Civil Law: Law on Property and Lease

GR. No. L- 32917, July 18, 1988 Julian Yap vs. Hon. Santiago O. Tañada, etc. and Goulds Pumps Int’l Phil., Inc.

Case: This is a collection suit instituted by Goulds Pumps against Spouses Yap.
Facts: Yap bought from Goulds Pumps a water pump. The water pump was the installed in his premises. Upon failure to pay the installment, Goulds instituted the case.
RTC: Judge Tañada rendered judgment in favor of Goulds. A writ of execution was released and the same pump was levied by the sheriff. Yap appealed the judgment to SC.
Issue: Whether of not the pump is immovable as contested by petitioner Yap such that the judgment of Judge Tañada be invalidated for not following the procedure in levying a real property.
SC: The water pump installed in movable property. The Civil Code considers as immovable property, among others, anything "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. The pump does not fit this description. It could be, and was in fact separated from Yap's premises without being broken or suffering deterioration. Obviously the separation or removal of the pump involved nothing more complicated than the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other fasteners. DENIED.

GR. No. L-20329, March 16, 1923 Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Joaquin Jaramillo

Case: This is an action for mandamus filed by Standard Oil against Jaramillo, register of deed in the City of Manila, to compel the latter to register a chattel mortgage.
Facts: Gervasia was a lessor in a land and the owner of a house built thereon. She then conveyed the interest over lease and the house by way of chattel mortgage to Standard Oil. Standard went to the Registrar of Deeds in Manila to register such conveyance. Jaramillo refused to register such mortgage saying that the same cannot be registered as chattel as the property in question does not fall under the meaning of movable properties to be a subject of a chattel mortgage, hence this case.
SC: It is his duty to accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record. The duties of a register of deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely ministerial character; and no provision of law can be cited which confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage.

GR. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984 Jose Burgos Sr., Jose Burgos, Jr., Bayani Soriano, and J. Burgos Media Services, Inc. vs. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines

Case: This is a petition for Certiorari Prohibition and Mandamus with preliminary injunction filed by petitioner Burgos against the respondent.
Facts: The case is filed to invalidate the search warrant issued by the respondent as well as the admissibility to the evidence the properties seized from the premises of petitioner. A search warrant was issued to search the addresses of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum”. Several machineries, equipment, paraphernalia, and several documents were seized. One of the grounds to invalidate the search warrant was the seizure of articles belonging to co-petitioner Burgos Sr. where the search was only directed to Burgos Jr. Another ground set forth to invalidate the search warrant is the contention of petitioner that the properties seized were real properties.
SC: Section 2 Rule 126 of RoC does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. Ownership is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized, as petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the articles and property seized under the warrants.
Neither is there merit in petitioners' assertion that real properties were seized under the disputed warrants. Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "machinery, receptables, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or 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 industry or works" are considered immovable property. In Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo 9 where this legal provision was invoked, this Court ruled that machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.

GR. No. L-17870, September 29, 1962 Mindanao Bus Co. vs. The City Assessor and Treasurer and Board of Tax Appeal Cagayan De Oro City

Case: This is a case questioning the assessment by respondent on the property of petitioner considering those as real properties.
Facts: The city of assessor of CDO collected from Mindanao Bus Co. a realty tax from the repair and maintenance of its welder machines, storm boring machine, lathe machine with motor, grinder, hydraulic press, baterry charger. These machineries have never been or were never used as industrial equipments to produce finish products for sale, nor to repair machineries.
CTA: Sustained the collection of tax.
Issue: whether or not the properties in question can be subject to real property tax.
SC: Respondent said that the properties were immobilized citing Art. 415 of the NCC. So that a movable property is to be immobilized must first be “essential and principal element” of an industry or work without which such industry or work would be “unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it is established.
The tools and equipment in question is not essential and principal elements of petitioner’s business of transporting passengers nad cargoers by motor trucks. They are merely incidental- to repair or service the transportation business. They are not real property, hence not subject to real property tax.