Case Digests - Property Set 1

Cases: US vs Tambunting 41 Phil 364 Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng 61 Phil 663 Philippine Refining Co vs !ar"ue 61 Phil ##$ %in&anao Bus Co vs Cit' (ssessor 6 SCR( 1$) *avao Sa+mill vs Castillo 61 SCR( ),$ Pru&ential Bank vs Panis 1-3 SCR( 3$, Calte. vs Central Boar& of (ssessment (ppeals114 SCR( #)3 Benguet Corp vs CB(( #1/ SCR( #)1 Tumala& vs 0ienio et al 41 SCR( 143 Serg2s Pro&uts vs PC easing 33/ SCR( 4$$

Case Digests: US vs Tambunting 41 Phil 364 5ats %anuel %anuel Tambu Tambuntin nting g an& his +ife +ere oupants oupants of the upper floor floor of a house that that ha& previousl' been installe& b' the %anila 7as Corporation +ith apparatus for the &eliver' of gas t +as foun& out that gas +as being use&8 +ithout the kno+le&ge an& onsent of the gas ompan'8 for ooking in the "uarters oupie& b' the &efen&ants ssue +hether gas an be the subjet to laren' 9aren' The unauthori:e& taking an& removal of the Personal Propert' of another b' an in&ivi&ual +ho inten&s to permanentl' &eprive the o+ner of it; uote& from ?aren'8? at page 348 0ol 1)8 of Ruling Case a+; @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng 61 Phil 663 Berkenkotter A plaintiffAappellant CU U!7  <!DS A &efen&antsAappellees 5ats The %abalaat Sugar Co8 n8 o+ner of the sugar entral8 obtaine& from the &efen&ants8 Cu Unjieng e
Shortl' after sai& mortgage ha& been onstitute&8 the %abalaat Sugar Co8 n8 bought a&&itional mahiner' an& e"uipment Plaintiff8 B< Berkenkotter8 +as aske& b' the ompan' presi&ent8 B( 7reen8 to a&vane the neessar' amount for the purhase of sai& mahiner' an& e"uipment Plaintiff +as promise& to get reimbursement +hen an a&&itional loan from the mortgagees is obtaine& 7reen faile& to obtain sai& loan  (ppellant2s Contention nstallation of the mahiner' an& e"uipment laime& b' him in the sugar entral +as not permanent in harater  in ase 7reen shoul& fail to obtain an a&&itional loan sai& mahiner' an& e"uipment +oul& beome seurit' for the ompan'2s &ebt to him ssue Ehether or not the a&&itional mahiner' an& e"uipment is onsi&ere& an improvement subjet to the mortgage e.eute& in favor of %abalaat Sugar Co8 n b' Cu Unjieng e
entere& in the hattel mortgage registr' +ithin the thirt'A&a' perio& before the institution of  insolven' proee&ings !u&ge !ose %
%ahiner'8 reeptales8 instruments or implements inten&e& b' the o+ner of the tenement for  an in&ustr' or +orks +hih ma' be arrie& on in a buil&ing or on a piee of lan&8 an& +hih ten& &iretl' to meet the nee&s of the sai& in&ustr' or +orks ssue Ehether or not the e"uipment ma' be &eeme& immovable +ithin the meaning of (rt 41- of the CC
The lessee plae& the mahiner' in the buil&ing erete& on lan& belonging to another8 +ith the un&erstan&ing that the mahiner' +as not inlu&e& in the improvements +hih +oul& pass to the lessor on the e.piration of the lease agreement The lessee also treate& the mahiner' as personal propert' in e.euting hattel mortgages in favor of thir& persons (s onse"uene of the ju&gment ren&ere& in favor of  the *avao ight an& Po+er Co against *avao Sa+mill8 the mahineries in "uestion +ere levie& upon b' the sheriff as personalt' 9as oppose& to a realt'; pursuant to a +rit of e.eution obtaine& +ithout an' protest being registere& 5urthermore8 mahineries onl' beomes immobili:e& +hen plae& in a plant b' the o+ner of the propert' or plant8 but not +hen so plae& b' a tenant8 usufrutuar'8 or an' person having temporar' right8 unless suh person ate& as the agent of the o+ner 9Citing US SC &eision in 0al&es vs Central (ltagraia; @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Pru(ential Bank vs Panis 1.3 SC* 3&5ats Spouses %agale seure& a loan +ith Pru&ential Bank To further seure sai& loan8 the spouses e.eute& a Real state %ortgage over the resi&ential buil&ing8 +ith a right to oup' the lot The Real state %ortgage also inlu&e& information about the Sales Patent applie& for b' the spouses for the lot to +hih the buil&ing stoo& The spouses obtaine& a seon& loan8 +hih +as seure& b' another Real state %ortgage over the same properties The Se of (griulture issue& a %isellaneous Sales Patent over the lot +hih +as then mortgage& to the bank in favor  of the %aales The spouses &efaulte& on both loans Thus8 the propert' +as e.traju&iiall' forelose&8 an& sol& in a publi aution 9%isellaneous Sales Patent R( )3, is an at permitting sale +ithout publi aution of alienable an& &isposable lan&s of the publi &omain for resi&ential purpose The appliation to purhase the lan& is alle& the %isellaneous Sales (ppliation an& the orrespon&ing patent is alle& the %isellaneous Sales Patent; The RTC hel& that the Real state %ortgage +as null an& voi&

ssue Ehether or not a vali& real estate mortgage an be onstitute& on the buil&ing erete& on the lan& belonging to another
immovable propert' even if &ealt +ith separatel' an& apart from the lan& 5urthermore8 the fat that the spouses e.eute& the Real state %ortgage over the buil&ing before e.euting the seon& Real state %ortgage over the lan& prove& that the spouses inten&e& for the buil&ing to be an immovable separate an& &istint from the lan& on +hih it is built @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Calte/ vs Central Boar( o! *ssessment *ppeals 114 SCR( #)3 5ats This ase is about the realt' ta. on mahiner' an& e"uipment installe& b' Calte. 9Philippines; n in its gas stations loate& on lease& lan&The lessor of the lan&8 +here the gas station is loate&8 &oes not beome the o+ner of the mahines an& e"uipment installe& therein Calte. retains the o+nership thereof &uring the term of the lease The it' assessor of Pasa' Cit' harateri:e& the sai& items of gas station e"uipment an& mahiner' as ta.able realt' But The it' boar& of ta. appeals rule& that the' are personalt' ssue Ehether or not the subjet mahiner' an& e"uipment installe& b' Calte. in its gas stations shoul& be onsi&ere& realt'
ativities 93; Ken&rik v T+in akes Reservoir Co 9(merian Case;  ( reservoir &am +ent +ith an& forme& part of the reservoir  94; Dntario Silver %ining Co v
5ats 0ienio an& Simeon e.eute& a hattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs Tumala& over  their house8 +hih +as being rente& b' %a&rigal an& ompan' This +as e.eute& to guarantee a loan8 pa'able in one 'ear +ith an interest of 1#L pa Ehen &efen&antsAappellants &efaulte& in pa'ing8 the mortgage +as e.traju&iiall' forelose& The house +as sol& at a publi aution an& the plaintiffs +ere the highest bi&&er Thereafter8 the plaintiffs file& an ation for ejetment against the &efen&ants8 pra'ing that the latter vaate the house as the' +ere the proper o+ners *efen&antsAappellants8 "uestione& the legalit' of the hattel mortgage The' maintaine& the nullit' of the hattel mortgage base& on t+o groun&s 9a; that8 their signatures on the hattel mortgage +ere obtaine& through frau&8 &eeit8 or  triker'F an& 9b; that the subjet matter of the mortgage is a house of strong materials8 an&8 being an immovable8 it an onl' be the subjet of a real estate mortgage an& not a hattel mortgage ssue Ehether or not the propert' in "uestion an be the subjet matter of a hattel mortgage
estoppel +herein the priniple is pre&iate& on statements b' the o+ner &elaring his house as hattel8 a on&ut that ma' oneivabl' estop him from subse"uentl' laiming other+ise n the ase at bar8 though there be no speifi statement referring to the subjet house as personal propert'8 'et b' e&ing8 selling or transferring a propert' through hattel mortgage oul& onl' have meant that &efen&ant onve's or inten&s to treat the house as hattel8 so that the' shoul& not no+ be allo+e& to make an inonsistent stan& b' laiming other+ise %oreover8 the subjet house stoo& on a rente& lot to +hih &efen&atsAappellants merel' ha& a temporar' right as lessee8 an& although this an not in itself alone &etermine the status of the propert'8 it &oes so +hen ombine& +ith other fators to sustain the interpretation that the parties8 partiularl' the mortgagors8 inten&e& to treat the house as personalt' 5urthermore8 unlike the ases of ope: vs Drosa an& eung =ee vs 5  Strong %ahiner'8 +herein thir& persons assaile& the vali&it' of the hattel mortgage8 it is the &efen&antsA appellants themselves8 as &ebtorsAmortgagors8 +ho are attaking the vali&it' of the hattel mortgage in this ase The &otrine of estoppel therefore applies to the herein &efen&antsA appellants8 having treate& the subjet house as personalt' @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sergs Pro(u2ts vs PC 5easing 330 SC* 4&& 5ats PC file& a ase for olletion of a sum of mone' as +ell as a +rit of replevin for the sei:ure of mahiner'8 subjet of a hattel mortgage e.eute& b' petitioner in favor of PC %ahiner' of petitioner +ere sei:e& an& petitioner file& a motion for speial protetive or&er t asserts that the mahiner' +ere real propert' an& oul& not be subjet of a hattel mortgage ssue Ehether or not the mahiner' purhase& an& importe& b' SR7HS beame real propert' b' virtue of immobili:ation
Summar): US vs Tambunting Un&er (rt 416 93; of the CC8 fores of nature +hih are brought un&er the ontrol of siene suh as gas8 eletriit'8 +ater8 et are onsi&ere& to be 9personal; propert' Therefore8 these an be the subjest of laren' 9or theft; Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng %ahiner' an& e"uipment &eeme& as essential an& prinipal elements of an in&ustr' or +ork is lassifie& as immovable un&er (rt 41- 9-; of the CC Philippine e!ining Co" vs #ar$ue 0essels 9as +ell as lan& vehiles; are onsi&ere& personal propert' un&er the ivil la+ ( mortgage on a vessel is in the nature a hattel mortgage 'in(anao Bus Co" vs" Cit) *ssessor 5or movable e"uipment to be immobili:e& in ontemplation of la+8 91; it must be absolutel' essential to the business 9in&ustr' or +ork;F am& 9#; it must be in the plae +here sai& business i& arrie& on Davao Sa+mill vs" Castillo %ahineries onl' beomes immobili:e& +hen plae& in a buil&ing b' the o+ner of the propert' or buil&ing8 but not +hen so plae& b' a tenant8 usufrutuar'8 or an' person having temporar' right over the propert'8 unless suh person ate& as the agent of the o+ner Pru(ential Bank vs Panis  ( vali& real estate mortgage an be onstitute& on the buil&ing erete& on the lan& belonging to another The inlusion of ?buil&ing? &istint an& separate from the lan& n the enumeration of properties un&er (rtile 41- 91; of the CC an onl' mean that the buil&ing itself is an immovable propert' Calte/ vs Central Boar( o! *ssessment *ppeals mprovements on lan& are ommonl' ta.e& as realt' moreso +hen the fi.tures are neessar' to the operation of the in&ustr' or +ork an& have been attahe& an& fi.e& 9or embe&&e&; permanentl' to the site +here the business is arrie& on  (rt 41- 93; an& 9-; of the CC applies Benguet Corp" vs CB** an ?improvement? on a propert' is permanent in harater an& enhanes both the value an& utilit' of sai& propert' ts immovable nature efines its harater as real propert' Tumala( vs i2en2io Certain &eviations have been allo+e& from the general &otrine that buil&ings are immovable propert' suh as +hen through stipulation8 parties ma' agree to treat as personal propert' those b' their nature +oul& be real propert' Priniple of estoppel b' &elaring his house as hattel8 the o+ner is etoppe& from subse"uentl' laiming other+ise Sergs Pro(u2ts vs PC 5easing  (fter agreeing to a ontrat stipulating that a real or immovable propert' be onsi&ere& as

personal or movable8 a part' is estoppe& from subse"uentl' laiming other+ise