PROPERTY

ART 414: All things which are or may be objects for appropriation may be
considered as:
a. immovable property real property
b. movable property personal property
!things" for the p#rpose of the civil code$ incl#des %things& 'in the general
sense( and %property&. The )) #ses the term interchangeably.
%things& * in the general sense$ are objects that satisfy the needs of
men and are already appropriated$ may be appropriated or not
s#sceptible for appropriation.
+,-./ of T0,-1/:
a. Res Nullius !belonging to no one"
2. Res Derelictae * abandoned property with the
intention of no longer owning them.
3. Ferae Naturae free in their nat#ral habitat
b. Res Communes * !belonging to everyone"
4 may not be capable of appropriation in
their entirety as s#ch certain conditions in
a limited way.
c. Res Alicujus * !belonging to someone"
%property& * those that are already in possession of men and are
already appropriated.
!Things" in the )) may be 5ATER,A6 O78E)T/ or R,10T/
9R,10T/ * real right or personal right
RE:;,/,TE/ O< PROPERTY:
2. ;tility * the capacity to satisfy some h#man wants. The #tility which
is generally economic endows property with val#e s#sceptible
of pec#niary estimation.
3. /#bstantivity or individ#ality * =#ality of having e>istence apart from
any other thing.
4 m#st be able to e>ist independently of the
body or as a whole.
?. Appropriability * m#st be s#sceptible for appropriation@ m#st be able
to be possessed by men.
ART 415: The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to
the soil.
Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya
-at#re of a b#ilding
Ahich has a s#perior right * )hattel 5ortgage or a Real
Estate 5ortgage
<A)T/:
The Balino spo#ses are possessors of a ho#se in )aloocan.
The land where the ho#se stands$ however is not owned by
them b#t was bo#ght in installment to another company. The
wife$ in order to p#rchase rice form -AR,) Cled a bond with
petitioner and as g#aranty to the said loan$ the wife e>ec#ted a
)0ATTE6 5ORT1A1E for the 0O;/E. 6ater on$ the petitioner
fo#nd o#t that the spo#ses also e>ec#ted a REA6 E/TATE
5ORT1A1E on the 0O;/E and 6OT in favor of respondent ,sabel
,ya.
The petitioners pray that the real estate mortgage wo#ld
e>cl#de the ho#se which defendant contested. The petitioners
also contend that the ho#se was PER/O-A6 PROPERTY beca#se
the land in which it was erected .OE/ -OT 7E6O-1 TO T0E
/PO;/E/ d#ring the time the chattel mortgage was e>ec#ted.
The RT) r#led that the ho#se was personal property and
e>cl#ded it in the real estate mortgage as the land where it was
erected does not belong to the spo#ses.
ISS!"
'2( Ahether or not the ho#se in =#estion was personal or
real property.
'3( Ahich has a s#perior rightD A registration of property
as Real Estate 5ortgage or )hattel 5ortgageD
#!L$"
9A building cannot be di%ested of its character of
realt& b& the fact that the land on 'hich it is
constructed belongs to another.
)iting Lopez vs. Orosa:
!The incl#sion of b#ilding$ separate and
distinct from the land$ in the en#meration of
what may constit#te real properties * the
building itself is i((o%able in the
absence of an& )ro%ision in the
contrar&. A building is i((o%able
)ro)ert& irres)ecti%e of 'hether or not
said structure and land on 'hich it is
adhered to belong to the sa(e )erson.*
97eca#se the b#ilding 'ho#se( is considered as real
property$ the e>ec#tion of the chattel mortgage is invalid
and n#ll. The registration to the chattel (ortgage
)roduces no e+ect 'here the interest con%e&ed is
in the nature of a real )ro)ert&.
Santos Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc
-at#re of Property for the p#rpose of ATTA)05E-T
/tip#lation of parties and its eEect on third persons
,A-TS"
/antos Evangelista obtained a writ of attachment to a
property of one Rivera of his ho#se b#ilt on a land leased by
him. Ahen /antos Evangelista so#ght for the possession of
the ho#se$ Rivera denied him of s#ch alleging that the he had
already sold the ho#se to the respondent.
The respondent alleged that he had a better right on the
property as the sale preceded that of /antos Evangelista.
0owever$ the RT) rendered a j#dgment in favor of
Evangelista as the proced#re of sec#ring the writ of
attachment was in accordance with the r#les. 0owever$ the
)A reversed the decision and considered the property in
=#estion as personal property which is governed by a
diEerent set of r#les for attachment.
ISS!"
Ahether or not the ho#se in =#estion is immovable or
movable for the p#rpose of attachmentD
#!L$"
)iting Laddera vs. Hodges:
!A tr#e b#ilding 'not merely s#perimposed on the
soil( is immovable or real property$ whether erected
by the owner or by #s#fr#ct#ary or lease."
Ahile contracting parties to a deed of chattel mortgage
may agree to consider a ho#se as personal property for
the p#rposes of contract. ,t is only good so far as the
contracting parties are concerned. This is based on
estoppels. 0owever$ in the case at bar$ there is no
contract.
/ales on e>ec#tion aEect the p#blic and third persons.
Ahatever provisions that were agreed #pon by
contracting parties are only binding as so far as they
'parties( are concerned. ,t does not bind p#blic or third
persons.
Ahen the law speaFs of personal property$ it is what is
ordinarily meant. Ahen the property is generally Fnown
as real property$ the reg#lation where never intended to
s#it the consideration of the parties that may have
privately given #pon. The mere fact that the ho#se was
s#bject to chattel mortgage and was considered as
personal property by parties$ does not maFe the ho#se
personal property for the p#rpose of e>ec#tion.
Prudential Bank vs. Panis
5ay a b#ilding be mortgaged apart from the landD
,A-TS"
.efendant spo#ses sec#red a loan from petitioner banF.
,n order to sec#re payment$ the defendants e>ec#ted a
real estate mortgage on the following properties:
'2( 3 semi concrete residential b#ildings with
wareho#se spaces
'3(The property conveyed by way of mortgage
incl#des the right of occ#pancy on the lot where
the above property was erected.
,n another year$ the defendants obtained another loan
from the banF sec#ring as payment another real estate
mortgage on the same properties mentioned in the Crst
real estate mortgage.
The RT) rendered that the deeds of Real Estate 5ortgage
void.
ISS!"
Ahether or not a valid real estate mortgage can be
constit#ted on the b#ilding erected on the land belonging
to another.
#!L$"
As a general r#le$ #nder Art. G2H of the ))$ the co#rt
r#led o#t$ citing Association nsurance and !uret" Co vs.
"a that the incl#sion of !b#ilding" separate and distinct
from land in the said provision can only mean that the
b#ilding itself if immovable property.
Ahile it is tr#e that a mortgage of land necessarily
incl#des$ in the absence of stip#lation of the
improvements thereon$ b#ildings$ still by itself may be
mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been b#ilt.
/#ch a mortgage wo#ld still be considered as a real estate
mortgage even if dealt with separately and apart from
land.
Tumalad vs. Vicencio
Ahether or not a ho#se 'immovable property( may be
s#bject to a chattel mortgage
,A-TS"
.efendants e>ec#ted a chattel mortgage in favor of the
plaintiEs as a sec#rity for a loan obtained by the
defendants. Ahen the defendants failed in paying the
same$ the mortgage was e>tra4j#dicially foreclosed.
0owever$ defendants imp#gn the validity of the chattel
mortgage on the gro#nd that a ho#se 'b#ilding( cannot be
s#bject to a chattel mortgage.
ISS!"
Ahether or not the ho#se may be s#bject to chattel
mortgage
#!L$"
Ahile a b#ilding as a general r#le 'Assoc. ,ns#rance
/#rety )o.$ ,nc. vs. ,ya( is separate and distinct from land
in the en#meration of real property can only mean one
thing$ that a b#ilding itself is an immovable property
irrespective of whether or not the land on which it is
adhered to belongs to the same owner.
0owever$ there are certain e>ceptions:
'2( Parties may agree to consider a ho#se as
personal property for the p#rposes of contract
'Assoc. nsurance # !uret" Co.$ nc vs. "a%$ b#t it is
only good insofar as the contracting parties are
concerned '&vangelista vs. Alto !uret"%.
,n the case at bar$ there is a stip#lation of the
parties that the said ho#se shall be considered as
chattel mortgage. 0owever$ altho#gh there is no
speciCc statement referring to the s#bject ho#se as
personal property$ yet by ceding$ selling or
transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage$
the defendants co#ld only have meant to convey
the ho#se as chattel.
'3( Trees$ plants and growing fr#its while they are attached to land or form an
integral part thereof.
Ahen trees$ plants$ growing fr#its are ;PROOTE. I they become
movable property
EJ)EPT for #prooted T,57ER. As it is still an integral part of the
immovable.
Sibal vs. Valde
,A-TS"
5acondray )o.$ ,nc virt#e of a writ of e>ec#tion was able to get K
parcels of land from appellant /ibal. .#ring that time$
5acondray sold the said parcels of land to the appellee and
conveyed all rights to the same. 0owever$ appellant contested
that he is the owner of s#gar canes that he planted on the land
now belonging to BaldeL.
ISS!"
Ahether or not the s#gar cane in =#estion are immovable
property
#!L$"
Ahile par. 3 of Article G2H of the )) as a general r#le stated that
#ngathered fr#its are immovable property$ #nder certain
conditions they may be considered as movable property when:
A L!SS!! planted the said crops as the crops did not go with
the land b#t belonged to the lessee separately.
'?( Everything attached to an immovable in a C>ed manner in s#ch a way that it
cannot be separated therefrom witho#t destroying the material or deterioration of
the object.
'sai vs. CA
'G( /tat#es$ Reliefs$ paintings and other objects for #se and ornamentation placed
by the owner of the immovable in land or b#ilding which tend to reveal the
intention to have them permanently attached to the said tenement.
RE:;,/,TE/:
2. object m#st be #sed for ornamentation
3. placed by the OA-ER of the ,55OBA76E 'or his agent(
?. m#st be placed in a land or b#ilding
G. with the intention to have them permanently attached to the said
immovable
'H( 5achines$ receptacles$ instr#ments and implements intended by the o'ner of
the tene(ent for an ind#stry or worFs which may be carried o#t in a piece of land
or in a b#ilding and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said ind#stry or
worFs
RE:;,/,TE/:
2. m#st be placed by the owner of the tenement 'or his agent(
3. the ind#stry or worFs m#st be carried on in a b#ilding or a piece of
land
?. that the machinery tend directly to the needs of the said ind#stry or
worFs
G. that the said machinery is essential and principal element of the
ind#stry or worFs that witho#t it$ the ind#stry wo#ld be #nable to f#nction or carry
on the ind#strial p#rpose for which it is established
'M( Animal ho#ses$ pigeon ho#ses$ Cshponds$ beehives and other breeding places of
similar nat#re in case their owner intended them to be permanently attached to
land and forming a permanent part of it@ animals in these places are incl#ded.
(.) ,ertili/er actuall& used on land
(0) 1ines, 2uarries and slag du()s 'hile the (atter thereof for(s )art of
the bed and 'aters either running or stagnant
(3) $ocks and structures though 4oating are intended b& their nature and
ob5ect to re(ain at a 67ed )lace on a lake, ri%er or coast
(18) -ontracts of )ublic 'orks and ser%itudes and other real rights
regarding i((o%able )ro)ert&