PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C.
YLANAN
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all
kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are
attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable;
(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;
(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;
(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;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish
ponds or breeding places 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 it; the animals in these places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
either running or stagnant;
(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;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and
other real rights over immovable property.
For tonight, we’ll start discussion with Immovable
Property.
Now, as to your syllabus, I will just send your
syllabus and yung may syllabus na sa akin dati, yung
sa last year, same lang yung content, may dinagdag
lang akong 2 cases on immovable property.
1st session Aug-06-2021
Now, let’s proceed with Article 415.
Article 415 deals with Immovable Property.
Now, take note that when we speak of the term
“immovable”, yung perception ng mga tao
especially the layman would always tend to lean
towards yung hindi talaga siya basta-basta mamo-
move mo from one place to another.
In fact, if tatanungin mo kahit sino, “Give me an
example of an immovable.” Yung ibibigay agad nila,
as for example, is yung lupa. Lupa at bahay.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with that example, or
that perception na ganyan talaga yung, that is the
definition of an immovable property.
But, if you go through Article 415, nothing in 415
provides, wala siyang ibinigay dito na exact
definition on what immovable property is. In fact,
aside from number 1, itong iba dito, -other
enumerations sa Article 415 are considered movable
but because of incorporation, or because of it’s
purpose there is a transformation from movable to
an immovable.
Example: a painting on one hand, it is considered as
a movable but kung titingnan mo sa no. 4
enumeration, it can be made or it can be
transformed into an immovable property if yung
painting itself is e-aattach ng owner doon sa
building itself for the purpose of ornamentation or
among others. And if na-follow niya yung mga
requirements dito, then, the painting itself will be
considered as an immovable property.
Ano pa? Animal houses. Itong mga…the chickens,
pigs among others—they are considered immovable
but kung titingnan mo sila, andiyan naman sila,
maka-move naman sila kahit saan lang sila
pupunta.
Then again, the law itself does not provide an exact
definition on what immovable is but it provides an
enumeration.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
Now, if there is one thing, that I want you to be
familiar, or much better memorize, is Article 415. I
remember, way back sa, dun sa aming time, the
provision of Article 415 is ginapa-memorize sa amin
ng aming teacher because important provision ‘to.
Important provision in the sense na kung pupunta
kayo going forward to the next provision sa movable
property. Ang definition again ng movable property
are those, kung wala sa enumeration sa Article 415,
they are deemed consider as a movable property.
That is why para maging familiar kayo, it is much
better to familiarize kung ano yung mga immovable
property under 415. If kung hindi niyo kaya
imemorize, at least familiarize. Know the terms
kung ano yun sila. K?
Again, Article 415 does not provide an exact
definition on what immovable property is but it only
enumerates because of the difficulty of drawing
precisely a definition of this term.
Iba-iba yung nature niya, iba-iba yung application
niya so it is very difficult to provide an exact
definition for this. And in fact, if mapoprovide ka ng
definition for that—magiging cause siya ng different
problems as to the application of the law.
Now, moving forward, you also have to consider
what are the kinds of immovable? There are four
kinds of immovable:
1. Immovable by Nature
2. Immovable by Incorporation
3. Immovable by Destination
4. Immovable by Analogy or by Law
Now let’s go to the first kind of an immovable
property, and that is,
Immovable by Nature. In this sense, ito yung
common perception, ito yung perception ng isang
layman, na isang bagay na hindi mo pwedeng
maaring ilipat kahit saan-saan. So that is an
Immovable by Nature.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
And the perfect example for that is land. Again,
immovable by nature are those, by their essence
and nature are immovable, or cannot be move from
one place to another.
So there’s no question about that. Dali lang siya
sabton, unsa ang definition, unsa ang kuan aning
immovable by nature.
Again, this is the most common na understanding ng
lahat ng tao for immovable.
Immovable by Incorporation. Now, ang Immovable
by Incorporation are those which are treated as
immovable by reason of their attachment or
incorporation to an immovable in such manner as
to form an integral part thereof.
So, take note of the term that forms an integral part
thereof. Anong example nito? Building and
construction of all kinds.
Now, the building itself, hindi mo man siya agad-
agad na ma-consider na immovable, you have to
construct.. but again, all those materials used in
constructing a building is first a movable but it was
attached to an immovable which is a land. By that
reason, the building itself is an Immovable by
Nature.
Also, trees, plants and growing fruits while they are
still attached on the land or form an integral part of
an immovable.
Immovable by Destination those which are
essentially immovable. It is essentially movable but
for the purpose which we have been placed in an
immovable, or take of the nature of the latter
because of the added utility derived therefrom.
So ito, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Article 415
because of their destination, it becomes part of an
immovable. The painting itself, movable siya but by
reason of destination, by reason of the purpose of
the owner of the building or an establishment, it
becomes part, it becomes an immovable by
destination.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
So Immovable by Analogy or by Law, just refer to
Article 10 of Article 415. Those are the kinds of an
immovable property.
Par. 1 “Land, buildings, roads and constructions of
all kinds adhered to the soil”
No question about lands considered na siya
immovable except when, of course, yung soil itself,
kinuha mo sa land, nilagay mo sa sako, nilagay mo
sa paso, of course, that will be considered as
movable. But kung land itself, a parcel of land,
walang question, it is immovable, no question about
that. Klaro na siya.
Now let’s go to building. Take note again, the
enumeration provided under paragraph of Article
415. Ito siya is the individual items here, the land,
buildings, roads and constructions are treated as
they are treated differently. Hindi ito as one.
Now, if the land itself contains, sa isang lupa,
merong building—bahay, meron ding road. Now,
the road itself, the house itself, and the land itself it
can be appropriated to any person. Iba-iba ang
treatment nito. Hindi pwede na sabihin natin, if
ililease natin yung lupa, does it mean kasali na doon
ang bahay?
Again, in a contract, pwede mong iseparate ang
lease ng lupa at ang lease ng bahay or mortgage ng
lupa or ang mortgage ng bahay, iba-iba ang
kanilang treatment, they cannot be treated as one.
Building –A house is Immovable by Incorporation. A
house or building is classified as an immovable by
reason of adherence to the soil.
Take note of the term “adherence to the soil,”
meaning, there is some sense of permanency over
–there is permanency yung sa structure itself.
Building must be adhered to the soil itself.
Now, what if yung mga common na mga
establishment, yung mga modern establishment or
structures or mga businesses. Ano ang kanilang
building?
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Kinukuha lang nila is yung sa container van, yung
box type tapos yun, binubutasan nila para merong
door at merong window. Now,–does that container
itself can be considered as an immovable?
The answer is NO because, again, one of the basic
requirement para ma-consider ang isang building as
an immovable is that it must adhere to the soil or
there is some sense of permanency.
Now, yung container lang, usually is, nilalagay lang
yan diyan sa isang lupa tapos pwede niyang imove
yan from one place to another. There is no
permanency on that.
Another, yung mga bahay sa squatters, of course,
mga barong-barong that cannot be considered as
an immovable property because it is just a mere
superimposition. Madali lang siya ilipat, madali lang
siya tanggalin or ilipat. So that is considered as a
movable property. Again, dapat adhered to the soil,
meaning, there must be some sense of permanency
on it.
Now, paragraph 1 of Article 415 classifies building
an immovable. The buildings refer to is that which
substantially adheres to the land and not one
which merely superimposed on the soil.
Now, take note also, that a building, is at all times,
be considered as an immovable basta lang
provided –balik tayo doon sa first –only requirement
niya it must be adhered to the soil.
Now, building is considered as an immovable but,
take note, there are –I think nadaanan niyo na ang
Doctrine of Estoppel way back sa inyong OBliCon.
Okay?
I presume you are familiar with the Doctrine of
Estoppel.
Now, there are instances wherein the parties, for
example, yung bahay is ginagawa nilang subject for
a chattel mortgage. And when we speak of chattel
mortgage, only movable property ang pwede lang
ma-considered as a chattel.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
Pero may ibang parties that would consider the
building as part, ico-consider nila as a chattel. Yes,
icoconsider nila as subject for chattel.
Now, does that mean na, okay, since both parties
agree na consider na siya as chattel, the building
itself, the house itself will consider or turn into a
movable property?
The answer is NO. Take note. This is the general
rule: Buildings are always immovable because it is
the law itself that provides for its classification.
Immovable siya always.
Now, yung sinasabi natin na, okay, ginawa nilang
subject to chattel, does that mean na consider na
siya as a movable property?
The answer is NO. Ganito, if it is both parties agree,
both parties agree, na itong lupa, itong bahay
subject siya as chattel. It is an agreement between
them, so in other words, if in the event may
magrereklamo ang isang party na hindi man valid
yung ating agreement, hindi man valid yung chattel.
For the reason that yung Bahay is under the law
considered siya as immovable. Now, anyone cannot
claim that defense. Hindi sila pwede mag-
agreement by reason of estoppel. Again, they are
estopped from claiming, na ni-agree na man sila, so,
it is treated to them na movable property.
The only exception for this is, hindi mag-aapply yung
agreement nila is when there is an innocent third
party involved here or when the question itself
provides for the application of law.
Now, cases of Punzalan versus Vda de Lacsamana
Now, for the cases, I will just assign cases and
ediscuss natin to by Thursday next week, second
hour sa Property. Now, we’ll just discuss the cases.
But again, ganito, again, buildings are always
considered, they are always considered as
immovable property that is a rule. Now, if the
parties themselves agree na econsider nila yung
bahay or any building as a chattel then so be it.
Agreement na yun sa dalawa. They are estopped
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
from claiming that they cannot claim na mali yung
agreement nila.
But if it affects third person, of course, it requires
the application of law and as between application of
law and the agreement of the parties, of course, the
law will prevail.
And since application of law will prevail, titignan
natin kung ano ba ang building under 415. Since, it
is considered as an immovable then rule in favor na
yung property itself or yung bahay itself is
considered as an immovable.
Now, the building by itself is a real or immovable
property distinct from the land on which it is
constructed and therefore can be separated subject
to a contract.
As I mentioned kanina, itong si number 1, it doesn’t
mean na yung house and lot, kung e-su-subject for
REM or ireal-estate mortgage yung lupa, kasali na
yung bahay, no, it does not, hindi ganyan yung
application.
You can sell your house, iretain mo yung lupa,
depende sa agreement or emortgage mo ang lupa,
emortgage mo ang bahay, different person, pwede
yan sila.
Now, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building,
separate and distinct of the land, in the
enumeration of what we constitute real properties
only mean one thing that the building is by itself an
immovable property.
Now, ordinarily, in Article 2127 of the Civil Code
extends the effects of the real estate mortgage to
accessions and accessories found on the
hypothecated property when secured obligations
become due, thus, the provision has been seen by
the court to mean that all improvements
subsequently introduced or owned by the
mortgagor on the encumbered property are
deemed to form part of the mortgagee.
Now, the case of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery
and Company. This is one of the cases we will
discuss next Thursday and assigned case ito siya.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
The ownership of such accessions or accessories
also belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the
principal. In cases, however, where there is clear
and convincing evidence to prove that principal
and accessory are not owned by one and the same
person or in the presumption shall not be applied
that the actual ownership shall be upheld.
So ganito, the house itself may be considered as an
accession. Now if there is no question on that, on
question of ownership, it is presumed that the
owner of the land, is the owner of the building that
is the presumption.
But as an exception, if there are other proof na
pwede mong maipakita na different owners ito,
then the application of Article 415 paragraph 3 will
apply that the ownership of the land and the
building is owned by different personality.
Also, while it is true that the mortgage land
necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation,
the improvements thereon, still a building by itself
may be mortgage apart from the land which it has
been built, in cases where ownership of the building
does not belong to the owner of the land as such a
mortgage as real estate mortgage to the building
will be considered as immovable property even if
dealt with separately.
Ganito, how about yung mga squatters, kung meron
silang ecoconstruct na cemented or concrete house,
although, hindi yan sa kanila or yung mga usurper.
Although the house built on the land of another
person, concrete siya, di basta-basta ma kuan, it
was adhered to the soil, it doesn’t mean na yung
building is considered as movable property.
Again, the definition or the classification itself was
provided under 415 and 415, again, is an exclusive
list. Since andun na siya kahit hindi ikaw ang may-
ari ng lupa pero may kinonstruct ka diyan na bahay,
then that is considered as an immovable property,
yung bahay.
The only exception for that is when, merong lupa,
andon sa lupa, is merong let’s say, merong
dilapidated house na. Now, binenta niya yung lupa
pati yung bahay. Yung lupa, of course, kanya yun.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Now, the purpose, ang kanyang purpose of buying
the house is for him to demolish it at ibenta at a
salvage price kung ano yung makukuha niya doon.
Now, in that case, the house itself may not be
considered as an immovable, because, again, the
purpose of which, ang purpose ng parties bakit niya
ibinenta, bakit niya binili yung bahay is for the
purpose of demolition –is for the purpose of
acquiring kung ano yung salvage value, kung ano pa
ang makuhang pwedeng ma-salvage don sa bahay.
If that is their intention, the house itself is
considered as movable property. Let’s go to, tignan
mo ang kanilang intention ng parties, eventually,
idedemolish ang bahay or yung building then that
may be treated as movable property.
The law makes no distinction as to whether or not
the owner of the land is or is not the owner of the
building hence a building is an immovable property
regardless whether or not the structure and the
land on which it is adhered to belong to the same
owner or whether is it erected by the owner of the
land or usufructuary or lessee.
Now, the parties to a contract may, by agreement,
treat it as a personal property that which by nature
would be a real property. We have intended to
erode the doctrine of estoppel that the building is
by itself is immovable property.
The fact remains that the nature of the building
does not depend on the way the parties deal with
it. The classification of the property into real or
personal is provided for by law and may not
therefore be changed by the agreement of the
parties as such even if the parties may treat it as
personal property that which under the law is a real
property. That agreement does not, in anyway, alter
the character of the property as an immovable or
real property.
Another case na ediscuss natin next week is the case
of Evangelista vs. Alto Surety, an insurance company
as well as cases of Navarro vs. Pineda, Tumalad vs.
Vicencio, and Associated Insurance and Surety
Corporation vs. IYA. These cases would demonstrate
the Doctrine of Estoppel as to the application of
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
Article 415 paragraph specifically on building so
we’ll discuss cases next meeting at eaassign ko to sa
kanila.
Now, as we mentioned kanina, that both parties
may agree and consider the Doctrine of Estoppel
that they cannot change or they cannot use the
defense that void yung agreement nila because
again, the subject property itself is considered as an
immovable property but since maregister siya, ano
ba ang effect nito ireregister mo yung bahay, yung
building as a movable property? And can the
Register of Deed refuse registration sa building as a
chattel?
In the case of Standard Oil Company vs. Jaramillo,
an also a designated case ediscuss next week. A
Register of Deed may not refuse the registration of
chattel on the pretext that the subject matter
thereof is not a personal property. Why? The
Register of Deeds has purely ministerial function.
The only, the discussion as to the classification of
property is best left to the discretion of the Court. Si
Court na ang pwede magdecide kung ano ba yan
siya, is it considered as a movable or not?
But si Register of Deeds kailangan niya yan iregister
provided kumpleto lahat ng documents, nagbayad
sila, etc. etc. because again, purely ministerial ang
kanyang function.
But what is the effect once maregister na siya? The
effect of that is WALA. Wala siyang effect actually.
It was provided in Associated Insurance and Surety
Corporation vs. IYA that the registration of a chattel
covering a building in a chattel mortgage registry,
produces no effect, whatsoever, for over the interest
conveyed is in the nature of real property.
The Registration of the document in the registry of
the chattel is merely a futile act.
So, wala siyang effect, but sa aking opinion, the only
effect is that it only recognizes the intention or the
agreement between the parties and diyan na
papasok si Doctrine of Estoppel.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Since nag-agree na sila, niregister na nila sa Register
of Deeds, so, there is this intention by the parties na
econsider siya as a movable property, so that is the
only effect sa chattel mortgage. Otherwise, if iba
yung effect, if irecognize talaga ni Chattel Mortgage
Registry na, okay, econsider natin siya as a movable
property, now, what if it will affect another innocent
third person, in that case magiging futile yung
Article 415 itself because, again, pupunta tayo, ang
eaapply natin is yung agreement ng both parties.
Again, the law itself is explicit kung paano niya
kinlassify ang building and since it is immovable and
it affects third person and it requires the
application of law considered siya as immovable
property under Article 415, but again, as to the
parties as to a chattel mortgage they are not
allowed to assail the validity of the said agreement
under the principle of estoppel.
…“constructions adhered to the soil”
Another item found in the first paragraph of Article
415.
Now, any construction (roads) which is adhered to
the soil that is permanently attached to the land is
considered as Immovable by Incorporation.
In the case of Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp vs
CBAA, designated case din ito.
Steel Towers are considered as movable property.
Steel towers, yung mga poste ng MERALCO, poste
ng Davao Light, poste ng kahit anong power
generating company diyan, they are considered as
movable property. But take note of the ruling of
Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp vs CBAA (1964) as
compared to the case of MERALCO vs The City
Assessor of Lucena City (2015) case. There is a
confusion as to the classification of steel towers,
ano ba siya? Is it considered as a movable or not?
Because kung titingnan natin yung 1964 case, the
Supreme Court itself ruled na movable siya by
reason that it is removable and merely attached to
a square metal frame by means of bolts which when
unscrewed could be easily dismantled and move
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
from place to place, yan yung ruling niya. And there
is nothing wrong with the ruling in 1964.
Now, here comes 2015 case, sa 2015 kinonsider ni
SC na immovable property ang steel towers. Now, if
eside-to-side mo yung dalawang cases, that is why,
warn ko kayo na you have to look at the issue
involve sa dalawa.
Because in the 2015 case, the primary or the main
issue for this is to the application of the real
property tax. Whether or not steel towers is
subject for real property tax.
Again, the 2015 case, existing na or andun na si
Local Government Code, applicable na siya. In 1964,
wala pa, hindi pa nagkuan si Local Government
Code. The application of which is binased nila dun sa
provision ni Article 415.
Ganito, mao ni inyong timan-an, take note of the
date, the date, ang issue regarding sa pagclassify
ng steel tower as movable or immovable. Tingnan
nyo yung date,
if it is before the Local Government Code=apply niyo
si 1964 case.
But after, upon the effectivity of the Local
Government Code- you have to apply the provision
of the Local Government Code as to the applicable
definition kung ano yung mga subject ng immovable
property.
Now, in this case, in 2015 case, ganito, one of their
ruling bakit sinabi ni SC na subject siya, that the steel
towers itself is subject for real property tax is
because ano ba yung tower?
The tower itself is considered as a machinery, now,
let us go to the definition of machinery dun sa…
Machinery as to the Civil Code provides that it must
be set, put or establish by the owner himself for the
purpose of his industry, para gamiton sa iyang
industry or business.
In the definition of machinery under sa Local
Government Code, even if immovable siya or
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
movable, it is subject for real property tax. Now
under the Local Government Code, machinery
embraces machines, equipment, mechanical
conjuvances, instruments, appliances or apparatus
which may or may not be attach permanently or
temporarily to the real property.
This is one of the basis as to why applicable or dapat
patawan siya ng real property tax. It includes the
physical facilities for production, the installations
and appurtenant service, facilities those which are
mobile, self-powered or self-propelled and those
are not permanently attached to the real property
which are actually, directly and exclusively –the
magic terms, gamit ito siya pagdating niyo rin sa
Taxation.
The ADE (Actually, Directly and Exclusively-Used)
to meet the needs of a particular industry.
Now going back sa definition ng machineries, sa
Civil Code, wala ito siya, kailangan siya naka-attach
mismo sa of an immovable property.
For example, a machine used in Brewery, dapat
naka-attach siya doon sa, let’s say, sa ground ng
building, so that is considered as immovable. Now,
because of that hindi mo siya basta-bastang
matanggal or kung tatanggalin mo man siya, it will
cause substantial damage over the immovable itself
or the machine itself.
Now, sa Local Government Code, on the other
hand, it does not, wala siyang ganitong
requirement, in fact, kahit na movable siya or not
provided actually, directly and exclusively-used in a
particular industry or business or activity, then it is
considered as an immovable property which is
subjected for real property tax.
So that is why, careful kayo sa pag-apply ng
dalawang kaso, but mostly man gud karon, the
distinction between Article 415 and the Local
Government Code provision as to the definition of
immovable property especially sa steel towers, only
deals with tax purposes, real property tax.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
So most likely, mag-aapply dito is 2015 but if you
would be asked, how would you categorize a steel
tower? Tanggalin natin yung issue ni tax, you can
apply the 1964 case in support sayong Article 415 na
provision, yung kanila. But again, if purposes of
determination kung subject ba siya for real property
tax then 2015 ruling will apply.
Now, as between the Civil Code and the general law
governing Property and Property Relation and the
Local Government Code, a special law granting local
government units power to impose real property
tax, the latter prevails stated otherwise, for the
purpose from the wording of the case, from the
wording of the Justices itself, stated otherwise, for
the purpose of determining whether machinery is
real property subject to real property tax, the
definition requirements under the Local
Government Code are controlling.
So careful kayo sa pagdecipher kung ano talaga ang
issue nito, again, medyo confusing siya. If itatanong
sa inyo, ano ba siya, ano ba yung steel towers? If
that is, yan yung question, you can apply the 1964
case. But, for purposes of, it cannot be subjected for
real property tax then apply the provision of the
Local Government Code.
So most likely, mag-aapply dito is 2015 but if you
would be asked, how would you categorize a steel
tower? Tanggalin natin yung issue ni tax, you can
apply the 1964 case in support sayong Article 415 na
provision, yung kanila. But again, if purposes of
determination kung subject ba siya for real property
tax then 2015 ruling will apply.
Now, as between the Civil Code and the general law
governing Property and Property Relation and the
Local Government Code, a special law granting local
government units power to impose real property
tax, the latter prevails stated otherwise, for the
purpose from the wording of the case, from the
wording of the Justices itself, stated otherwise, for
the purpose of determining whether machinery is
real property subject to real property tax, the
definition requirements under the Local
Government Code are controlling.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
So careful kayo sa pagdecipher kung ano talaga ang
issue nito, again, medyo confusing siya. If itatanong
sa inyo, ano ba siya, ano ba yung steel towers? If
that is, yan yung question, you can apply the 1964
case. But, for purposes of, it cannot be subjected for
real property tax then apply the provision of the
Local Government Code.
Now, there is a question raised here:
What if the owner of the container van gawin po nila
na house talaga?
Hindi po ba pwede magfall ang container van as an
immovable by incorporation or destination?
Now ganito. When we say building or the house
itself and using the material, yung container van.
Then yung if yung pagkakalagay ng van itself is
meron syang mga poste poste yung mga poste para
lang hindi sya basta basta mamove then that is still
considered as superimposition. now as to the
question: Can the container van be considered as
destination or ?purpose?
The answer is No. Because again the classification
of building is by incorporation.
Ganito, if the container van itself ginawa nila as a
foundation meron silang, nagdig pa sila sa ground
para magconduct, magtayo ng poste etc2. Then
they that can be considered as an immovable na sya
Yung meron na talagang adherence to the soil.
Yung mga nakikita kasi natin usually yung mga
container van merong steel post na kagaya lang sya
ng isang tower na i-screw2 lang nila, para hindi lang
sila magmomove, that is just a mere super
imposition. kung titingann natin yung weight is
parang hindi na talaga sya magmmomove but by
means of equipment, pwede sya by analogy, para
lang din sya parang bahay kubo yung poste nya is
tuturok lang sya sa ground pero madali lang sya
tanggalin so that is the concept sa yung sa container
van but unless if merong poste talga na itatayo,
then ilang stories yung or ilang container van ang
nakalagay doon then that maybe considered as an
immovable property
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
2nd question:
In the case of Meralco:
Is it right po to assume na the materials used for
design for the design or state of the building may
as to the construction adhered to the soil-It was a
define its movability or immovability kasi po diba
pipeline system ang kinonstruct so there is this pipe.
since kagaya ng steel tower, it was said to be
movable since screw lang po gamit?
There is a question as to whether or not the pipes
itself is considered as an immovable?
Now when we talk about constructions adhered to
the soil. take note that yung construction doon is
Now in this case the supreme court ruled na the
permanent na sya it is considered permanent na
pipeline system itself is considered as a
once tanggalin mo siya, it would cause substantial
construction adhered to the soil. Therefore it is
damage doon sa immovable itself. Now as to the
considered as an immovable, by reason that the
design itself, ganito if kung design niya mismo is
pipeline system is a construction adhering to the
madali lang sya tanggalin although siguro mhirap
soil. it is attached to the land in such way that it
sya, nakascrew sya and others, ganyan siya medyo
cannot be separated there from without
sturdy sya.But may konting kuan lang kanyang bolt,
dismantling the steel pipes which were welded
pwede na sya maremove, and it will not cause
to/from the pipeline.
substantial damage to the immovable itself, then
that is not considered as an immovable but only
movable property.tingnan nyo kung it would cause So in that case again,again titignan, anything basta
substantial damage to the property itself. construction to the soil, if it will cause substantial
damage or hindi mo sya pwede matanggal kung
walang damage over that particular property then
that is one of the indication sa construction adhered
that is considered as an immovable property
to the soil.

2nd par. “Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while

pinaka common example, the road, yung cement sa
they are attached to the land or form an integral
road, kung tatanggalin mo sya doon, it will cause
part of an immovable”
damage. Kung tatangalin mo yung road, of course
damaged na yung semento. So that is considered ,
that is construction adhered to the soil. Kasi it will Trees and plants are considered as immovable by
cause substantial damage to the immovable reason of their incorporation to the soil, or because
property itself. they form an integral part of an immovable

Cases: If the trees or plants are cut or uprooted for the

purpose of making them firewood or timber they
Leung Yee vs Strong Machinery become an immovable property
Evangelista vs Alta surety-
Navarro vs Pineda In the case of SM baguio city:

Tumalad vs Vicencio
Associated Insurance and Surety Company v IYA
Piansay vs David
Standard Oil COmpany v Jaramillo
Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp v CBAA
ang plano nila is iexpand nila yung SM, now there
was this protest kasi mag eexpand sila, maraming
pine trees ang ma-aapaktohan,ganito ang solution
nila. ililipat natin yung mga pinetrees because that
defines Baguio city. They are known for their pine
trees and to maintain their climate there.

Board of assessment appeals vs Meralco

Meralco vs City assessor of Lucena

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY
So ngayon yan yung issue natin:
how would you consider or ano yung classification
ng pine tree?
ANS: of course if andyan pa sya sa land, naka tayo
pa yung kahoy, that is considered as immovable
property.
Pero once matanggal yan sya or maputol, or ma-
knock down ng strong wind, then that is considered
as a movable properrty na.
Except kung yung na-uproot or natumba na kahoy,
if andun sya sa timber or forest land, kahit na uproot
yan sya or kahit yung kahoy itself yung mga illegal
na pagputol nung kahoy ifeferry na sya or
itatransfern na sya sa iba,if that tree or trunk itself
is galing sya sa forest land then kahit putol na yan
sya it is considered as an immovable property, since
nag form part parin sya sa timber land
kaya nga hinuhuli ito ng mga authorities
now going back to the question, what if meron yun
silang ililipat nila yung kahoy, iuproot nila kasali
yung ugat kasali yung some soil, from that place,
yung maapektohan ng, expansion ililipat na saibang
lugar?
now from the time, the pine tree was was traveled
or ferried, ano sya?
is it considered as immovable or not?
the answer is simple, you have to look at the
classification of land. Kung saan sya kinuha, again
if it is a timber land, kung galing sya sa timber land
or forest land, From the time it was uprooted and
then it was transfered to another, during that time
it is still considered as an immovable property.
But if the pine tree itself is located in an agricultural
land, or a commercial, or industrial land itself and
itatransfer nila just to preserve the that particular
tree then the time it was uprooted, nilagay sa truck,
tintansfer sa ibang lugar, it transformed into a
movable property, naging movable property na sya.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
And once ilipat na sya, andun na sya, natanim na
sya sa ibang lugar, it will again return to its
classification as immovable property.Again tignan
nyo kung saan sya galing yung pun. You have to
know whether it is from from a forest land,
agricultural, industrial, or commercial land. Yan
yung basehan ninyo to consider that as an
immovable or not.
As to “growing fruit”, while it is attached to the
plant itself, that is considered as an immovable
property BUT once harvested it will be considered
as a movable property.
Except when ungathered fruits may become a
personal property for the purpose of sale of the
whole or part of part of the crops.
In addition, ungathered fruits have the nature of
personal property for purposes of attachment and
execution in applying the provisions of the chattel
mortgage law.
In this case, application again nito is in doctrine of
estoppel as to the purposes of execution in applying
the provisions the chattel mortgage law.
Now in any of the enumeration, provided in article
415 pabalikbalik yung application ni doctrine of
estoppel
Generally, growing fruits is considered as an
immovable property BUT once uprooted, harvested,
or gathered, it will become it will become a movable
property na sya except that, kahit nandyan pa sya
sa kanyang tree, hindi pa sya naharvest but subject
na sya, ibinenta na sya ng may ari, meron nang
contract, andun pa yung fruit sa kanyang tree, then
that itself is considered as personal property of and
also for purpose of attachment and execution.
Par. 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.”
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed
manner in such a way that it cannot be separated
there from without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object.
Now attachment in this case, attachment under
number 3, it must be in a fixed manner. So these
proprties are immovable by incorporation. Their
attachment to an immovable must be in a fixed
manner that in such a way they cannot be separated
there from without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object.
Now take note also as compared to paragraph 4 and
5, sino ba yung pwede mag attach ng movable or
mag incorporate ng movable sa immovable?
If icompare nimo sya sa number 4 and 5, number 4
and 5 provides that it must be the owner or the
agent who must place that movable property sa
immovable. Now if it is not the owner or his agent,
then that is considered as movable.
Example for that is yung sa number 5 - the
machinery itself.
The machinery must be placed by the owner.
Ito rin yung favorite source ng bar questions.
Kasi ganito, machinery, hindi sya ang naglagay dun
sa property but it was attached sa immovable in a
fixed manner and it cannot be separated there from
without breaking the material or deterioration of
the object.
While it may not fall under #5, pwede sya magfall sa
#3.
Now kahit hindi yung may-ari ang naglagay dun sa
property itself but nagfall yung requirements under
#3.That can be considered as an immovable
property.
Now again take note ana since tendency ana is
hatagan mog isa ka question - okay machinery na
attach sya. Kinsa man nag attach ana? ayaw dayon
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
mog answer na #5. Applicable provision maybe #3
or same pod sa #4.
For example: a gargoyle, meron kang gargoyle for
aesthetic purposes nilagy mo doon sa bahay for the
purpose of aesthetics, ornamentation, etc2 Now by
that by itself is considered and you are the owner,
that is considered as a immovable property
but what if hindi ikaw ang may ari ng bahay,
nilagay mo sya doon, inattach mo sya, sinemento
mo sya kung tatanggalin mo, it will cause
substantial damage or deterioaration, again pwede
sya magfall kay #3.
It would depend or defer as to the requirements.
So you must familiarize the provisions for the
requirements provided under paragraph 3,4, &5 kay
mao ni ang confusing provisions as to the 415. Dira
usually ginakuha ang questions.
The principle of estoppel, again applied with respect
to the property. The fact that the machineries are
heavy, bolted, or cemented to the real property
does not make them immovable under 415 as
between the parties intent has be looked into. Thus
if the parties treat them as chattel. They are bound
to their agreement under the principle of estoppel
not withstanding the fact that the machinery may
have been attached to the immovable in a fixed
manner or may not be separated therefrom w/o
breaking the material or deterioration of the object
in which it is attached
So again, it can be subjected, the partsythemselves
maybe bound by the doctrine of estoppel. So again
yung machinery na yung example naka attach na
sya dyan, but again the parties themselve can
always consider okay register natin siya as a Chattel
Now again, one of the parties cannot claim in the
future na hindi yan sya considered as movable
because it was permanently attached at kung
tatanggalin natin it will cause deterioration sa
material itself to cause substantial damage.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Par. 4 Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects Now what if hindi mo sya nilagay sa inyong bahay,
for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on sa ibang bahay mo sya nilagay, sa sister ba o sa
lands by the owner of the immovable in such a kapatid, pro sinemento mo sya?
manner that it reveals the intention to attach them
permanently to the tenements Now in that case that gargoyle itself will be
considered an immovabble because it was
These real properties by destination incorporated, at kung tatanggalin mo sya, it will
cause substantial damage not only over the
In order that the properties mentions in this immovabble kung saan sya inattach, pati na mismo
paragraph may be considered as real property, the sa gargoyle. Because there is this tendency na
ff requirements must concur: pwede sya masira, so that is paragraph 3 vs
paragraph 4.
1. they must be placed in buildings or on lands by
the owner of the immovable or by his agent. In paragraph 4 the criterion is not the incorporation
with the immovable but the purpose for which the
2. they are placed there in a manner that it reveals statues paintings, reliefs, or other ornaments have
the intention to attach them permanently to the been placed to the tenements that is the intention
tenements. of having them permanently in building or on lands
or for ornamentation.
For the purpose for ornamentation or aesthetic
purposes. As such, in these ornaments are attached in the
tenements in a fixed manner in such a way. They
Now let us distinguish par 3 from par 4: cannot be separated there from without breaking
the materials or deterioration of the object.
The real properties in paragraph 4 are to be
distinguished in from those mentioned in paragraph They may become under par 3 and not on par 4;
3 are as follows:
An example for that:
Par 3 Par 4
a mural parining, ang ginamit mo na paints, they
it is immaterial as to incorporation must be are considered movable. Now you paint, nandoon
who makes the made by the owner of na siya sa wall, that is hindi sya sa #4 mag apply but
incorporation the movable are either sa #3. Why?
personally or through
an agent kung tatanggalin mo kung mural or sirain mo yung
wall kung saan sya naka attach, not only that hindi
incorporation must be separation is possible lang yung wall yung masisira the painting itself or
in such that a without deterioration the art itself will also deterioarate sa pagtanggal
separation is of the immovable or niya, that is example on paragraph 4, par 3,
impossible, destruction of the especially as to mural paintings
material.

Just like I mentioned kanina yung si gargoyle.The

gargoyle itself nilagay mo sya sa entrance ng bahay
niyo, now that by itself it reveals your intention
nilagay mo yan sya for aesthetic or ornamental
purposes, it will fall under enumeration #4 of Article
415.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY
Par 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”
they are considered as immovable by destinations.
Again be familiarized by the requisites:
1. They must be machinery, receptacles,
instruments, or implements.
2. They must be placed by the owner of the
tenement or by his agent.
3. There must be an industry or work in such
building or in the piece of land, and
4. it is essential and not mere incidental or they
must tend directly to meet the needs of the said
industry or work.
Now ganito ang scenario, the owner of the property
is engaged in some sort of business or industy.
For example:
meron siyang business na kalamansi juice business,
binobottle sya. Now any machinery placed there in
the by the owner himself is considered and it was
attached there for it to be used for his/her business
will be considered as immovable property if he's
the owner
now what if ganito, leasee lang sya, ganyan naman
talaga yung scenario. Nag rent lang sya ng property,
so yung business nya is same parin, yung kalamansi
juice business. Meron syang nilagaya doon na
machineries
now you have to look at the intention or the
content of the contract of lease.
Kasi, If at the end of the lease, ganito yung
agreement nila: pag end ng lease, yung machinery
will become pagmamay ari ng owner ng property or
owner ng land or the leaser himself then the
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
machinery is considered an immovable property
from the time it was attached to the property.
But if the agreement, nakalagay doon sa contract of
lease is that kukunin sya lahat ni leasee, wala syang
iiwan na machinery, then that is considered as a
movable property.
But again you have to consider si paragraph #3.
Kaya you have to be familiarized with the
requirements.
If the tenant himself is engaged in the particular sort
of business, then it will fall under par 5 of 415.
“There must be and industry or work carrying on in
such building or piece of land and lastly they must
tend directly to the needs of the said industry.”
Meaning that the machinery itself has to be used
essential siya sa kanyang negosyo. Now if he is
engaged in bottling business or yung kalamansi
juice business, then yung machinery in for example
extraction of kalamansi juice and for bottling naka
attach sya doon ni owner, then that is considered as
an immovable.
Now what if, sa kanyang compound, meron din
syang vulcanizing shop? Ang purpose lang niya is to
cater yung mga vehicle ng may-ari or ng
management.
In that case, yung machinery allotted for that
particular purpose sa vulcanizing purpose that is
NOT considered as an imovable property under 415
paragragraph 5 because it is not essential need sa
kanyang business.
Again, tignan mo kung ano yung main business
nya.Titingnan mo yung nature ng instrument or
machine.
If the business itself can pursue, or maka operate pa
rin sya kahit wala yun sya, it is not considered
essential.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
And since it is not essential, it is not considered as
an immovable property but if the business
maapektohan kung wala ito, masira lang sya,
maapektohan sya then that is considered as an
immovable property under paragraph 5 of article
415.
The requirement that they must be placed by the
owner or by his agent that is provided in the case of
Davao Sawmill vs Castillo.
Now in this case, the machinery which is movable
by nature becomes immobilized placed by the
owner of the tenement, property, or plant but not
so when placed by tenant usufructuary or any other
person having only temporary right unless such
person acted as an agent of lessee.
So that is the precise reason na bakit at the end of
the contract, the machine itself is mapupunta sya sa
lessor it is considered as immovable because the
lessee himself is acting as the agent of the lessor sa
pag attach niya doon sa property
Again under paragraph 5 of article 415, it must be
placed by the owner or by his agent, take note of
that.
Now hence if the machinery, receptacles,
instrument, or implements are not placed by the
owner of the tenement or his agent these
properties remain as movable and are not covered
into real properties.
An exception will arise however if in the contract of
lease it is stipulated that such machinery,
receptacles, instrument, or implements placed
there by the lesee will become at the termination of
the lease will become property of the lessor for in
that case they will be considered as immovable
properties since enticing them the lessee will just be
acting as an agent of the lessor.
So that is in the case of Davao Sawmill Company vs
Castillo and this was further reiterated in the case
of Valdez vs Central Altagracia Incorporated where
it was held that while under the general law,
machinery placed by the tenant does not become
immobilized yet when the tenant places it there
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
pursuant to a contract that it shall belong to the
owner, it then becomes immobilized as to that
tenant and even as against his assignee assignee,
who had sufficient notice of such stipulation.
Now, also the properties mentioned in paragraph 5
are immovable by destination and they are
converted into real properties by reason of their
purpose
Also, there must be essential and principal elements
of the industry or works. It is necessary that they
must be essential and principal elements of the
industry or works without which such industry or
works would be unable to function or carry on the
industrial purpose for which it was established
We must distinguish therefore those movables
which become immobilized "via" destination
because they are essential and principal elements
of the industry from those which are not to be
considered immobilized because they are merely
incidental and not essential and principal.
Also, again the doctrine of estoppel will also be
applied with respect to properties which are
considered immobilized by reason of its destination
by the purpose of paragraph 5.
Case point is the case of Surge Products
Incorporated vs ECI Leasing.
Now if there is an agreement, again, same concept
pa rin. Agreement by the parties, it must agreed by
the parties that the machine itself is considered,
although by law as an immovable, but because of
the agreement of the parties, it was recorded or it
was registered as a chattel then if it will not affect
any innocent third person, then their agreement will
apply.
The doctrine of Estoppel is applicable in the future if
meron silang problema they cannot dispute yung
nature nya, because again they are bound sa
kanilang agreement.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
Par 6.”Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives,
fish ponds or breeding places 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 it; the animals in these places
are included.”
The structures mentioned in paragraph 6, just like
in enumeration 4 and 5, they must be placed by the
owner themselves.
It requires that the are placed by the owner in order
to acquire the same nature or consideration of a
real property even if not placed by the owner.
However, such structure may still qualify as real
property under paragraph 1 of article 415 being
construction attached to the soil provided that such
attachment must be permanent in character.
In other words, although it is not the owner who
placed that houses, yung mga pig pens ba dyan or
construction kung saan maninirahan ang mga
hayop, then that is considered as structures under
paragraph 1 provided again di lang sya super
imposition, it is adhered to the soil.
Not only the construction or not only those houses
are considered as immovable even the animals
inside they are also considered immovable.
The only exception for that is when there is a special
law which explicitly provides that the animal in that
particular house/shelter is considered movable,
again if may special law lang.
If wala, then the animals itself are considered as
immovable property as defined by law.
An example for that is yung mga isda sa fish pond.
The fish pond itself is considered as immovable.
Since bahay yun ng mga isda, naturally yung mga
isda doon is din considered as immovable but by
reason of the provision of the RPC as provision of
qualified theft kinonsider sya as movable property
for purposes sa elements of qualified theft.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
So in that case yung isda kinonsider nila as movable
property.
GR: the animals itself is considered immovable, EXP:
if there is a special law which explicitly provides that
it is movable.
Par. 7 “Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land”
Of course if ang fertilizers naa pa sa bag niya or sa
sack that is considered as movable pa. Pero once
applied na sya, that is considered immovable
property.
Par 8. “Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
either running or stagnant.”
Now generally, these are (yung mga Mines
quarries, slagdumps, waters) andyan pa sya, wala
pang na-extract na minerals dyan, the slagdumps
itself, that quarries itself, kung nakuha mo na sya,
dinig mo na sya, nilagay mo sa isang lugar, that is
still considered as immovable property.
But once you extract the minerals doon sa
slagdumps, that is considered movable property na.
Waters- is considered, either running or stagnant,
are considered immovable property. By analogy is
it is like land. Dimo sya basta basta ilipat.
Par 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”
They are considered as immovable, though floating,
as long as they aren't impended by their nature to
remain at a fixed place at a river, lake or coast.
One of the previous bar question is ganito --
Merong platform, and on that platform, naka
anchored lang sya sa isang lugar.Doon sa platform
is merong mga sheds, meron pa ngang mga
halaman na nakatanim doon, may mga structures.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY
The question is how would you treat the plants na
itinanim doon, the shed na itinanim doon, yung
building na naka-attach sya sa platform, and the
platform itself. How would you consider that?
Suggested answer: They are considered as
immovable.
Let's start from the platform. The platform itself is
considered as an immovable. By incorporation, it
was attached sa water. The water acts like a land.
Para lang syang land kung saaan sya naatach.For
that matter, although floating sya, but it will remain
in the same spot, although it will move a few meters,
pero andyan pa rin sya.
So by that reason it is considered as an immovable.
Now how about the plants which was planted doon
sa platform?
Now that was also considered as an immovable
property. Application nya is andun sa paragraph 2.
(Na those plants which are attached to the soil)
Now again, since the platform itself is immovable
and since it was incorporated to an immovable, the
plant itself is considered as immovable.
how about the sheds?
Now the sheds, these are just mere super
imposition.They are considered as immovable
BUT those structures which are naka attach sa
mismo sa platform at kung tatanggalin mo sya, it
will cause substantial damage over a particular area
sa platform, then that structure is considered as
immovable property.
Now ganito, the premise is that the water itself, ang
application nya is parang land.The platform itself,
although it is movable, but it was incorporated sa
water, which is considered as an immovable -- so in
that case naging immovable property na sya.
1st session Aug-06-2021
ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Now another case was tinanong ko to as an exam
last year, the case of
(Phels Energy incorporated vs the Province of
Batangas)
Ganito ang situation: Power barges ang question
Ano ba ang power barges? How would you classify
these power barges?
Now the power barges was used by the electric
company for the purpose of electric generation.
Although these power barges are movable, but they
remain at a fixed place or they are moored in
Gingoog port. Doon lang sya, ang purpose lang nya
is for power generation.
Can the power barges be subjected for real property
tax?
Different views ani; If you will use the provision of
the LGC, tama.
If you also use the provision unser the 415, pwede
sya.
Again, they are considered as structures, they are
moored in a particular place, they are just placed
there for purposes of power generation.
Hindi nila to nimomove from place to place, in fact
it was anchored in that particular place. Since it was
anchored, the water itself is considered as if it was
land, since it was an immovable inattach mo sya
doon, the power barges was incorporated doon sa
water, then that becomes a immovable property.
And since it's an immovable property, it is subjected
for real property tax.
Again if ang answer pod ninyo is machinery siya,
based under the definition of the local government
code, no problem, tama ragihapon na sya.
Now, Phels Energy was decided 2007, yung isa is
2015.
GENOTA, JALANDONI
 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Now if you answer that way, pwede pod nako sya
iaccept.

Par. 10 “Contracts for public works, and servitudes

and other real rights over immovable property.”

as discussed, the concept of property extends to

rights provided of the same is patrimonial in nature.

Patrimonial rights in turn are either real or personal.

Real - the power belonging to the person or of a

specific thing without a passive subject individually
determined against whom such right may be
personally exercised, it is enforceable?against the
whole world.

Personal - the power belonging to one person to

demand for another.

And the rights are classified whether pesonal

property shall depend whether it is a personal or
real right with the subject matter thereof is a
personal or real right except for things arising from
contracts for public works which are classified as
real rights

Now the personal or real right shall be thoroughly

discussed sa Civil Procedure.

But again, the basic premise on this is that -- Kung

anong yung subject ng right mo, it is movable or
immovable. If your claim is over an immovable
property, of course that will be considered as your
personal right for that particular property.

But again that will be discussed sa inyong Civil

Procedure.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI