Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co.

37 Phil 644
Facts:
The Ca!ania "gricula Fili!ina# !urchase$ %ro Strong Machinery
Co.# rice cleaning achines &hich the %orer installe$ in one o% its 'uil$ings.
"s security %or the !urchase !rice( the 'uyer e)ecute$ a Chattel Mortgage on
the achines an$ the 'uil$ing on &hich they ha$ 'een installe$. *!on
'uyer+s %ailure to !ay( the registere$ ortgage &as %oreclose$( an$ the
'uil$ing &as !urchase$ 'y the seller( the Strong Machinery Co#. This sale
&as annotate$ in the Chattel Mortgage ,egistry 'ut the Machinery Co. too-
!ossession o% the 'uil$ing an$ the lot. Previously ho&ever( the sae 'uil$ing
ha$ 'een !urchase$ at a sheri.+s sale 'y Leung Yee( a cre$itor o% "gricola(#
although Leung Yee -ne& all the tie o% the !rior sale in %avor o% Strong
Machinery.# This sale in %avor o% Leung Yee &as recor$e$ in the ,egistry.
Leung Yee no& sues to recover the !ro!erty %ro strong Machinery.#
/ssues:
0. &hether or not the nature o% !ro!erty is change$ 'y its registration in
the chattel Mortage ,egistry
1. &ho has the 'etter right to the !ro!erty2
,uling:
The 'uil$ing is real !ro!erty( there%ore( its sale as annotate$ in the
Chattel Mortgage ,egistry cannot 'e given legal e.ect o% registration in the
,egistry o% ,eal Pro!erty. The ere %act that the !arties $eci$e$ to $eal &ith
the 'uil$ing as !ersonal !ro!erty $oes not change its character as real
!ro!erty. Thus( neither the original registry in the chattel ortgage registry(
nor the annotation in sai$ registry o% the sale o% the ortgage$ !ro!erty ha$
any e.ect on the 'uil$ing. 3o&ever( since the lan$ an$ the 'uil$ing ha$ 4rst
'een !urchase$ 'y Strong Machinery#5ahea$ o% Leung Lee6( an$ this %act
&as -no&n to Leung Lee( it %ollo&s that Leung Lee &as not a !urchaser in
goo$ %aith( an$ shoul$ there%ore not 'e entitle$ to the !ro!erty. Strong
Machinery# thus has a 'etter right to it.
Stan$ar$ 7il v. 8aranillo
44 Phil 630
Facts:
9e la ,osa( &ho &as renting a !arcel o% lan$ in Manila( constructe$ a
'uil$ing o% strong aterials thereon( &hich she conveye$ to !lainti. 'y &ay
o% chattel ortgage. :hen the ortgagee &as !resenting the $ee$ to the
,egister o% 9ee$s o% Manila %or registration in the Chattel Mortgage ,egistry(
the registrar re%use$ to allo& the registration on the groun$ that the 'uil$ing
&as a real !ro!erty( not !ersonal !ro!erty( an$ there%ore coul$ not 'e the
su';ect o% a vali$ chattel ortgage.
/ssue:
:hether or not the ,egister o% 9ee$s o% Manila re%use$ to recor$ the
registration in the Chattel Mortgage ,egistry2
,uling:
<o( The ,egistrar+s $uty is Ministerial in character. There is no legal
!rovision con%erring u!on hi any ;u$icial or =uasi>;u$icial !o&er to
$eterine the nature o% the $ocuent !resente$ 'e%ore hi. 3e shoul$
there%ore acce!t the legal %ees 'eing ten$ere$( an$ !lace the $ocuent on
recor$.
Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo
60 Phil 7?@
Facts:
Petitioner is the hol$er o% a lu'er concession. /t o!erate$ a sa&ill
on a lan$( &hioch it $oesn+t o&n. Part o% the lease agreeent &as a
sti!ulation in &hich a%ter the lease agreeent( all 'uil$ing an$
i!roveents &oul$ !ass to the o&nershi! o% the lessor( &hich &oul$ not
inclu$e achineries an$ accessories. /n connection to this( !etitioner ha$ in
it+s sa&ill achineries an$ other e=ui!ent &herein soe &ere 'olte$ in
%oun$ations o% ceent.
/ssue: &hether or not achineries 'e consi$ere$ !ersonal !ro!erty.
,uling:
"s a rule( the (achinery shoul$ 'e consi$ere$ as !ersonal( since it
&as not !lace$ on the lan$ 'y the o&ner o% sai$ lan$. /o'iliAation 'y
$estination or !ur!ose cannot generally 'e a$e 'y a !erson &hose
!ossession o% the !ro!erty is only te!orary( other&ise &e &ill 'e %orce$ to
!resue that he inten$e$ to give the !ro!erty !eranently a&ay in %avor o%
the o&ner o% the !reises.
B.3 Ber-en-otter v. Cu *n;ieng
60 Phil 663
Facts:
The Ma'alacat Sugar Co!any( o&ner o% sugar central in Pa!anga
'orro&e$ %ro the $e%en$ant a su o% oney( ortgaging as security t&o
lots together &ith all its 'uil$ings an$ i!roveents. Shortly( a%ter sai$
ortgage ha$ 'een constitute$( Ma'alacat Sugar Co.( /nc. &ants to increase
its !ro$uctive ca!acity( the Co!any !urchase$ a$$itional achines an$ a
ne& sugar ill &hich &ere nee$e$ %or the sugar in$ustry. The !resi$ent o%
Ma'alacat Sugar Co. a!!lie$ %or a$$itional loan o.ering as security the
a$$itional achinery an$ e=ui!ent ac=uire$.
/ssue:
:hether or not the a$$itional achines also 'e consi$ere$
ortgage$2
.,uling:
The ortgage o% a !arcel o% lan$ generally inclu$es all %uture
i!roveents that ay 'e %oun$ on sai$ !arcel. These i!roveents
inclu$e real !ro!erties( li-e the a$$itional achines an$ sugar ill
!urchase$.
Sai$ a$$itional achineries are real !ro!erties 'ecause they are
essential an$ !rinci!al eleents o% the sugar central. :ithout the( the
sugar central &oul$ 'e una'le to carry out its in$ustrial !ur!ose.
"go v. Court o% "!!eals( et al.(
L>07C@C( 7ct.30( 0@61
Facts:
/n 0@D7( !etitioner Pastor 9. "go 'ought a sa&ill achineries an$
e=ui!ents %ro res!on$ent Erace Par- Fngineer 9oineering( /nc.
e)ecuting a chattel ortgage over the sai$ achineries to secure the
!ayent o% 'alance o% !rice.
Petitioner $e%aulte$ in his succee$ing !ayent( the !rovincial sheri. o%
Surigao( acting u!on the &rit o% e)ecution( levie$ an$ or$ere$ the sale o%
sa&ill an$ e=ui!ent in !u'lic auction.
/ssue:
:hether or not the issuance o% &rit o% e)ecution an$ the sale o%
!ro!erties is vali$.
,uling:
Sa&ill achineries an$ e=ui!ent installe$ in a sa&ill %or use in
the sa&ing o% logs( a !rocess carrie$ on in sai$ 'uil$ing( 'ecoe real
!ro!erties( an$ i% they are ;u$icially sol$ on e)ecution &ithout the necessary
a$vertiseent o% sale 'y !u'lication in a ne&s!a!er as re=uire$ in Section
06 o% ,ule 3@ o% the ,ules o% Court( the sale a$e 'y the Sheri. &oul$ 'e
null an$ voi$.
Peo!le+s Ban- an$ Trust Co.( v. 9ahican Lu'er Co.(
L>07D??( May 06( 0@67
Facts:
"tlantic sol$ an$ assigne$ all its right in the 9"LC7 %or the su o%
PD??(??? o% &hich only D?(??? &as !ai$. 9"LC7 o'taine$ various loans %ro
Peo!le+s Ban- &here the %orer e)ecute$ a $ee$ o% ortgage covering
!arcel o% lan$.
Several !arcels o% lan$ &ere the o';ects o% a real estate ortgage. The
ortgage $ee$ also state$ that the ortgage inclu$e$ essential a%ter>
ac=uire$ !ro!erties such as achinery( 4)tures( tools( an$ e=ui!ent. The
real ortgage &as then registere$ in the registry o% $ee$.
/ssue:
:hether or not the $ee$ shoul$ also 'e registere$ in the chattel
ortgage registry( inso%ar as it covere$ the a%ter>ac=uire$ achinery(
4)tures( tools an$ e=ui!ent.
,uling:
<o ore( since un$er "rticle 40D o% the ne& civil co$e( the !ro!erties
in =uestion 'eing achineries( rece!tacles( instruents or re!laceents
inten$e$ 'y the o&ner o% the teneent %or an in$ustry or &or-s &hich ay
'e carrie$ on a 'uil$ing or lan$ are classi4e$ as iova'le !ro!erty an$
there%ore not covere$ 'y the Chattel Mortgage La&.
Pro!erties in this case has 'een io'iliAe$ 'y $estination( %or they
&ere use$ in the $evelo!ent o% the lu'er concession. Be it also note$
that the !arties to the real ortgage ha$ treate$ the a%ter>ac=uire$
!ro!erties as real !ro!erties 'y agreeing that they &oul$ 'e autoatically
su';ect to the lien o% the real estate ortgage e)ecute$ 'y the.
Boar$ o% "ssessent "!!eals G.C v. Meralco
0? SC," 6C
Facts:
7n <ovever 0D( 0@DD( the GC City "ssessor $eclare$ MF,"LC7+s
steel to&ers su';ect to real !ro!erty ta). "%ter the $enial o% MF,"LC7+s
!etition to cancel these $eclarations( an a!!eal &as ta-e$n to the GC Boar$
o% "ssessent "!!eals( &hich re=uire$ res!on$ent to !ay a certain real
!ro!erty ta). MF,"LC7 !ai$ the sai$ aount un$er !rotest an$ 4n$ !etition
%or revie& in the Court o% Ta) "!!eal 5CT"6 &hich ren$ere$ the cancellation o%
the sai$ ta) $eclaration.
/ssue:
:hether or not the steel to&ers or !oles o% the Meralco consi$ere$ real
!ro!erty.
,uling:
They are !ersonal 5not real6 !ro!erties. Be note$ that:
a. They $o not coe un$er Par. 0 o% "rticle 40D 'ecause they are
neither 'uil$ings or constructions a$here$ to the soil.
'. They $o not coe un$er Par. 3 'ecause they are not attache$ to an
iova'le in a 4)e$ anner( that is( they can 'e se!arate$ &ithout
'rea-ing the aterial or causing $eterioration o% the o';ect to &hich
they are attache$.
c. They $o not coe un$er !aragra!h D 'ecause they are not
achineries( rece!tacles( or instruents( 'ut even i% they are( they
are not inten$e$ %or an in$ustry to 'e carrie$ on in the !reises.
Maneclang et al( v. /"C
E., 66D7D
Facts:
"$riano Maneclang( et al( 4le$ a co!laint %or =uieting a titleover
4sh!on$. The trial court $isisse$ the co!laint u!on 4n$ing that the 'o$y
o% &ater transversing the title$ !ro!erties is a cree- constituting atri'utary o%
the "gro ,iver. There entere$ a co!roise agreeent recogniAing the
o&nershi! o% the !etitioner over the 'o$y o% &ater %oun$ &ithin their title$
!ro!erties.
/ssue:
:hether or not sti!ulations in the agreeent is vali$ an$ 'in$ing.
3el$:
" cree- is a recess or ar e)ten$ing %ro a river an$ !artici!ating in
the e'' an$ Ho& o% the sea. /t is a !ro!erty 'elonging to the !u'lic $oain. /t
is not susce!ti'le to !rivate a!!ro!riation an$ ac=uisitive !rescri!tion. "s a
!u'lic &ater( it cannot 'e registere$ un$er the Torrens Syste in the nae
o% any in$ivi$ual. <either the ere construction o% irrigation $i-es 'y the
<ational /rrigation "$inistration &hich !revents the &ater %ro Ho&ing in
an$ out o% a 4sh!on$( nor its conversion into a 4sh!on$( alter or change the
nature o% the cree- as !ro!erty o% the !u'lic $oain( hence( a co!roise
agreeent a$;u$icating the o&nershi! o% such !ro!erty in %avor o% an
in$ivi$ual is null an$ voi$. /t has no legal e.ect. /t is contrary to la& an$
!u'lic !olicy.

,e!u'lic o% the Phils. I. Lat v$a. 9e Castillo( et al
E., 6@??1( 8une 3?( 0@CC
Facts:
/n 0@D0( Mo$esto Castillo a!!lie$ %or the registration o% t&o !arcel o%
lan$s an$ &as later on trans%erre$ to his heirs. /t &as allege$ that the sai$
lan$s ha$ al&ays %ore$ !art o% the Taal La-e an$ 'eing a !u'lic o&nershi!(
it coul$ not 'e su';ect to registration as !rivate !ro!erty.
/ssue: :hether or not the Lan$ ,egistration Court erre$ in its $ecision i %or
the annulent o% the title2
,ule:
<o( shores are !ro!erties o% the !u'lic $oain inten$e$ %or !u'lic use
an$ there%ore( not registra'le. Thus( it has long 'een settle$ that !ortion o%
the %oreshore or o% the territorial &aters an$ 'eaches cannot 'e registere$.
Their inclusion in a certi4cate o% title $oes not convert the sae into
!ro!erties o% !rivate o&nershi! or con%er title u!on the registrant. " lot &hich
al&ays %ore$ !art o% a la-e &ashe$ an$ inun$ate$ 'y the &aters thereo%
are not su';ect to registration( 'eing outsi$e the coerce o% en. /% the lot
in litigation are o% !u'lic $oain( the registration court $oes not have
;uris$iction to a$;u$icate the lan$s as !rivate !ro!erty. 3ence( res ;u$icata
$oes not a!!ly. Mere !ossession o% lan$ $oes not itsel% autoatically $ivest
the lan$ o% its !u'lic character.
Tufexis v. Olaguera
32 Phil. 654
Facts
9uring the S!anish regie( Par$o Ca'aas &as allo&e$ 'y the S!anish
governent to have the usu%ruct o% the !u'lic ar-et%or 4? years. Par$o
Ca'aas $ie$( an$ the usu%ruct &as inherite$ 'y ,icar$o Pu;ol( his son. :hen
,icar$o Pu;ol( 'ecae in$e'te$( his !ro!erties &ere sol$ in an auction sale(
an$ the usu%ruct &as 'ought 'y Iergo Tu%e)is. the a 4re $estroye$ the
ar-et. The Council grante$ ' the right to reconstruct the 'uil$ing an$
continue the usu%ruct. Iergo Tu%e)is co!laine$ on the groun$ that he
'ought at the auction sale ,icar$o Pu;ol+s usu%ruct.
!ssue
:hether or not Iergo Tu%e)is can 'e given the usu%ruct an$
a$inistration o% the ar-et.
"uli#g
Iergo Tu%e)is cannot 'e given the right 'ecause the right is !u'lic
character an$ coul$ not 'e 'ought at an auction sale. :hat he shoul$ have
$one 'e%ore the 'uil$ing &as 'urne$ &as to attach the incoe alrea$y
receive$ 'y ,icar$o Pu;ol. For Iergo Tu%e)is no& to ta-e ,icar$o Pu;ol+s !lace
is contrary to la&( %or this &oul$ 'e allo&ing a stranger &ho ha$ not 'een
selecte$ 'y the governent( to ta-e over a !u'lic %unction. 7n the han$( the
trans%er o% " to B is !ersonal( an$ is trans%erra'le only 'y inheritance. C not
'eing an heir( cannot there%ore e)ercise the right.
Santos v. Moreno
L>0DC1@( 9ec. 4( 0@67
Facts:
"yala y Cia o&ne$ a 'ig tract o% lan$ in Maca'e'e( Pa!anga( the
3acien$a San Fste'an. To !rovi$e access to $i.erent !arts o% the !ro!erty(
the Co!any $ug interlin-ing canals( &hich through erosion( gra$ually
ac=uire$ the characteristics o% rivers. The Co!any sol$ !art o% 3acien$a to
Santos( &ho close$ soe o% the canals an$ converte$ the into 4sh!on$s.
The resi$ents o% the surroun$ing 'arrios co!laine$ that the closure
$e!rive$ the o% their eans o% trans!ortation( as &ell as their 4shing
groun$s.
/ssue:
:hether or not the canals 'e or$ere$ o!en2
,uling:
<o( 'ecause the sai$ canals are o% !rivate o&nershi!. *n$er "rticle
41?( canals constructe$ 'y the State an$ $evote$ to use are o% !u'lic
o&nershi!. Conversely( canals constructe$ 'y !rivate !ersons &ithin !rivate
lan$s an$ $evote$ e)clusively %or !rivate use ust 'e o% !rivate o&nershi!.
Merca$o v. Munici!al Presi$ent o% Maca'e'e
D@ Phil D@1
Facts:
" o&ne$ a hacien$a in &hich a river an$ a cree- Ho&e$. " constructe$
a canal connecting the t&o 'o$ies o% &ater( an$ any !eo!le use$ the canal.
7ne $ay( 11 years later( " close$ the t&o o!enings o% the canals( converte$
the sae into a 4sh !on$ an$ !revente$ the !eo!le %ro using the canal.
The governent no& &ants the canal 'e o!ene$ so that the sae ay 'e
use$ 'y the general !u'lic &here " o';ects.
/ssue:
,uling: The canal shoul$ 'e o!ene$. :hile the en;oyent an$ the use o% the
&aters coul$ have 'een ac=uire$ 'y !rescri!tion( still he allo&e$ others to
use the canal( he lost the e)clusive right to use the sae. Moreover(
although hacien$a is registere$ un$er his nae un$er the Torrens Syste(
this $oes not con%er u!on hi any right to the river or cree- since these are
!ro!erties o% !u'lic $oinion an$ cannot 'e registere$.
City o% Ce'u v. <":"S"
L>01C@1( "!ril 3?(0@6?
Facts:
The City o% Ce'u o'taine$ a loan &hich &as to 'e !ai$ &ith its o&n
%un$. Part o% the !rocee$s o% this loan &as use$ to %un$ the construction o%
the City+s se&age syste. <":"S" sought to e)!ro!riate the se&age
syste. This &as o!!ose$ &ith the arguents that there &as no !ayent o%
;ust co!ensation. <":"S" averre$( that the !ro!erty is one %or !u'lic use
an$ un$er the control o% legislature.
/ssue:
:hether or not the !ro!erty is !atrionial !ro!erty o% the city o% Ce'u.
,uling:
Yes( the !ro!erty is a !atrionial an$ not su';ect to legislative control.
/t is a !ro!erty o% the city( !urchase$ &ith !rivate %un$s an$ not $evote$ to
!u'lic use3( it is %or !ro4t. <or can the syste 'e consi$ere$ !u'lic &or-s
%or !u'lic use# 'ecause such classi4cation is =uali4e$ 'y F;us$e Eeneris
5"rticle 4146
Salas v. 8arencio
L>017CC( "ugust 3?( 0@71
Facts:
The City o% Manila ha$ a Torrens Title over a 74@? s=uare>eter lot.
The Munici!al Boar$ o% Manila re=ueste$ the Presi$ent o% the Phili!!ines to
have the lot $eclare$ as !atrionial !ro!erty o% the City so that it coul$ 'e
sol$ 'y the City to the actual occu!ants o% the lot. /n 0@64( Congress enacte$
,." 400C &here'y the lot &as a$e $is!osa'le or aliena'le lan$ o% the State
5not the City6( an$ its $is!osal &as given to a national governent entity( the
Lan$ Tenure "$inistration.
/ssue:
Can this 'e la&%ully $one 'y the <ational Eovernent2
3el$:
Yes( there 'eing no !roo% that the lot ha$ 'een ac=uire$ 'y the City
&ith its o&n %un$s( the !resu!tion is that it &as given to it 'y the State in
trust %or the 'ene4t o% the inha'itants. ,esi$ual control reaine$ in the
State( an$ there%ore( the State can la&%ully $is!ose o% the lot. Thus( ,." 400C
is vali$ an$ constitutional.
Iiu$a $e Tan Toco v. Mun. Council o% /loilo
4@ Phil D1
Facts:
The Munici!ality o% /loilo 'ought %ro the &i$o& o% Tan Toco a !arcel o%
lan$ %or P41(@66.4? &hich &as use$ %or street !ur!oses. For %ailure o% the
unici!ality to !ay the $e't( the &i$o& o'taine$ a &rit o% e)ecution against
the unici!al !ro!erties( an 'y virtue o% such &rit &as a'le to o'tain the
attachent o% t&o auto truc-s use$ %or street s!rin-ling( one !olice !atrol
autoo'ile( t&o !olice stations( an$ t&o ar-ets( inclu$ing the lots on &hich
they ha$ 'een constructe$.
/ssue: &hether or not the attachent is vali$
3el$:
The attachent is not !ro!er 'ecause unici!al>o&ne$ real an$
!ersonal !ro!erties $evote$ to !u'lic or governental !ur!oses ay not 'e
attache$ an$ sol$ %or the !ayent o% a ;u$gent against a unici!ality. 8ust
as it is essential( to e)e!t certain !ro!erty o% in$ivi$uals( %ro e)ecution.
For in this case( governent service &ill 'e ;eo!ar$iAe$.
3arty v. Munici!al o% Iictoria
03 Phil. 0D1
Facts:
" !arcel o% lan$ allege$ to originally 'elong to a !erson nae$ Tane$o
&as in !art $onate$ 'y hi to the church. The reaining !art &as -e!t o!en
as a !laAa. For any years( the !eo!le o% the to&n &ere allo&e$ 'y Tane$o
to use the sai$ reain$er o% a !u'lic !laAa.# Later( the church claie$
o&nershi! over the sai$ !laAa on the groun$ that the sae ha$ 'een
$onate$ to it 'y the unici!ality.
/ssue: May the church no& 'e consi$ere$ as the o&ner o% the !laAa.
3el$:
<o( the Church cannot 'e regar$e$ as the o&ner o% the !laAa.
"ssuing that Tane$o &as its original o&ner. Still &hen he allo&e$ the
!eo!le to use the sae as a !u'lic !laAa( he &as in e.ect &aiving his right
thereto %or the 'ene4t o% the to&n %ol-s. Being !ro!erty %or !u'lic use( the
unici!ality cannot 'e sai$ to have vali$ly $onate$ it in %avor o% the Church.
Being a !u'lic use( the church cannot ac=uire the sae 'y !rescri!tion.
ChaveA v. PF"
40D SC," 4?3
Facts:
Pu'lic Fstate "ctivity sought the trans%er to "M",/( a !rivate
cor!oration( o% the o&nershi! o% 77.34 hectares o% %ree$o islan$s. PF" also
sought to have 1@?.0D6 hectares o% su'erge$ areas o% anila to "M",/
Contacts o% in$ivi$uals &ho( not 'eing !ersonally $is=uali4e$ to hol$
aliena'le lan$s o% the !u'lic $oain( have 'een a'le to ac=uire in goo$ %aith(
reclaie$ !ortions o% the su';ect !ro!erty %ro "M",/ Coastal Bay
9evelo!ent Cor!oration.
/ssue:
:hether or not the contracts 'e $uly>res!ecte$ an$ u!hel$2
3el$:
Yes( in instances &here the successor>in>interest is itsel% a cor!orate
entity( the constitutional !rescri!tion &oul$ stan$( 'ut i% the cor!oration has
intro$uce$ structures or !eranent i!roveents thereon( such structures
or i!roveents( &hen so vie&e$( as having 'een a$e in goo$ %aith( coul$
very &ell 'e governe$ 'y the ne& Civil Co$e.
The a!!roval o% the contracts( in the case at 'ar( clearly an$
una'iguously atteste$ to the %act that the lan$s in =uestion &ere no longer
inten$e$ %or !u'lic use# or !u'lic service.# :hen the conversion activity
such as co>!ro$uction( ;oint venture or !ro$uction>sharing agreeents is
authoriAe$ 'y the Eovernent thru a la&( the =uali4e$ !arty to the
agreeent ay o&n the converte$ !ro$uct or !art o% it( &hen so !rovi$e$ in
the agreeent. /% there is any $ou't as to the o';ect o% the !restation in this
case( the Su!ree Court o!ine$ that the inter!retation &hich &oul$ ren$er
the contract vali$ is to 'e %avore$.