Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES LADERA vs. HODGES 48 O.G.

5374 Facts: Ladera and Hodges entered into a contract where Hodges agreed to sell a parcel of land to Ladera subject to the conditions of a down payment and monthly installments with interest, the ownership shall be transferred upon full payment of the price. Failure to comply will give rise to a right to rescind the contract and the vendor shall have the liberty to dispose of said parcel of land when the buyer failed to pay the loan, and by virtue of the condition, the property was sold at a public auction but was not published in a newspaper of general circulation. The sale was assailed for not having complied with the requirement of publication. Issue: W/N a house built on anothers land is immovable so that sale of the same shall be published. Held: Yes. Pursuant to Article 415 (1) the property is a real and immovable property. The same is what is contemplated as a building or construction of any kind adhered to the soil.

TUMALAD vs. VICENCIO 41 SCRA 413 Facts: The appellants executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the appellees over their house of strong materials located in Quiapo, Manila. Such mortgage was executed to guarantee a loan of P4,800 received from the appellees, payable within 1 year with 12% interest per annum. When the appellants failed to pay the loan within the prescribed period, the said property was foreclosed and sold at a public auction which, as a result granted ownership the appellees. The MTCs decision, as affirmed by the RTC ordered the appellants to vacate the premises, and pay rent of P200.00 from March 27, 1956 until they leave the premises. As a defense, the appellants averred that such mortgage, being a chattel mortgage was invalid since the property in question was an immovable property. Issue: W/N an immovable property may be the subject of a chattel mortgage. Held: Yes. Parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider an immovable property as a personal property but the same is only good insofar as the deed of mortgage between the parties is concerned. Furthermore, a house built or rented land may be considered as personal property.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES LEUNG YEE vs. STRONG MACHINERY COMPANY 37 PHIL 644 Facts: Compaia Agricola Filipina bought several machinery of rice-cleaning pieces of equipment from the defendant machinery company, and executed a chattel mortgage to secure payment of the purchase price, such deed included the building to which the machinery are attached as well. When the obligations were not met, the property was build and sold by the sheriff to the machinery Company. Later on same seller sold the land or which the building was erected to the machinery companys title over the building to pay for indebtedness to Yee in constructing the building. As a result, the sheriff levied the building, which was under the possession of the machinery company at that time. Hence, strong machinery company filed for a recovery of such property. Issue: W/N the chattel mortgage upon the building is valid so as to grant possession to the machinery company. Held: No. It is clear that the purpose of the registration of chattel mortgage clearly purports to the nature of the property as personal property. The building, although deemed to be separate and distinct from the land from which it stood, is still a real property, the nature of its registration in the chattel mortgage registry had no effect insofar as the building is concerned.

YAP vs. TAADA 163 SCRA 484 Facts: Goulds Water Pump Technologies filed an action against Yap for the recovery of a sum which they incurred in the installation and the price of the pump they installed on the plaintiffs property, which the same failed and refused to pay. The lower court ruled in favor of Goulds and ordered Yap to pay his outstanding obligation. As a defense, Yap averred that the sale between him and Goulds was invalid as it did not conform to the prescribed form of sale of an immovable property. Issue: W/N the water pump is considered as an immovable under Article 415 (3) of the Civil Code so as the nullity the sale? Held: No. The water pump does not fit the description of an immovable under Art. 415 (3). The water pump can be separated from Yaps premises without breaking the same or suffer deterioration. The removal of the pump involved nothing more than loosening of the bolts.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK vs. JORAMILLO 44 PHIL 681 Facts: Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the lessee of a parcel of land and owner of the house of strong materials built thereon, upon which she executed a document in the form of a chattel mortgage, purporting to convey to the petitioner by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said lot and the building which stands thereon. After said document had been duly acknowledged and delivered, the petitioner caused the same to be presented to the respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for the purpose of having the same. Upon examination of the instrument, the respondent was of the opinion that it was not chattel mortgage, for the reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not appear to be personal property and registration was refused on this ground only. Issue: W/N the Register of deeds may deny registration. Held: No. the duty of a register of deed is purely of a ministerial character, he does not have the judicial or quasijudicial power to determine the nature of the document sought to be registered. Moreover, it is undeniable that the parties may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property as long as no interest of third parties would be prejudiced thereby. BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF 133 SCRA 800 Facts: A search warrant against the properties of We Forum newspaper was issued and by virtue of which, machinery and equipment for the use of such publication was seized. The petitioners assail the warrant stating that the same cannot be applied to seize Real Property as constituted by the nature of the machinery and equipment. Issue: W/N the machinery and other pieces of equipment used to meet the needs of the publication may be seized as personal property. Held: Yes, Article 415(5) of the Civil Code provides that such equipment must be placed by the owner of the tenement, in the case at bar it was found that such pieces of equipment were not placed by the owner of the land/building, because the petitioners were not the owners of such building. Hence, notwithstanding that they are bolted to the grounds, as the petitioners were not the owners of the building, it does not fall under the category of an immovable.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES MINDANAO BUS CO. vs. CITY ASSESSOR 6 SCRA 197 Facts: City assessor of Cagayan De Oro assessed the pieces of equipment of Mindanao Bus Co at P4,400, including those alleged to be immovable by virtue of Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code as subject of Realty Tax. The petition alleged that the pieces of equipment in question are movables. Issue: W/N the pieces of equipment fall under those contemplated under Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code so as to subject them to realty tax. Held: The pieces of equipment are movable. They are not essential and principal elements of petitioners business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals and used only to improve its service. Even though without those repair pieces of equipment, business may still be carried on. Held: The pieces of equipment are personal property. Article 415 (5) provides for an immovable which contemplates that on an equipment placed by the owner of the building or on lands which tend to meet the needs of the industry. Moreover such pieces of equipment were also subject to chattel mortgage and levied by the sheriff as personalty. They must be deemed as personal property. DAVAO SAWMILL vs. CASTILLO 61 PHIL 709 Facts: Davao Sawmill operates a sawmill on a land belonging to another person. A building was erected on the land which houses the machinery. Pursuant to the lease agreement, upon expiration of the period agreed upon all improvements and buildings erected shall pass ownership to the owner of the lad except for the machineries and accessories, as they are categorized as movables. Issue: W/N machinery and pieces of equipment are personal property so as to transfer ownership to the lessor.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES PEOPLES BANK COMPANY 20 SCRA 105 Facts: DALCO obtained various loans from Peoples Bank & Trust Company. The former executed a mortgage in favor of the Bank. DALCO then executed a second mortgage in favor of ATLANTIC. DALCO also included in the mortgage after acquired properties DALCO then purchased various machines, pursuant to the mortgage, included these machines as securities for the loans. Issue: W/N the machinery and pieces of equipment may be the subject of a Chattel Mortgage. Held: No. The machineries as provided by Article 415 (5) if intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works carried on in a building or on lands shall be immovable and therefore not covered by the Chattel Mortgage Law. Moreover, the parties in the case at bar had treated the after acquired properties as real properties by expressly and unequivocally agreeing that they shall become subject of real estate mortgage executed by them. & TRUST CO. vs. DAHICAN LUMBER MAKATI LEASING vs. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS INC. 112 SCRA 216 Facts: Wearever obtained a loan from Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation. To secure the collection, Wearever executed a chattel mortgage of certain raw materials and machinery in favor of Makati Leasing. Upon the formers default, the properties were foreclosed. The CA revised the ruling of the CFI and ordered the return of the machinery since such machinery as an immovable property pursuant to Article 415 may not be the subject of a Chattel Mortgage. Issue: W/N the machineries in question are immovable and may not be subject to a Chattel Mortgage. Held: The machineries and pieces of equipment are movable in nature. A real property generally may not be subject of a Chattel Mortgage unless agreed upon by the parties to be a personalty which in this case may be subject of a Chattel Mortgage. This may be done if there would be no injuries to third-parties. The doctrine of estoppel therefore applies to the appellants having treated the pieces of equipment as personalty.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES BERKEN KOTTER vs. CU UNJIENG E HIJOS 61 PHIL 663 Facts: Mabalacat Sugar Co. Inc obtained a loan from Cu Unjieng e Hijos and secured the same by a mortgage on two parcels of lands with all its improvements as constituted by the machineries and pieces of equipment necessary for such industry. Later on, Mabalacat Sugar Co acquired additional pieces of equipment to improve its production, such was obtained through a loan with Berken Kotter which would advance the payment once Mabalacat obtains an additional loan from the mortgagees. Mabalacat then successfully purchased the properties in litigation. In recovering this sum, Berken Kotter contends that the installation of the new machinery was not permanent in character as Mabalacat bound itself not to mortgage nor encumber them to anybody until plaintiff be fully reimbursed. Issue: W/N the properties in question are real properties. Held: The properties are immovable as they are real and may then be included in the mortgage acquired prior to the purchase of the properties in question. The properties are clearly for the purpose of carrying out the industrial functions and increasing productions, which constitute a permanent nature of the properties. Moreover, the act of binding oneself to the person supplying the purchase money, to hold the properties as security for payment of the credit and refrain from mortgaging or encumbering them does not alter the permanent character of the aid equipment. SERGS PRODUCTS INC vs. PCI EASING & FINANCE 338 SCRA 499 Facts: PCI Leasing filed a complaint for a sum of money to be recovered from Sergs Products Inc. by virtue of a prior leasing agreement. The lower court granted the petition and ordered the sheriff to seize the machineries in the factory. Sergs opposed the same asserting the fact that the properties to be seized were immovable under Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code. However, a prior agreement between the parties shows that they have deemed the machineries as personal property. Such agreement was contested by the petitioners as prejudicial to innocent persons. The CA held that the properties were personal in nature. Issue: W/N the properties are movable so as to be seized by the Sheriff. Held: The Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as personal property. Although the properties are essentially movables, they became immovable by virtue of their immobilization. Petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. The machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned.

IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTY CASES