Cases Atty Sanidad

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    1/34

    TUMALAD V. VICENCIO

    41 SCRA 143

    FACTS: Vicencio and Simeon execued a c!ae" mo#$a$e in

    %a&ou# o% '"aini%%( Tuma"ad o&e# !ei# !ou(e) *!ic! *a( +ein$

    #ened +, Mad#i$a" and com'an,. T!i( *a( execued o$ua#anee a "oan) 'a,a+"e in one ,ea# *i! a 1- 'e# annum

    ine#e(. T!e mo#$a$e *a( ex#a/udicia"", %o#ec"o(ed u'on

    %ai"u#e o 'a, !e "oan. T!e !ou(e *a( (o"d a a 'u+"ic aucion

    and !e '"aini%%( *e#e !e !i$!e( +idde#. A co##e('ondin$

    ce#i%icae o% (a"e *a( i((ued. T!e#ea%e#) !e '"aini%%( %i"ed an

    acion %o# e/ecmen a$ain( !e de%endan() '#a,in$ !a !e

    "ae# &acae !e !ou(e a( !e, *e#e !e '#o'e# o*ne#(.

    ISSUE: 0ON !e (u+/ec mae# o% !e mo#$a$e) a !ou(e o%

    (#on$ mae#ia"() +e !e o+/ec o% c!ae" mo#$a$e

    2ELD: Ce#ain de&iaion( !a&e +een a""o*ed %#om !e $ene#a"

    doc#ine !a +ui"din$( a#e immo&a+"e '#o'e#, (uc! a( *!en

    !#ou$! (i'u"aion) 'a#ie( ma, a$#ee o #ea a( 'e#(ona"

    '#o'e#, !o(e +, !ei# nau#e *ou"d +e #ea" '#o'e#,. T!i( i(

    'a#", +a(ed o !e '#inci'"e o% e(o''e"( *!e#ein !e '#inci'"e

    i( '#edicaed on (aemen( +, !e o*ne# dec"a#in$ !i( !ou(e

    a( c!ae") a conduc !a ma, concei&a+", (o' !im %#om

    (u+(euen", c"aimin$ o!e#*i(e.

    In !e ca(e a +a#) !ou$! !e#e +e no ('eci%ic (aemen

    #e%e##in$ o !e (u+/ec !ou(e a( 'e#(ona" '#o'e#,) ,e +,

    cedin$) (e""in$ o# #an(%e##in$ a '#o'e#, !#ou$! c!ae"

    mo#$a$e cou"d on", !a&e mean !a de%endan con&e,( !e

    !ou(e a( c!ae") o# a "ea() inended o #ea !e (ame a(

    (uc!) (o !a !e, (!ou"d no no* +e a""o*ed o mae an

    incon(i(en (and +, c"aimin$ o!e#*i(e.

    LEUNG YEE V. F.L STRONG MACHINERY CO. AND

    WILLIAMSON

    37 SCRA 644

    FACTS:

    1. First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning machinery

    from the machinery company and this was secured by a chattel mortgage onthe machinery and the building to which it was installed. Upon failure to pay,the chattel mortgage was foreclosed, the building and machinery sold in publicauction and bought by the machinery company.

    2. ays after, the Compania Agricola Filipina e!ecuted a deed of sale o"er theland to which the building stood in fa"or of the machinery company. #his wasdone to cure any defects that may arise in themachinery company$s ownership of the building.

    %. &econd mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattel mortgage was

    e!cecuted, Compania e!ecuted a real estate mortgage o"er the building infa"or of 'eung (ee, distinct and separate from the land. #his is to securepayment for its indebtedness for the construction of the building. Upon failureto pay, the mortgage was foreclosed.

    ). #he machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be declared therightful owner of the building. #he trial court held that it was the machinerycompany which was the rightful owner as it had its title before the building wasregistered prior to the date of registry of 'eung (ee$s certificate.

    HELD:

    #he building in which the machinery was installed was real property, and themere fact that the parties seem to ha"e dealt with it separate and apart from theland on which it stood in no wise changed the character as real property. *tfollows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry of theinstrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and themachinery installed therein, nor the annotation in the registry of the sale of themortgaged property, had any effect whate"er so far as the building isconcerned. +'AA/ CA&0

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    2/34

    Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993

    JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all u!na"#d OPOSA,"$no!, and !#%!##nd 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ANTONIO and RI)ALINA OPOSA,RO*ERTA NICOLE SA+IUA, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y (#! %a!#n& CALIN andRO*ERTA SA+IUA, CARLO, AMAN+A SALU+ and PATRIS-A, all u!na"#dFLORES, "$no! and !#%!##nd 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ENRICO and NI+A FLORES,GIANINA +ITA R. FORTUN, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y (#! %a!#n& SIGRI+ and+OLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all u!na"#d MISA,"$no! and !#%!##nd 'y &(#$! %a!#n& GEORGE and MRA MISA, *ENJAMINALAN . PESIGAN, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y ($ %a!#n& ANTONIO and ALICEPESIGAN, JOIE MARIE ALFARO, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y (#! %a!#n& JOSE andMARIA IOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, "$no!,!#%!##nd 'y (#! %a!#n& FRE+ENIL and JANE CASTRO, JO-ANNA

    +ESAMPARA+O,"$no!, !#%!##nd 'y (#! %a!#n& JOSE and ANGELA +ESAMPRA+O, CARLOJOA/UIN T. NARASA, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y ($ %a!#n& GREGORIO II andCRISTINE C-ARIT NARASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA.ANGELA and MARIE GA*RIELLE, all u!na"#d SAEN), "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y&(#$! %a!#n& RO*ERTO and AURORA SAEN), RISTINE, MAR ELLEN, MA,GOL+A MART-E and +AI+ IAN, all u!na"#d ING, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y&(#$! %a!#n& MARIO and -A+EE ING, +AI+, FRANCISCO and T-ERESEICTORIA, all u!na"#d EN+RIGA, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y &(# $! %a!#n&*ALTA)AR and TERESITA EN+RIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all u!na"#dA*AA, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y &(#$! %a!#n& ANTONIO and MARICA A*AA,MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all u!na"#d CAR+AMA, "$no!,!#%!##nd 'y &(#$! %a!#n& MARIO and LINA CAR+AMA, CLARISSA, ANNMARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LN, all u!na"#d OPOSA, "$no! and !#%!##nd'y &(#$! %a!#n& RICAR+O and MARISSA OPOSA, P-ILIP JOSEP-, STEP-EN

    JO-N and ISAIA- JAMES, all u!na"#d /UIPIT, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y &(#$!%a!#n& JOSE MA and ILMI /UIPIT, *UG-A2 CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA,+ANIEL and FRANCISCO, all u!na"#d *I*AL, "$no!, !#%!##nd 'y &(#$!%a!#n& FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS *I*AL, and T-E P-ILIPPINEECOLOGICAL NET2OR, INC., petitioners,vs.T-E -ONORA*LE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., $n ($ a%a$&y a &(#S#!#&a!y o4 &(# +#%a!&"#n& o4 En5$!on"#n& and Na&u!al R#ou!#, and T-E-ONORA*LE ERI*ERTO U. ROSARIO, P!#$d$n6 Jud6# o4 &(# RTC, Ma7a&$,*!an( , respondents.

    Oposa Law Office for petitioners.

    The Solicitor General for respondents.

    +AI+E, JR., J.:

    In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced andhealthful ecolog !hich the petitioners dra"aticall associate !ith the t!in concepts of#inter$generational responsibilit# and #inter$generational %ustice.# &pecificall, ittouches on the issue of !hether the said petitioners have a cause of action to #preventthe "isappropriation or i"pair"ent# of Philippine rainforests and #arrest the unabatedhe"orrhage of the countr's vital life support sste"s and continued rape of MotherEarth.#

    (he controvers has its genesis in Civil Case No. )*$++ !hich !as filed before Branch -Maati, Metro Manila/ of the Regional (rial Court -R(C/, National Capital 0udicialRegion. (he principal plaintiffs therein, no! the principal petitioners, are all "inorsdul represented and %oined b their respective parents. I"pleaded as an additionalplaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Net!or, Inc. -PENI/, a do"estic, non$stoc andnon$profit corporation organi1ed for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concertedaction geared for the protection of our environ"ent and natural resources. (he originaldefendant !as the 2onorable Fulgencio &. Factoran, 0r., then &ecretar of the3epart"ent of Environ"ent and Natura l Resources -3ENR/. 2is substitution in thispetition b the ne! &ecretar, the 2onorable Angel C. Alcala, !as subse4uentl

    ordered upon proper "otion b the petitioners.1

    (he co"plaint

    !as instituted as ata5paers' class suit3and alleges that the plaintiffs #are all citi1ens of the Republic ofthe Philippines, ta5paers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en%o"ent of thenatural resource treasure that is the countr's virgin tropical forests.# (he sa"e !asfiled for the"selves and others !ho are e4uall concerned about the preservation ofsaid resource but are #so nu"erous that it is i"practicable to bring the" all before theCourt.# (he "inors further asseverate that the #represent their generation as !ell asgenerations et unborn.#:Conse4uentl, it is praed for that %udg"ent be rendered6

    . . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and otherpersons acting in his behalf to 7

    -8/ Cancel all e5isting ti"ber license agree"ents in the countr9

    -:/ Cease and desist fro" receiving, accepting, processing,rene!ing or approving ne! ti"ber license agree"ents.

    and granting the plaintiffs #. . . such other reliefs %ust and e4uitable under thepre"ises.#;

    (he co"plaint starts off !ith the general aver"ents that the Philippine archipelago of+,8** islands has a land area of thirt "illion -;*,***,***/ hectares and is endo!ed!ith rich, lush and verdant rainforests in !hich varied, rare and uni4ue species of floraand fauna "a be found9 these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and che"icalpool !hich is irreplaceable9 the are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures!hich have e5isted, endured and flourished since ti"e i""e"orial9 scientific evidencereveals that in order to "aintain a balanced and healthful ecolog, the countr's landarea should be utili1ed on the basis of a ratio of fift$four per cent -/ for forest

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    3/34

    cover and fort$si5 per cent -=>/ for agricultural, residential, industrial, co""ercialand other uses9 the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a conse4uence ofdeforestation have resulted in a host of environ"ental tragedies, such as -a/ !atershortages resulting fro" dring up of the !ater table, other!ise no!n as the#a4uifer,# as !ell as of rivers, broos and strea"s, -b/ salini1ation of the !ater table asa result of the intrusion therein of salt !ater, incontrovertible e5a"ples of !hich "abe found in the island of Cebu and the Municipalit of Bacoor, Cavite, -c/ "assiveerosion and the conse4uential loss of soil fertilit and agricultural productivit, !ith thevolu"e of soil eroded esti"ated at one billion -8,***,***,***/ cubic "eters per

    annu" 7 appro5i"atel the si1e of the entire island of Catanduanes, -d/ theendangering and e5tinction of the countr's uni4ue, rare and varied flora and fauna,-e/ the disturbance and dislocation of cultural co""unities, including thedisappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, -f/ the siltation of rivers andseabeds and conse4uential destruction of corals and other a4uatic life leading to acritical reduction in "arine resource productivit, -g/ recurrent spells of drought as ispresentl e5perienced b the entire countr, -h/ increasing velocit of tphoon !inds!hich result fro" the absence of !indbreaers, -i/ the floodings of lo!lands andagricultural plains arising fro" the absence of the absorbent "echanis" of forests, -%/the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of "ulti$billion peso da"s constructed andoperated for the purpose of suppling !ater for do"estic uses, irrigation and thegeneration of electric po!er, and -/ the reduction of the earth's capacit to processcarbon dio5ide gases !hich has led to perple5ing and catastrophic cli"atic changessuch as the pheno"enon of global !ar"ing, other!ise no!n as the #greenhouseeffect.#

    Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detri"ental conse4uences of continuedand deforestation are so capable of un4uestionable de"onstration that the sa"e "abe sub"itted as a "atter of %udicial notice. (his not!ithstanding, the e5pressed theirintention to present e5pert !itnesses as !ell as docu"entar, photographic and fil"evidence in the course of the trial.

    As their cause of action, the specificall allege that6

    CAUSE OF ACTION

    +. Plaintiffs replead b reference the foregoing

    allegations.

    ?. (!ent$five -:

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    4/34

    8?. (he continued failure and refusal b defendant to cancel the(@A's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especiallplaintiff "inors !ho "a be left !ith a countr that is desertified-sic/, bare, barren and devoid of the !onderful flora, fauna andindigenous cultures !hich the Philippines had been abundantlblessed !ith.

    8). 3efendant's refusal to cancel the afore"entioned (@A's is

    "anifestl contrar to the public polic enunciated in thePhilippine Environ"ental Polic !hich, in pertinent part, statesthat it is the polic of the &tate 7

    -a/ to create, develop, "aintain and i"prove conditions under!hich "an and nature can thrive in productive and en%oablehar"on !ith each other9

    -b/ to fulfill the social, econo"ic and other re4uire"ents ofpresent and future generations of Filipinos and9

    -c/ to ensure the attain"ent of an environ"ental 4ualit that isconductive to a life of dignit and !ell$being. -P.3. 88

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    5/34

    n the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in theirco"plaint a specific legal right violated b the respondent &ecretar for !hich anrelief is provided b la!. (he see nothing in the co"plaint but vague and nebulousallegations concerning an #environ"ental right# !hich supposedl entitles thepetitioners to the #protection b the state in its capacit asparens patriae.# &uchallegations, according to the", do not reveal a valid cause of action. (he thenreiterate the theor that the 4uestion of !hether logging should be per"itted in thecountr is a political 4uestion !hich should be properl addressed to the e5ecutive orlegislative branches of overn"ent. (he therefore assert that the petitioners'

    resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobb before Congress for thepassage of a bill that !ould ban logging totall.

    As to the "atter of the cancellation of the (@As, respondents sub"it that the sa"ecannot be done b the &tate !ithout due process of la!. nce issued, a (@A re"ainseffective for a certain period of ti"e 7 usuall for t!ent$five -:

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    6/34

    &ec. 8. (he &tate shall protect and advance the right of thepeople to a balanced and healthful ecolog in accord !ith therhth" and har"on of nature.

    (his right unites !ith the right to health !hich is provided for in thepreceding section of the sa"e article6

    &ec. 8

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    7/34

    i"plications relative to the utili1ation, develop"ent andconservation of our natural resources.

    (he above provision stresses #the necessit of "aintaining a sound ecologicalbalance and protecting and enhancing the 4ualit of the environ"ent.# &ection : of thesa"e (itle, on the other hand, specificall speas of the "andate of the 3ENR9ho!ever, it "aes particular reference to the fact of the agenc's being sub%ect to la!and higher authorit. &aid section provides6

    &ec. :. #andate. 7 -8/ (he 3epart"ent of Environ"ent andNatural Resources shall be pri"aril responsible for thei"ple"entation of the foregoing polic.

    -:/ It shall, sub%ect to la! and higher authorit, be in charge ofcarring out the &tate's constitutional "andate to control andsupervise the e5ploration, develop"ent, utili1ation, andconservation of the countr's natural resources.

    Both E.. N. 8): and the Ad"inistrative Code of 8)?+ have set the ob%ectives !hich!ill serve as the bases for polic for"ulation, and have defined the po!ers andfunctions of the 3ENR.

    It "a, ho!ever, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 8)?+ Constitution,specific statutes alread paid special attention to the #environ"ental right# of thepresent and future generations. n 0une 8)++, P.3. No. 88

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    8/34

    conferred as la!. (he second part of the authorit represents abroadening of %udicial po!er to enable the courts of %ustice torevie! !hat !as before forbidden territor, to !it, the discretion ofthe political depart"ents of the govern"ent.

    As !orded, the ne! provision vests in the %udiciar, andparticularl the &upre"e Court, the po!er to rule upon even the!isdo" of the decisions of the e5ecutive and the legislature and

    to declare their acts invalid for lac or e5cess of %urisdictionbecause tainted !ith grave abuse of discretion. (he catch, ofcourse, is the "eaning of #grave abuse of discretion,# !hich is aver elastic phrase that can e5pand or contract according to thedisposition of the %udiciar.

    In a'a $s. Sin(son, 3Mr. 0ustice Cru1, no! speaing for this Court, noted6

    In the case no! before us, the %urisdictional ob%ection beco"eseven less tenable and decisive. (he reason is that, even if !e!ere to assu"e that the issue presented before us !as political innature, !e !ould still not be precluded fro" revolving it under thee5panded %urisdiction conferred upon us that no! covers, inproper cases, even the political 4uestion. Article DII, &ection 8, of

    the Constitution clearl provides6 . . .

    (he last ground invoed b the trial court in dis"issing the co"plaint is the non$i"pair"ent of contracts clause found in the Constitution. (he court a )uo declaredthat6

    (he Court is lie!ise of the i"pression that it cannot,no "atter ho! !e stretch our %urisdiction, grant thereliefs praed for b the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel alle5isting ti"ber license agree"ents in the countrand to cease and desist fro" receiving, accepting,processing, rene!ing or approving ne! ti"berlicense agree"ents. For to do other!ise !oulda"ount to #i"pair"ent of contracts# abhored -sic/ bthe funda"ental la!. :

    e are not persuaded at all9 on the contrar, e are a"a1ed, if not shoced, b sucha s!eeping pronounce"ent. In the first place, the respondent &ecretar did not, forobvious reasons, even invoe in his "otion to dis"iss the non$i"pair"ent clause. Ifhe had done so, he !ould have acted !ith ut"ost infidelit to the overn"ent bproviding undue and un!arranted benefits and advantages to the ti"ber licenseholders because he !ould have forever bound the overn"ent to strictl respect thesaid licenses according to their ter"s and conditions regardless of changes in policand the de"ands of public interest and !elfare. 2e !as a!are that as correctlpointed out b the petitioners, into ever ti"ber license "ust be read &ection :* of theForestr Refor" Code -P.3. No. +*

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    9/34

    In the second place, even if it is to be assu"ed that the sa"e are contracts, theinstant case does not involve a la! or even an e5ecutive issuance declaring thecancellation or "odification of e5isting ti"ber licenses. 2ence, the non$i"pair"entclause cannot as et be invoed. Nevertheless, granting further that a la! has actuallbeen passed "andating cancellations or "odifications, the sa"e cannot still bestig"ati1ed as a violation of the non$i"pair"ent clause. (his is because b its vernature and purpose, such as la! could have onl been passed in the e5ercise of thepolice po!er of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to abalanced and healthful ecolog, pro"oting their health and enhancing the general

    !elfare. InAbe $s. Foster /heelerCorp. 8this Court stated6

    (he freedo" of contract, under our sste" of govern"ent, is not"eant to be absolute. (he sa"e is understood to be sub%ect toreasonable legislative regulation ai"ed at the pro"otion of publichealth, "oral, safet and !elfare. In other !ords, theconstitutional guarant of non$i"pair"ent of obligations ofcontract is li"ited b the e5ercise of the police po!er of the &tate,in the interest of public health, safet, "oral and general !elfare.

    (he reason for this is e"phaticall set forth in Nebia $s. New *or0, 94uoted in!hilippine A%erican Life Insurance Co. $s. Auditor General,30to !it6

    nder our for" of govern"ent the use of propert and the "aingof contracts are nor"all "atters of private and not of publicconcern. (he general rule is that both shall be free ofgovern"ental interference. But neither propert rights nor contractrights are absolute9 for govern"ent cannot e5ist if the citi1en "aat !ill use his propert to the detri"ent of his fello!s, or e5ercisehis freedo" of contract to !or the" har". E4uall funda"ental!ith the private right is that of the public to regulate it in theco""on interest.

    In short, the non$i"pair"ent clause "ust ield to the police po!er of the state. 31

    Finall, it is difficult to i"agine, as the trial court did, ho! the non$i"pair"ent clausecould appl !ith respect to the praer to en%oin the respondent &ecretar fro"receiving, accepting, processing, rene!ing or approving ne! ti"ber licenses for, savein cases of renewal, no contract !ould have as of et e5isted in the other instances.Moreover, !ith respect to rene!al, the holder is not entitled to it as a "atter of right.

    2EREFRE, being i"pressed !ith "erit, the instant Petition is hereb RAN(E3,and the challenged rder of respondent 0udge of 8? 0ul 8))8 dis"issing Civil CaseNo. )*$+++ is hereb set aside. (he petitioners "a therefore a"end their co"plaintto i"plead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 4uestioned ti"ber licenseagree"ents.

    No pronounce"ent as to costs.

    & R3ERE3.

    Cru'+ !adilla+ 1idin+ Gri2o&A)uino+ 3e(alado+ 3o%ero+ Nocon+ 1ellosillo+ #elo and4uiason+ ,,.+ concur.

    Nar$asa+ C.,.+ !uno and 5itu(+ ,,.+ too0 no part.

    STANDARD OIL CO. OF NE0 5OR6 V. 7ARAMILLO44 SCRA 839

    FACTS:e la osa was the lessee of a piece of land, on which a house she ownswas built. &he e!ecuted a chattel mortgage in fa"or of the petitionerpurporting the leasehold interest in the land and the ownership of house.

    After such, the petitioner mo"ed for its registration with the egisterof eeds, for the purpose of ha"ing the same recorded in the boo of recordof chattel mortgages. After e!amination, the respondent was in the

    opinion that the properties were not sub3ects of a chattel mortgage.

    2ELD:4osition taen by the respondent is untenable. 5is duties are mainlyministerial only in nature and no law confers upon him any 3udicialor 6uasi-3udicial power. 7enerally, he should accept the 6ualificationof the property adopted by the person who presents theinstrument for registration and should place the instrument on record,upon payment of the proper fee, lea"ing the effects of registration to bedetermined by the court if such 6uestion should arise for legaldetermination.

    #he Ci"il Code supplies no absolute criterion in discriminating between realproperty and personal property for purposes of the application of theChattel ortgage 'aw. #he articles state general doctrines, nonetheless, itmust not be forgotten that under gi"en conditions, property may ha"echaracter different from that imputed to it in the said articles. *t isundeniable that the parties in a contract may by agreement treat aspersonal property that which by nature would be real property.

    STANDARD OIL CO. OF NE0 5OR6 V. 7ARAMILLO

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    10/34

    44 SCRA 839

    FACTS:e la osa was the lessee of a piece of land, on which a house sheowns was built. &he e!ecuted a chattel mortgage in fa"or ofthe petitionerpurporting the leasehold interest in the land and the

    ownership of house.After such, the petitioner mo"ed for its registration with theegister of eeds, for the purpose of ha"ing the same recorded inthe boo of record of chattel mortgages. After e!amination, therespondent was in the opinion that the properties were not sub3ectsof a chattel mortgage.

    2ELD:4osition taen by the respondent is untenable. 5is duties aremainly ministerial only in nature and no law confers upon him

    any 3udicial or 6uasi-3udicial power. 7enerally, he shouldaccept the 6ualification of the property adopted by theperson who presents the instrument forregistration and should place the instrument on record, upon

    payment of the proper fee, lea"ing the effects of registration to bedetermined by the court if such 6uestion should arise for legaldetermination.#he Ci"il Code supplies no absolute criterion in discriminating

    between real property and personal property for purposes of theapplication of the Chattel ortgage 'aw. #he articles state generaldoctrines, nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that under gi"en

    conditions, property may ha"echaracter different from that imputed to it in the said articles.*t is undeniable that the parties in a contract may byagreement treat as personal property that which by nature would bereal property.

    DAVAO SA0 MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO81 SCRA 9;

    FACTS:4etitioner is the holder of a lumber concession. *t operated a sawmill on a land, which itdoesn$t own. 4art of the lease agreement was a stipulation in which after the lease agreement,all buildings and impro"ements would pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would notinclude machineries and accessories. *n connection to this, petitioner had in its sawmillmachineries and other e6uipment wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement.

    2ELD:#he machinery must be classified as personal property.

    #he lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging to another, with theunderstanding that the machinery was not included in the impro"ements which would pass tothe lessor on the e!piration of the lease agreement. #he lessee also treated the machineryas personalproperty in e!ecuting chattel mortgages in fa"or of third persons. #he machinery wasle"ied upon by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ of e!ecution obtained without anyprotest being registered.

    Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobili8ed when placed in a plant by the owner of theproperty or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any person ha"ingtemporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.

    BENGUET CORP. vs. CBAAGR No. !6!4. "#$%#&' ()* ))3.

    (+ SCRA (7

    A ,#- s #$ --ov#/01 2&o21&' /' $#%&1 #$, /'

    $o&2oo$.H1$1* s s%/51 o &1#0' #.Iss%1: So%0, #0$8s

    ,#-s /1 0#ss91, #s &1#0 2&o21&'

    FACTS

    9 07U0# C;4. owned a mine and a dam.9 #he 4ro"incial Assessor of

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    11/34

    ISSUEW11& o& $o 1 ,#- ;#s #$ #ss1ss#/01 -2&ov1-1$

    o9 1 -$1 #$, %s s%/51 o &1#0' #.

    RULING

    9YESthe dam was an assessable impro"ement of the mine andsub3ect to realty ta!.9 #he mine can operate without the dam because the primaryfunction of the dam is merely to recei"e and retain the wastes andwater coming from the mine.9 #here was no allegation that it was the only source of water asto mae the dam an integral part of the mine.9 #he eal 4roperty Code did not define what is realproperty that the definition in Art. )1? of the Ci"il Code shallapply.9 #he dam was an immo"able under pars. 1 and % of Art. )1?hence it was ta!able realty.9 Under par. 1, the dam was an immo"able property since it was

    a construction adhered to the soil.9 Under par. %, it was an immo"able since it was fi!ed in amanner that it cannot be separated from the land without breaingor deteriorating.

    Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor

    M$ndanao *u Co. 5. C$&y A#o! and T!#au!#!G.R. No. L=1hether the (a5 Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph < of Article =8Jes. Movable e4uip"ents, to be i""obili1ed in conte"plation of Article =8< ofthe Civil Code, "ust be the essential and principal ele"ents of an industr or !ors!hich are carried on in a building or on a piece of land. (hus, !here the business isone of transportation, !hich is carried on !ithout a repair or service shop, and itsrolling e4uip"ent is repaired or serviced in a shop belonging to another, the tools ande4uip"ents in its repair shop !hich appear "ovable are "erel incidentals and "anot be considered i""ovables, and, hence, not sub%ect to assess"ent as real estatefor purposes of the real estate ta5.

    &i"ilarl, the tool and e4uip"ent in 4uestion in this instant case are, b their nature,not essential and principal ele"ents of petitioners business of transportingpassengers and cargoes b "otor trucs. (he are "erel incidentals ac4uired as

    "ovables and used onl for e5pedienc to facilitate andor i"prove its service. Even!ithout such tools and e4uip"ent, its business "a be carried on, as petitioner hascarried on !ithout such e4uip"ents, before the !ar. (he transportation businesscould be carried on !ithout the repair or service shop if its rolling e4uip"ent isrepaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another.

    Article =8< of the Civil Code re4uires that the industr or !ors be carried on in abuilding or on a piece of land. But in the case at bar the e4uip"ents in 4uestion aredestined onl to repair or service the transportation business, !hich is not carried onin a building or per"anentl on a piece of land, as de"anded b the la!. &aide4uip"ent "a not, therefore, be dee"ed as real propert.

    *i! a"" i( +ui"din$( )im'#o&emen() (u$a#?cane mi"") (ee" #ai"*a, e"e'!one "ine) a''a#au() uen(i"( and

    *!ae&e# %o#m( 'a# o# i( nece((a#, com'"emen o% (aid(u$a#?cane mi"") (ee" #ai"*a,) e"e'!one "ine) no* exi(in$ o#!a ma, in !e %uu#e exi( i( (aid "o(. S!o#", a%e# (aid

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    12/34

    mo#$a$e !ad +een con(iued) !e Ma+a"aca Su$a# Co.)Inc.) decided o inc#ea(e !e ca'aci, o% i( (u$a#cen#a" +,+u,in$ addiiona" mac!ine#, and eui'men) (o !a in(ead o%mi""in$ 1@9 on( dai",) i cou"d '#oduce -@9. T!e e(imaedco( o% (aid addiiona" mac!ine#, and eui'men *a(a''#oximae", =199)999. In o#de# o ca##, ou !i( '"an) A.

    #een) '#e(iden o% (aid co#'o#aion) '#o'o(ed o !e '"aini%%)

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    13/34

    court belo! dated 0anuar :?, 8)

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    14/34

    dictated in court cannot be considered as notice of the real %udg"ent. No %udg"entcan be notified to the parties unless it has previousl been rendered. (he notice,therefore, that a part has of a %udg"ent that !as being dictated is of no effectbecause at the ti"e no %udg"ent has as et been signed b the %udge and filed !iththe cler.

    Besides, the Rules e5pressl re4uire that final orders or %udg"ents be servedpersonall or b registered "ail. &ection + of Rule :+ provides as follo!s6

    &EC. +. Ser$ice of final orders or 7ud(%ents. 7 Final orders or %udg"entsshall be served either personall or b registered "ail.

    In accordance !ith this provision, a part is not considered as having been served!ith the %udg"ent "erel because he heard the %udg"ent dictating the said %udg"entin open court9 it is necessar that he be served !ith a cop of the signed %udg"entthat has been filed !ith the cler in order that he "a legall be considered as havingbeen served !ith the %udg"ent.

    For all the foregoing, the fact that the petitioner herein heard the trial %udge dictatingthe %udg"ent in open court, is not sufficient to constitute the service of %udge"ent asre4uired b the above$4uoted section + of Rule : the signed %udg"ent not havingbeen served upon the petitioner, said %udg"ent could not be effective upon hi"

    -petitioner/ !ho had not received it. It follo!s as a conse4uence that the issuance ofthe !rit of e5ecution null and void, having been issued before petitioner her !asserved, personall or b registered "ail, a cop of the decision.

    (he second 4uestion raised in this appeal, !hich has been passed upon b the Courtof Appeals, concerns the validit of the proceedings of the sheriff in selling the sa!"ill"achineries and e4uip"ents at public auction !ith a notice of the sale having beenpreviousl published.

    (he record sho!s that after petitioner herein Pastor 3. Ago had purchased thesa!"ill "achineries and e4uip"ents he assigned the sa"e to the olden Pacific&a!"ill, Inc. in pa"ent of his subscription to the shares of stoc of said corporation.(hereafter the sa!"ill "achiner and e4uip"ents !ere installed in a building andper"anentl attached to the ground. B reason of such install"ent in a building, the

    said sa!"ill "achineries and e4uip"ent beca"e real estate properties in accordance!ith the provision of Art. =8< -

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    15/34

    FIR&( 3IDI&IN

    G.R. No. L=0 +##"'#! 1, 19

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    16/34

    -&3/ &AN3RA O.&2AJ &AN3RA O.&2AJ

    3efendant -pp. :+$:?, RA/.

    3ue to the failure of private respondent to pa the rentals stipulated therein, Charles2oll"ann ased for and secured a !rit of e5ecution fro" the 0ustice of the Peace,

    dated 0ul 8*, 8)

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    17/34

    second hand because petitioner had used the", the !ere #notpainted ne!# !hich !as natural, #the refrigerator !as s"all, ruston the handle#, but he added that both range and refrigerator!ere functioning -(&N, 8;, Escalona/9 and respondent's crosse5a"ination onl sought to establish that petitioner no longer hadreceipts for the purchases, but this !as natural, and !ith suchstatus and proofs, !hen lo!er court appraised the properties at of their ac4uisition value, fi5ing the su" of P=,:**.**, !hich!as indeed ver fair, "ore than fair because that !ould "ean

    practicall a depreciation of :*> a ear, perhaps it cannot be saidthat there is roo" for reversal of lo!er court's findings, under theprinciple that appreciation of facts of lo!er court should notordinaril be disturbed because it is the lo!er court that had thebest chance to gauge the credibilit of the !itnesses, and here, iteven i"posed a high degree of depreciation "ost probablac4uainted as it is b the co""on spectacle that sheriffs' salesdo not bring good prices9 no! the foregoing discussion on thee5ceedingl lo! prices added to the congenital defects of !rongplace and lac of proof of the re4uired notices "ust have to %ustifa ratification of lo!er court's action of annuling the sale9 and suchbeing the case, the effect of it "ust be to return the parties to thestatus )uo antebut as this is no longer possible, therefore,petitioner should be inde"nified for the value of the propertiesthat had been taen fro" her, and lo!er court having on the basis

    of the proofs, correctl fi5ed their value at P=,:** this value has tobe returned to her9 and as the properties had been sold all torespondent 2oll"ann, it beco"es his obligation in vie! of theannul"ent of the sale, to return said value unto petitioner9 and ashis %udg"ent credit against petitioner !as for P,;**.**, but healso reali1ed in the garnish"ent the su" of P

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    18/34

    assu"e that his "otion !ould be granted, and should chec !ith the Court as to theoutco"e of his "otion, so that if the sa"e is denied or is partiall granted, as in thiscase, he can still perfect his appeal !ithin the re"aining period. E reiterated this!arning in Rees versus &ta. Maria -@$:)

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    19/34

    1E?2, the oard of irectors of A'C; in a special me et ingca l led for the purpose , passed a resolut ion agree ing tore sci nd the al leg ed sal es of e6uipment, spare parts and supplies byC;0'' and AC; to it. ;n Danuar y 2%, 1E? %, the A/, inits own behalf and that of A#'A#*C, demanded that saidagreements be cancelled but C;0'' and AC; refused to do

    so. As a result, on February 12,1E?%, A#'A#*C and the A/,commenced foreclosure proceedings in the Court of First *nstanceof Camarines orte against A'C; and AC;.

    Iss%1:

    &hould the deed also be registered in the Chattel ortgage egistryin so far as it co"ered the after-ac6uired machinery, fi!tures, tools ande6uipmentsI

    5eld: o more, since under Articles )1? the new Ci"il Code, theproperties in 6uestion being machinery,receptacles, instruments orreplacements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry

    or wors which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land,and shall tend directly to meet theneeds of the said industry or wors,are classified as immo"able properties, therefore not co"ered bytheChattel ortgage 'aw.

    G.R. No. L=:1 +##"'#! , 198:

    JOSE *URGOS, SR., JOSE *URGOS, JR., *AANI SORIANO and J. *URGOSME+IA SERICES, INC., petitioners,

    vs.T-E C-IEF OF STAFF, ARME+ FORCES OF T-E P-ILIPPINES, T-E C-IEF,P-ILIPPINE CONSTA*ULAR, T-E C-IEF LEGAL OFFICER, PRESI+ENTIALSECURIT COMMAN+, T-E JU+GE A+OCATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.

    Loren'o #. Ta2ada+ /i(berto E. Ta2ada+ #artiniano 5i$o+ Au(usto Sanche'+ ,o0er!. Arro"o+ ,e7o%ar 1ina" and 3ene Sa(uisa( for petitioners.

    The Solicitor General for respondents.

    ESCOLIN, J.:

    Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and "anda"us !ith preli"inar"andator and prohibitor in%unction is the validit of t!o K:L search !arrants issuedon 3ece"ber +, 8)?: b respondent 0udge Ernani Cru1$Pano, E5ecutive 0udge of thethen Court of First Instance of Ri1al Kue1on CitL, under !hich the pre"ises no!nas No. 8), Road ;, Pro%ect , ue1on Cit, and +?= nits C Q 3, RM& Building,ue1on Avenue, ue1on Cit, business addresses of the #Metropolitan Mail# and #eForu"# ne!spapers, respectivel, !ere searched, and office and printing "achines,e4uip"ent, paraphernalia, "otor vehicles and other articles used in the printing,publication and distribution of the said ne!spapers, as !ell as nu"erous papers,

    docu"ents, boos and other !ritten literature alleged to be in the possession andcontrol of petitioner 0ose Burgos, 0r. publisher$editor of the #e Foru"# ne!spaper,!ere sei1ed.

    Petitioners further pra that a !rit of preli"inar "andator and prohibitor in%unctionbe issued for the return of the sei1ed articles, and that respondents, #particularl theChief @egal fficer, Presidential &ecurit Co""and, the 0udge Advocate eneral,

    AFP, the Cit Fiscal of ue1on Cit, their representatives, assistants, subalterns,subordinates, substitute or successors# be en%oined fro" using the articles thus sei1edas evidence against petitioner 0ose Burgos, 0r. and the other accused in Cri"inalCase No. $ *::+?: of the Regional (rial Court of ue1on Cit, entitled !eople $.,ose 1ur(os+ ,r. etal. 1

    In our Resolution dated 0une :8, 8)?;, respondents !ere re4uired to ans!er the

    petition. (he plea for preli"inar "andator and prohibitor in%unction !as set forhearing on 0une :?, 8)?;, later reset to 0ul +, 8)?;, on "otion of the &olicitoreneral in behalf of respondents.

    At the hearing on 0ul +, 8)?;, the &olicitor eneral, !hile opposing petitioners'praer for a !rit of preli"inar "andator in%unction, "anifested that respondents #!illnot use the afore"entioned articles as evidence in the afore"entioned case until finalresolution of the legalit of the sei1ure of the afore"entioned articles. ...# ith this"anifestation, the praer for preli"inar prohibitor in%unction !as rendered "oot andacade"ic.

    Respondents !ould have this Court dis"iss the petition on the ground that petitionershad co"e to this Court !ithout having previousl sought the 4uashal of the search!arrants before respondent %udge. Indeed, petitioners, before i"pugning the validit of

    the !arrants before this Court, should have filed a "otion to 4uash said !arrants inthe court that issued the". 3But this procedural fla! not!ithstanding, !e taecogni1ance of this petition in vie! of the seriousness and urgenc of the constitutionalissues raised not to "ention the public interest generated b the search of the #eForu"# offices, !hich !as televised in Channel + and !idel publici1ed in all"etropolitan dailies. (he e5istence of this special circu"stance %ustifies this Court toe5ercise its inherent po!er to suspend its rules. In the !ords of the revered Mr.0ustice Abad &antos in the case of C. 5da. de Ordo$e'a $. 3a"%undo , :#it is al!asin the po!er of the court K&upre"e CourtL to suspend its rules or to e5cept a particularcase fro" its operation, !henever the purposes of %ustice re4uire it...#.

    Respondents lie!ise urge dis"issal of the petition on ground of laches. Considerablestress is laid on the fact that !hile said search !arrants !ere issued on 3ece"ber +,8)?:, the instant petition i"pugning the sa"e !as filed onl on 0une 8, 8)?; or afterthe lapse of a period of "ore than si5 KL "onths.

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    20/34

    @aches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and une5plained length of ti"e todo that !hich, b e5ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Itis negligence or o"ission to assert a right !ithin a reasonable ti"e, !arranting apresu"ption that the part entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined toassert it. ;

    Petitioners, in their Consolidated Repl, e5plained the reason for the dela in the filingof the petition thus6

    Respondents should not find fault, as the no! do Kp. 8, Ans!er,p. ;, ManifestationL !ith the fact that the Petition !as filed on0une 8, 8)?;, "ore than half a ear after the petitioners'pre"ises had been raided.

    (he cli"ate of the ti"es has given petitioners no other choice. Ifthe had !aited this long to bring their case to court, it !asbecause the tried at first to e5haust other re"edies. (he eventsof the past eleven fill ears had taught the" that everthing in thiscountr, fro" release of public funds to release of detainedpersons fro" custod, has beco"e a "atter of e5ecutivebenevolence or largesse

    2ence, as soon as the could, petitioners, upon suggestion ofpersons close to the President, lie Fiscal Fla"iniano, sent aletter to President Marcos, through counsel Antonio Coronetasing the return at least of the printing e4uip"ent and vehicles.

    And after such a letter had been sent, through Col. Balbino D.3iego, Chief Intelligence and @egal fficer of the Presidential&ecurit Co""and, the !ere further encouraged to hope thatthe latter !ould ield the desired results.

    After !aiting in vain for five K

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    21/34

    &ec. :. Personal Propert to be sei1ed. 7 A search !arrant "abe issued for the search and sei1ure of the follo!ing personalpropert6

    KaL Propert sub%ect of the offense9

    KbL Propert stolen or e"be11led and otherproceeds or fruits of the offense9 and

    KcL Propert used or intended to be used asthe "eans of co""itting an offense.

    (he above rule does not re4uire that the propert to be sei1ed should be o!ned bthe person against !ho" the search !arrant is directed. It "a or "a not be o!nedb hi". In fact, under subsection KbL of the above$4uoted &ection :, one of theproperties that "a be sei1ed is stolen propert. Necessaril, stolen propert "ust beo!ned b one other than the person in !hose possession it "a be at the ti"e of thesearch and sei1ure. !nership, therefore, is of no conse4uence, and it is sufficientthat the person against !ho" the !arrant is directed has control or possession of thepropert sought to be sei1ed, as petitioner 0ose Burgos, 0r. !as alleged to have inrelation to the articles and propert sei1ed under the !arrants.

    =. Neither is there "erit in petitioners' assertion that real properties !ere sei1ed underthe disputed !arrants. nder Article =8

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    22/34

    and the lie used andor connected in the printing of the #EFRM# ne!spaper and an and all docu"ents co""unication,letters and facsi"ile of prints related to the #E FRM#ne!spaper.

    :L &ubversive docu"ents, pa"phlets, leaflets, boos, and otherpublication to pro"ote the ob%ectives and piurposes of thesubversive organi1ation no!n as Move"ent for Free Philippines,@ight$a$Fire Move"ent and April Move"ent9 and,

    ;L Motor vehicles used in the distributioncirculation of the #EFRM# and other subversive "aterials and propaganda, "oreparticularl,

    8L (oota$Corolla, colored ello! !ith PlateNo. NOA ?):9

    :L 3A(&N pic$up colored !hite !ith PlateNo. NOD ))

    ;L A deliver truc !ith Plate No. NB&

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    23/34

    IN DIE F (2E FREIN, &earch arrants Nos. :*$?:KaL and :*$?:KbL issuedb respondent %udge on 3ece"ber +, 8)?: are hereb declared null and void and areaccordingl set aside. (he praer for a !rit of "andator in%unction for the return ofthe sei1ed articles is hereb granted and all articles sei1ed thereunder are herebordered released to petitioners. No costs.

    & R3ERE3.

    Fernando+ C.,.+ Teehan0ee+ #a0asiar+ Concepcion+ ,r.+ #elencio&6errera+ !lana+3elo$a+ Gutierre'+ ,r.+ e la Fuente and Cue$as+ ,,.+ concur.

    A)uino+ ,.+ too0 no part.

    SERS =RODUCTS AND OUIOLA5 V. =CI LEASINAND FINANCE

    33 SCRA 4;;

    FACTS:4C* filed a case for collection of a sum of money as well as awrit of reple"in for the sei8ure of machineries, sub3ect of achattel mortgage e!ecuted by petitioner in fa"or of 4C*.

    achineries of petitioner were sei8ed and petitioner filed amotion for special protecti"e order. *t asserts that the machineries werereal property and could not be sub3ect of a chattel mortgage.

    2ELD:#he machineries in 6uestion ha"e become immobili8ed bydestination because they are essential and principal elements in the

    industry, and thus ha"e become immo"able in nature.

    onetheless, they are still proper sub3ects for a chattel mortgage.

    Contracting parties may "alidly stipulate that a real property beconsidered as personal. After agreement, they are conse6uentlyestopped from claiming otherwise.

    CALTEB =2ILS. V. CENTRAL

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    24/34

    thic bitu"inous asphalt stratu" as the top laer. (he botto" of each tan is incontact !ith the asphalt laer,

    (he steel sides of the tan are directl supported underneath b a circular !all "adeof concrete, eighteen inches thic, to prevent the tan fro" sliding. 2ence, accordingto Meralco, the tan is not attached to its foundation. It is not anchored or !elded tothe concrete circular !all. Its botto" plate is not attached to an part of the foundationb bolts, scre!s or si"ilar devices. (he tan "erel sits on its foundation. Each e"pttan can be floated b flooding its die$inclosed location !ith !ater four feet deep. -pp.:)$;*, Rollo./

    n the other hand, according to the hearing co""issioners of the Central Board ofAssess"ent Appeals, the area !here the t!o tans are located is enclosed !ithearthen dies !ith electric steel poles on top thereof and is divided into t!o parts asthe site of each tan. (he foundation of the tans is elevated fro" the re"aining area.n both sides of the earthen dies are t!o separate concrete steps leading to thefoundation of each tan.

    (an No. : is supported b a concrete foundation !ith an asphalt lining about an inchthic. Pipelines !ere installed on the sides of each tan and are connected to thepipelines of the Manila Enterprises Industrial Corporation !hose buildings andpu"ping station are near (an No. :.

    (he Board concludes that !hile the tans rest or sit on their foundation, the foundationitself and the !alls, dies and steps, !hich are integral parts of the tans, are affi5edto the land !hile the pipelines are attached to the tans. -pp. *$8, Rollo./ In 8)+*,the "unicipal treasurer of Bauan, Batangas, on the basis of an assess"ent "ade bthe provincial assessor, re4uired Meralco to pa realt ta5es on the t!o tans. For thefive$ear period fro" 8)+* to 8)+=, the ta5 and penalties a"ounted to P=;8,+*;.)-p. :+, Rollo/. (he Board re4uired Meralco to pa the ta5 and penalties as a conditionfor entertaining its appeal fro" the adverse decision of the Batangas board ofassess"ent appeals.

    (he Central Board of Assess"ent Appeals -co"posed of Acting &ecretar of FinancePedro M. Al"an1or as chair"an and &ecretar of 0ustice Dicente Abad &antos and&ecretar of @ocal overn"ent and Co""unit 3evelop"ent 0ose Roo as"e"bers/ in its decision dated Nove"ber

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    25/34

    franchise Meralco's poles are e5e"pt fro" ta5ation. Moreover, the steel to!ers !erenot attached to an land or building. (he !ere re"ovable fro" their "etal fra"es.

    Nor is there an parallelis" bet!een this case and Mindanao Bus Co. vs. CitAssessor, 88 Phil.

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    26/34

    (he cit assessor of Pasa Cit characteri1ed the said ite"s of gas station e4uip"entand "achiner as ta5able realt. (he realt ta5 on said e4uip"ent a"ounts toP=,

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    27/34

    I"prove"ents on land are co""onl ta5ed as realt even though for so"e purposesthe "ight be considered personalt -?= C.0.&. 8?8$:, Notes =* and =8/. #It is afa"iliar pheno"enon to see things classed as real propert for purposes of ta5ation!hich on general principle "ight be considered personal propert# -&tandard il Co.of Ne! Jor vs. 0ara"illo, == Phil. ;*, ;;/.

    (his case is also easil distinguishable fro" Board of Assess"ent Appeals vs. ManilaElectric Co., 88) Phil. ;:?, !here Meralco's steel to!ers !ere considered poles !ithinthe "eaning of paragraph ) of its franchise !hich e5e"pts its poles fro" ta5ation. (hesteel to!ers !ere considered personalt because the !ere attached to s4uare "etalfra"es b "eans of bolts and could be "oved fro" place to place !hen unscre!edand dis"antled.

    Nor are Calte5's gas station e4uip"ent and "achiner the sa"e as tools ande4uip"ent in the repair shop of a bus co"pan !hich !ere held to be personalpropert not sub%ect to realt ta5 -Mindanao Bus Co. vs. Cit Assessor, 88 Phil.

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    28/34

    property, on account of their "alue and importance in worldcommerceJ and for this, the pro"isions of the Code of Commerce arenearly identical with Article 1)K% of the CC.

    SI

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    29/34

    Mean!hile, before the pro"ulgation of said decision, or on Ma 8*, 8)+:, then Acting&olicitor eneral Conrado (. @i"caoco filed for the petitioner a co"plaint against

    Atien1a, the Register of 3eeds of ue1on, and the Rural Ban of &ariaa, !hich !aslater dropped as defendant and, in an a"ended co"plaint, substituted b the3evelop"ent Ban of the Philippines as actual "ortgagee of the sub%ect parcel ofland. 3oceted as Civil Case No. +

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    30/34

    Atien1a avers that he furnished Att. Francisco (orres, a la!er in the Bureau of@ands and designated special attorne for the ffice of the &olicitor eneral, !ith t!ocopies of the appellant's brief, thereb i"pling that it !as not his fault that petitionerfailed to file its appellee's brief.

    &uch an assertion betras a lac of co"prehension of the role of the &olicitor eneralas govern"ent counsel or of the & as the govern"ent's #la! office.#

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    31/34

    Faustino Ignacio is appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Ri1al,dis"issing his application for the registration of a parcel of land.

    n 0anuar :

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    32/34

    Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to hi" b the la! of accretion, having beenfor"ed b gradual deposit b action of the Manila Ba, and he cites Article = ?3 P0. (

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    33/34

    FAC#&: *n 1LEH, A owned a parcel of land, but because of the actionof the wa"es of anila ay, part of said land was graduallysubmerged in the sea. *t remained submerged until 1E12 when thego"ernment decided to mae the necessary dredging to reclaim theland from the sea. As soon as the landhad been reco"ered A too possession of it.

    *ssue: the ownership of the reclaimed land.

    50': #he go"ernment owns the reclaimed land in thesense that it has become property of public dominion, becausein letting it remain submerged, A may be said to ha"e abandonedthe same. 5a"ing become part of the sea or the seashore,it became property for public use. hen the go"ernment toosteps to mae it land again, its status as public dominion remainedunchangedJ therefore, A is not entitled to the land.

    P!o5$n# o4 )a"'oan6a +#l No! 5. C$&y o4 )a"'oan6a, #& al. L=:::0, Ma!. 8, 198

    FAC(&6 After Ha"boanga Province!as divided into t!o -Ha"boanga delNorte and Ha"boanga del &ur/, Republic Act ;*;) !as passed providingthat 7 SAll buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the for"er provinceof Ha"boanga and located !ithin the Cit of Ha"boanga are herebtransferred free of charge in favor of the Cit of Ha"boanga. &uit !asbrought alleging that this grant !ithout %ust co"pensation !asunconstitutional because it deprived the province of propert !ithout dueprocess. Included in the properties !ere the capital site and capitol building,

    certain school sites, hospital and leprosariu" sites, and high schoolplagrounds.

    Issues6

    a/ Are the properties "entioned, properties for public use or patri"onialG

    b/ &hould the cit pa for said propertiesG

    2E@36

    a/ If !e follo! the Civil Code classifi cation, onl the high school plagroundsare for public use -in the sense that generall, the are available to thegeneral public/, and all the rest arePA(RIMNIA@-since the are notdevoted to public use but to public service9 since the are not for public use,under Art. =:= of the Civil Code, the are patri"onial. KN(E6 For public useif ANJB3J can use9 for public service if onl A(2RIHE3 persons canuse.L.

    KN(E6 2ad the been o!ned b the &(A(E, the !ould not have beenpatri"onial but !ould have been properties of public do"inion 7 for this!ould include public service, confor"abl !ith Art. =:*, par. :.L.

    B( if !e follo! the la! of Municipal Corporations-and not the Civil Code/,as long as the purpose is for a public service -govern"ental service liepublic education, public health, local ad"inistration/, the propert should beconsidered forPB@IC &E.

    b/ If the Civil Code classifi cation is used, since al"ost all the propertiesinvolved are patri"onial, the la! !ould be unconstitutional since theprovince !ould be deprived of its o!n propert !ithout %ust co"pensation.

    If the la! on Municipal Corporations !ould be follo!ed, the properties !ouldbe of public do"inion, and therefore N CMPEN&A(IN !ould bere4uired. It is this la! on Municipal Corporations that should be follo!ed.Firstl, !hile the Civil Code "a classif the" as patri"onial, the shouldnot be regarded as ordinar private propert. (he should fall under thecontrol of the &tate, other!ise certain govern"ental activities !ould bei"paired. &econdl, Art. =:=, :nd paragraph itself sas S!ithout pre%udice tothe provisions -or PRINCIP@E&/ of special la!s.T

    Andamo vs. IAC

    Anda"o 5. In!"#d$a A%%#lla Cou!&G.R. No.

  • 8/12/2019 Cases Atty Sanidad

    34/34

    lad of @a &alette, Inc. ithin the land of the latter, !aterpaths and contrivances,including an artificial lae, !ere constructed, !hich allegedl inundated and erodedpetitioners land, caused a oung "an to dro!n, da"agaed petitioners crops andplants, !ashed a!a costl fences, endangered the livesofthepetitioners and theirlaborers and so"e other destructions.(his pro"pted petitioner spouses to file a cri"inal action for destruction b "eans ofinundation under Article ;:= of the RPC and a civil action for da"ages.

    Iu#>hether petitioner spouses Anda"o can clai" da"ages for destruction

    caused b respondents !aterpaths and contrivances on the basis of Articles :8+and :8++ of the Civil Code on 4uasi$delicts.

    -#ld>Jes. A careful e5a"ination of the afore4uoted co"plaint sho!s that the civilaction is one under Articles :8+ and :8++ of the Civil Code on 4uasi$delicts. All theele"ents of a 4uasi$delict are present, to !it6 -a/ da"ages suffered b the plaintiff, -b/fault or negligence of the defendant, or so"e other person for !hose acts he "ustrespond9 and -c/ the connection of cause and effect bet!een the fault or negligence ofthe defendant and the da"ages incurred b the plaintiff. 88

    Clearl, fro" petitioners co"plaint, the !aterpaths and contrivances built brespondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. (here istherefore, an assertion of a causal connection bet!een the act of building these!aterpaths and the da"age sustained b petitioners. &uch action if proven constitutes

    fault or negligence !hich "a be the basis for the recover of da"ages.

    It "ust be stressed that the use of ones propert is not !ithout li"itations. Article =;8of the Civil Code provides that Sthe o!ner of a thing cannot "ae use thereof in sucha "anner as to in%u re the rights of a third person.T &IC (ERE ( ( A@IENMNN @AE3A&. Moreover, ad%oining lando!ners have "utual and reciprocal duties!hich re4uire that each "ust use his o!n land in a reasonable "anner so as not toinfringe upon the rights and interests of others. Although !e recogni1e the right of ano!ner to build structures on his land, such structures "ust be so constructed and"aintained using all reasonable care so that the cannot be dangerous to ad%oininglando!ners and can !ithstand the usual and e5pected forces of nature. If thestructures cause in%ur or da"age to an ad%oining lando!ner or a third person, thelatter can clai" inde"nification for the in%ur or da"age suffered.