Haystacks: Property

  • Title I: Classification of Property
    • Chapter 1: Immovable Property
      • Real property under no. 1; lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil
        • building
          • A building is always immovable
            1. Punsalan v. vda. De Lacsamana (GR L-55729, 28 March 1983)
            2. Bautista, et.al. vs. Supnad, (CA) 59 OG 1575, 1578 (1962) [ * ]
            3. Lopez v. Orosa (GRs L-10817-18, 28 February 1958)
            4. Prudential Bank v. Panis (GR L-50008, 31 August 1987)
            5. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery (GR L-11658, 15 February 1918)
          • Building is immovable by incorporation
            1. Bicerra v. Teneza (GR L-16218, 29 November 1962)
          • Building on rented land is still immovable.
            1. Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr., supra [See 3]
            2. Ladera vs. Hodges, [CA] 48 O.G. 5374, 5380 (1952) [ * ]
            3. Evangelista v. Alto Surety (GR L-11139, 23 April 1958)
            4. Associated Insurance & Surety v. Iya (GRs L-10837-38, 30 May 1958)
          • Instances where building is treated as personal by the parties.
            1. Navarro v. Pineda (GR L-18456, 30 November 1963)
            2. Standard Oil v. Jaramillo (GR 20329, 16 March 1923)
            3. Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., 103 PHIL 401, 404 (1958), supra [See 9]
            4. Ladera vs. C.N. Hodges, et. al., (CA), 48. O.G. 5374, supra [See 8]
            5. Manarang v. Ofilada (GR L-8133, 18 May 1956)
            6. Piansay v. David (GR L-19468, 30 October 1964)
            7. Tumalad v. Vicencio (GR L-30173, 30 September 1971)
            8. Chua Peng Hian v. Court of Appeals (GR 60015, 19 December 1984)
        • Construction of All Kinds Adhered to the soil
          1. Board of Assessment Appeals v. City Treasurer (GR L-15334, 31 January 1964)
      • Real property under no. 2: trees, plants and growing fruits.
        • Trees and plants.
          1. Inter-regional Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals (GR L-39677, 22 July 1975)
        • Growing Fruits.
          1. Sibal v. Valdez (GR 26278, 4 August 1927)
      • Real property under no. 3: everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner.
        • Attachment must be in a fixed manner.
          1. Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Co., supra. [See 19]
        • However, intent of the parties may govern.
          1. Tsai vs. CA, 366 SCRA 324 (2001) [ * ]
      • Real property under no. 5: machineries, receptacles, instruments or implements.
        • Properties contemplated in paragraph 5
          1. Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Co., supra. [See 19]
        • They must be destined for use in the industry or work.
          1. Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng (GR 41643, 31 July 1935)
          2. Ago v. Court of Appeals (GR L-17898, 31 October 1962)
        • Movables must be essential and principal elements of industry or works.
          1. Mindanao Bus v. City Assessor (GR L-17870, 29 September 1962)
        • Industry or work must be carried on in a building or on a piece of land.
          1. Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor and Treasurer, supra. [See 27]
          2. Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Company, supra. [See 19]
        • Movables must be placed by the owner.
          1. Davao Sawmill v. Castillo (GR 40411, 7 August 1935)
          2. Valdez vs. Central Altagracia, Inc., 225 US 58 [ * ]
          3. People’s Bank v. Dahican Lumber (GR L-17500, 16 May 1967)
          4. Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP (GR 64261, 26 December 1984)
          5. GSIS v. Calson (GR L-19867, 29 May 1968)
        • Application of the principle of estoppel.
          1. Serg’s Products v. PCI Leasing (GR 137705, 22 August 2000)
          2. Makati Leasing v. Wearever Textiles (GR L-58469, 16 May 1983)
      • Real property under no. 10.
        1. MBTC vs. Alejo, 364 SCRA 812, 819 (2001) [ * ]
        2. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking v. Aldecoa & Co. (GR 8437, 23 March 1915)
    • Chapter 2: Movable Property
      • Personal property under no. Art. 416 (1): "not included in Art. 415."
        1. Involuntary insolvency of Paul Strochecker v. Ramirez (GR 18700, 26 September 1922)
      • Personal property under Art. 416 (2): "by special provision of law."
        1. Sibal vs. Valdez, 50 PHIL 512, supra [See 21]
      • Personal property under Art. 416 (3): "forces of nature."
        1. US v. Carlos (GR 6295, 1 September 1911)
        2. US v. Tambunting (GR 16513, 18 January 1921)
      • Personal property under Art. 416 (4): "can be transported from place to place."
        1. Philippine Refining v. Jarque (GR 41506, 25 March 1935)
        2. Rubiso v. Rivera (GR L-11407, 30 October 1917)
      • Personal property under Art. 417 (2): "shares of stocks."
        1. Monserrat v. Ceron (GR 37078, 27 September 1933)
        2. Chua Guan v. Samahang Magsasaka (GR 42091, 2 November 1935)
      • General test, of "movable" character.
        1. Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, supra. [See 12]
    • Chapter 3: Property in Relation to the Person to Whom it Belongs (Arts. 419-426)
      • Public dominion and private ownership.
        1. Republic v. Court of Appeals (GR L-43105, 31 August 1984)
        2. Laurel v. Garcia (GRs 92013 & 92047, 25 July 1990)
      • Property of public dominion; kinds.
        1. Manila Lodge 761 v. Court of Appeals (GR L-41001, 30 September 1976)
        2. Agripino Capitulo, et. al. vs. Alejo Aquino, No. 15488-R, (CA) 53 O.G. 1477, November 19, 1956 [ * ]
      • Public dominion; properties for public use.
        • Canals.
          1. Magno vs. Vargas, 54331-R, August 27, 1979. [ * ]
          2. Santos v. Moreno (GR L-15829, 4 December 1967)
          3. Mercado v. Municipal President of Macabebe (GR 37986, 1 March 1934)
        • Rivers and banks.
          1. Binalay v. Manalo (GR 92161, 18 March 1991)
          2. Hilario v. City of Manila (GR L-19570, 27 April 1967)
          3. Republic v. Court of Appeals (GR L-61647, 12 October 1984)
          4. Vda. De Nazareno v. Court of Appeals (GR 98045, 26 June 1996)
          5. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, 268 SCRA 74 (1997) [ * ]
        • Shores and foreshore land.
          1. Government v. Cabangis (GR 28379, 27 March 1929)
          2. Republic vs. CA, 281 SCRA 639, 655-656 (1997). [ * ]
          3. De Buyser v. Director of Lands (GR L-22763, 18 March 1983)
          4. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, supra. [see 59]
          5. Ignacio v. Director of Lands (GR L-12958, 30 May 1960)
          6. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, supra [See 59]
          7. Government v. Colegio de San Jose (GR 30829, 28 August 1929)
          8. Republic vs. CA, 131 SCRA 532 (1984), supra [See 48]
          9. Republic v. Alagad (GR 66807, 26 January 1989)
          10. Meneses vs. CA, 246 SCRA 162 (1995) [ * ]
          11. Hacut vs. Director of Lands, 49 O.G. 1865 [ * ]
          12. Republic vs. CA, 131 SCRA 539 (1984), supra [See 48]
        • Torrents.
          1. Mercado vs. Municipal President, of Macabebe, 59 PHIL 592, supra. [See 54]
          2. Meneses vs. Commonwealth, 69 PHIL 647 [ * ]
          3. Bautista v. Alarcon (GR 8153, 24 December 1912)
        • "Others of similar character," such as creeks and brooks.
          1. Mercado vs. Municipal President of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592, 598, supra [See 54]
          2. Maneclang v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR L-66575, 30 September 1986)
          3. Tomale vs. Dorado, 73 O.G. 8900 [ * ]
      • Public dominion; properties for public service.
        1. Laurel vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990), supra [See 49]
        • Public lands.
          1. Republic vs. CA, 131 SCRA 532, 537 (1984), supra [See 48]
          2. Montano vs. Insular Government, 12 PHIL 572, 579. [ * ]
          3. Mapa v. Insular Government (GR L-3793, 19 February 1908)
          4. Director of Forestry v. Villareal (GR L-32266, 27 February 1989)
          5. Manalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 64753, 26 April 1989)
          6. Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 73246, 2 March 1993)
          7. Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals (GR 58867, 22 June 1984)
          8. Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 73085, 4 June 1990)
          9. Republic vs. CA, 154 SCRA 476 (1987). [ * ]
      • Characteristics of properties of public dominion.
        1. Dacanay v. Asistio (GR 93654, 6 May 1992)
        2. Insular Government vs. Aldecoa & Co., 19 PHIL 505 [ * ]
        3. City of Manila vs. Insular Government, 10 PHIL 327 [ * ]
        4. Vda. De Tantoco v. Muncipal Council of Iloilo (GR 24950, 25 March 1926)
        5. Tufexis vs. Olaguera, 32 PHIL 654 [ * ]
      • Patrimonial property of the State.
        1. Jacinto v. Director of Lands (GR 26374, 31 December 1926)
      • Conversion of property of public dominion to patrimonial property.
        1. Municipality of Oas v. Roa (GR L-2017, 24 November 1906)
        2. Municipality of Hinunangan v. Director of Lands (GR 7054, 20 January 1913)
        3. Ignacio vs. Director of Lands, 108 Phil 335 (1960) [See 64]
        4. Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene v. Bercilles (GR L-40474, 29 August 1975)
        5. Laurel vs. Garcia, supra. [See 49]
      • Property of provinces, cities and municipalities.
        1. Agripino Capitulo, et. al. vs. Alejo Aquino, No. 15488-R, 53 O.G. 1477, November 19, 1956. [See 51]
      • Property for public use of provinces, cities and municipalities.
        1. Pilapil vs. CA, 216 SCRA 33 (1992) [ * ]
        2. Harty v. Victoria, Tarlac (GR 5013, 11 March 1909)
        3. Antipolo v. Zapanta (GR 65334, 26 December 1984)
        • Provincial roads, city streets and municipal streets.
          1. Dacanay vs. Asistio, supra. [See 88]
          2. Macasiano v. Diokno (GR 97764, 10 August 1992)
          3. Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Bercilles, supra. [See 97]
          4. Favis vs. City of Baguio, 27 SCRA 1060 [ * ]
        • Squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, etc.
          1. Espiritu v. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan (GR L-11014, 21 January 1958)
          2. Villanueva v. Castaneda (GR L-61311, 21 September 1987)
          3. Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas (GR 9069, 31 March 1915)
          4. Muyot vs. de la Fuente, G.R. No. L-6534, 48 O.G. 4860. [ * ]
        • Patrimonial property of political subdivisions.
          1. Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga (GR L-24440, 28 March 1968)
          2. Agripino Capitulo, et. al. vs. Alejo Aquino, supra. [See 51]
        • Other classification.
          1. Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, supra. [See 111]
          2. Vda. de Tantoco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra. [See 91]
  • Title II: Ownership
    • Chapter 2: Right of Accession
      • Articles 441-442
        • Three kinds of fruits
          1. US vs. Caballero, 25 PHIL 356 (1913)
          2. Bachrach v. Seifert (GR L-2659, 12 October 1950)
          3. Bachrach Motors v. Talisay-Silay Milling (GR 35223, 17 September 1931)
      • Article 446
        • Building, planting or sowing on one's own land with own materials
          1. Gaboya vs. Cui, 38 SCRA 85 (1971) [ * ]
      • Article 447
        • If the landowner acted in good faith
          1. Pacific Farms v. Esguerra (GR L-21783, 29 November 1969)
      • Article 448 to 454

        • If both the landowner and the bulilder, planter or sower (who is at the same time the owner of the materials) acted in good faith
          • Concept of good faith
            • Good faith of the builder, planter or sower
              1. Manotok Realty v. Tecson (GR L-47475, 19 August 1988)
              2. Mercado v. Court of Appeals (GR L-44001, 10 June 1988)
              3. Tan Queto v. Court of Appeals (GR L-35648, 27 February 1987)
              4. Pleasantville Development v. Court of Appeals (GR 79688, 1 February 1996)
              5. Baltazar v. Caridad (GR L-23509, 23 June 1966)
            • A lessee is not a builder in good faith
              1. Balucanag v. Francisco (GR L-33422, 30 May 1983)
              2. Lopez Inc. vs. Phil. and Eastern Trading Co., 98 PHIL 348 [ * ]
              3. Geminiano v. Court of Appeals (GR 120303, 24 July 1996)
              4. Spouses Lacap and Ong Lee, GR 142131, 11 December 2002
            • As a general rule, Article 448 cannot apply to a co-owner
              1. Del Campo v. Fernandez-Abesia (GR L-49219, 15 April 1988)
              2. Ignao v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 72876, 18 January 1991)
            • Article 448 made applicable under peculiar circumstances
              1. Sarmiento v. Agana (GR 57288, 30 April 1984)
              2. Pecson v. Court of Appeals (GR 115814, 26 May 1995)
              3. Colengco vs. Regalado, 92 PHIL 387, 395 (1952) [ * ]
            • Article 448 can be invoked by successor-in-interest of the builder in good faith
              1. Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 5 (1997) [ * ]
          • Legal effects
            • Legal effects where both parties are in good faith
              1. Depra v. Dumlao (GR L-57348, 16 May 1985)
            • Option is given to the landowner
              1. Ballatan vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 34 (1999) [ * ]
              2. Quemuel v. Olaes (GR L-11084, 29 April 1961)
              3. Depra vs. Dumlao, supra [See 135]
              4. San Diego v. Montesa (GR L-17985, 29 September 1962)
            • Landowner, however, cannot refuse to exercise either option
              1. Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. CA, supra [See 134]
              2. Sarmiento vs. Agana, supra [See 131]
          • Option to appropriate
            • What indemnity consist of
              1. Ballatan vs. CA, supra [See 136]
            • Basis of indemnity
              1. Javier vs. Concepcion Jr., 94 SCRA 212 (1979) [ * ]
              2. Sarmiento vs. Agana, supra [See 131]
              3. De Guzman v. dela Fuente (GR 32433, 29 December 1930)
              4. Pecson vs. Court of Appeals, supra [See 132]
            • Pending reimbursement, builder has right of retention
              1. Filipinas Colleges, Inc. vs. Garcia Timbang, et.al., 106 PHIL 247 (1959) [ * ]
              2. Miranda v. Fadullon (GR L-8220, 29 October 1955)
              3. Pecson vs. CA, supra [See 132]
              4. Chua v. Court of Appeals (GR 109840, 21 January 1999)
            • Time of transfer of ownership
              1. Bataclan v. CFI Cavite (GR 43456, 6 May 1935)
          • Option to sell the land
            • remedy of landowner if builder or planter refuses to pay the price of the land
              1. Filipinas College Inc., vs. Garcia Timbang, et.al., supra [See 147]
              2. Miranda vs. Fadullon, supra [See 148]
              3. Ignacio v. Hilario (GR L-175, 30 April 1946)
              4. Bernardo vs. Bataclan, 38 OG 1382 [ * ]
            • Basis in determining price of the land
              1. Ballatan vs. CA, supra [See 136]
            • Rule if only a portion of the land has been encroached by the builder in good faith
              1. Ballatan vs. CA, supra [See 136]
              2. Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. CA, supra [See 134]
              3. Depra vs. Dumlao, supra [See 135]
              4. Grana v. Court of Appeals (GR L-12486, 31 August 1960)
        • If the landowner acted in good faith and the builder, planter, or sower (who is at the same time the owner of the materials) acted in bad faith
          • Concept of bad faith
            • When bad faith exists
              1. Pleasantville Development Corp. vs. CA, supra [See 123]
              2. Baltazar vs. Caridad, supra [See 124]
          • Legal consequences
            • Alternative rights of the landowner
              • Right of remotion
                1. Santos v. Mojica (GR L-25450, 31 January 1969)
          • Right to compel builder or planter to pay the price of the land
            • Limited rights of builder, planter or sower in bad faith
              1. Sabido vs. IAC, 165 SCRA 498 (1988) [ * ]
              2. MWSS v. Court of Appeals (GR L-54526, 25 August 1986)
              3. Lamungo vs. Usman, 25 SCRA 255 (1968) [ * ]
        • If the landowner and the builder, planter or sower (who is at the same time the owner of the materials) both acted in bad faith
          • Bad faith of landowner
            • When bad faith exists on the part of the landowner
              1. Municipality of Oas vs. Roa, 7 PHIL 20, supra [See 94]
      • Article 457
        • Accretion and Avulsion
          • Alluvium, defined; Distinguished from accretion
            1. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, 268 SCRA 74 (1997), supra [See 59]
          • The rule on alluvion
            1. Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs v. Court of Appeals (GR 76761, 9 January 1989)
          • Reason for the rule
            1. Ferrer vs. Bautista (GR 46963, 14 March 1994)
            2. Agustin v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 66075-76, 5 July 1990)
            3. Binalay vs. Manalo, 195 SCRA 374 (1991), supra. [See 55]
          • Requisites of alluvium
            1. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro, supra [See 59]
            2. Vda. de Nazareno vs. CA, 257 SCRA 589 (1996), supra [See 58]
            3. Meneses vs. CA, 246 SCRA 374 (1995), supra [See 69]
            4. Reynante v. Court of Appeals (GR 95907, 8 April 1992)
            5. Binalay vs. Manalo, supra [See 55]
          • First requisite, the accumulation of soil deposit must be gradual and imperceptible
            1. Binalay vs. Manalo, supra [See 55]
          • Second requisite, it must be the result of the action of the waters of the river
            1. Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA 514, 520 (1984), supra [See 57]
            2. Tiongco vs. Director of Lands, et.al., 16 CA Rep. 211 [ * ]
            3. Vda. de Nazareno vs. CA, supra [See 58]
            4. Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA 514 (1984), supra [See 57]
          • Third requisite, the accretiion takes place on a land adjecent to the bank of the river
            1. Ignacio vs. Director of Lands and Valeriano, 108 PHIL 335 (1960), supra [See 64]
            2. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, 53 PHIL 423 (1929) [See 66]
            3. Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, supra [See 59]
            4. Republic vs. CA, 131 SCRA 532 (1984), supra [See 48]
          • Right of riparian owner to alluvium is ipso jure
            1. Roxas v. Tuason (GR L-3788, 21 December 1907)
          • However, accretion does not automatically become registered land
            1. Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 73465, 7 September 1989)
            2. Reynante vs. CA, 207 SCRA 794 (1992), supra [See 176]
            3. Grande v. Court of Appeals (GR L-17652, 30 June 1962)
            4. Viajar v. Court of Appeals (GR 77294, 12 December 1988)
      • Article 458
        • Exception to alluvion
          1. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Colegio de San Jose, supra [See 66]
      • Article 459
        • Avulsion
          • Alluvion and avulsion, compared
            1. Hodges v. Garcia (GR L-12730, 22 August 1960)
      • Article 461
        • Changes in the course of waters of the river
          • Article applied where change is effected through artificial means
            1. Baes v. Court of Appeals (GR 108065, 6 July 1993)
            2. Ronquillo v. Court of Appeals (GR 43346, 20 March 1991)
          • Extension of ownership; when it takes place
            1. Panlilio v. Mercado (GR 18771, 26 March 1923)
          • Extension of ownership ipso jure
            1. Agne v. Director of Lands (GR 40399, 6 February 1990)
      • Article 463 to 465
        • Formation of Islands
          • Under article 464
            • Navigable or floatable rivers
              1. Commonwealth vs. Meneses, [CA] 38 OG 23, 2839 [ * ]
          • Under article 465
            • Reason for the rule in Article 465
              1. Jagualing v. Court of Appeals (GR 94283, 4 March 1991)

Additional Case

  • Ownership
    1. German Management & Services v. CA (Gernale, Villeza) (GR 76216 and 76217, 14 September 1989)

Back to Case Haystacks, Summaries, and Digests