PROPERTY LAW: STUDY GUIDE - Articles.

414 – 426
Professor: Atty. Imelda Mabandos-Schneider
Class Schedule: 1:00 pm. – 6:00 p.m., every Saturday

For our PROPERTY LAW class on 09 Dec. 2017, 1:00 – 6:00 p.m., Sat. please study
the following for our Lecture, Graded Recitation and Quiz. (Suggested Textbook:
PARAS, Vol. 2, Arts. 414-426)

I. ARTICLES 414 – 418

A. Know the following:
 Classification of Immovable or Real Properties in Art, 415 (NATURE , INCORPORATION,
DESTINATION, ANALOGY) and their corresponding examples
 The 3 Tests in general to Determine whether a Property is Movable or Immovable
 What are considered as Personal Property (Arts. 416-417)
 What are consumables & non-consumables (Art. 418)

B. STUDY AND DO CASE DIGEST ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:

ARTICLE 415 – 416 :
1. Biscerra v. Teneza, L-16218, Nov. 29, 1962
2. Lopez v. Oroso Jr. et al L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958;
In the case of Lopez vs. Orosa, a theater was constructed by using lumber.
The lumber supplier was not paid. The lumber supplier was contending his
material man‘s lien extends to the land. The SC said that the material man‘s
lien attaches only to the building since a building is an immovable property
by itself.
3. Assoc. Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. v. Iya et al., L-10837-38, May 30, 1958
4. Tumalad v. Vivencio, G.R. No. L-30173 ,September 30, 1971
In Associated Insurance vs. Iya, the SC said that the chattel mortgage over
the house was void since a house is an immovable and not chattel. On the
other hand, in Tumalad vs. Vicencio, the SC said that the parties may treat
the house as chattel. The SC further added that the mortgagor is estopped
from assailing the validity of the chattel mortgage over the house.
5. Board of Assessment Q.C. v. MERALCO 10 SCRA 68
6. Yap vs. Tanada, 163 SCRA 464, July 18, 1988
7. Evangelista v. Alto Surety, L-11139, April 23, 1958
8. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. Reports 644
9. Standard Oil v. Jaranillo 44 Phil. 631
10. Lavarro v. Labitoria, 54 Phil. 788
11. Sibal v. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512
12. Davao Sawmill Co., v. Castillo, 61 Phil.709
13. People´s Bank and Trust Co., v. Dahican Lumber Co., L-17500, May 16, 1967
14. Hilado v. Reg.of Deeds, 49 Phil.542
15. H Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng 61 Phil. 663
16. Ago v. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962
17. People´s Bank and Trust Co., v. Dahican Lumber Co., L-17500, May 16, 1967
18. Board of Assessment Appeals Q.C. v. Meralco, 10 SCRA 68

1
 19. Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
114 SCRA 260 , May 31, 1982
20. Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, 114 SCRA 296, 1982
21. Ago v. Court of Appeals et, L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962
22. U.S. v. Carlos, 21 Phil. 543

ARTICLE 417 :
23. Involuntary Insolvency of Stochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933

II. ARTICLES 419 – 426

A. PUBLIC DOMINION PROPERTIES [ Arts. 419 – 420; 423 - 424 ]

1. What are the Things Deemed as Properties of Public Dominion? (Art. 420)
2. What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the State (Art. 420)

3. What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the Local Govt. or political
subdivisions? (Arts. 424)

4. State the Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion

5. If a private person or entity is able to have a portion of the beach or foreshore, included in
the transfer certificate of registration, will this mean that the said property is now
considered patrimonial or private property?

o RP v. Lat Vda. De Castillo et al, GR 69002, June 30, 1988 – Report: BALGOS, C.

6. A private estate adjoining a body of water (lake, river, stream, or sea, or pond, lagoon) is
inundated with water or flooded, and submerged for some time. If later the water receded
and the land is again uncovered and recovered, who will own the land – the original private
estate owner or the State?

o Govt. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112 - Report: FUNA

o Govt. v. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423 - Report: CAMRAL, R.
 Read & explain the difference in the 2 Supreme Court rulings.

7. A private estate owner constructed canal/s on his land and nearby residents are allowed
use thereof. Later, the landowner closed access to the canal by the public and converted it
into a fishpond. Complaint was filed to have the landowner open the canal and allow use
and access by the public. What is the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue?

Study and compare the rulings of the SC in these case:

i.) Santos v. Moreno, L-15829, Dec. 4, 1967 - Report: MAPANDI, H.
ii.) Mercado v. Mun. Pres. of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592 - Report: MAGNO, K.L

 Reporters please read the full text of the case and coordinate with each other to explain
the difference in the Supreme Court rulings.

2
 READ also these CASES:
o Maneclang et al., v. IAC, G.R. 66575, Sept. 30, 1986
o Chavez v. PEA, 415 SCRA 403, 2003
o Hilario v. City of Manila, L-19570, April 27, 1967
o Tufexis v. Olaguera, 32 Phil. 654
o City of Manila v. Garcia, L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967 – Report: OKYO, F.

B. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY or PROPERTIES OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP (Arts. 421 – 425)

1) Study SC Jurisprudence about the 3 Kinds of Properties of Private Ownership:

i. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of the STATE,

o Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 - Report: PAGADUAN,
(PIs. read the dissent of Justice Feliciano & include in the report)

ii. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of LOCAL GOVTS.

o City of Baguio v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-12032, August 31, 1959 – Report: BARRO,
o Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, L-24440, March 28, 1968 –
Report:

iii. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of PRIVATE PERSON or Entity.

2) Can public dominion properties be later converted to, or withdrawn from public use and
form part of the patrimonial property of the State and Local Govt.?

1. Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. Of Lands, L-12958, May 30, 1960

2. Municipality of Oas v. Roa, 7 Phil. 20
3. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, L-40474, Aug. 29, 1975
4. Municipality of Hinunang v. Director of Lands, 24 Phils. 125
5. Chavez v. NHA et al, G.R No. 164527, Aug. 15, 2007
6. Dacanay v. Asistio, Jr. 208 SCRA 404
7. Salas v. Jarencio, L-29788, Aug. 30, 1972 - Report: APOR, R.
8. Harty v. Mun. of Victoria, 13 Phil. 152 - Report: MANUEL

2) If a political subd. or local govt. has an unpaid debt to a private person or entity, can the
latter levy against the properties of the Local Govt.? What are the limitations if any?

o Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 - Report: MONTECILLO, J.R.
o Mun. of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, et al., L-3485, June 30, 1950 -

 Reporters read the full text of the Supreme Court rulings.