G.R. No. 24137 - Betita vs. Ganzon

Plaintiff/Appellee: Eulogio Betita.
Defendants/Appellants: Simeon Ganzon, Alejo de la Flor, and Clemente Pedrena.
Nature of the action: An action to recover the possession of four carabaos along with damages amounting to P200.

On May 15, 1924, defendant Alejo de la Flor obtained a judgment against Tiburcia Buhayan for the sum of P140 plus costs.
Under this judgment, execution was levied by sheriff Ganzon, who attached the four carabaos.
The carabaos were found in the possession of Simon Jacinto but registered in the name of Tiburcia Buhayan.

Plaintiff Betita asserted a third party claim (terceria) claiming that the carabaos had been mortgaged to him as security for a debt.
He presented a document dated May 6, 1924, in the Visayan dialect, which was translated to state:

Tiburcia Buhayan acknowledged her indebtedness to Eulogio Betita in the sum of P470 since 1922.
She mortgaged four head of carabaos (three females and one male) as security.
The document stated that if payment was not made by February 1925, Betita could dispose of the carabaos.
The document was executed as a renewal of an earlier document due to the death of the originally mortgaged carabaos.
It was signed by Tiburcia Buhayan with her right thumb and witnessed by Miguel Mercurio and Tirzo Zepeda.

Despite the third party claim, the sheriff proceeded with the sale of the carabaos at a public auction.
Defendant Clemente Pedrena purchased the carabaos for the sum of P200.

The trial court held that the document, being prior in date to the execution judgment, established a preferred credit.
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the carabaos (without damages and without costs).

Whether the document, executed on May 6, 1924, established a chattel mortgage or a pledge valid against third parties.
Whether the timing of the document gave the plaintiff a superior claim over the execution attachment.

Whether the document fulfilled the requirements under Section 5 of the Chattel Mortgage Law, including proper recording and registration.
Whether, when considered as a pledge, it met the provisions of Article 1865 of the Civil Code regarding the necessity of a public instrument to secure the certainty of the date.

Whether there was an actual delivery of the carabaos to Betita as required under Article 1863 of the Civil Code for a valid pledge.
Whether possession transferred from Tiburcia Buhayan to Betita, or if the possession by Simon Jacinto (who was allegedly a tenant and also intimately connected with Buhayan) sufficed to complete the pledge.

Whether the filing of the private document with the sheriff in connection with the terceria effectively converted it into a public instrument, thus fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Whether such filing could confer a superior lien against the earlier execution attachment.