PROPERTY (MY NOTES)

CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES

Requisites in order that machinery may be considered an IMMOVABLE PROPERTY:

1. The machinery must have been placed by the owner or an agent of the same;
2. An industry or works must be carried on in the building or land;
3. The machinery must tend directly to meet the needs of the industry or works;
4. The machinery must be ESSENTIAL and PRINCIPAL to the pursuance of the business of the
owner, and not merely incidental.

A and B entered into a contract of lease over a parcel of land or a building. The lessee placed a
machinery for the use of his sawmill business on the land or buildings belonging to the lessor. How do
you classify the machinery? Why?

 The machinery is a movable property since it was placed by the tenant, not by the owner.
Immobilization by destination cannot be made by one who is NOT the owner of the land. (Davao
Sawmills Co. vs. Castillo)

Is there any exception to the rule stated in Davao Sawmills Co. vs. Castillo?

 Yes, when the tenant had promised to leave the machinery on the tenement at the end of the
lease or when he acts as an agent of the owner of the land.

Is a building an immovable property? Why?

 Yes, it is obvious that in the enumeration of IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES in Art. 415, NCC, a
building is mentioned INDEPENDENTLY of the LAND. By this, there is no other conclusion that a
building is by itself an immovable property.

May a building be considered a personal property?

 Yes, if there is a stipulation as when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where
a CHATTEL MORTGAGE is executed over it. It may also be considered personal if the building is
being bought for purposes of demolishing the same. In this case, the materials resulting from
the demolition are being bought.

X built a barong-barong on a parcel of land belonging to him. Can the structure be classified as an
immovable property? Why?

 No, because the structure must be more or less permanent in nature in order that it may be
classified as an immovable property. If the same is a mere superimposition on the land, like the
barong-barong, the same is not an immovable property.

A owns a house and lot. The house is made of concrete materials. A sold it to B for purposes of
demolition. How do you classify the house? Why?

 It is movable or personal property. (Bicerra vs. Teneza) the Supreme Court said that a building
sold to be demolished may be considered personal property because the true object of the sale
would be the MATERIALS.
X owns a lot with a building constructed thereon. Can he mortgage the building independently of the
land? Explain.

 Yes. While a mortgage of a parcel of land necessarily includes the improvements thereon in the
absence of a stipulation on the improvement thereon like a building, still, a building by itself
may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would still be
a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable even if dealt with
separately and apart from the land. (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co.)

A is the owner of a painting. He lent it to B who attached the same on the wall of his house to beautify it
at its blessing with the obligation to RETURN it within two days after the house blessing. Is the painting
immovable?

 No, it is movable due to the lack of intent to attach it permanently.

A portion of the town plaza of a municipality was leased to ABC Enterprises. Is the contract valid? Why?

 No, because it forms part of the properties for public use of provinces, cities, or municipalities.
The town plaza is outside the commerce of men.

What is the Regalian Doctrine?

 It is the doctrine which reserves to the State the full ownership of all natural resources or
natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth.

May the Roponggi property in Japan be sold? Why?

 No, because the said property is a property of the State intended for public use or public service.
(Art. 420, NCC; Laurel vs. Garcia)

Is the doctrine of self-help in the law on property recognized? If so, under what circumstance? Explain.

 Yes. In fact, in German Mgt. and Services, Inc. vs. CA, et al., both the MTC and the RTC have
rationalized petitioner’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 of the Civil Code.
 Such justification is UNAVAILING because the doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the
time of actual or threatened dispossession which is ABSENT in the case at bar.
 When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the
recover of the property. This is clear from Article 536 of the Civil Code which states: “In no case
may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who
objects thereto. He who believes that the has an action or a right to deprive another of the
holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to
deliver the thing.

A is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of ten hectares. What rights does A have on the same?

 A is also the owner of the surface and everything under it. (Art. 437, NCC). He can make
constructions, works, plantations and excavations.

Is the right of A in the problem above absolute? Why?

Does it mean that if the owner of the land is the owner of everything under it, he is the owner of the
minerals found in the land? Why?

 No, because ownership of minerals is reserved in favor of the State even if the land is a private
land. In fact, he has no right to extract minerals without the permission of the State.

What is a hidden treasure?

 By hidden treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of
money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. (Art.
439, NCC)