classification of property and ownership case digest - cham updated

8/12/2019 Classification of Property and Ownership Case Digest - CHAM Updated

1/26

STANDARD OIL CO. VS JARANILLO 44 PHIL 630

FACTS: On November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was thelessee of a parcel of land situated in the it! of "anila and owner of thehouse of stron# materials built thereon, upon which date she e$ecuted a

document in the form of a chattel mort#a#e, purportin# to conve! to thepetitioner b! wa! of mort#a#e both the leasehold interest in said lot and thebuildin# which stands thereon.

1. %n the document describin# the personal propert! intended to bemort#a#e, it e$pressed that the mort#a#or conve!s and transfer to thethe buildin#, propert! of the mort#a#or, situated in the sub&ect of theleased premises.

2. 'he petitioner presented it to (aramillo, as re#ister of deeds of the it!of "anila, for the purpose of havin# the same recorded in the boo) ofrecords of chattel mort#a#es. *pon e$amination of the instrument,(aramillo opined that it was not a chattel mort#a#e, for the reason that

the interest therein mort#a#e did not appear to be personal propert!,within the meanin# of the hattel "ort#a#e +aw, thus re#istration wasrefused on this #round.

. %n an administrative rulin# promul#ated which determined this caseheld that the re#ister of deed has no authorit! to pass upon thecapacit! of the parties to a chattel mort#a#e which is presented to himfor record.

ISSUE: %s it the ministerial dut! of (amarillo to accept the proper fee andplace the instrument on record-

HELD: 'he position ta)en b! the respondent is untenable and it is his dut!to accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record.

1. Jamarillo r!"i#$!r o% &!! &o!# 'o$ (a)! *+&i,ial or -+a#i*+&i,ial /o!r $o &!$!rmi'! 'a$+r! o% &o,+m!'$ r!"i#$!r!& a#,(a$$!l mor$"a"!ection 19/ of the 0dministrative ode, ori#inall! section 1 of hattel"ort#a#e +aw 0ct. No. 13/4, as amended b! 0ct No. 2596, does notconfer upon the re#ister of deeds an! authorit! whatever in respect to the8ualication,: as the term is used in panish +aw, of chattel mort#a#e.;is duties in respect to such instruments are ministerial onl!. 'he es ri#hts e$cept as a species of notices.'he duties of a re#ister of deeds in respect to the re#istration of chattelmort#a#e are of a purel! ministerial character and no provisions of lawcan be cited which confers upon him a! &udicial or 8uasi?&udicial power todetermine the nature of an! document of which re#istration is sou#ht as a


2/26

chattel mort#a#e. 'he issue where the chattel mort#a#e is heldine=ective a#ainst third parties as the mort#a#ed propert! is real insteadof personal is a 8uestion determined b! the courts of &ustice and not b!the re#ister of deeds.

. Ar$i,l! 334 a'& 332 o% $(! Ci)il Co&! &o!# 'o$ #+//l a#ol+$!,ri$!rio' o' &i#$i',$io' !$!!' r!al a'& /!r#o'al /ro/!r$ %or/+r/o#! o% $(! a//li,a$io' o% $(! C(a$$!l 5or$"a"! la.Ober dictum: 0rticles 5 and now 0rts. 51 and 5164 of the ivilode suppl! no absolute criterion for discriminatin# between real propert!and personal propert! for purposes of the application of the hattel"ort#a#e +aw. 'hese articles state rules which, considered as a #eneraldoctrine, are law in this &urisdiction@ but it must not be for#otten thatunder #iven conditions, a propert! ma! have a character di=erent fromthat imputed to it in said article. %t is undeniable that the parties to acontract ma!, b! a#reement, treat as personal propert! hat which b!

nature would be real propert! for purposes of ta$ation which on #eneralprinciple mi#ht be considered personal propert!. Other situations areconstantl! arisin#, and from time to time are presented to this court, inwhich the proper classication of one thin# orr another as real or personalpropert! ma! be said to be doubtful

3. I##+! (!$(!r i'$!r!#$ a# i' 'a$+r! o% r!al /ro/!r$ 'o$ r!l!)a'$$o $(! i##+! o% /la,i'" $(! &o,+m!'$ o' r!,or& i' C(a$$!l5or$"a"!%n +eun# Aee vs Bran) +. tron# "achiner! o. and Cilliams, the court heldthat where the interest conve!ed is of the nature of a real propert!, the

placin# of the document on record in the chattel mort#a#e re#ister is afutile act.


3/26

5INDANAO US CO. VS CIT7 ASSESSOR 8196

FACTS: Respondent it! 0ssessor of a#a!an de Oro it! assessed atD5,533 petitioner>s e8uipment. Detitioner appealed the assessment to therespondent Eoard of 'a$ 0ppeals on the #round that the same are not realt!.'he Eoard of 'a$ 0ppeals of the it! sustained the cit! assessor.

1. 'he petitioner is a public utilit! solel! en#a#ed in transportin#passen#ers and car#oes b! motor truc)s, over its authoriFed lines inthe %sland of "indanao, collectin# rates approved b! the Dublic ervice

ommission2. 'he machine sou#ht to be assessed b! the respondent as real

properties are ;obart Hlectric Celder "achine, torm Eorin# "achine,+athe machine with motor, Elac) and Iec)er Grinder, DH"O ;!draulicDress, Eatter! char#er 'un#ar char#e machine4, I?Hn#ine Cau)esha?"?Buel. 'hese machineries are sittin# on cement or wooden platforms.'he! can be moved around and about in petitioner>s repair shop. 'hesemachineries have never been or were never used as industriale8uipments to produce nished products for sale, not to repairmachines, parts and the li)e o=ered to the #eneral publicindiscriminatel! for business or commercial purposes for which

petitioner has never en#a#ed in.. 'he petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates

a #ara#e for its 'D* motor truc)s@ a repair shop@ blac)smith andcarpentr! shop, and with these machineries which are placed therein,its 'D* truc)s are made bod! constructed@ and repaired in a conditionto be serviceable in the 'D* land transportation business it operates.

5. '0 sustained the respondent cit! assessor>s rulin# which held thepetitioner liable to the pa!ment of realt! ta$ on its maintenance andrepair e8uipment.

. Respondents contend that said e8uipments thou#h movable areimmobiliFed b! destination in accordance with par. of 0rt. 51 of the

New ivil ode.

ISSUE: Chether the said e8uipment are sub&ect to assessment as real estatefor the purpose of the real estate ta$

HELD: 'he said e8uipment ma! not be considered real estate. 'he courtdeclared that the e8uipment in 8uestion are should not be sub&ect toassessment as real estate for the purpose of the real estate ta$.


4/26

1. T(! mo)al! !-+i/m!'$# $o ! immoili;!& i' ,o'$!m/la$io' o%$(! la m+#$ o% a'i'&+#$r.o that movable e8uipment to be immobiliFed b! destination in

accordance with 0rt. 51 4 of the New ivil ode, must rst beessential and principal elements: of an industr! or wor) without whichwhich such industr! or wor)s would be unable to function or carr! on theindustrial purpose for which it was established.: 'hose movables whichbecome immobiliFe b! destination because the! are essential andprincipal elements in the industr! must be distin#uished from those whichma! not be so considered immobiliFed because the! are merel!incidentals. imilarl!, the tools and e8uipment in 8uestion in this instantcase are, b! their nature, not essential and principal elements ofpetitioner>s business in transportin# passen#ers and car#oes b! motortruc)s. 'he! are mere incidentals J ac8uired as movables and used onl!

for e$pedienc! to facilitate andKor improve its service. Hven without suchtools and e8uipments, its business ma! be carried on, as petitioner hascarried on, without such e8uipments, before the war. 'he transportationbusiness could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rollin#e8uipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belon#in# to another.

2. T(! i'&+#$r or or?# m+#$ ! ,arri!& o' i' a +il&i'" or o' a/i!,! o% la'&.0side from the element of essentialit! the provision also re8uires that theindustr! or wor)s be carried on a building or on a piece of land. %n thecase of Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng, the machiner!, li8uid containers

and instruments or implements: are found in a buildin# constructed onthe land. 0 sawmill would also be installed in a buildin# on land more orless permanentl!, and the sawin# is conducted in the land or buildin#. Eutin the case at bar, the e8uipment in 8uestioned are destined onl! torepair or service the transportation business which is not carried on in abuilding or permanentl on a piece of land, as demanded b! the law.

'he court thus hold that the e8uipments in 8uestion are not absolutel!essential to the petitioner>s transportation business, and petitioner>sbusiness is not carried on in a buildin#, tenement or on a specied land, sosaid e8uipment ma! not be considered real estate within the meanin# of

0rticle 51 c4 of the ivil ode.


5/26

OARD OF ASSESS5ENT APPEALS @C VS 5ERALCO 10 SCRA 6

FACTS: "eralco>s electric power #enerated b! its h!dro?electric plantlocated at Eotocan Balls, +a#una and is transmitted to the it! of "anila b!means of electric transmission wires, runnin# from +a#una to the it!. 'heseelectric transmission wires which carr! hi#h volta#e current are fastened toinsulators attached on steel towers constructed b! respondent at intervals,from its h!dro?electric plant in +a#una to "anila. 'he respondent "eralco hasconstructed 53 of these steel towers within L, on land belon#in# to it.

1. 'hree steel towers were inspected b! the lower court and parties. 'hetowers are made up of metal rods &oined to#ether b! means of bolt, sothat b! unscrewin# the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and

reassembled. %t was also found that the s8uare metal framessupportin# the le#s were not attached to an! material or foundation.

2. Detitioner it! 0ssessor of L declared the aforesaid steel towers forreal propert! ta$. On appeal b! the respondent, the Eoard of0ssessment of 0ppeals of L re8uired the respondent to pa! thepropert! ta$ on the said steel towers, thus respondent paid saidamount under protest.

. '0 ordered the cancellation of the said ta$ declarations and thepetitioner to refund the said amount. '0 held that the steel towerscome within the term poles: which are declared e$empt from ta$esunder part %% para#raph 9 of respondent>s franchise and that the steel

towers are personal properties and are not sub&ect to real propert! ta$.

ISSUE: 0re the poles and steel supports or towers of "eralco, real propert!for the purpose of the real propert! ta$-

HELD: No, the! are personal propert!.


6/26

'he steel towers or support in 8uestion do not come within the ob&ectsmentioned in para#raph 1 of 0rt. 51 because the! do not constitutebuildin#s or construction adhered to the soil. 'he! are not constructionanalo#ous to buildin#s nor adherin# to the soil. 'he! are removable andmerel! attached to a s8uare metal frame ! means of bolts, which when

unscrewed could easil! be dismantled and move from place to place. 'he!cannot be included in para#raph , as the! are not attached to animmovable in a $ed manner, and the! can be separated without brea)in#the material or causin# deterioration upon the ob&ect to which the! areattached. Hach of these steel towers or support consists of steel bars ormetal strips, &oined to#ether b! means of bolts, which can be disassembledb! unscrewin# the bolts and reassembled b! screwin# the same. 'hesetowers do not also fall under para#raph , for the! are not machineries,receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if the! are, the! are notintended for industr! or wor)s on the land which the! are constructed.

PRESITERO VS FERNANDEB 81963

FACTS: HDHR%I%ON Dresbitero failed to furnish Nava the value of theproperties under liti#ation. Dresbitero was ordered b! the lower court to pa!Nava to settle his debts. NavaMs counsel still tried to settle this case withDresbitero, out of court. Eut to no avail.

1. 'he sheri= levied upon and #arnished the su#ar 8uotas allotted to theplantation and adhered to the "a?ao "ill Iistrict and re#istered in thename of Dresbitero as the ori#inal plantation owner. 'he sheri= was notable to present for re#istration thererof to the Re#istr! of Ieeds.

2. 'he court then ordered Dresbitero to se#re#ate the portion of +ot 63/pertainin# to Nava from the mass of properties belon#in# to thedefendant within a period to e$pire on 0u#ust 1963.

. Dresbitero did not meet his obli#ations, and the auction sale wasscheduled. Dresbitero died after.

5. R%0RIO Dresbitero, the estate administrator, then petitioned that thesheri= desist in holdin# the auction sale on the #round that the lev! on

the su#ar 8uotas was invalid because the notice thereof was notre#istered with the Re#istr! of Ieeds, as for the real propert!, and thatthe writs, bein# for sums of mone!, are unenforceable since HsperidionDresbitero died on October 22, 1963, and, therefore, could onl! beenforced as a mone! claim a#ainst his estate.

. Respondent invo)ed the test formulated b! "anresa "anresa, 6thHd. 54, and opined that su#ar 8uotas can be carried from place toplace without in&ur! to the land to which the! are attached, and are not


7/26

one of those included in 0rticle 51 of the ivil ode@ and not bein#thus included, the! fall under the cate#or! of personal properties.

ISSUE: Chether su#ar 8uotas are real immovable4 or personal properties

HELD: 'he su#ar 8uotas are real immovable4 properties.

1. U'&!r !/r!## /ro)i#io'# o% la $(! #+"ar -+o$a allo,a$io'# ar!a,,!##ori!# $o la'& a'& ,a' 'o$ (a)! i'&!/!'&!'$ !i#$!',!aa %rom a /la'$a$io'.'he contentions of the respondent cannot stand a#ainst the positivemandate of the pertinent statute. 'he u#ar +imitation +aw 0ct 5166, asamended4 provides

H. 9. 'he allotment correspondin# to each piece of land under theprovisions of this 0ct shall be deemed to be an improvement attachin#to the land entitled thereto ....

and Republic 0ct No. 1/2 similarl! provides H. 5. 'he production allowance or 8uotas correspondin# to eachpiece of land under the provisions of this 0ct shall be deemed to be animprovement attachin# to the land entitled thereto ....

'he su#ar 8uota allocations are accessories to land, and cannot haveindependent e$istence awa! from a plantation, althou#h the latter ma!var!. 'he ourt ;eld in the case of !belarde vs. "ope#, $% &hil '%%, thateven if a contract of sale of haciendas omitted the ri#ht, title, interest,participation, action and rent: which the #rantors had or mi#ht have inrelation to the parcels of land sold, the sale would include the 8uotas, itbein# provided in ection 9, 0ct 5166, that the allotment is deemed an

improvement attached to the land, and that at the time the contract ofsale was si#ned the land devoted to su#ar were practicall! of no usewithout the su#ar allotment. 0s an improvement attached to the land, b!e$press provision of law, thou#h not ph!sicall! so united, the su#ar8uotas are inseparable therefrom, &ust li)e servitudes and other real ri#htsover an immovable. 0rticle 51 of the ivil ode provides that

13. ontracts for public wor)s, and servitudes and other real rightsover immovable propert.

%t is b! law, therefore, that these properties are immovable or real, 0rticle516 of the ivil ode bein# made to appl! onl! when the thin# res4sou#ht to be classied is not included in 0rticle 51.

. T(! %a,$ $(a$ $(! P(ili//i'! Tra&! A,$ o% 1946 8US P+li, La 319$(Co'"r!## allo# $ra'#%!r# o% #+"ar -+o$a# &o!# 'o$ mili$ia$!a"ai'#$ $(!ir immo)aili$.'he fact that the su#ar 8uotas foes not re8uire re#istration of sales of8uotas with the Re#ister of Ieeds for their validit!, nor the fact thatallocation of unrened su#ar 8uotas is not made amon# lands planted tosu#arcane but amon# the su#ar producin# mills and plantation owners:,


8/26

since the lease or sale of 8uotas are voluntar! transactions, the re#ime ofwhich, is not necessaril! identical to involuntar! transfers or levies@ andthere cannot be a su#ar plantation owner without land to which the 8uotais attached@ and there can e$ist no 8uota without there bein# rst acorrespondin# plantation.

CHUA UAN VS SA5AHAN 5ASASAA 6 PHIL 4

FACTS: amahan# "an##a#awa %nc., is a corporation dul! or#aniFed underthe laws of the Dhilippine %sland with principal o


9/26

. Iebtor, o 'oco defaulted in the pa!ment of said debt at maturit! andpetitioner foreclosed the mort#a#e and delivered the certicate ofstoc) and copies of the mort#a#e and assi#nment to the sheri= of"anila in order to sell the said shares at public auction. 'he sheri=auctioned said shares of stoc) and the petitioner havin# been the

hi#hest bidder, the sheri= e$ecuted in his favor a certicate of sale ofsaid shares.5. 'he petitioner tendered the certicates of stoc) standin# in the name

of o 'oco to the proper o


10/26

aid from the decision of other &urisdictions because the form of mort#a#eis ill suited to the h!pothecation of shares of stoc) and has been rarel!used elsewhere. %n fact, it has been doubted whether shares of stoc) in acorporation are chattels in the sense in which that word is used in chattelmort#a#e statutes.

4. a# i' !!,+$i'" a )ali& ,(a$$!l mor$"a"! !!,$i)! a"ai'#$ $(ir&/!r#o'#ection 5 of 0ct 13/ provides two wa!s for e$ecutin# a valid chattelmort#a#e which shall be e=ective a#ainst third persons. Birst, thepossession of the propert! mort#a#ed must be delivered to and retainedb! the mort#a#ee@ and, second, without such deliver! the mort#a#e mustbe recorded in the proper o


11/26

was issued to him b! the Re#ister of Ieeds of Eatan#as. ;e was married to0manda +at.

1. E! virtue of an instrument dated in "arch 1963, the two parcels of landwith Ori#inal erticate of 'itle O'4 were consolidated and dividedinto +ots 1 to 9 which was covered b! 'ransfer erticate of 'itle ''4.

0fter the death of "odesto astillo on 0u#ust 1, 1963, 0manda +atVda. de astillo, et al., e$ecuted a deed of partition and assumption ofmort#a#e in favor of Blorencio +. astillo, et al., as a result of whichO' was cancelled, and in lieu thereof, new '' were issued to therespondents .

2. 'he Republic of the Dhilippines led a case with the lower court for theannulment of the certicates of title issued to defendants 0manda +atVda. de astillo, et al., as heirsKsuccessors of "odesto astillo, and forthe reversion of the lands covered thereb! +ots 1 and 24 to the tate.

. %t was alle#ed that said lands had alwa!s formed part of the 'aal +a)eand bein# of public ownership, it could not be the sub&ect of

re#istration as private propert!.5. Respondents alle#ed that 14the GovernmentMs action was alread!

barred b! the decision of the re#istration court res &udicata4 that theaction has prescribed@ 24 0ccretions on the ban) of the la)e belon# tothe owners of the estate to which the! have been added@ and 4the!have been in an open and continuous possession of the land for morethan 76 !ears.

. 'he B% declared that +ots Nos. 1P2 are public lands belon#in# to thetate and ordered the Re#ister of Ieeds of Eatan#as the cancellationof the O' in the name of "odesto astillo and the subse8uent ''issued over the propert! in the names of the respondents.

6. Respondents appealed their case. 'he 0 reversed and set aside theappealed decision, and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE: Chat is the nature of the land involved in the case-

HELD: 'he lots in 8uestion are public in nature and are outside thecommerce of man. %t has been satisfactoril! established as found b! the trialcourt, that the properties in 8uestion were the shorelands of 'aal +a)e durin#the cadastral surve! of 192.1. S(or!# ar! /ro/!r$i!# o% $(! /+li, &omai' i'$!'&!& %or /+li,

+#! 8Ar$. 40 Ci)il Co&! a'& $(!r!%or! 'o$ r!"i#$ral!.

%t has lon# been settled that portions of the foreshore or of the territorialwaters and beaches cannot be re#istered. 'heir inclusion in a certicateof title does not convert the same into properties of private ownership orconfer title upon the re#istrant. +ots 1P2 had alwa!s formed part of the'aal +a)e, washed and inundated b! the waters thereof. onse8uentl!, thesame were not sub&ect to re#istration, bein# outside the commerce ofmen@ and that since the lots in liti#ation are of public domain 0rt. 32,par. 5, ivil ode4 the re#istration court did not have &urisdiction to


12/26

ad&udicate said lands as private propert!, hence, res &udicata does notappl!.

. No a,,r!$io' (a# #(o' $o !i#$ i' $(! ,a#! a$ ar.+a)eshore land or lands ad&acent to the la)e, li)e the lands in 8uestion

must be di=erentiated from foreshore land or that part of the landad&acent to the sea which is alternativel! covered and left dr! b! ordinar!ow of the tides. uch distinction draws importance from the fact thataccretions on the ban) of a la)e li)e +a#una de Ea!, belon# to the ownersof the estate to which the! have been added while accretion on a seaban) still belon#s to the public domain, and is not available for privateownership until formall! declared b! the #overnment to be no lon#erneeded for public use. %t was established that the occupants of the lotswho were en#a#ed in duc) raisin# lled up the area with shells and sandto ma)e it habitable, therefore, there is no accretion shown to e$ist in thecase at bar.

3. D!%!'#! o% lo'" /o##!##io' i# li?!i#! 'o$ a)ailal! i' $(i# ,a#!.0s alread! ruled b! the ourt, mere possession of land does not b! itselfautomaticall! divest the land of its public character uevas vs Dineda,15 R0 65Q196/4.


13/26

5ANECLAN VS IAC 8196

FACTS: 0driano "aneclan# led before the B% a complaint for 8uietin# oftitle over a certain shpond located within the 51 parcels of land belon#in#

to them situated in Earrio aloma#ue, Eu#allon, Dan#asinan and theannulment of Resolution Nos. / and 9 of the "unicipal ouncil of Eu#allon,Dan#asinan.

1. 'he trial court dismissed the complaint upon ndin# that the bod! ofwater traversin# the titled properties of petitioners is a cree)constitutin# a tributar! of the 0#no River, therefore public in natureand not sub&ect to private appropriation.

2. Resolution No. /, orderin# an ocular inspection of the a!an#an ree)situated between Earrios aloma#ue ur and aloma#ue Norte andResolution 9, authoriFin# public biddin# for the lease of all municipalferries and sheries, includin# the shpond under consideration, were

passed b! respondents herein members of the "unicipal ouncil ofEu#allon, Dan#asinan in the e$ercise of their le#islative power.

. "aneclan# appealed the said decision to the %0 which a


14/26

public domain. 'he ourt nds the ompromise 0#reement null and void andof no le#al e=ect, the same bein# contrar! to law and public polic!.

HILARIO VS CIT7 OF 5ANILA 8196

FACTS:Ir. (ose ;ilario was the re#istered owner of a lar#e tract of landaround 59 hectares in area, located at Earrio Guina!an# in an "ateo, RiFal.*pon his death, this propert! was inherited b! his son (ose ;ilario (r. to whoma new certicate of title was issued. Iurin# the lifetime of Ir. ;ilario, theestate was bounded on the western side b! the an "ateo River. 'o preventits entr! into the land, a bamboo and lumber post di)e or ditch wasconstructed on the northwestern side which was further fortied b! a stone

wall built on the northern side. %n 197, a #reat and e$traordinar! oodinundated the entire. 'he river destro!ed the di)e on the northwest, left itsori#inal bed and meandered into the ;ilario estate, se#re#atin# from the resta lenticular place of land. 'he disputed area is on the eastern side of thislenticular strip which now stands between the old riverbed site and the newcourse.

1. %n 195 the *.. 0rm! opened sand and #ravel plant within thepremises and started scrapin#, e$cavatin# and e$tractin# soil, #raveland sand from the nearb! areas the River. 'he operations eventuall!e$tended northward into this strip of land

2. %n 1957, the plant was turned over to herein defendants?appellants and

appellee who too) over its operations and continued the e$tractionsand e$cavations of #ravel and sand from the strip of land alon# an areanear the River.

. Dlainti= led his complaint for in&unction and dama#es a#ainst the it!Hn#ineer of "anila, Iistrict Hn#ineer of RiFal, the Iirector of DublicCor)s, and Hn#r. Eusue#o, the Hn#ineer?in?char#e of the plant. %t waspra!ed that the latter be restrained from e$cavatin#, bulldoFin# ande$tractin# #ravel, sand and soil from his propert!

5. ubse8uentl!, the Eureau of "ines who complained that the disputedarea was within the bed of the river so that plainti= should not onl! be

en&oined from ma)in# e$tractions , but should also be ordered to pa!the fees and penalties for the materials ta)en b! him, and 0tt!."a$imo alalan# claimed that he was authoriFed b! plainti= to e$tractmaterials from the disputed area but this notwithstandin#, theDrovincial 'reasurer of RiFal collected from him a sand and #ravel fee,were respectivel! allowed to &oin the liti#ation as intervenors.

. %mpleaded as additional defendants were the it! of "anila, theDrovincial 'reasurer of RiFal, and Hn#r. Hu#enio ese, the new Hn#ineer?


15/26

in?char#e of the plant. Dlainti= also converted his claim to one purel!for dama#es directed a#ainst the it! of "anila and the Iirector ofDublic Cor)s, solidaril! for the cost of materials ta)en since 1959, aswell as those to be e$tracted therefrom until defendants stop theiroperations.

6. 'he lower court rendered its decision a#ainst the defendants it! of"anila and the Iirector of Dublic Cor)s, to pa! solidaril! the for thecost of #ravel and sand e$tracted from plainti=Ms land and a#ainst thedefendant Drovincial 'reasurer of RiFal, orderin# him to reimburse tointervenor "a$imo alalan# for the #ravel fees ille#all! collected.Binall!, defendants herein are perpetuall! en&oined from e$tractin# an!sand or #ravel from plainti=Ms propert! which is two?fths northernportion of the disputed area.

ISSUE: Chen a river, leavin# its old bed, chan#es its ori#inal course andopens a new one throu#h private propert!, would the new riverban)s linin#

said course be of public ownership also-

HELD:'he ourt held that all riverban)s are of public ownership includin#those formed when a river leaves its old bed and opens a new coursethrou#h a private estate.

1. Ol& Ci)il Co&! a'& La o% a$!r# o% 166 ,o'$rolli'" laince the chan#e in the course of the River too) place in 197, lon#before the present ivil ode too) e=ect, the 8uestion should bedetermined in accordance with the provisions of the Old ivil ode andthose of the +aw of Caterss 0u#. , 1/664.

. All ri)!ra'?# a# /ar$ o% $(! ri)!r! ar! o% /+li, o'!r#(i/*nder the old ivil +aw and the +aw of Caters, all riverban)s are of publicownership, includin# those formed when a river leaves its old bed andopens a new course throu#h a private estate. 0rticle 9 of the old ivilode is ver! clear. Cithout an! 8ualications, it provides that thatdevoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, andbrid#es, constructed b! the tate, riverban)s, shores, roadsteads, andthat of similar character: are propert! of public ownership. Burther, theriverban) is part of the riverbed. 0rticle 7 of the +aw of Caters whichprovides that the phrase ban)s of a river: is understood those lateral

strips of Fones of its beds which are washed b! the stream onl! durin#such hi#h oods as do not cause inundations. 'he use of the words of itsbed: clearl! indicates the intent of the law to consider the ban)s for allle#al purposes, as part of the riverbed. 'hus, the ban)s of the River arepart of its bed. ince undeniabl! all beds of river are of public ownership,it follows that the ban)s, which form part of them, are also publicownership.


16/26

3. N! !& (!' ri)!r ,(a'"!# ,o+r#! i# o% /+li, o'!r#(i/K5!a'# $o r!,o)!r0rticle 72 of the old ivil ode which provides that whenever anavi#able or oatable river chan#es its course from natural causes andopens a new bed throu#h a private estate, the new bed shall be of public

ownership, but the owner of the estate shall recover it in the event thatthe waters leave it dr! a#ain either naturall! or as the result of an! wor)le#all! authoriFed for this purpose.: Ean)s are not mentioned in theprovision, as the nature of the ban)s follows that of the bed and therunnin# water of the river.

4. Ri)!r i# /+li, o'!r#(i/ !l!m!'$# %ollo #am! 'a$+r! o%o'!r#(i/K La !/li,i$ince a river is but one compound concept, it should have onl! onenature, i.e. it should either be totall! public or completel! private. incerivers are of public ownership, it is implicit that all the three component

elements be of the same nature also. till, the law e$pressl! ma)es allthree elements public. 'hus, riverban)s and beds are public under 0rt.9 and 537, respectivel! of the ode, while the owin# waters aredeclared so under 0rt. , par. 2 of the +aw of Caters of 1/66.

5UNICIPALIT7 OF CAVITE VS ROJAS 30 PHIL 60

FACTS: Ro&as b! virtue of a lease secured from the "unicipalit!, occupied aparcel of land in area that forms part of the public plaFa )nown as oledadwhich belon# to the "unicipalit! of avite.

1. Ro&as constructed thereon a house and pa!s the "unicipalit! a rentalof D./ a 8uarter in advance for their occupation, with the conditionthat Ro&as are obli#ated to vacate the leased land within 63 da!ssubse8uentl! to the "unicipalit!>s demand to that e=ect.

2. Ro&as has been re8uired b! the "unicipalit! to vacate and deliverpossession of the said land, wherein 63 da!s within which it was ou#htto vacate elapsed without Ro&as doin# so.

. 'he Drovincial scal of avite, representin# the "unicipalit! of avite

led a complaint in the B% avite a#ainst Ro&as alle#in# that the leasesecured from the municipalit! of avite is ultra vires and therefore ipsofacto null and void and of no force or e=ect, for the said land is aninte#ral portion of a public plaFa of public domain and use, and themunicipal council of avite has never at an! time had an! power orauthorit! to withdraw it from public use, and to lease it to a privatepart! for his own use ad so the defendants have never had an! ri#ht to


17/26

occup! or retain said land under leasehold, or in an! other wa!, theiroccupation of the parcel of land is ille#al.

5. 'hus the! pra!ed that &ud#ment be rendered declarin# that possessionof the said land lies with the "unicipalit! and orderin# Ro&as to vacatethe land and deliver the possession to the "unicipalit!.

. Iefendant contends that the! had ac8uired the ri#ht of possessionthereof. 0ccordin# to the lease, the! could onl! be ordered to vacatethe land leased when the "unicipalit! mi#ht need it for decoration orother public use, which does not appl! in the present case.

6. 'he ourt rendered &ud#ment a#ainst the "unicipalit!. ;ence thispetition.

ISSUE: CON the ontract of lease is void

HELD: uch a contract of lease is void, because a municipalit! cannote$clude from public use a portion of a plaFa to lease it to a private person.

'he plaFa is propert! of the public dominion and is outside the commerce ofman. 'he lessee must therefore restore the possession of the plaFa to themunicipalit!, which in turn, must return the amounts paid as advancerentals.

1. Pro/!r$ %or /+li, +#! i' /ro)i',!# a'& i' $o'#0rticle 55 of the ivil ode provides that propert! of public use inprovinces and towns comprises the provincial and town roads, thes8uares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, andpublic wor)s of #eneral service supported b! said towns or provinces.:DlaFa oledad bein# a promenade for public use, the municipal council of

avite could not in 1937 withdraw or e$clude from the public use of aportion thereof in order to lease it for the sol benet of Ro&as. %n leasin# aportion of said plaFa or public place for private use, municipalit! e$ceededits authorit! in the e$ercise of its powers b! e$ecutin# a contract over athin# of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered to do so.

. Comm+'al $(i'" ,a''o$ ! #ol& a# $(! ar! o+$#i&! $(! ,omm!r,!o% ma'0rticle 1271 of the ivil ode prescribes that ever!thin# which is notoutside the commerce of man ma! be the ob&ect of a contract. 0s plaFasand streets are outside this commerce, the decision of the panishupreme ourt Beb 12, 1/94 stated that communal thin#s cannot be

sold because the! are b! their nature outside of commerce are those forpublic use, such as the plaFas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains,etc.: 'he lease contract, whereb! the "unicipal of avite leased to Ro&asa portion of the DlaFa oledad, is null and void and of no force of e=ect, inaccordance with the provision of 0rticle 13 of the ivil ode, because itis contrar! to law and the thin# leased cannot be the ob&ect of a contract.'hus, Ro&as must restore and deliver the possession of the land describedin the complaint of the "unicipalit! of avite, which in its turn restore to


18/26

Ro&as all the sums it ma! have received from her in the nature of rentals&ust as soon as she restores the land improperl! leased. Bor the samereasons as have been set forth, conse8uentl! Ro&as is not entitled to claimthat the municipalit! indemnif! her for the dama#es she ma! su=er b!the removal of her house from the said land.

VILLARICO VS CA 309 SCRA 193

FACTS: pouses 'eolo and "a$ima Villarico led an application forconrmation of title over a parcel of land in *bihan, "e!caua!an, Eulacan.

1. 'he applicants alle#ed that the! are the absolute owner of the sub&ectpropert!, havin# bou#ht the same from the spouses, e#undo 'eolo>sfather4 Villarico and "ercedes ardenas, that the! and theirpredecessors?in?interest have been in actual, open, adverse andcontinuous possession thereof for more than 3 !ears, that the! arenot aware of an! mort#a#e or encumbrance thereon nor of an! personhavin# an estate or interest therein, and that the land involved is notwithin the forest Fone or #overnment reservation.


19/26

2. "arcos amar#o, private oppositor also claims to be the real ownerthereof.

. 'he Government, throu#h the Iirector of Borestr!, averred that theland in 8uestion is part o the public domain, within the unclassiedarea in "e!caua!an, Eulacan@ and conse8uentl! not available for

private appropriation.5. 'he trial court dismissed the case. %n its decision it provided that acerticate of title is void when it covers propert! of the public domainclassied as forest or timber and mineral lands. 0n! title thus issued onnon?disposable lots, even in the hands of an innocent purchaser forvalue should be cancelled. 'here bein# no concrete evidencepresented in this case that the propert! in 8uestion was ever ac8uiredb! the applicants or b! the private oppositor or b! their predecessor?in?interest either b! composition of title or b! an! other means for theac8uisition of public lands the propert! in 8uestion must be held to bepart of the public domain.

. *pon appeal, the 0 as decision, holdin# thatsub&ect parcel of land is within the public domain not available forprivate appropriation. ;ence this petition.

ISSUE: Chat is the character or classication of the propert! applied forre#istration J CON the same still forms part of the public domain

HELD:'he upheld the decision of the trial court and 0 as the ad&ud#edarea at sta)e is within the unclassied forest Fone incapable of privateappropriation. 'here has been no showin# that a declassication has beenmade b! the Iirector of Borestr! declarin# the land in 8uestion as disposable

or alienable. 0nd the record indeed discloses that applicants have notintroduced an! evidence which would have led the court to ned or ruleotherwise. %ndeed, forest lands cannot be owned b! private persons.Dossession thereof, no matter how lon#, does not ripen into a re#istrabletitle. 'he adverse possession ma! be the basis of a #rant of title orconrmation of an imperfect title refers onl! to alienable or disposableportions of the public domain.

APE 5ININ VS SOUTHEAST 5INDANAO OLD 5ININ 49 SCRA322

FACTS:

ISSUE:


20/26

HELD:

CEU O7EN VS ERCILLES 8192

FACTS:'he parcel of land sou#ht to be re#istered was onl! a portion of ".Eorces treet, "abolo, ebu it!.

1. 'he cit! ouncil of ebu, throu#h Resolution No. 219, declared theterminal portion of ". Eorces t., "abolo, ebu it!, as an abandonedroad, the same not bein# included in the it! Ievelopment Dlan.


21/26

2. ubse8uentl!, Resolution No. 27, was passed, authoriFin# the 0ctin#it! "a!or to sell the land throu#h a public biddin#.

. 'he lot was awarded to herein petitioner bein# the hi#hest bidder.5. 'he it! of ebu, throu#h the 0ctin# it! "a!or, e$ecuted a deed of

absolute sale to the herein petitioner for a total consideration of

D13,/33. E! virtue of the aforesaid deed of absolute sale, the petitionerled an application with the B% to have its title to the land re#istered.. 'he 0ssistant Drovincial Biscal of ebu led a motion to dismiss the

application on the #round that the propert! sou#ht to be re#isteredbein# a public road intended for public use is considered part of thepublic domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. 'hus, itcannot be sub&ect to re#istration b! an! private individual.

6. 'he trial court issue an order dismissin# the petitioner>s application forre#istration, hence this petition.

ISSUE: Ioes the it! harter of ebu it! R.0. No. /74 under ection 1,

para#raph 5, #ive the it! of ebu the valid ri#ht to declare a road asabandoned-

Ioes the declaration of the road, as abandoned, ma)e it the patrimonialpropert! of the it! of ebu which ma! be the ob&ect of a common contract-

HELD: 'he upreme ourt set aside the order of the lower court, andordered said court t proceed with the hearin# of the petitioner>s applicationfor re#istration of title.

1. Ci$ i# !m/o!r!& $o ,lo#! ,i$ roa& or #$r!!$ a'& i$(&ra $(!

#am! %rom /+li, +#!.ection 1 of the Revised harter of ebu it! +e#islative Dowers4provides that an! provision of law and e$ecutive order to the contrar!notwithstandin# the it! ouncil shall have the followin# le#islativepowers $$$ to close an! cit! road, street, alle!, boulevard, avenue, par)or s8uare. Dropert! thus withdrawn from public servitude ma! be used orconve!ed for an! purpose for which other real propert! belon#in# to theit! ma! be lawfull! used or conve!ed.: %t is undoubtedl! clear that theit! of ebu is empowered to close a cit! road or street.

. Di#,r!$io' o% $(! ,i$ ,o+',il ,a''o$ or&i'aril ! i'$!r%!r!& i$(

$(! ,o+r$.'he cit! council is the authorit! competent to determine whether or not acertain propert! is still necessar! for public use. 'he power to vacate astreet or alle! is discretionar!, and the discretion will not ordinaril! becontrolled or interfered with b! the courts, absent a plain case of abuse orfraud or collusion. Baithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. o thefact that some private interest ma! be served incidentall! will notinvalidate the vacation ordinance )avis vs Cit of Baguio4


22/26

3. S$r!!$ i$(&ra' %rom /+li, +#! !,om!# /a$rimo'ial /ro/!r$KS+#!-+!'$ #al! )ali&Chen a portion of the cit! street was withdrawn from public use, suchwithdrawn portion becomes patrimonial propert! which can be the ob&ect

of an ordinar! contract. 0s e$pressl! provided b! 0rticle 522 of the ivilode, propert! of public dominion, when no lon#er intended for publicuse or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial propert! of thetate.: Burther, the Revised harter of the it! of ebu, in ver! clear andune8uivocal terms, states that propert! thus withdrawn from publicservitude ma! be used or conve!ed.: 'hus, the withdrawal of the propert!in 8uestion from public use and its subse8uent sale to the petitioner isvalid.

CHAVEB VS PULIC LANDS AUTHORIT7 412 SCRA 403


23/26

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

DACANA7 VS ASISTIO 0 SCRA 404


24/26

FACTS: 'his is a petition for mandamus to the non?action of the cit!#overnment of aloocan in accordance with the decision of the R' to evictthe occupants of a ea mar)et located in the streets of aloocan.

1. (anuar! , 1979 J "etropolitan "anila ommission enacted anordinance allowin# the use of streets for the purpose of ea mar)ets

sub&ect to several conditions.2. 19/7 J "a!or "artineF caused the demolition of the ea mar)ets andthe stallowners led a case a#ainst such action.

. R' dismissed the case on the #round that the streets in 8uestions;eros del M96, GoFon and GonFales4 are of public dominion, henceoutside the commerce of man.

5. 0fter the decision came out, there was a chan#e in the cit!administration and current ma!or 0sistio4 did not pursue the action ofthe previous ma!or and left the ea mar)ets in the streets as is.

. Iacana!, bein# a resident of ;eroes del M96 led a petition formandamus to remove the stalls in their street

ISSUE: "a! public streets be leased or licensed to mar)et stallholders b!virtue of a cit! ordinance or resolution of "etropolitan "anila ommission-

HELD:'he upreme ourt established that Iacana! and the #eneral publichave a le#al ri#ht to the relief demanded and that the cit! o


25/26

respondent cit! o


26/26

classification of property and ownership case digest - cham updated

Documents