CASE #9

JULIAN YAP vs SANTIAGO TANADA; and GOULDS PUMPS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

PROMULGATED: July 18, 1988

PONENTE: J. NARVASA
This is a petition for certiorari to review the orders of CFI Cebu City.
Doctrine: Article 415, par. 3 of the Civil Code considers and immovable property as everything
attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom
without breaking the material or deteriorating the object. The pump does not fit this description.
It could be, and was, in fact, separated from Yaps premises without being broken of suffering
deterioration. Obviously, the separation or removal of the pump involved nothing more
complicated that the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other fasteners.

The case began in the City Court of Cebu with the filing of Goulds Pumps International
(Phil), Inc. of a complaint against Yap and his wife seeking recovery of P1,459.30, representing
the balance of the price and installation cost of a water pump in the latters premises. The Court
rendered judgment in favor of herein respondent after they presented evidence ex-parte due to
failure of petitioner Yap to appear before the Court. Petitioner then appealed to the CFI,
particularly to the sale of Judge Tanada. For again failure to appear for pre-trial, Yap was
declared in default. He filed for a motion for reconsideration which was denied by Judge Tanada.
On October 15, 1969, Tanada granted Goulds Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. Yap
forthwith filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order. In the meantime, the
Sheriff levied on the water pump in question and by notice scheduled the execution sale thereof.
But in view of the pendency of Yaps motion, suspension of sale was directed by Judge Tanada.
It appears, however, that this was not made known to the Sheriff who continued with the auction
sale and sold the property to the highest bidder, Goulds. Because of such, petitioner filed a
Motion to Set Aside Execution Sale and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution. One of his arguments
was that the sale was made without the notice required by Sec. 18, Rule 29 of the New Rules of
Court, i.e. notice by publication in case of execution of sale of real property, the pump and its
accessories being immovable because attached to the ground with the character of permanency.
Such motion was denied by the CFI.

Whether or not the pump and its accessories are immovable property

No. The water pump and its accessories are NOT immovable properties. The argument of
Yap that the water pump had become immovable property by its being installed in his residence
is untenable. Article 415, par. 3 of the Civil Code considers and immovable property as
everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the material or deteriorating the object. The pump does
not fit this description. It could be, and was, in fact, separated from Yaps premises without being
broken of suffering deterioration. Obviously, the separation or removal of the pump involved
nothing more complicated that the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other fasteners.

SOURCE: https://breakingomerta.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/yap-vs-tanada/