Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Associated Vs Iya Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alegre
    Associated Insurance took Lucia Valino to court after she failed to repay a loan guaranteed by a P11,000 bond subscribed by Associated. As collateral, the Valinos executed a chattel mortgage on their house in favor of Associated. However, the lower court ruled the chattel mortgage was invalid because the house was considered an immovable property along with the land, making it subject to a real estate mortgage rather than a chattel mortgage. The higher court reversed, stating that since the Valinos were not the registered owners of the land at the time, the house was considered their personal property, and the chattel mortgage was therefore valid. The case was decided in favor of Associated Insurance.

    Copyright:

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

    Associated Vs Iya Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alegre
    101 views2 pages
    Associated Insurance took Lucia Valino to court after she failed to repay a loan guaranteed by a P11,000 bond subscribed by Associated. As collateral, the Valinos executed a chattel mortgage on their house in favor of Associated. However, the lower court ruled the chattel mortgage was invalid because the house was considered an immovable property along with the land, making it subject to a real estate mortgage rather than a chattel mortgage. The higher court reversed, stating that since the Valinos were not the registered owners of the land at the time, the house was considered their personal property, and the chattel mortgage was therefore valid. The case was decided in favor of Associated Insurance.

    Original Description:

    Associated v Iya

    Original Title

    Associated vs Iya Et Al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Associated Insurance took Lucia Valino to court after she failed to repay a loan guaranteed by a P11,000 bond subscribed by Associated. As collateral, the Valinos executed a chattel mortgage on their house in favor of Associated. However, the lower court ruled the chattel mortgage was invalid because the house was considered an immovable property along with the land, making it subject to a real estate mortgage rather than a chattel mortgage. The higher court reversed, stating that since the Valinos were not the registered owners of the land at the time, the house was considered their personal property, and the chattel mortgage was therefore valid. The case was decided in favor of Associated Insurance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views2 pages

    Associated Vs Iya Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alegre
    Associated Insurance took Lucia Valino to court after she failed to repay a loan guaranteed by a P11,000 bond subscribed by Associated. As collateral, the Valinos executed a chattel mortgage on their house in favor of Associated. However, the lower court ruled the chattel mortgage was invalid because the house was considered an immovable property along with the land, making it subject to a real estate mortgage rather than a chattel mortgage. The higher court reversed, stating that since the Valinos were not the registered owners of the land at the time, the house was considered their personal property, and the chattel mortgage was therefore valid. The case was decided in favor of Associated Insurance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Associated Insurance vs Valino

    PET: Associated Insurance and Surety Company Inc


    RESP: Isabel Iya, Adriano Valino and Lucia Valino
    Felix, J.
    Summary:
    Facts:
    Valino were owners and possessors of house in Grace Park Subdv in Caloocan,
    Rizal, which they purchased on instalment basis from the Philippine Realty
    Corporation (PRC)
    Nov 6, 1951: Lucia Valino filed a P11,000 bond (to purchase rice from NARIC)
    subscribed by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co Inc. As counter-guaranty
    the spouses executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the house in favour of
    PET.
    o Parcel of land was still registered in the name of PRC
    Dec 6, 1951: Chattel Mortgage was registered
    Oct 18, 1958: title on the land was secured
    Oct 24, 1952: real estate mortgage over the lot and the house in favour of
    Isabel Iya
    Lucia Valino failed to satisfy obligation with NARIC and the surety company
    was compelled to pay. Surety company demanded from the spouses but the
    spouses failed to comply. Thus PET foreclosed chattel mortgage over the
    house.
    o Property awarded to PET for P8,000*
    o PET caused said house to be in its name for tax purposes
    July 1953: learned of the existence of the real estate mortgage and thus
    instituted Civil Case naming Valinos with Iya as defendants
    o Prayed for the exclusion of the residential house from the real estate
    mortgage in favour of Iya
    o Declaration and recognition of PETs rights to ownership
    Iya: she acquired real right over the house and lot and that the auction
    conducted by the Provincial Sheriff as a result of the *foreclosure of the
    chattel mortgage on the house was null and void.
    Valino: prayed for dismissal for lack of cause of action because plaintiff was
    already the ownder of the house
    Oct 29, 1953: Iya filed another civil action against the Valinos and the surety
    company
    o That to secure payment of the P 12,000 loan, defendants mortgaged
    house and lot
    Answer of surety company: house did not belong to the spouses at the time
    the chattel mortgage was executed, the house might be considered as
    personal property and that the subsequent foreclosure proceedings were
    proper.
    o Building should be excluded from the real estate mortgage

    Spouses took the side of the surety company: the building was already
    encumbered before the real estate mortgage was executed
    LC: in favour of surety company. Valinos were not yet registered owners of the
    land at the time of the first encumbrance thus the building was the personal
    property of the Valinos and chattel mortgage was proper
    o

    WN the house was a personal property and the cm was proper? NO

    Lopez v Orosa: a building is an immovable property irrespective of whether or


    not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same
    owner
    A building cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the
    land belongs to another
    Because only personal property can be the subject of CM the mortgage is
    invalid and a nullity

    Reversed.
    Iyas right to foreclose not only the land and building is recognized. Decision without
    prejudice to any right of the surety company to recover against the spouses.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy