2. DAVAO SAWMILL vs.

CASTILLO
Facts: Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the
Government of the Philippine Islands operating in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu,
municipality of Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business
was conducted belonged to another person. On the land, the sawmill company erected
a building which housed the machinery used by it. Some machines were placed and
mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of lease between the owner of the
land and the sawmill company, it was stipulated that, on the expiration of the period
agreed upon or in the event the latter abandon the land leased, all the improvements
and buildings introduced and erected by the latter shall pass to the exclusive ownership
of the former without any obligation on its part to pay any amount for said improvements
and buildings; provided that the machineries and accessories are not included in the
improvements which will pass to the former.
Issue: Whether or not the machineries are personal property.
Held: The court found the machineries to be PERSONAL PROPERTY. As a rule,
machinery should be considered as personal since it was not placed on the land by the
owner of the land. Immobilization by destination or purpose cannot generally be made
by a person whose possession of the property is only TEMPORARY because
machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a
land by the owner of the land, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.

10. LAUREL vs. ABROGAR

Facts: Petitioner is accused of conspiring and confederating together and all of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge
and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance
calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale. Respondent argues
that the "international phone calls" which are "electric currents or sets of electric
impulses transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human
voice to a receiver," are personal properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3)
of the Civil Code deems "forces of nature" (which includes electricity) which are brought
under the control by science, are personal property. On the other hand, petitioner
argues that that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a communication
carried out using the telephone. It is not synonymous to electric current or impulses.
Hence, it may not be considered as personal property susceptible of appropriation.
Issue: Whether or not the business of providing telecommunication and telephone
service are personal property.
Held: The Court ruled that the business of providing telecommunication and telephone
service are personal property.
Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the
object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property.
Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just
like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Business should also be
classified as personal property since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of
real properties under Article 415, it is a therefore personal property, as ruled in
Strochecker v. Ramirez.