Title
Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng e Hijos
Case
G.R. No. 41643
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1935
A dispute over ownership of machinery added to a mortgaged sugar central; court ruled improvements were permanent, subject to the original mortgage.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11940)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • B. H. Berkenkotter (plaintiff-appellant) filed a complaint against Cu Unjieng e Hijos, Yek Tong Lin Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Mabalacat Sugar Company, and the Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga (defendants-appellees) in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    • The trial court dismissed Berkenkotter’s complaint with costs. He appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 41643, July 31, 1935).
  • Underlying Transaction and Dispute
    • On April 26, 1926, Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc. obtained from Cu Unjieng e Hijos a loan secured by a first mortgage on its sugar central in Pampanga, covering “all its buildings, improvements, sugar-cane mill, steel railway, telephone line, apparatus, utensils and whatever forms part or is a necessary complement,” existing or future.
    • On October 5, 1926, the corporation decided to expand capacity from 150 to 250 tons daily by purchasing additional machinery and equipment (estimated cost ~₱100,000). President B. A. Green proposed that Berkenkotter advance the funds, promising reimbursement upon securing an additional mortgage loan from Cu Unjieng e Hijos.
    • Berkenkotter had an existing ₱22,000 salary credit against the corporation and, on October 9, 1926, advanced a total of ₱25,750 to Green, who used these funds plus the salary credit to acquire the new machinery and equipment.
    • On June 10, 1927, Green applied for an additional ₱75,000 loan from Cu Unjieng e Hijos, offering the newly installed machinery and future equipment as security, but the loan was denied.
    • Berkenkotter then sued to assert ownership over the machinery and equipment and to exclude them from the original mortgage.

Issues:

  • Whether the additional machinery and equipment, installed after the original mortgage, became subject to that mortgage under Civil Code Article 1877.
  • Whether the agreement by B. A. Green to hold the machinery as security for Berkenkotter’s loan and not to encumber them until reimbursement excluded them from the original mortgage.
  • Whether the purported sale of the machinery and equipment to Berkenkotter after their incorporation with the sugar central vested ownership in him or only conferred a right of redemption.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.