Scribd
Upload
399 views1 page

Ladera Vs Hodges

Paz Ladera entered into a contract with C.N. Hodges to purchase land, but failed to make payments. Hodges filed for ejectment, and Ladera was removed from the property. Ladera had built a house on the land. The sheriff then levied on and sold the house, but the sale was not properly published as required by law for immovable property. The court ruled that as the house was built while Ladera occupied the land under a contract to purchase, the house was immovable property. Therefore, the sheriff's sale of the house was invalid since it did not follow the proper procedures for selling real property.

Uploaded by

whatrich
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
399 views1 page

Ladera Vs Hodges

Paz Ladera entered into a contract with C.N. Hodges to purchase land, but failed to make payments. Hodges filed for ejectment, and Ladera was removed from the property. Ladera had built a house on the land. The sheriff then levied on and sold the house, but the sale was not properly published as required by law for immovable property. The court ruled that as the house was built while Ladera occupied the land under a contract to purchase, the house was immovable property. Therefore, the sheriff's sale of the house was invalid since it did not follow the proper procedures for selling real property.

Uploaded by

whatrich
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Facts: Paz G. Ladera entered into a contract with C.

N Hodges, whereby
the latter promised to sell a parced of land to the former subject to the
stipulation of the contract saying that the failure of the purchaser to
pay within sixty days after it fell due would render the contract
annulled or rescinded. Furthermore, it is likewise stipulated that the
sums of money paid under the contract would be considered rentals
and the owner would be at liberty to dispose of the said lands with all
its improvements to other persons as if this contract had never been
made. After the execution of the contract, Ladera built a house on the
lot. Upon her failure to pay, Hodges filed an action for ejectment. The
court decided that Ladera is to vacate and surrender possession of the
lot. Also, on that day, Ladera paid Hodges P188.50 which the latter
recorded as rental payment. A writ of execution was then issued and
the City Sheriff levied upon all rights, interest and participation over
the house. The Sheriff then sold the house to Avelina A. Magno who in
turn sold the house to Manuela Villa. But this transaction was not
recorded. Upon knowledge of this, Ladera went to see the Sheriff and
paid him to redeem the property but was received as rental payment.
This amount, however, was not turned over to Hodges.

Issue: Whether or not the house built on a land owned by another


person, should be regarded in law as movable or personal property

Held: No. The sale of the land was not made without the proper
publication required by law of the sale of immovable property. In this
instance, the determination of whether or not the house in dispute is
an immovable or movable property is vital. The undisputed rule is
whether it is immovable by destination (place by the owner of the
tenement), an immovable by incorporation (attachment not necessarily
made by the owner of the tenement) or an accession. A true building is
an immovable or real property whether the owner of the land is a
usufructuary or lessee erects it. Moreover, when Ladera built the house
in question, she was not a mere lessee but occupied the land under a
valid contract with Hodges to sell it to her. Thus, the object of the levy
and the sale was real property. The publication in a newspaper in a
general circulation was made making the execution sale void and
conferred no title to the purchaser. Furthermore, there was a valid
exercise of redemption. So, at the time Magno sold the property to
Villa, Magno no longer had title over the property strengthening the
fact that since there was no title, the subsequent sale was null and
void.

You might also like