Par. 8, Art. 415.

Mines, quarries and slag dumps, while the

matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either
running or stagnant.
By their nature, mines quarries and slag dumps are immovable
property.

Mines - These are mineral lands where excavations are done to

extract minerals such as gold, ores etc.

Quarries - These are lands where stones are chipped of or

where sand is being extracted.

Slag dumps - They consist of waste and dirt taken from a mine
and mounted on the surface of the ground under excavation.

Running or Stagnant Waters – These waters refer to waters still

running through the soil or ground in mines and quarries.
(Pineda, 2009)
Mines, Quarries and Slag Dumps

They are considered immovable property “while the matter

thereof forms part of the bed,” that is, the matter thereof
remains unsevered from the soil. Once separated they are no
longer mines but minerals and are considered as personal
property. (Rabuya, 2021)
Hypothetical Case 1: The Mineral Extraction Dispute

Facts: Mr. Santos grants XYZ Minerals Inc. the right to extract minerals from his land. A
dispute arises on whether the extracted minerals are immovable or movable, affecting royalty
payments.

Legal Question: Are minerals immovable property while part of the land, as argued by Mr.
Santos, or do they become movable property upon extraction, as asserted by XYZ Minerals
Inc.?

Legal Analysis: The court interprets Article 415, Paragraph 8 of the Civil Code, focusing on
whether minerals are immovable while part of the bed. The key is determining if extraction
transforms them into movable property.

Resolution: The court rules that, in line with Article 415, Paragraph 8, minerals are immovable
while part of the bed. Once severed, they become movable. XYZ Minerals Inc. is liable for
royalties only during the period when minerals were attached to the land.

This case illustrates the application of Article 415, Paragraph 8, in resolving conflicts over the
legal classification of minerals, emphasizing the transition from immovable to movable
property upon extraction.
Hypothetical Case 2: The Slag Dump Dispute

Facts: ABC Steel Company owns a steel manufacturing plant with accumulated slag dumps.
XYZ Environmental Solutions seeks to acquire the slag dumps for recycling.
Legal Question: Are slag dumps immovable property while part of the land, as argued by ABC
Steel Company, or do they become movable property when separated, as contended by XYZ
Environmental Solutions?

Legal Analysis: The court interprets Article 415, focusing on the provision related to slag
dumps. The key issue is whether slag dumps are immovable while part of the land or become
movable upon separation.

Resolution: The court rules that slag dumps are immovable property as long as embodied in
the land. However, if separated for recycling, they become movable property. ABC Steel
Company retains ownership while part of the land, but if separated for recycling, they are
treated as movable property.

This case exemplifies the application of Article 415 in resolving disputes over the
classification of slag dumps, emphasizing the distinction between immovable and movable
property based on their connection to the land.
Waters

The waters, either running or stagnant, referred to here are

those which are found in their natural beds such as flowing
streams, rivers or canals (Rabuya, 2021)
Hypothetical Case 3: The Riverbank Dispute

Facts: Mr. Rodriguez owns land along the Clearstream river, a vital habitat for local flora and fauna.
GreenVista Properties wishes to acquire a portion for a housing development, arguing that the riverbank is
movable property.

Legal Question: Is the riverbank, integral to the natural landscape and home to diverse wildlife, considered
movable or immovable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code?

Legal Analysis: The court evaluates the riverbank's characteristics, determining if it is integral to the natural
landscape, serving the river's ecosystem, and not easily detachable without causing harm.

Resolution: The court rules in favor of Mr. Rodriguez, classifying the riverbank as immovable property due to
its essential role in the ecosystem. This decision underscores the need to preserve the riverbank's natural
integrity and maintain the ecological balance of Clearstream.
This case emphasizes the legal importance of recognizing and protecting components integral to the natural
landscape for ecological purposes.