2019

Mr. E leased a piece of land from Mr. F to be used for his sawmill business for a period of ten
(10) years. Consequently, Mr. E placed heavy machineries thereon to be used for his
aforementioned business, with the intention of removing them after the expiration of the lease
period.
Are Mr. E's heavy machineries considered real properties under the Civil Code? Explain. (3%)
Suggested Answer:
No, Mr. E's heavy machineries are not considered real properties under the Civil Code. Art. 415 (5) of
the Civil Code provides that 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 are immovable property.
Machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the
owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person
having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. Here, Mr. E is a
mere lessee and not the owner of the property or plant, thus the aforementioned heavy machineries
are not real properties within the contemplation of Art. 415 (5) (Davao Saw Mill Co. v. Castillo, G.R.
No. L-40411, August 7, 1935).

2017
In 1960, Rigor and Mike occupied two separate but adjacent tracts of land in
Mindoro. Rigor’s tract was classified as timber land while Mike’s was classified as
agricultural land. Each of them fenced and cultivated his own tract continuously for
30 years. In 1991, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable
and disposable, and the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended for public use
or public service.
Rigor and Mike now come to you today for legal advice in asserting their right of
ownership of their respective lands based on their long possession and occupation
since 1960.
a. What are the legal consequences of the 1991 declarations of the Government
respecting the lands? Explain your answer. (2%)
As to the land occupied Mike, the same remains property of the public dominion. According
to jurisprudence, the classification of the property as alienable and disposable land of the
public domain does not change its status as property of the public dominion. There must be
an express declaration by the State that the public dominion property is no longer intended for public
service or the development of the national wealth or that the property has been converted into
patrimonial. Without such express declaration, the property, even if classified as alienable or disposable,
remains property of the public dominion. [Basis: Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172
(2009); Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB wall on October 15 and 16, 2017 and
pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]
As to the land occupied by Rigor, the declaration that it is no longer intended for public use
or public service converted the same into patrimonial property provided that such express
declaration was in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or in a Presidential
Proclamation in cases where the President was duly authorized by law. According to
jurisprudence, when public land is no longer intended for public use, public service or for
the development of the national wealth it is thereby effectively removed from the ambit of
public dominion and converted into patrimonial provided that the declaration of such
conversion must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or by a
Presidential proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law to that
effect. [Basis: Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 587 SCRA 172 (2009); Heirs of Mario
Malabanan v. Republic, 704 SCRA 561 (2013); discussed in my FB wall on October 15 and
16, 2017 and pp. 338-344, Vol. 1, Rabuya’s Civil Law Reviewer]