2. BETITA V. GANZON EL AL. A L. G. R. NO. L-24137, 49 PHIL. 87,
FACTS: ♥
This action is brought to recover the possession of four carabaos with damages in the sum of P200.
♥
On May 15, 12!, the defendant "#e$o de #a %#or recovered a $udgment against Tiburcia &uhayan for the sum of P1!0 with costs. 'nder this $udgment the defendant (an)on, as sheriff #evied e*ecution on the carabaos in +uestion which were found in the possession of one imon -acinto but registered in the name of Tiburcia &uhayan. The p#aintiff, u#ogio &etita, a##eged that the carabaos had been mortgaged to him and as evidence thereof presented a document dated May /, 12!, but the sheriff proceeded with the sa#e of the anima#s at pub#ic auction auction where they were purchased by the defendant #emente #emente Perdena Perdena for the sum of P200, and this action was thereupon brought.
RTC: inasmuch as that document was prior in date to the $udgment under which the e*ecution was #evied, it was a preferred credit and $udgment was rendered in favor of the p#aintiff for the possession of the carabaos, without damages and without costs. ISSUE: WON !"#" $%& % '%()* +!%"( #%" # /("*" HEL0: NO ♥
t is not a sufficient chatte# mortgage it does not meet the re+uirements of section 5 of the hatte# Mortgage 3aw 4"ct o. 15067, has not been recorded and, considered as a chatte# mortgage, is conse+uent#y of no effect as against against third parties.eit parties.either her did the document constitute constitute a sufficient sufficient p#edge of the property va#id against third parties.
♥
"rtic#e 16/5 of the ivi# ode provides that 8no p#edge sha## be effective as against third parties un#ess evidence of its date appears in a pub#ic instrument.8
♥
The document in +uestion is not pub#ic, but it is suggested that its fi#ing with the sheriff in connection with the terceria gave in the effect of a pub#ic instrument and served to fi* the date of the p#edge, and that it theref therefore ore fu#fi##s fu#fi##s the re+uir re+uireme ements nts of artic#e artic#e 16/5. 16/5. "ssumin "ssuming, g, without without concedi conceding, ng, that that the fi#ing fi#ing of the document with the sheriff had that effect, it seems neverthe#ess obvious that the p#edge on#y became effective as against the p#aintiff in e*ecution from the date of the fi#ing and did not rise superior to the e*ecution attachment previous#y #evied 4see ivi# ode, artic#e 12297.
ANRESA: ":T. 16/5. " p#edge wi## not be va#id against a third party if the certainty of the date is not e*pressed in a pub#ic instrument. ♥
onsidering the effects of a contract of p#edge, it is easi#y understood that, without this warranty demanded by #aw, the case may happen wherein a debtor in bad faith from the moment that he sees his movab#e property in danger of e*ecution may attempt to withdraw the same from the action of $ustice and the reach of his creditors by simu#ating, through crimina# confabu#ations, anterior and fraudu#ent a#terations in his possession by means of feigned contracts of this nature
♥
for the effectiveness of the p#edge, it be demanded as a precise condition that in every case the contract be e*ecuted in a pub#ic writing, for, otherwise, the determination of its date wi## be rendered difficu#t and its proof
more so, even in cases in which it is e*ecuted before witnesses, due to the difficu#ty to be encountered in see;ing those before whom it was e*ecuted. ♥
Our code does not demand in e*press terms that in a## cases the p#edge be constituted or forma#i)ed in a pub#ic writing, nor even in private document, but on#y that the certainty of the date be e*pressed in the first of the said c#ass of instruments in order that it may be va#id against a third party; and, in defau#t of any e*press provision of #aw, in the cases where no agreement re+uiring the e*ecution in a pub#ic writing e*ists, it shou#d be sub$ected to the genera# ru#e, and especia##y to that estab#ished in the #ast paragraph of artic#e 1260, according to which a## contracts not inc#uded in the foregoing cases of the said artic#e shou#d be made in writing even though it be private, whenever the amount of the presentation of one or of the two contracting parties e*ceeds 1,500 pesetas.
♥
f the mere fi#ing of a private document with the sheriff after the #evy of e*ecution can create a #ien of p#edge superior to the attachment, the purpose of the provisions of artic#e 16/5 as e*p#ained by Manresa c#ear#y be defeated. uch cou#d not have been the intention of the authors of the ode.
T!" %((""* /("*" )& %(& )""+)'" # %!"# #"%&: !" /(%)) /("*"" "'"# !%* %+%( /&&"&&) !" /#/"#5 $)!) !" "%) %#)+(" 1863 !" C)')( C*" . ♥
&ut it is argued that at the time of the #evy the anima#s in +uestion were in the possession of one imon -acinto that -acinto was the p#aintiff
♥
t appears, however, from the evidence that though not #ega##y married, imon -acinto and Tiburcia &uhayan were #iving together as husband and wife and had been so #iving for many years.
"rtic#e 16/= of the ivi# ode reads as fo##ows> n addition to the re+uisites mentioned in artic#e 1659, it sha## be necessary, in order to constitute the contract of p#edge, that the p#edge be p#aced in the possession of the creditor or of a third person appointed by common consent.
%#"&%> ♥
Therefore, in order that the contract of p#edge may be comp#ete, it is indispensab#e that the aforesaid de#ivery ta;e p#ace .
♥
the de#ivery of possession referred to in artic#e 16/= imp#ies a change in the actua# possession of the property p#edged and that a mere symbo#ic de#ivery is not sufficient. the present case the anima#s in +uestion were in the possession of Tiburcia &uhayan and imon -acinto before the a##eged p#edge was entered into and apparent#y remained with them unti# the e*ecution was #evied, and there was no actua# de#ivery of possession to the p#aintiff himse#f. There was therefore in rea#ity no change in possession.
SC REVERSE0
