JULIAN YAP  vs SANTIAGO TANADA 

; and
GOULDS PUMPS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 
PROMULGATED: July 18, 1988PONENTE: J. NARVASAThis is a petition for
certiorari to review the orders of CFI Cebu City.Doctrine:
 
Article 415, par. 3 of the Civil Code considers and immovable property as “everything
attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated
therefrom
without breaking the material or deteriorating the object.” The pump does
not fit this description.It could be, and was, in fact,
separated from Yap’s premises without being broken of suffering
deterioration. Obviously, the separation or removal of the pump involved nothing
morecomplicated that the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other fasteners. The case
began in the City Court of Cebu with the filing of Goulds Pumps International(Phil), Inc.
of a complaint against Yap and his wife seeking recovery of P1,459.30, representingthe
balance of the price and installatio
n cost of a water pump in the latter’s premises. The Court
rendered judgment in favor of herein respondent after they presented evidence ex-parte
due tofailure of petitioner Yap to appear before the Court. Petitioner then appealed to the
CFI,particularly to the sale of Judge Tanada. For again failure to appear for pre-trial, Yap
wasdeclared in default. He filed for a motion for reconsideration which was denied by
Judge Tanada.
On October 15, 1969, Tanada granted Gould’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Exe
cution. Yapforthwith filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order. In the
meantime, theSheriff levied on the water pump in question and by notice scheduled the
execution sale thereof.
But in view of the pendency of Yap’s motion, suspensio
n of sale was directed by Judge Tanada.It appears, however, that this was not made
known to the Sheriff who continued with the auctionsale and sold the property to the
highest bidder, Goulds. Because of such, petitioner filed aMotion to Set Aside Execution
Sale and to Quash Alias Writ of Execution. One of his argumentswas that the sale was
made without the notice required by Sec. 18, Rule 29 of the New Rules of
Court, “i.e. notice by publication in case of execution of sale of real property, the pump
and
 its
accessories being immovable because attached to the ground with the character of
permanency.”
Such motion was denied by the CFI.
Whether or not the pump and its accessories are immovable property
No. The water pump and its accessories are NOT immovable properties. The argument
ofYap that the water pump had become immovable property by its being installed in his
residenceis untenable. Article 415, par. 3 of the Civil Code considers and immovable
property as
“everything attached to an immo
vable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the material or deteriorating the object.” The pump
does
not fit this description. It could be, and was, in fact,
separated from Yap’s premises without being
broken of suffering deterioration. Obviously, the separation or removal of the pump
involvednothing more complicated that the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other
fasteners.