TITLE 3.

A letter was sent by Nava’s counsel reiterating his previous suggestion for
GR No. | Date | Real Property by Analogy | Ponente | Your Surname amicable settlement, but the same produced no fruitful result. The sheriff
then levied upon and garnished the sugar quotas allotted to plantation audit,
Petitioner: Ricardo Presbitero, Executor of the Testate Estate of Esperidion
and adhered to the Ma-ao Mill District and “registered in the name of
Presbitero
Esperidion Presbitero as the original plantation-owner,” and furnished copies
Respondents:Hon. Jose F. Fernandez, Helen Caram Nava, and the Provincial Sheriff
of the writ of execution to the manager of the Ma-ao Sugar Central
of Negros Occidental.
Company, but without presenting for registration copies thereof to the
Register of Deeds.
Recit-Ready: Esperidion Presbitero was ordered by the court to pay Nava in order
4. Nava filed a motion to hear evidence on the market value of the lots. The
to settle his debts. His failure to do so prompted the court to issue a writ of
motion was granted, but the hearings were suspended when Presbitero
execution on a portion of Presbitero’s property. Thus, the Sheriff levied upon and
agreed to cede the properties subject of litigation.
garnished the sugar quotas allotted to the plantation audit, and the Ma-ao Mill
5. In line with this, Presbitero was ordered by the courts to segregate the
District. He failed to present copies for registration to the Registry of Deeds
portion of the properties which pertained to the plaintiff, and to effect final
however. When Presbitero would ultimately fail to comply with the order of the
conveyance of the said portion free from any lien and encumbrance
lower court, an auction sale was scheduled, the subject of the same being the
whatsoever.
property subject of the litigation. However, before the sale took place, Esperidion
6. Presbitero failed to comply, thus Nava moved to declare the market value of
passed away, and his son, the administrator for the latter’s estate, petitioned the
the lots in question to be P2,500 per hectare based on uncontradicted
sheriff not to push through with the sale, on the ground that the levy was invalid
evidence.
because the notice was not registered with the Registry of Deeds, as was the
7. Presbitero ultimately was not able to comply, and the auction sale on the
procedure for real properties. Hence, the sole issue for determination is whether or
property subject of litigation was scheduled.
not the sugar quotas are real property. The Court here held that sugar quotas are
8. Presbitero died during the pendency of the trial, and proceedings for the
real property by analogy. As an improvement attached to land, by express provision
settlement of his estate were commenced, prompting the estate
of law, though not physically so united, the sugar quotas are inseparable therefrom,
administrator to petition the sheriff to desist in holding the auction sale on
just like servitudes and other real rights over an immovable, sugar quotas as
the ground that the levy on the sugar quotas was invalid because the notice
improvements attached to land, are real property by analogy, as is provided by
thereof was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.
Article 415 paragraph 10 of the Civil Code. Since the sugar quotas are real
9. Hence, it must be determined whether sugar quotas are real (immovable) or
property, the levy made upon them by the sheriff is null and void.
personal properties. If they are realty, then the levy upon them by the sheriff
is null and void for lack of compliance with the procedure prescribed in
Doctrine: As an improvement attached to land, by express provision of law, though
Section 14, Rule 39, in relation with Section 7, Rule 59, of the Rules of Court,
not physically so united, the sugar quotas are inseparable therefrom, just like
requiring "the filing with the register of deeds a copy of the orders together
servitudes and other real rights over an immovable, sugar quotas as improvements
with a description of the property”
attached to land, are real property by analogy.

ISSUE/S:
FACTS:
W/N the sugar quotas are immovable property - YES.
1. Esperidion Presbitero was ordered by the lower court to pay Nava in order to
settle his debts, but he failed to do so.
2. Nava’s counsel tried to settle the case with Presbitero’s son out of court, but
this likewise failed, thus prompting said counsel to ask for the issuance of a RATIO:
partial writ of execution for the sum of P12,250.
They are immovable properties. Under express provisions of law, the sugar quota
allocations are accessories to land, and cannot have independent existence away
from a plantation, although the latter may vary.

Citing the case of Abelarde v. Lopez, the Court said that even if a contract of sale of
haciendas omitted the right, title, interest, participation, action and rent which the
grantors had or might have in relation to the parcels of land sold, the sale would
include the quotas, it being provided in Section 9, Act 4166 that the allotment is
deemed an improvement attached to the land, and that at the time the contract of
sale was signed, the land devoted to sugar were practically of no use without the
sugar allotment.

As an improvement attached to land, by express provision of law, though not

physically so united, the sugar quotas are inseparable therefrom, just like servitudes
and other real rights over an immovable, sugar quotas as improvements attached to
land, are real property by analogy. Article 415 of the Civil Code, in enumerating what
are immovable properties, names —

"10. Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights
over immovable property,"

It is by law, therefore, that these properties are immovable or real, Article 416 of the
Civil Code being made to apply only when the thing (res) sought to be classified is not
included in Article 415.

The fact that the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 allows transfers of sugar quotas does
not militate against their immovability. Neither does the fact that the Sugar Quota
Office does not require registration of sales of quotas with the Register of Deeds for
their validity; nor the fact that allocation of unrefined sugar quotas is not made among
lands planted to sugarcane but among "the sugar producing mills and plantation
OWNERS", since the lease or sale of quotas are voluntary transactions, the regime of
which is not necessarily identical to involuntary transfers or levies; and there cannot
be a sugar plantation owner without land to which the quota is attached; and there
can exist no quota without there being first a corresponding plantation.

Hence, since sugar quotas are considered real property, the levy made upon them by
the sheriff is null and void.