hence this detailed exposition of the Court's stand on the matter. 1. It is thus clear that the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, arising from the denial of a permit. The Constitution is quite explicit: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances." 10 Free speech, like free press, may be Identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. 11 There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, 12 prosecution for sedition, 13 or action for damages, 14 or contempt proceedings 15 unless there be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent." 16 Freedom of assembly connotes the right people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters Of public concern. 17 It is entitled to be accorded the utmost deference and respect. It is hot to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as 's the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. 18 Even prior to the 1935 Constitution, Justice Maicolm had occasion to stress that it is a necessary consequence of our republican institutions and complements the right of free speech. 19 To paraphrase opinion of Justice Rutledge speaking for the majority of the American Supreme Court Thomas v. Collins, 20 it was not by accident or coincidence that the right to freedom of speech and of the press were toupled in a single guarantee with the and to petition the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these rights, while not Identical, are inseparable. the every case, therefo re there is a limitation placed on the exercise of this right, the judiciary is called upon to examine the effects of the challenged governmental actuation. The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest. 212. Nowhere is the rationale that underlies the freedom of expression and peaceable assembly better expressed than in this excerpt from an opinion of Justice Frankfurter: "It must never be forgotten, however, that the Bill of Rights was the child of the Enlightenment. Back of the guaranty of free speech lay faith in the power of an appeal to reason by all the peaceful means for gaining access to the mind. It was in order to avert force and explosions due to restrictions upon rational modes of communication that the guaranty of free speech was given a generous scope. But utterance in a context of violence can lose its significance as an appeal to reason and become part of an instrument of force. Such utterance was not meant to be sheltered by the Constitution." 22 What was rightfully stressed is the abandonment of reason, the utterance, whether verbal or printed, being in a context of violence. It must always be remembered that this right likewise provides for a safety valve, allowing parties the opportunity to give vent to their-views, even if contrary to the prevailing climate of opinion. For if the peaceful means of communication cannot be availed of, resort to non-peaceful means may be the only alternative. Nor is this the sole reason for the expression of dissent. It means more than just the right to be heard of the person who feels aggrieved or who is dissatisfied with things as they are. Its value may lie in the fact that there may be something worth hearing from the dissenter. That is to ensure a true ferment of Ideas. There are, of course, well-defined limits. What is guaranteed is peaceable assembly. One may not advocate disorder in the name of protest, much less preach rebellion under the cloak of dissent. The Constitution frowns on disorder or tumult attending a rally or assembly. Resort to force is ruled out and outbreaks of violence to be avoided. The utmost calm though is not required. As pointed out in an early Philippine case, penned in 1907 to be precise, United States v. Apurado: 23 "It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers." 24 It bears repeating that for the constitutional right to be invoked, riotous conduct, injury to property, and acts of vandalism must be avoided, To give free rein to one's destructive urges is to call for condemnation. It is to make a mockery of the high estate occupied by intellectual liberty in our scheme of values. 3. There can be no legal objection, absent the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, on the choice of Luneta as the place where the peace rally wo