8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

1/8

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

2/8

Mindanao

Bus Co. Vs.

City

Assessor &

Treasurer

1. Petitioner is a public utility solely engaged

in transporting passengers and cargoes bymotor trucks, over its authorized public lines

in Mindanao.

2. Petitioner has its main office and shop at

Cagayan de Oro.

3. Court of Tax Appeals holds Minadanao BusCo. as liable to the payment of the Realty Tax

on its maintenance and repair equipment.

4. The Machineries in question is valued at

P4,000 assessed by the City Assessor of

Cagayan, as these machineries are sitting on

cement or wooden platforms.

(Equipments: Electric Welder Machine, StormBoring Machine, Grinder, Battery Charger,Hydraulic Press, etc)

WON Court of Tax

Appeals erred inupholding the City

Assessors contention

that the said tools and

equipments areimmovables and are

taxable real properties.

The tools and equipments in

question at bar, by theirnature, are NOT essential and

princial elements of

petitioners business of

transporting passengers andcargoes. They are merely

incidentalsacquired asmovables and used only for

expediency to facilitateand/or improve its services.

Even without these tools, the

businesss may be carried on.

Thus, the tools & equips arenot subject to Realty Tax.

Movable equipments, to be

immobilized incontemplation of law, must

be essential and principal

elements of an industry or

works.

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

3/8

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

4/8

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

5/8

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

6/8

4.On oct. 15,1960, Judge Tanada issued anorder granting Goulds Motion for Issuance

of Write of Execution. Yap filed for Motion

for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence,this case.

MachineryEngineering

Supplies Inc

vs. CA

1. Machinery &Engrng Supplies filed acomplaint for replevin against IPO

Limestone Co Inc, for the recovery of the

machines and equipment sold and deliveredto barrio Bigti, Bulacan.

2. March 13, 1953, Judge Pecson issued an

order to seize and take immediatepossession of the properties

3.March 19Sheriffs of Bulacan and a crewtechnicalmen and laborers proceeded and

executed courts order. Mngr of the IPOcompany through a letter executed a protestagainst the seizure of the Real Properties in

question on the ground that they are not

personal properties. Contending that theduty of the sheriff is ministerial in nature,

they continued. As Roco (pres. of MESI),

insisted in dismantling the equipments onhis own responsibility, alleging that the bondwas posted for, deputy sheriffs directed that

supports of the machines be cut.

4.March 20IPO Co. filed an urgent motion

for the return of the properties seized.Granted.

March 21Deputy Sheriff returned, by

depositing the properties along the road,without the benefit of inventory and without

reinstalling them in their former position.March 24Sheriff filed an urgent motion,

asking the court that MESI be ordered toprovide the required aid to comply with thecourts order.

March 30Court ordered Prov Sheriff and

MESI to reinstate the machineries removed,

in their normal and previous condition.May4Court ordered MESI to furnish thenecessary funds and crew to effect the

reinstallation within 5days.

WON replevin wasapplicable to the

properties in question.

5. CA decided to uoheldTCsdecision. Plaintiff filed for

review on the ground thatthey acted on grave abuse ofdiscretion

The special civil action ofReplevin is applicable only

to personal property. Themachinery and equipments

in question appeared to bethat of attached to the and,

particularly to the concrete

foundation of said

premises, in a fixedmanner, in such a way that

the former cannot beseparated therefrom

without breaking thematerial or deterioration of

the object. Thereby, it

became an immovable.

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

7/8

8/6/2019 Prop Matrix Cases

8/8

FelsEnergyInc

vs. Province

of Batangas

The equipment and livingquarters of the crew, being

permanently attached to

the platform, which is also

an immovable, areimmovables. This is

especially so that they areintended to meet the needs

of the business andindustry of the corporation.

Sergs

Products Inc

v PCI Leasingand Finance

The machines, that were

the subjects of the writ of

seizure, were placed bypetitioners in the factory

built on their own land.Indisputably, they were

essential and principalelements of their

chocolate-making industry.

Hence, although each ofthem was movable on its

own, all of them have

become immobilized bydestination because they

are essential and principalelements of the industry.

The contracting parties

however may validlystipulate that a real

property be considered aspersonal. After agreeing to

such stipulation, they are

consequently estoppedfrom claiming otherwise.