Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY The sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the

remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the
VILLARICO VS SARMIENTO GR 136438 workers from taking the rest.
FACTS:

Sps. Teofilo and Maxima Villarico, filed an application for confirmation of the title over Issue:
a parcel of land which they allege they bought from Teofilos father. Said application
was opposed by the Director of Forestry contending that the said land forms part of 1. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by Sergs became
the public domain as it is within the unclassified area in Meycauayan and is not real property by virtue of immobilization.
available for private appropriation. The TC dismissed the case since the property
forms part of the public domain therefore the certificate of title is void. The CA 2. Whether or not the contract between the parties is valid.
affirmed the findings of the Trial Court, thus the case at bar.

ISSUE: Whether or not the property still forms part of the public domain.
Ruling:
HELD:
The petition is not meritorious.
The SC held that both the TC and the appellate court correctly adjudged the area to
1. No.
be within the unclassified forest zone therefore incapable of private
appropriation.There has been no showing that a declassification has been made The machines that were subjects of the Writ of seizure were placed by petitioners in
declaring the said lands as disposable or alienable and the spouses have not showed the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they were essential and principal
evidence to lead to the court to rule otherwise.Thus, if the land in question still forms elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, although each of them was
part of the public forest, then possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it into movable or personal property on its own, all of them have become immobilized by
private property as it is beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry. In that
register under the Torrens System. sense petitioners are correct in arguing that the said machines are real property
pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.
STANDARD OIL VS JARANILLO GR L-20329 (Paras, p.17)
But the Court disagrees with the submission of the petitioners that the said machines
YEE VS STRONG MACHINERY GR L-11658 (Paras, p.13)
are not proper subject of the Writ of Seizure.
SERGS PRODUCTS VS PCI LEASING GR 137705
The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property
Facts: be considered as personal. After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently
stopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppels, a party to a
Respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc, filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found
sum of money with an application for a writ of replevin. therein.

Respondent Judge issued a writ of replevin directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the Clearly then, petitioners are stopped from denying the characterization of the subject
machineries and equipment to PCI after 5 days and upon the payment of the machines as personal property. Under circumstances, they are proper subjects of the
necessary expenses. Writ of Seizure.

In the implementation of the said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory, It should be stressed, however, that the Courts holding-that the machines should be
seized one machinery with word that he would return for the other. deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement-is good only insofar as
the contracting parties are concerned. Hence, while the parties are bound by the
Petitioners filed a motion for special protective order, invoking the power of the court Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation
to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes, praying for characterizing the subject machinery as personal. In any event, there is no showing
a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin. that any specific third party would be adversely affected.
The motion was opposed by PCI Leasing, on the ground that the properties were still
personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin.
2. Yes.
It should be pointed out that the Court may rely on the Lease Agreement, for nothing
on the record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact, petitioners assailed FACTS:
it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been instituted by
Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from Philippine
respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the law between
Realty Corporation. To be able to purchase on credit rice from NARIC, they filed a
the parties.
surety bond subscribed by petitioner and therefor, they executed an alleged chattel
Petition denied. Judgment affirmed. mortgage on the house in favor of the surety company. The spouses didnt own yet
the land on which the house was constructed on at the time of the undertaking. After
NAVARRO VS PINEDA GR L-18456 being able to purchase the land, to be able to secure payment for indebtedness, the
spouses executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya.
FACTS:
The spouses were not able to satisfy obligation with NARIC, petitioner was compelled
Pineda and his mother executed real estate and chattel mortgages in favor of to pay. The spouses werent able to pay the surety company despite demands and
thus, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage. It later learned of the real estate
Navarro, to secure a loan they got from the latter. The REM covered a parcel of land
mortgage over the house and lot secured by the spouses. This prompted the
owned by the mother while the chattel mortgage covered a company to file an action against the spouses. Also, Iya filed another civil action
residential house. Due to the failure to pay the loan, they asked for extensions against the spouses, asserting that she has a better right over the property. The trial
to pay for the loan. On the second extension, Pineda executed a PROMISE wherein court heard the two cases jointly and it held that the surety company had a preferred
in case of default in payment, he wouldnt ask for any additional extension and there right over the building as since when the chattel mortgage was secured, the land
wasnt owned yet by the spouses making the building then a chattel and not a real
would be no need for any formal demand. In spite of this, they still failed to pay. property.
Navarro then filed for the foreclosure of the mortgages. The court decided in his
favor. ISSUE:

ISSUE: WON the auction sale was null and void


WON the house can be considered as personal property.
W/N the deed of real estate mortgage and chattel mortgage appended to the
complaint is valid notwithstanding the fact that the house was made subject of chattel HELD:
mortgage for the reason that it is erected on a land that belongs to a third person. A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the
land on which it is constructed belongs to another. To hold it the other way, the
HELD: possibility is not remote that it would result in confusion, for to cloak the building with
an uncertain status made dependent on ownership of the land, would create a
Where a house stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it may situation where apermanent fixture changes its nature or character as the ownership
be the subject matter of a chattel mortgage as personal property if so stipulated in the of the land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties may be the only
document of mortgage, and in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure, the subjects of a chattel mortgage, the execution of the chattel mortgage covering said
validity of the chattel mortgage cannot be assailed by one of the parties to the building is null and void.
contract of mortgage.

Furthermore, although in some instances, a house of mixed materials has been LOPEZ VS OROSA GR L-10817-18
considered as a chattel between the parties and that the validity of
the contract between them, has been recognized, it has been a constant FACTS:
criterion that with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the contract,
Lopez was engaged in business under the name Lopez-Castelo Sawmill. Orosa, who
and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as immovable lived in the same province as Lopez, one dayapproached Lopez and invited the latter
property. to make an investment inthe theatre business. Orosa, his family and close friends
apparently were forming acorporation named Plaza Theatre. Lopez expressed his
BICERRA VS TENEZA GR L-16218 (Paras, p.16) unwillingness to invest. Nonetheless, therewas an oral agreement between Lopez
and Orosa that Lopezwould be supplying the lumber for the construction of the
ASSOCIATE INSURANCE VS IYA GR L-10837-38 theatre.The terms were the following: one, Orosa would be personallyliable for any
account that the said construction would incur; two,payment would be by demand and
not by cash on delivery. Pursuant to the agreement, Lopez delivered the lumber for TUMALAD VS VICENCIO GR L-30173
theconstruction. Lopez was only paid one-third of the total cost. The land on which the
building has been erected was previously owned by Orosa, which was later on FACTS:
purchased by the corporation. Due to the incessant demands of Lopez, the
corporation mortgaged its properties.On an earlier relevant date, the corporation Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs Tumalad over
obtained a loan with Luzon Surety Company as surety and in turn, the their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and company. This was executed to
corporation executed a mortgage over the land and building. In the registration of the guarantee a loan, payable in one year with a 12% per annum interest.
land under Act 496, such mortgage wasnt revealed. Also due to the demands of
Lopez, Orosa issued a deed of assignment over his shares of stock in the The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan. The house
corporation. As there was still an unpaid balance, Lopez filed a case against Orosa was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest bidder. A
and Plaza theatre. He asked that Orosa and Plaza theatre be held liable solidarily for corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an action
the unpaid balance; and in case defendants failed to pay, the land and building should for ejectment against the defendants, praying that the latter vacate the house as they
be sold in public auction with the proceeds to be applied to the balance; or were the proper owners.
that the shares of stock be sold in public auction. Lopez also had lis pendens be
annotated in the OCT. The trial court decided that there was joint liability between ISSUE:
defendants and that the materialmans lien was only confined tothe building.
W/N the chattel mortgage was null and void ab initio because only personal properties
can be subject of a chattel mortgage.
ISSUES:
HELD:
W/N the materialmens lien for the value of the materials used in the construction of
the building attaches to said structure alone and doesnt extend to the land on which
Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that buildings are
the building is adhered to?
immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties may agree to treat as
personal property those by their nature would be real property. This is partly based on
HELD: the principle of estoppel wherein the principle is predicated on statements by the
owner declaring his house as chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from
The contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of materials used for the subsequently claiming otherwise.
construction and repair of a building is also extended to land on which the building
was constructed is without merit. For while it is true that generally, real estate In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the subject
connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property through
of the building in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties could only chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant conveys the house as chattel,
mean one thingthat a building is by itself an immovable property. Moreover, in the or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be
absence of allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise.
any specific provision to the contrary, a building is an immovable property irrespective
of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the VALDEZ VS ATLAGRACIA 225 US 58 (Paras, p.24)
same owner.
AGO VS CA 6 SCRA 530
Appelant invoked Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, which providesWith
respect to determinate real property and real rights of the debtor, the following are FACTS
preferred: xxx Credits for reflection, not entered or recorded, and only with respect to Ago bought sawmill machineries and equipments from Grace Park Engineer
other credits different from those mentioned in four next preceding paragraphs. Close Domineering, Inc. (GPED) A chattel mortgage was executed over the said properties
examination of the abovementioned provision reveals that the law gives preference to to secure the unpaid balance of P32,000, which Ago agreed to pay in installment
unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the basis.
refectionary or work was made. This being so, the inevitable conclusion must be that Because Ago defaulted in his payment, GPED instituted extra-judicial foreclosure
the lien so created attaches merely to the immovable property for the construction or proceedings of the mortgage. To enjoin the foreclosure, Ago instituted a special civil
repair of which the obligation was incurred. Therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for case in the CFI of Agusan. The parties then arrived at a compromise agreement.
the unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building attaches only However, a year later, Ago still defaulted in his payment. GPED filed a motion for
to said structure and to no other property of the obligors. execution with the lower court, which was executed on September 23, 1959.
Acting upon the writ of execution, the Provincial Sheriff of Surigao levied upon and
ordered the sale of the sawmill machineries and equipment.
Upon being advised that the public auction sale was set on December 4, 1959, Ago
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on December 1, 1959 with the CA. He
alleged that his counsel only received the copy of the judgment on September 25,
1959 two days after the execution of the writ; that the order of sale of the levied The installation of the sawmill machineries in the building of Gold Pacific Sawmill,
properties was in grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction; and that the Inc., for use in the sawing of logs carried on in the said building converted them
Sheriff acted illegally by levying the properties and attempting to sell them without into Real Properties as they became a necessary & permanent part of the building or
prior publication of the notice of sale thereof in some newspaper of general circulation real estate on which the same was constructed.
as required by the Rules of Court. And if they are judicially sold on execution without the necessary advertisement of
The CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Sheriff, but it turned out that sale by publication in a newspaper as required in Sec.16 of Rule 39 of the Rules of
the properties were already sold on December 4, 1959. The CA ordered the Sheriff to Court, the sale made by the sheriff would be null and void.
suspend the issuance of the Certificate of Sale until the decision of the case. The CA
then rendered its decision on November 9, 1960.
MINDANAO BUS VS CITY ASSESSOR GR L-17870
ISSUES
1. Is the fact that petitioner was present in open court as the judgment was rendered, Facts: Petitioner is a public utility company engaged in the transport of passengers
sufficient notice of the said judgment? and cargo by motor vehicles in Mindanao with main offices in Cagayan de Oro (CDO).
2. Was the Sheriff's sale of the machineries and equipment at a public auction valid
despite lack of publication of the notice of sale? Petitioner likewise owned a land where it maintains a garage, a repair shop and
blacksmith or carpentry shops. The machineries are placed thereon in wooden and
HELD cement platforms. The City Assessor of CDO then assessed a P4,400 realty tax on
1) No. The mere pronouncement of the judgment in open court does not constitute a
said machineries and repair equipment. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax
rendition of judgment.
The filing of the judge's signed decision with the Clerk of Court constitutes the Appeals but it sustained the City Assessor's decision, while the Court of Tax Appeals
rendition of a valid and binding judgment. (CTA) sustained the same.
Sec. 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court require that all judgments be rendered in
writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, and signed by him, Issue: Whether or not the machineries and equipments are considered
stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, filed
immobilized and thus subject to a realty tax
with the clerk of the court.
Prior to the filing, the decision could still be subject to amendment and change and
may not constitute the real judgment of the court. Held: The Supreme Court decided otherwise and held that said machineries and
equipments are not subject to the assessment of real estate tax.

Moreover, the hearing of the judgment in open court does not constitute valid notice Said equipments are not considered immobilized as they are merely incidental, not
thereof. No judgment can be notified to the parties unless it has previously been esential and principal to the business of the petitioner. The transportation business
rendered.
Sec.7 of Rule 27 expressly requires that final orders or judgments be served could be carried on without repair or service shops of its rolling equipment as they can
either personally or by registered mail. be repaired or services in another shop belonging to another
The signed judgment not having been served upon the petitioner, said judgment could .
not be effective upon him who had not received it. As a consequence, the issuance of
the writ of execution is null and void, having been issued before petitioner was served DAVAO SAWMILL VS CASTILLO GR L-40411 (Paras, p.23)
a copy of the decision, personally or by registered mail.
MERALCO VS BAA GR L-46245
2) The subject sawmill machineries and equipment became real estate properties in Facts:
accordance with the provision of Art. 415 (5) of the NCC: Pursuant to a pipeline concession issued under the Petroleum Act of 1949, Republic
ART. 415 The following are immovable property: Act No. 387, Meralco Securities installed from Batangas to Manila a pipeline system
consisting of cylindrical steel pipes joined together and buried not less than one meter
below the surface along the shoulder of the public highway. The pipes are embedded
xxxx
in the soil and are firmly and solidly welded together so as to preclude breakage or
damage thereto and prevent leakage or seepage of the oil. The valves are welded to
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner the pipes so as to make the pipeline system one single piece of property from end to
of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building end.
or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said
industry or works;
In order to repair, replace, remove or transfer segments of the pipeline, the pipes The pipeline system in question is indubitably a construction adhering to the soil. It is
have to be cold-cut by means of a rotary hard-metal pipe-cutter after digging or attached to the land in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without
excavating them out of the ground where they are buried. In points where the pipeline dismantling the steel pipes which were welded to form the pipeline.
traversed rivers or creeks, the pipes were laid beneath the bed thereof. Hence, the
pipes are permanently attached to the land. WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution are affirmed. The petition is
dismissed. No costs.
Pursuant to the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 470, the provincial
assessor of Laguna treated the pipeline as real property and issued tax declarations,
containing the assessed values of portions of the pipeline. BURGOS SR. VS CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP GR L-64261

FACTS:
Meralco appealed the assessments to the defendants, but the latter ruled that pipeline
is subject to realty tax. The defendants argued that the pipeline is subject to realty tax Petitioners assail the validity of 2 search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by
because they are contemplated in Assessment Law and Real Property Tax Code; that respondent Judge Cruz-Pano of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, under which
they do not fall within the category of property exempt from realty tax under those
the premises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D,
laws; that Articles 415 & 416 of the Civil Code, defining real and personal property
RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business addresses of the
have no applications to this case because these pipes are constructions adhered to
soil and things attached to the land in a fixed manner, and that Meralco Securities is "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and
not exempt from realty tax under petroleum law. office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other
articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as
well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be
Meralco insists that its pipeline is not subject to realty tax because it is not real
property within the meaning of Art. 415. in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the
"We Forum" newspaper, were seized. As a consequence of the search and seizure,
these premises were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing
Issue:
Whether the aforementioned pipelines are subject to realty tax. and publication of said newspapers were discontinued. Respondents contend that
petitioners should have filed a motion to quash said warrants in the court
Held: that issued them before impugning the validity of the same before this Court.
Yes, the pipelines are subject to realty tax. Respondents also assail the petition on ground of laches.
Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due on real property,
including land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements. This provision is ISSUE: WON the seizure of real properties are valid.
reproduced with some modification in Section 38, Real Property Tax Code, which
HELD:
provides that there shall be levied, assessed, and collected xxx annual ad valorem
tax on real property such as land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements Petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the
affixed or attached to real property xxx.
machineries were placed. This being the case, the machineries in question, while in
fact bolted to the ground, remain movable property susceptible to seizure under
It is incontestable that the pipeline of Meralco Securities does not fall within any of the a search warrant.
classes of exempt real property enumerated in section 3 of the Assessment Law and
section 40 of the Real Property Tax Code.

Pipeline means a line of pipe connected to pumps, valves and control devices for MOVABLE PROPERTY
conveying liquids, gases or finely divided solids. It is a line of pipe running upon or in
the earth, carrying with it the right to the use of the soil in which it is placed. LAUREL VS ABROGAR GR 155076

FACTS
Article 415[l] and [3] provides that real property may consist of constructions of all Laurel was charged with Theft under Art. 308 of the RPC for allegedly taking,
kinds adhered to the soil and everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, stealing, and using PLDT's international long distance calls by conducting
in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or International Simple Resale (ISR) a method of outing and completing international
deterioration of the object. long-distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency which
connect directly to the local/domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call
is destined. PLDT alleged that this service was stolen from them using their own
equipment and caused damage to them amounting to P20,370,651.92.
PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication
or telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex
objects of theft. communications infrastructure and facilities.

ISSUE
WON Laurel's act constitutes Theft Since PLDT does not own the said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that
such telephone calls were taken without its consent.
HELD
Art.308, RPC: Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal What constitutes Theft is the use of the PLDT's communications facilities without
property of another without the latters consent. PLDT's consent. The theft lies in the unlawful taking of the telephone services &
Elements of Theft under Art.308, RPC: businesses.
1. There be taking of Personal Property;
2. Said Personal Property belongs to another;
3. Taking be done with Intent to Gain; The Amended Information should be amended to show that the property subject of
4. Taking be done without the owners consent; the theft were services and business of the offended party.
5. No violence against, or intimidation of, persons or force upon things
Personal Property anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in Real
MAKATI LEASING VS WEREAVER GR L-58469
Property
Thus, the term personal property as used in Art.308, RPC should be interpreted in
the context of the Civil Code's definition of real and personal property. FACTS
Consequently, any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. executed a chattel mortgage contract in favor of Makati
incorporeal, capable of appropriation may be the subject of theft (*US v Carlos; US v Leasing and Finance Corporation covering certain raw materials and machinery.
Tambunting; US v Genato*), so long as the same is not included in the enumeration Upon default, Makati Leasing fi led a petition for judicial foreclosure of the properties
of Real Properties under the Civil Code. mortgaged. Acting on Makati Leasings application for replevin, the lower court issued
The only requirement for personal property to capable of theft, is that it be subject to a writ of seizure. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff enforcing the seizure order seized the
appropriation. machinery subject matter of the mortgage. In a petition for certiorari and prohibition,
the Court of Appeals ordered the return of the machinery on the ground that the same
can-not be the subject of replevin because it is a real property pursuant to Article415
Art. 416 (3) of the Civil Code deems Forces of Nature which are brought under the
of the new Civil Code, the same being attached to the ground by means of bolts and
control of science, as Personal Property.
the only way to remove it from Wearever textiles plant would be to drill out or destroy
The appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science can
the concrete fl oor. When the motion for reconsideration of Makati Leasing was
be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such
denied by the Court of Appeals, Makati Leasing elevated the matter to the Supreme
forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or
Court.
using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature.
ISSUE
In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting Whether the machinery in suit is real or personal property from the point of view of the
various equipment or apparatus to PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner parties.
is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using PLDTs facilities
constitute Subtraction. HELD
Moreover, interest in business should be classified as personal property since it is There is no logical justification to exclude the rule out the present case from the
capable of appropriation, and not included in the enumeration of real properties. application of the pronouncement in Tumalad v Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143. If a house of
strong materials, like what was involved in the Tumalad case, may be considered
as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be
personal property which can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. The act prejudicedthereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable
of engaging in ISR is an act of subtraction penalized under the said article. in its natureand becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be
likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped
from the denying the existence of the chattel mortgage.
While international long-distance calls take the form of electrical energy and may be In rejecting petitioners assertion on the applicability of the Tumalad doctrine, the CA
considered as personal property, the said long-distance calls do not belong to PLDT lays stress on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a land that did not
since it could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, belong to the owner of such house. But the law makes no distinction with respect
to the ownership of the land on which the house is built and We should not lay HELD
down distinctions not contemplated by law. Sec.2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is due on real property,
It must be pointed out that the characterization by the private respondent is indicative including land, buildings, machinery, and other improvements not specifically
of the intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the exempted in Sec.3 thereof.
parties. As stated in Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it Sec.3 of the Real Property Tax Code provides the following definitions:
is undeniable that the parties to a contract may, by agreement, treat as personal k) Improvements a valuable addition made to property or an amelioration in
property that which by nature would be a real property as long as no interest of third its conditionmore than mere repairs or replacement of wasteintended to
parties would be prejudiced thereby. enhance its value, beauty, or utility
The status of the subject matter as movable or immovable property was not raised as m) Machinery machines, mechanical contrivances, instruments, appliances,
an issue before the lower court and the CA, except in a supplemental memorandum and apparatus attached to the real estateincludes the physical facilities
in support of the petition filed in the appellate court. There is no record showing that available for productioninstallation and appurtenant service facilities.
the mortgage has been annulled, or that steps were taken to nullify the same. On the The subject machines and equipment are taxable improvement and machinery within
other hand, respondent has benefited from the said contract. the meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code, because the
same are necessary to the operation of the gas station and have been
attached/affixed/embedded permanently to the gas station site.
Equity dictates that one should not benefit at the expense of another.
As such, private respondent could no longer be allowed to impugn the efficacy of the
chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom. Improvements on land are commonly taxed as realty even though they might be
considered personalty. It is a familiar phenomenon to see things classified as real
property for purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered
Therefore, the questioned machinery should be considered as personal property. personal property (Standard Oil Co., vs Jaramillo, 44 PHIL 630).
This case is also easily distinguishable from Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila
Electric Co., (119 Phil. 328) where Meralco's steel towers were exempted from
CALTEX VS. BAA GR L-50466 taxation. The steel towers were considered personalty because they were attached to
square metal frames by means of bolts and could be moved from place to place when
unscrewed and dismantled.
FACTS
Caltex loaned machines and equipment to gas station operators under an appropriate
lease agreement or receipt. The lease contract stipulated that upon demand, the Nor are Caltex's gas station equipment and machinery the same as the tools and
operators shall return to Caltex the machines and equipment in good condition as equipment in the repair shop of a bus company which were held to be personal
when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted. property not subject to realty tax (Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 116 Phil. 501).
The lessor of the land, where the gas station is located, does not become the owner
of the machines and equipment installed therein. Caltex retains the ownership thereof
during the term of the lease. The Central Board of Assessment Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion
in upholding the City Assessor's imposition of the realty tax on Caltex's gas station
and equipment.
The City Assessor of Pasay City characterized the said items of gas station
equipment and machinery as taxable realty. However, the City Board of Tax Appeals PRESBITERO VS. FERNANDEZ GR L-19527 (Paras, p.31)
ruled that they are personalty. The Assessor appealed to the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals. BAA VS. MERALCO GR L-15334

The Board held on June 3, 1977 that the said machines are real property within the FACTS
meaning of Ses. 3(k) & (m) and 38 of the Real Property Tax Code, PD 464, and that On November 15, 1955, the QC City Assessor declared the MERALCO's steel towers
the Civil Code definitions of real and personal property in Articles 415 and 416 are not subject to real property tax. After the denial of MERALCO's petition to cancel these
applicable in this case. declarations, an appeal was taken to the QC Board of Assessment Appeals, which
required respondent to pay P11,651.86 as real property tax on the said steel towers
for the years 1952 to 1956.
ISSUE
MERALCO paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court
WON the pieces of gas station equipment and machinery permanently affixed by of Tax Appeals (CTA) which rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of the said
Caltex to its gas station and pavement should be subject to realty tax. tax declarations and the refunding to MERALCO by the QC City Treasurer of
P11,651.86.
ISSUE GOVERNMENT VS CABANGIS GR 28379 (Paras, p.52)
Are the steel towers or poles of the MERALCO considered real or personal
properties? CEBU VS BERCILLES GR L-40474

HELD
Pole long, comparatively slender, usually cylindrical piece of wood, timber, object of In 1968, a terminal portion of a street in Cebu was excluded in the citys development
metal or the like; an upright standard to the top of which something is affixed or by plan hence the council declared it as abandoned and was subsequently opened for
which something is supported. public bidding. Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. was the highest bidder at
MERALCO's steel supports consists of a framework of 4 steel bars/strips which are P10,800.00. Cebu Oxygen applied for the lands registration before CFI Cebu but the
bound by steel cross-arms atop of which are cross-arms supporting 5 high-voltage provincial fiscal opposed it, so did the court later through Judge Pascual Bercilles, as it
transmission wires, and their sole function is to support/carry such wires. The was ruled that the road is part of the public domain hence beyond the commerce of
exemption granted to poles as quoted from Part II, Par.9 of respondent's franchise is man.
determined by the use to which such poles are dedicated. ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Oxygen can validly own said land.
It is evident that the word poles, as used in Act No. 484 and incorporated in the
petitioner's franchise, should not be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to HELD: Yes. Under Cebus Charter (RA 3857), the city council may close any city road,
defeat the very object for which the franchise was granted. The poles should be taken street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public
and understood as part of MERALCO's electric power system for the conveyance of servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property
electric current to its consumers. belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. Since that portion of the city
Art. 415 of the NCC classifies the following as immovable property: street subject of Cebu Oxygens application for registration of title was withdrawn from
(1) Lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which
can be the object of an ordinary contract.

xxx Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that Property of public dominion, when
no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial
property of the State.
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that
it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration
of the object; SALAS VS JARENCIO GR L-29788 (Paras, p.74)
MUN. of SAN MIGUEL VS FERNANDEZ GR L-61744 (no digest available)
xxx ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE VS ZAMBOANGA CITY GR L-2440 (Paras,p.71)
CHAVEZ VS PEA GR 133250
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner
pf the tenement for an industry ot works which may be carried on in a building
or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is the central implementing agency tasked to
industry or works; undertake reclamation projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions
of the DENR (Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) insofar as
reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.
Following these classifications, MERALCO's steel towers should be considered
personal property. It should be noted that the steel towers: PEA sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal Bay and Development Corporation, a
(a) are neither buildings or constructions adhered to the soil; private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands. PEA
also sought to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.
(b) are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner they can be
separated without breaking the material or deterioration of the object; HELD: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred
to Amari as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
are not machineries, receptacles or instruments, and even if they are, they
are not intended for an industry to be carried on in the premises. The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising
the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
alienable lands of the public domain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of
BERKENKETTER VS CU UNIJENG GR L-41643 (Paras, p.24) Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain. The transfer (as
embodied in a joint venture agreement) to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of The Civil Code allows that every owner may enclose his property by means of
77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article walls, dikes, fences, or any other device, but his right is limited by the
XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind easement with which his estate is charged.
of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks Since the plaintiffs can not prevent the defendant from protecting his lands
to transfer to Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of Manila against the influx of salt water; but the defendant could never be permitted to
Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 obstruct the flow of the waters through his lands to the river during the heavy
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural rains, when the high lands in Calalaran and the lake in said place are flooded,
lands of the public domain. thereby impairing the right of the owners of the dominant estates; the court
advised that it is perhaps useful and advantageous to all parties that Meneses
HARTY VS. MUN OF VICTORIA GR L-5013 (Paras, p.76)
be made to build a another dike in addition to the old dike between the lake of
MUN of CAVITE VS ROJAS GR L-9069 (Paras, p.49) said place and the low lands in Paraanan, for the purpose of preventing the
salt waters of the river flooding (at high tide) not only the lowlands in Paraanan
RP VS VDA DE CASTILLO GR 69002 (Paras, p.41/44) but also the higher ones of Calalaran and its lake.
RP VS JUDGE DELOS ANGELES GR L-30240 (cant find this case)
GERMAN MGT AND SERVICES VS MENESES GR 76217
DIR. OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT VS CA GR 81961 (cant find digest)
Facts:

OWNERSHIP The Spouses Jose were the owners of a parcel of land. They executed a special power
of attorney authorizing German Management & Services (German Management) to
develop their property into a residential subdivision.
LUNOD VS MENESES GR 4223
German Management found that part of the property was occupied by the private
respondents and 20 other persons. They advised the occupants to vacate the premises
FACTS but the latter refused. Nevertheless, German Management proceeded with the
development of the property.
Plaintiifs (Appellees) Nicolas Lunod and 7 others are owners of farmlands on
the upper estates near a lake (Calalaran). The private respondents filed an action for forcible entry against German
Defendant-Appellant Higno Meneses is the owner of a fishpond and a strip of Management. They alleged that German Management forcibly removed and destroyed
land in Paraanan adjoining said lake on one side and a river on the other. the barbed wire fence enclosing the private respondents farmholdings without
Paraan is the only outlet of water to the river from the lands of Lunod et al notice; bulldozed the rice, corn fruit bearing trees and other crops of private
during rainy season. respondents by means of force, violence and intimidation; trespassed, coerced and
In 1901 Meneses converted the land in Paraan to a fishpond and by means of threatened to harass, remove and eject private respondents from their respective
a dam and a bamboo net prevented the free passage of water through Paraan farmholdings.
causing flood and damage of plantations in the upper estates.
Lunod et al filed a complaint alleging that there exists in favor of their rice fields Issue:
a statutory easement for more than 20 years before 1901 and praying that
Meneses be ordered to remove the obstructions that impede the passage of Whether German Management was justified in bulldozing and destroying the crops of
water through Paraanan. private respondents on the basis of the Doctrine of Self-Help.
TC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Held:
ISSUE
WON Meneses can be permitted to obstruct the flow of waters through his lands. No. German Management's drastic action of bulldozing and destroying the crops of
private respondents on the basis of the doctrine of self-help enunciated in Article 429
HELD of the New Civil Code was unavailing because the doctrine of self-help can only be
Where a statutory easement exists between adjoining estates, the owner of exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the case
the lower lands must not construct any work that may impair or obstruct an at bar.
easement which consists in receiving the waters which naturally, and without
the intervention of man, descend from more elevated lands; neither shall the Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
owner of the latter construct any work that may increase the easement. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as
may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
At the time German Management entered the property, the private respondents were
already in possession thereof . There was no evidence that the spouses Jose were
ever in possession of the subject property. On the contrary, private respondents'
peaceable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn and
fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to petitioner's act of destroying their
crops.

When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for
the recovery of property.

PALALI VS AWISAN GR 158385 (no digest, summary only)

A person occupying a parcel of land, by himself and through


his predecessors, enjoys the presumption of ownership.

Respondent failed to prove possession of the property, her


claim rests merely on her tax declaration. But tax declarations, by
themselves, are not conclusive evidence of ownership of real
property. In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession,
the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove
ownership. Respondents tax declaration, therefore, cannot serve as
basis to oust petitioner who has been in possession of the subject
property since before the war.

Possession coupled with a tax declaration is a weighty


evidence of ownership and is certainly more weighty and
preponderant than a mere tax declaration alone.

Вам также может понравиться