MARCELO R. SORIANO, vs.

SPOUSES RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT

[G.R. No. 156295. September 23, 2003]
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from Marcelo Soriano evidenced by four promissory notes and was
secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 569.
Failing to pay his obligation, Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money against Galit. When Spouses
Galit failed to file their answer, the trial court, upon motion of Marcelo Soriano, declared the spouses in
default, proceeded to receive evidence for petitioner Soriano ex parte and eventually rendered a decision
in favor of Soriano. Accordingly, the trial court issued a writ of execution in due course, by virtue of which,
Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles levied on the following real properties of the Galit spouses which
includes among others a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. T-569, STORE/HOUSE
CONSTRUCTED on Lot No. 1103 made of strong materials and a BODEGA constructed on Lot 1103.
Ten months from the time the Certificate of Sale on Execution was registered with the Registry of Deeds,
Soriano moved for the issuance of a writ of possession to which the RTC granted. The writ of possession
included among other Original Certificate of Title No. 40785 with an area of 134 square meters known as
Lot No. 1103 of the Cadastral Survey of Orani. Respondents filed a petition assailing the inclusion of the
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785 among the list of real properties in the
writ of possession. They argued that said property was not among those sold on execution as reflected in
the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property. The Court of Appeals ruled in favour of the
respondent, thus this case.

ISSUE:

Is the land on which the buildings (store/house and bodega) levied upon in the writ of execution
necessarily included in the writ of possession

RULING:

NO. The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only
mean that a building is, by itself, considered immovable.Thus, it has been held that. . . while it is true that
a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon,
buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such
mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable
property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land. In this case, considering that what was sold
by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega
constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785, which by
themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same should be regarded as separate and
distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand.