PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
PROPERTY NOTES
General Concepts
 Definition: Property is an economic concept pertaining
to a mass of things useful to human activity which are
necessary to life, for whi ch reason they may be
organized and distributed in one way or another.
 Requisites of Property :
1) Utility
2) Substantivi ty (separate or autonomous
existence)
3) Appropriability or susceptibility to
appropri ation
 Classification of Property
1. Civil Code
2. Ownership
3. Physical Existence
4. Autonomy or independence
5. Subsis tence After use
6. Susceptibility to divisi on
7. Designation
8. Existence at point i n time
9. Susceptibility to appropriation
10. Susceptibility to Commerce
 Civil Code Classification
Immovable Property
Movable Property
 Importance of Classification as Real or Personal
1) Form of Contracts – solemnity is greater for
acts involving immovables
2) Prescription – longer period of adverse
possession is necessary to gain rights over
immovables
3) Venue – location of immovable determin es
venue
4) Taxation
5) Double Sales – publicity and recording are
important to immovables whereas in movables,
possession is equival ent to titl e.
6) Causes of Acti on to Rec over
• Real property
a) By their nature (Art. 415, Nos. 1 & 8)
Art. 415. The followi ng are immovable property:
(1) Land, buil dings, roads and constructions of all ki nds of
adhered to the soil;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof
forms part of the bed, and waters ei ther running or
stagnant;
(b) By incorporation which must be substantial and not
provisional (Art. 415, Nos. 2, 3, 7)
Art. 415. The followi ng are immovable property:
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to
the land or form an integral part of an immovabl e;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fix ed manner, in
such a way that i t cannot be separated therefrom without
breaking the material or deterioration of the object;
(7) Fertilizer actually us ed on a piece of land;
(c) By destination (Art 415, Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9)
Art. 415. The followi ng are immovable property:
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the
owner of the immov able in such a manner that i t reveals
the intention to attach the m permanently to the
tenements;
Prepared by Team Bessy  1
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
(5) Machinery, receptacl es, instruments or implements
intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or
works which may be carri ed on in a building or on a piece
of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of t he
said industry or works ;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon -houses, beehives, fish ponds or
breeding pl aces of similar nature, in case their owner has
placed them or preserves them with the intention to have
them permanently attached to the land, and forming a
permanent part of i t; the animals in these places are
included;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended
by their nature and objec t to remain at a fixed place on a
river, lak e, or coast;
b.
(d) By analogy (Art. 415, No. 10)
Art. 415. Th e followi ng are immovable property:
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real
rights over immovable property.
• Real property By Their Nature
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil;
Cases:
a. Lopez v. Orosa: The material man’s lien could be
charged only to the buil ding for which the credit was
made or which received the benefit of refection, the lower
court was right in, holdi ng at the interest of the
mortgagee over the land is super ior and cannot be made
subject to the material man's li en. Generally, real estate
connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it
is obvious that the inclusion of the building in the
enumeration of what may constitute real properties could
only mean one thing —that a building is by itself an
immovable property. In the absence of any speci fic
provision to the c ontrary , a buildi ng is an immov able
property irrespective of whether or not said struc ture and
the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same
owner. The law gives preference to unregistered
refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate
upon which the refectionary or work was made. The lien
so created attaches merely to the immovable property for
the construction or repai r of which the obli gation was
incurred. Therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the
unpaid value of the lumber used in the cons truction of the
building attaches only to said struc ture and to no other
property of the obli gors.
Tumalad V. Vicencio: The subject matter of chattel
mortgagewhich is a hous e of strong material and being an
immovable, is valid. The house on rented land is not only
expressly designated as chattel mortgage. It
specifically provi des that the mortgagor voluntari ly
cedes, sells , and transfers, by way of Chattel Mortgage,
the property together with its leasehold rights over the lot
on which it is constructed. Although there is no specific
statement referring to the subject house as pers onal
property, yet by ceding, selling, or t ransferring a property
by way of chattel mortgage, Vicencio & Simeon could only
have meant to convey the house as c hattel , or at least,
intended to treat the same as such, so that they should
not be allowed to mak e an inconsistent stand by c laiming
otherwise. Moreover, the subject house stood on a rented
lot to which Vicencio and Simeon merely had a temporary
right as lessee, al though this cannot in its elf alone
determine the status of the property, i t does so when
combined with other factors to sustain the interpretation
that the parties intended to treat the house as personal
property. Finally, it is Vi cencio and Simeon themselves
who are attacking the validity of the chattel mortgage in
this case. The doc trine therefore applies to the herein
Prepared by Team Bessy  2
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
defendants, having treated the subject house as personal
property.
c. Associated Ins. v. Iya: ISSUE: There is no question over
Iya’s right over the land by real estate mortgage;
however, as the buildi ng instructed thereon has been the
subject of two mortgages, controversy arise as to which
of these encumbrances should receive preference over
the other.
HELD: The buil ding is s ubject to the real estate mortgage, in
favour of Iya. Iya’s right to foreclose not only the land but
also the building erected thereon is recognised. While it
is true that real estate connotes the land and the building
constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inc lusion of the
building, separate and distinct from the land, in the
enumeration of what may constitute real properties
(Articl e 415), could only mean that a building is by itself
an immovable property. Moreover, in view of the absence
of any specific provi sion to the contrary, a building is an
immovable property i rrespective of whether or not said
structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to
the same owner. A buildi ng certainly cannot be divested
of its character of a real ty by the fact that t he land on
which it is constructed belongs to another. In the case at
bar, as personal properti es could only be the subject of a
chattel mortgage and as obviously the structure in
question is not one, the execution of the chattel mortgage
covering said bui lding is clearly invalid and a nullity.
While it is true that said document was correspondingly
registered in Chattel Mortgage Registry of Rizal, this act
produced no effect whatsoever, for where the interest
conveyed is in the nature of real property, the registration
of the document i n the registry of chattels is merely a
futile act. Thus , the regi stration of the chattel mortgage
of a building of strong materials produced no effect as far
as the buil ding is concerned.
d. Caltex v. CBAA: Issue: Whether o r not the sai d
machines and equipment are real property subjec t to
realty tax?
HELD: The said machines and equipment are considered real
property. Section 2 of the Assessment Law provi des that the
realty tax is due "on real property, including land, buildi ngs,
machinery, and other improvements" not specific ally exempted
in section 3 thereof. Thi s provision is reproduced with some
modification in the Real Property Tax Code whic h provides:
SEC. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. — There shall be
levied, asses sed and col lected in all provinc es, c ities and
municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property, such
as land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed
or attached to real property not herei nafter spec ifically
exempted. The Code contains the following defi nitions in i ts
section 3: k Improvements — is a valuable additi on made to
property or an ameliorati on in its ) I condition, amounting to
more than mere repairs or replacement of was te, costing labor
or capital and intended to enhance its value, beauty or utility or
to adapt it for new or further purposes.
m) Machinery — shall embrace machines , mechanical
contrivances, instruments, appliances and apparatus
attached to the real estate. It includes the physic al
facilities available for produc tion, as well as the
installations and appurtenant service facilities , together
with all other equi pment designed for or essential to its
manufacturing, industrial or agricultural purposes (See
sec. 3[f], Assessment Law). The machines and equipment
are necessary to the operation of the gas station, for
without them the gas station would be useless, and which
have been attached or affixed permanently to the gas
station site or embedded therein, are taxabl e
improvements and machi nery wi thin the meani ng of the
Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code.
Therefore, the machines and equi pment are real property
subject to realty tax.
Prepared by Team Bessy  3
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter
thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either
running or stagnant;
Case: Benguet Corp v. CBAA: ISSUE: Whether or not
the tai lings dam in questi on is an "improvement" upon the
land wi thin the meaning of the Real Property Tax Code.
HELD: Yes. The court rul ed that the subject dam falls within the
definition of an "improvem ent" because it is permanent in
character and i t enhances both the value and utility of
petitioner's mi ne. The immovable nature of the dam defines its
character as real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code
and thus makes it taxable under Section 38 of the Real Property
Tax Code.
* Real Property By Incorporation
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are
attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable;
When trees are cut or uprooted, incorporation ceases and
they become m ovables
Growing crops are movables for the purposes of chattel
mortgage law
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner,
in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom
without breaking the material or deterioration of the
object;
>Cases:
a. Meralco Securities v. CBAA: ISSUE: Whether or not the
pipeline is real property and is subjected to real property
tax?
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the pipeline system,
a construction adhering to the soi l, is real property under
Article 415(1) and (3) of the Civil Code and a mac hinery within
the meaning of the Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax
Code insofar as the pipeline uses valve, pumps and control
devices to maintain the flow of oil and therefore subject to
realty tax.
b. CBAA v. Meralco: ISSUE: Are the steel towers or poles of
the MERALCO considered real or personal properties?
HELD: The steel towers of MERALCO are considered personal
properties.
Pole – long, comparatively slender, usually cylindrical piece of
wood, timber, object of metal or the like; an upri ght
standard to the top of which something is affix ed or by
which something is supported.
MERALCO's steel supports consists of a framework of 4 steel
bars/strips which are bound by steel cross -arms atop of which
are cross -arms supporti ng 5 high -voltage trans mission wires,
and their sole function is to support/carry such wires. The
exemption granted to poles as quoted from Part II, Par.9 of
respondent's franchise i s determined by the use to which such
poles are dedicated. It is evident that the word “poles”, as used
in Act No. 484 and incorporated in the peti tioner's franchise,
should not be given a restrictive and narrow i nterpretation, as
to defeat the very object for which the franchise was granted.
The poles should be tak en and understood as part of
MERALCO's electric power system for the c onv eyance of
electric current to its consumers.
Art. 415 of the NCC clas sifies the following as i mmovable
property:
(1) Lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil;
xxx
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fix ed manner, in
such a way that i t cannot be separated therefrom without
Prepared by Team Bessy  4
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
breaking the material or deterioration of the object;
xxx
(5) Machinery, receptacl es, instruments or implements
intended by the owner pf the tenement for an industry ot
works which may be carri ed on in a building or on a piece
of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
said industry or works ;
Following these classific ations, MERALCO's steel towers
should be considered personal property. It should be
noted that the steel towers:
(a) are neither buildings or constructions adhered to the soil;
(b) are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner – they
can be separated without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object;
© are not machineri es, receptacles or instruments, and even if
they are, they are not intended for an industry to be
carried on in the premis es.
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
Means that the fertilizer must have been spread all over the
land
* Real Property By Destination
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the
owner of the immovable in such a manner that it
reveals the intention to attach them permanently to
the tenements;
^Requisites:
1. Placed by the owner or a tenant as agent of the owner,
2. With the i ntention of attaching them permanently event if
adherence will not involv e breakage or injury (Niches for
statutes)
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements
intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry
or works which may be carried on in a building or on
a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the
needs of the said industry or works;
^Requisites:
1. Placed by the owner or a tenant as agent of the owner,
2. Adapted to the needs of industry or work carried on
Cases:
a. Davao Sawmill v. Castillo: ISSUES: (1) Whether or not
the nature of the machin ery is personal property ? (2)
Whether or not the machinery is a mov able or immovable
property?
HELD: Yes, the nature of the machi nery is personal property.
Art.415 of the New Civil Code provides that Real Property
consists of:
(1) Lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soi l;
xxx
(5) Machinery, receptacl es, instruments or implements
intended by the owner pf the tenement for an industry ot
works which may be carri ed on in a buildi ng or on a piece
of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
said industry or works ;
Appellant should have registered its protest before or at the
time of the sale of the property. While not conclusive, the
appellant's charac terization of the property as chattels is
indicative of intention and impresses upon the property
the character determi ned by the parti es. Machinery is
naturally movable. However, machinery may be
immobilized by des tinati on or purpose under the
following conditi ons:
Prepared by Team Bessy  5
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
General Rule: The machinery only becomes immobilized if
placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant.
Immobilization cannot be made by a tenant, a usufructua ry, or
any person having only temporary right.
Exception: The tenant, usufructuary, or temporary possessor
acted as agent of the owner of the premises; or he intended to
permanently give away the property in favor of the owner.
As a rule, therefore, the machinery should be considered as
Personal Property , since it was not placed on the land by the
owner of the said land
b. Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng : Issue: Whether or not the
additional machinery and equipment is considered an
improvement subjec t to the mortgage executed in favor of
Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc. by Cu Unjieng e Hijos.
Held: Yes. The ins tallati on of the machinery and equipment in
question in the central c onverted them into real property
by reason of their purpose. As essential and principal
elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar
central would be unable to function or carry on the
industrial purpos e for which it was established. Inasmuch
as the central is permanent in character, the necessary
machinery and equipment installed for carrying on the
sugar indus try for which it has been established must
necessarily be perma nent.
Case Cited: Bischoff vs. Pomar and Compania General de
Tabacos (cited with approval in the case of Cea vs.
Villanueva)
(1) in a mortgage of real estate, the improvements on the same
are included; therefore, all objects permanently attached
to a mortgaged building or land, although they may have
been placed there after the mortgage was constituted,
are also i ncluded.
(2) when it was stated in the mortgage that the i mprovements,
buildings, and machinery that existed thereon were also
comprehended, it is indi spensable that the exclusion
thereof be stipulated between the contracting parties.
c. Makati Leasing v. Wearever: ISSUE: Whether the
machinery in s uit is real or personal property from the
point of view of the parti es.
HELD: There is no logic a l justificati on to exclude the rule out
the present case from the application of the
pronouncement in Tumal ad v Vicencio, 41 SCRA 143. If a
house of strong materi al s, like what was involved in the
Tumalad case, may be c onsidered as personal property
for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as
long as the parties to the contrac t so agree and no
innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is
absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable
in its nature and becomes immobilized onl y by
destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as
such. This is really because one who has so agreed is
estopped from the denyi ng the exis tence of the chattel
mortgage. In rejecting petitioner’s asserti on on the
applicability of the Tumalad doctr ine, the CA lays stress
on the fact that the house involved therein was built on a
land that did not belong to the owner of such house. But
the law makes no distinc tion wi th respect to the
ownership of the land on which the house is built and We
should not lay down disti nctions not contemplated by law.
It must be pointed out that the characterization by the
private respondent is indicative of the intention and
impresses upon the property the character determined by
the parties. As stated in Standard Oil Co. of New York v.
Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, it is undeniable that the parties to
a contract may , by agreement, treat as personal property
Prepared by Team Bessy  6
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
that which by nature would be a real property as long as
no interest of third parti es would be prejudiced thereby.
The status of the subject matter as movable or immovable
property was not raised as an issue before the lower court
and the CA, except in a supplemental memorandum in
support of the peti tion fil ed in the appellate court. There
is no record showing that the mortg age has been
annulled, or that steps were taken to nullify the same. On
the other hand, respondent has benefited from the said
contract. Equi ty dictates that one should not benefit at
the expense of another. As such, private respondent
could no longer be a llowed to impugn the efficacy of the
chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom.
Therefore, the questioned machinery should be
considered as personal property.
(6) Animal houses, pigeon -houses, beehives, fish ponds or
breeding places of similar na ture, in case their owner
has placed them or preserves them with the intention
to have them permanently attached to the land, and
forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these
places are included;
^Requisites:
1. Placed by the owner or a tenant as agent of the owner,
2. Intention of permanent attachment
3. Forming permanent part of the immovable
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are
intended by their nature and object to remain at a
fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
Vessels are considered as personal property under civil
law, however, they partake to a certain extent the nature
and condi tions of real property with respect to formalities
for valid trans fer and period of adverse possession
*Real Property By Analogy
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other
real rights over immovable property. (334a)
*Movable Property
1) By exclusion – Not included in Art. 415
Unless included in 415 but by provision of law is
movable (growing crops , machines not
installed by the owner, etc)
2) By description – can be moved without impairment
3) By enumeration
a. Forces of nature under control
b. Obligations involving movable s or demandabl e
sums
c. Shares of s tock
d. Consumable
e. Non -Consumable
 Real Rights vs. Personal Rights
a. Real rights - confer an autonomous power to
derive di rectly from an appropriate thi ng certain
economic advantages, independently of
whoever shall be the possessor of the thi ng
b. Personal rights (jus i n personam) is the power
belonging to one person to demand of anothe r
as a defini te passive subject the fulfillment of
an obligati on
 Characteristics of Real Rights
1. The holder of the real right must be abl e to act directly
by himself
2. The content of the real right is enforceabl e against
any possessor of the thi ng subject to the real right
Prepared by Team Bessy  7
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

 Classes of Real Rights • Who may Hold properties of public dominion:

1. Full control 1. State
1a. Ownership 2. LGUs
1b. Possession Cases:
2. Enjoyment
2a. Usufruct
2b. Servitudes a. Chavez v. PEA: ISSUE: Whether AMARI Dev Corp
2c. Lease (private Corp.) has the c apacity to acquire the lands held
3. Guaranty by PEA?
3a. Mortgage HELD: No. Under the 1987 Cons titution, private corporati ons
3b. Pledge such as AMARI DevCorp CANNOT ACQ UIRE alienable lands of
3c. Antic hresis the public domain.
3d. Retention/lien
4. Acquisition ARTICLE XII - NATIO NAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, 1987
4a. Preemption Constitution
4b. Redemption • Re submerged areas - Section 2. Prohibi ts the al ienation
of natural resources other than agricul tural lands of the
 Difference Between Real Right and Personal Right public domain.
By Ownership • Re reclaimed areas - Section 3.Prohib i ts private
1. Res Nullius corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of
2. Public Dominion the public domain.
3. Private Property Reclaimed lands compri sing the Freedom Islands, which are
4. Public Dominion covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable
5. Properties Covered lands of the public domain. PEA MAY LEASE these lands to
Intended for public use – use of anyone private corporations BUT NOT TO SELL O R TRANSFER
indiscriminately OWNERSHIP. PEA MAY ONLY SELL THESE LANDS TO
Intended for public se rvi ce or for development of PHILIPPINE CITIZENS, subject to the ownership limitations i n
national wealth the 1987 Cons titution and existing la ws.
-use only of authorized persons Thus, the Amended Joint Venture Agreement bet ween AMARI
and PEA was null and void. Despite the nulli ty of the Amended
• Public Dominion JVA, Amari is not precluded from recovering from PEA in the
Characteristics: proper proceedings, on a quantum meruit (as much as he
a. Inalienable deserved) basis, whatev er Amari may hav e incurred in
b. Not acquired by adverse possession implementing the Amended JVA prior to its declaration of
c. Not subj ect to attachment or ex ecution nullity.

Prepared by Team Bessy  8

PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
b. Usero v. CA: ISSUE: Whether the disputed strip of lan d
is the private property of Usero & Samela OR part of the
creek and therefore part of the public domain?
HELD: PART OF THE CREEK and THEREFORE PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 420. THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE PROPERTY OF
PUBLIC DOMINIO N:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals,
rivers, torrents, ports and b ridges constructed by the
State, banks, s hores, roadsteads, and OTHERS OF
SIMILAR CHARACTER;
The phrase "others of si milar character" includes a creek which
is a recess or an arm of a river. It is property belonging to
the public domain which is not susce ptible to private
ownershi p. Being public water, a creek cannot be
registered under the Torrens System in the name of any
individual. Accordingly , the Polinar spouses may utilize
the rip -rapped portion of the creek to prevent the erosion
of thei r property .
• Private Ownership
1. Patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities and
municipalities
2. From onset, patrimonial or converted to patrimonial
3. Generally, cannot be ac quired by prescription unless
allowed by law
4. Property belonging to private persons
Cases:
a. Tantoco v. Municipal Council : ISSUE: Whether the
Municipal properties can be executed in lieu of the
unsatisfied obligation?
HELD: No. According to article 344 of the Civil Code: provincial
roads and foot -path, squares, streets, fountains, and public
waters, drives and public improvements of general benefit built
at the expense of the sai d towns or provinces , are property for
public use.
All other property posses sed by the said towns and provinces is
patrimonial and shall be subject to the provision of the Civil
Code except as provided by special laws.
Principle: PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE OF THE STATE is
NOT WITHIN THE COMMERCE OF MAN and, consequently, is
UNALIENABLE and not s ubject to prescri ption
In Corpus Juris, vol. 23, page 355: The rule is that property held
for public uses, such as public buildings , streets, squares,
parks, promenades, wharves landing places , fi re engines, hose
and hose carriages. engi ne houses, public markets, hospitals ,
cemeteries, and GENERALLY EVERYTHING HELD FO R
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES, is NOT SUBJ ECT TO LEVY
AND SALE UNDER EXECUTION AGAINST SUCH
CORPORATION movable and immovable PROPERTY O F A
MUNICIPALITY, NECESSARY FO R GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSES, MAY NOT BE ATTACHED AND SO LD FO R THE
PAYMENT OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY.
The supreme reason for this rule is the CHARACTER OF THE
PUBLIC USE TO WHICH SUCH KIND OF PRO PERTY IS
DEVOTED. In this c ase, since the properties (attachments)
are for public use — henc e CANNOT BE EXEC UTED IN LIEU OF
THE UNSATISFIED O BLIGATION.
b. Zamboanga del Norte V. City of Zamboanga: ISSUE:
Whether the properties mentioned are properties for
public use OR patrimoni al?
HELD: FOR PUBLIC USE. RA 3039 is valid. The validity of the
law ultimately depe nds on the nature of the 50 l ots and
buildings thereon in question. For, the matter inv olved here is
the extent of legislative control over the properti es of a
municipal corporation, of which a province is one.
The principle itself is si mple:
Prepared by Team Bessy  9
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
If the property is OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY in its
PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY, the
PROPERTY IS PUBLIC and CONGRESS HAS ABSOLUTE
CONTROL OVER IT.
BUT if the property is O WNED IN ITS PRIVATE OR
PROPRIETARY CAPACITY, then it is PATRIMONIAL and
CONGRESS HAS NO ABSOLUTE CONTROL. The
municipality cannot be deprived of it without DUE
PROCESS and PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.
The CAPACITY in which the property is held is, however,
DEPENDENT ON THE USE TO WHICH IT IS INTENDED AND
DEVOTED. Now, which of two norms, i .e., that of the Civil Code
or that obtaining under the law of Municipal Corporations, must
be used in classifying the properties in question?
The Civil Code provides: PATRIMO NIAL
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is
divided into property for public use and patrimonial
property;
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consists of the provincial roads, city
streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public
waters , promenades, an d public works for public service
paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities. All
other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial
and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to
the provisions of special laws.
Applying the abov e cited norm, al l the properties in question,
except the two (2) lots us ed as High School playgrounds, could
be considered as patrimonial properties of the former
Zamboanga province. Ev en the capital site, the hospital and
leprosarium sites, and the school sites will be considered
patrimonial for they are not for public use. They would fall
under the phrase “public works for public service” for it has
been held that under the ejusdem generis (Of the same kind)
rule, such public works must be for free and ind iscriminate use
by anyone, jus t like the preceding enumerated properties in the
first paragraph of Art 424. The playgrounds, however, would fit
into this category.
Law of Municipal Corporations: FO R PUBLIC USE
On the other hand, appl ying the norm obtaining under the
principles constituting the law of Municipal Corporations, all
those of the 50 properties in question whic h are devoted to
public service are deemed public; the res t remai n patrimonial.
Under this norm, to be c onsidered public, it is en ough that the
property be held and, devoted for governmental purposes like
local administration, public education, public health, etc.
The controversy here is more along the domains of the Law of
Municipal Corporations — State vs. Province — than along tha t
of Civil Law. If municipal property held and devoted to public
service is in the same category as ordinary priv ate property,
then that would mean they can be levied upon and attached;
they can even be acqui red thru adverse possession — all these
to the detriment of the local community. It is wrong to consider
those properties as ordi nary private property.
Lastly, the classification of properti es other than those for
public use in the municipalities as patrimonial under Art. 424 of
the Civil Code — is “… without prej udice to the provisions of
special laws.” For purpose of this article, the pri nciples,
obtaining under the Law of Municipal Corporations can be
considered as “special l aws”. HENCE, THE CLASSIFICATIO N
OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY DEVOTED FOR DISTINCTLY
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES AS PUBLIC SHO ULD PREVAIL
over the Civil Code clas sification in this particul ar case.
c. Salas v. Jarencio: ISSUE: Is the property involv ed a
private property or patri monial property of the City of
Manila?
HELD: No, it is the property of the State. The rul e is that when
it comes to property of the municipality which it did not
acquire in its private or corporate capacity with i ts own
Prepared by Team Bessy  10
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)
funds, the legislature can transfer its administration and
disposition to an agency of the National Government to
be disposed of according to its discretion. The
possession of a municipality, excepting those acquired
with its own funds in its private or corporate capacity,
such property is held in trust for the State for the benefit
of its inhabitants , whether it be for governmental or
proprietary purposes. The City of Manila, although
declared by the Cadas tral Court as owner in fee simple,
has not shown by any shred of evidence in what manner
it acquired said land as i ts private or patrimonial
property. The presumpti on is that such land came from
the State upon the creation of the municipality. That it
has in its name a registered titl e is not questioned, but
this title should be deemed to be held in trust for the State
as the land covered thereby was part of the territory of
the Ci ty of Manila granted by the sovereign upon its
creation. Therefore, the land in question pertains to the
State and the City of Manila merely acted as trustee for
the benefit of the people therei n for whom the State can
legislate in the exercise of its legitimate powers.
d. Cebu v. Bercilles: ISSUE: Does the declaration of the
road, as abandoned, make it the patrimonial property of
the Ci ty of Cebu which may be the object of a common
contract?
HELD: Yes. Since that portion of the city street subject of
petitioner's applicati on for regis tration of title was withdrawn
from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes
patrimonial property whi ch can be the object of an ordinary
contract. Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that
"Property of public domi nion, when no longer intended for
public use or for public service, shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State."
Besides, the Revised Charter of the City of Cebu heretofore
quoted, in very cl ear and unequivocal terms, states that:
"Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or
conveyed for any purpos e for which other real property
belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed."
Accordingly, withdrawal of the property i n ques ti on from public
use and its subsequent sale to the peti tioner is valid. Hence,
the peti tioner has a registerable title ov er the lot in questio n.
e. Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez: ISSUE:
Whether the funds of th e Municipality of San Miguel,
Bulacan, in the hands of the provincial and muni cipal
treasurers of Bulacan and San Mi guel, respectively, are
public funds which are exempt from execution for the
satisfaction of the money judgment i n Civil Case No.
604-B.
HEL D: Well settled is the rule that public funds are not subject
to levy and execution. The reas on for this was explained in the
case of Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 "that
they are held in trust for the people, i ntended and used for the
accomplishment of the purposes for which munic ipal
corporations are created, and that to subject sai d properties
and public funds to exec ution would materially i mpede, even
defeat and in some instances destroy said purpose." And, in
Tantoco vs. Municipal Coun cil of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52, it was held
that "it is the settled doctrine of the law that not only the public
property but also the tax es and public revenues of such
corporations cannot be s eized under executi on against them,
either in the treasury or when in transit to it. Judgments
rendered for taxes, and the proc eeds of such judgments in the
hands of officers of the l aw, are not subject to execution unless
so declared by statute." Thus, it is clear that all the funds of
petitioner municipali ty in the poss ession of the Municipal
Treasurer of San Miguel, as well as those in the possession of
the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan, are also public funds and
as such they are exempt from execution. O therwi se stated,
there must be a corresponding appropriation in t he form of an
Prepared by Team Bessy  11
PROPERTY NOTES (WED/THURS: 5:30-7:30PM)

ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan before any 2. Accessory

money of the municipality may be paid out. In the case at bar, 3. Destined to compl ete, enhance or orname nt another
it has not been shown that the Sangguniang Bayan has passed property
an ordinance to this effect.
 Substitutability
1. Fungible
f. Government v. Cabangis: ISSUE: Whether or not the 2. Non-fungible
respondents recover the lots in questions as their original
property?  Susceptibility to Division
1. Divisible
HELD: No. Si nce the priv ate res pondents never did anything to 2. Indivisible
prevent thei r destruction. In conclusion, then, we hold that the
lots in question having disappeare d on account of the gradual  Designation
erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide, and having 1. Generic
remained in such a s tate until they were reclaimed from the sea 2. Specific
by the filling in done by the Government, they are public land.
(Aragon vs. Insular Government, 19 Phil., 22 3; Francisco vs.  Existence in Point of Time
Government of the Phili ppine Islands , 28 Phil., 505.) Since 1. Present
these lands are public lands, they belonged to the Government 2. Future
of the United States , under the administration and control of the
Government of the Phili ppine Islands .  Susceptibility to Appropriation
1. Non-appropriable
2. Appropriable
g. Chavez v. PEA (supra) 2a. Al ready appropriated
2b. Not yet appropriated
 By Physical Existence  Susceptibility to Commerce
a. Corporeal – existence can be determined by the 1. Within the Commerce of Man
senses; includes owners hip of corporeal rights 2. Outside the Commerce of Man
b. Incorporeal –
c. Things having abstract existence, created by man
and representing value (rights over incorporeal
things, credi ts, real rights other than ownership over
corporeal things

 Autonomy or Dependence
1. Principal

Prepared by Team Bessy  12