PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C.

YLANAN
Art. 415. The following are immovable property: Now, let’s proceed with Article 415.

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all

Article 415 deals with Immovable Property.
kinds adhered to the soil;

(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are Now, take note that when we speak of the term
attached to the land or form an integral part of an “immovable”, yung perception ng mga tao
immovable; especially the layman would always tend to lean
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed towards yung hindi talaga siya basta-basta mamo-
manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated move mo from one place to another.
therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object; In fact, if tatanungin mo kahit sino, “Give me an
example of an immovable.” Yung ibibigay agad nila,
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for as for example, is yung lupa. Lupa at bahay.
use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on
lands by the owner of the immovable in such a
Now, there’s nothing wrong with that example, or
manner that it reveals the intention to attach them
that perception na ganyan talaga yung, that is the
permanently to the tenements;
definition of an immovable property.
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or
implements intended by the owner of the But, if you go through Article 415, nothing in 415
tenement for an industry or works which may be provides, wala siyang ibinigay dito na exact
carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and definition on what immovable property is. In fact,
which tend directly to meet the needs of the said aside from number 1, itong iba dito, -other
industry or works; enumerations sa Article 415 are considered movable
but because of incorporation, or because of it’s
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish
purpose there is a transformation from movable to
ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case
an immovable.
their owner has placed them or preserves them
with the intention to have them permanently
attached to the land, and forming a permanent Example: a painting on one hand, it is considered as
part of it; the animals in these places are included; a movable but kung titingnan mo sa no. 4
enumeration, it can be made or it can be
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land; transformed into an immovable property if yung
painting itself is e-aattach ng owner doon sa
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
building itself for the purpose of ornamentation or
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
among others. And if na-follow niya yung mga
either running or stagnant;
requirements dito, then, the painting itself will be
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, considered as an immovable property.
are intended by their nature and object to remain
at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast; Ano pa? Animal houses. Itong mga…the chickens,
pigs among others—they are considered immovable
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and
but kung titingnan mo sila, andiyan naman sila,
other real rights over immovable property.
maka-move naman sila kahit saan lang sila
For tonight, we’ll start discussion with Immovable pupunta.
Property.
Then again, the law itself does not provide an exact
Now, as to your syllabus, I will just send your definition on what immovable is but it provides an
syllabus and yung may syllabus na sa akin dati, yung enumeration.
sa last year, same lang yung content, may dinagdag
lang akong 2 cases on immovable property.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Now, if there is one thing, that I want you to be And the perfect example for that is land. Again,
familiar, or much better memorize, is Article 415. I immovable by nature are those, by their essence
remember, way back sa, dun sa aming time, the and nature are immovable, or cannot be move from
provision of Article 415 is ginapa-memorize sa amin one place to another.
ng aming teacher because important provision ‘to.
So there’s no question about that. Dali lang siya
Important provision in the sense na kung pupunta sabton, unsa ang definition, unsa ang kuan aning
kayo going forward to the next provision sa movable immovable by nature.
property. Ang definition again ng movable property
are those, kung wala sa enumeration sa Article 415, Again, this is the most common na understanding ng
they are deemed consider as a movable property. lahat ng tao for immovable.

That is why para maging familiar kayo, it is much Immovable by Incorporation. Now, ang Immovable
better to familiarize kung ano yung mga immovable by Incorporation are those which are treated as
property under 415. If kung hindi niyo kaya immovable by reason of their attachment or
imemorize, at least familiarize. Know the terms incorporation to an immovable in such manner as
kung ano yun sila. K? to form an integral part thereof.

Again, Article 415 does not provide an exact So, take note of the term that forms an integral part
definition on what immovable property is but it only thereof. Anong example nito? Building and
enumerates because of the difficulty of drawing construction of all kinds.
precisely a definition of this term.
Now, the building itself, hindi mo man siya agad-
Iba-iba yung nature niya, iba-iba yung application agad na ma-consider na immovable, you have to
niya so it is very difficult to provide an exact construct.. but again, all those materials used in
definition for this. And in fact, if mapoprovide ka ng constructing a building is first a movable but it was
definition for that—magiging cause siya ng different attached to an immovable which is a land. By that
problems as to the application of the law. reason, the building itself is an Immovable by
Nature.
Now, moving forward, you also have to consider
what are the kinds of immovable? There are four Also, trees, plants and growing fruits while they are
kinds of immovable: still attached on the land or form an integral part of
an immovable.
1. Immovable by Nature
2. Immovable by Incorporation Immovable by Destination those which are
3. Immovable by Destination essentially immovable. It is essentially movable but
4. Immovable by Analogy or by Law for the purpose which we have been placed in an
immovable, or take of the nature of the latter
Now let’s go to the first kind of an immovable because of the added utility derived therefrom.
property, and that is,
So ito, paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Article 415
Immovable by Nature. In this sense, ito yung because of their destination, it becomes part of an
common perception, ito yung perception ng isang immovable. The painting itself, movable siya but by
layman, na isang bagay na hindi mo pwedeng reason of destination, by reason of the purpose of
maaring ilipat kahit saan-saan. So that is an the owner of the building or an establishment, it
Immovable by Nature. becomes part, it becomes an immovable by
destination.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
So Immovable by Analogy or by Law, just refer to Kinukuha lang nila is yung sa container van, yung
Article 10 of Article 415. Those are the kinds of an box type tapos yun, binubutasan nila para merong
immovable property. door at merong window. Now,–does that container
itself can be considered as an immovable?
Par. 1 “Land, buildings, roads and constructions of
all kinds adhered to the soil” The answer is NO because, again, one of the basic
requirement para ma-consider ang isang building as
No question about lands considered na siya an immovable is that it must adhere to the soil or
immovable except when, of course, yung soil itself, there is some sense of permanency.
kinuha mo sa land, nilagay mo sa sako, nilagay mo
sa paso, of course, that will be considered as Now, yung container lang, usually is, nilalagay lang
movable. But kung land itself, a parcel of land, yan diyan sa isang lupa tapos pwede niyang imove
walang question, it is immovable, no question about yan from one place to another. There is no
that. Klaro na siya. permanency on that.

Now let’s go to building. Take note again, the Another, yung mga bahay sa squatters, of course,
enumeration provided under paragraph of Article mga barong-barong that cannot be considered as
415. Ito siya is the individual items here, the land, an immovable property because it is just a mere
buildings, roads and constructions are treated as superimposition. Madali lang siya ilipat, madali lang
they are treated differently. Hindi ito as one. siya tanggalin or ilipat. So that is considered as a
movable property. Again, dapat adhered to the soil,
Now, if the land itself contains, sa isang lupa, meaning, there must be some sense of permanency
merong building—bahay, meron ding road. Now, on it.
the road itself, the house itself, and the land itself it
can be appropriated to any person. Iba-iba ang Now, paragraph 1 of Article 415 classifies building
treatment nito. Hindi pwede na sabihin natin, if an immovable. The buildings refer to is that which
ililease natin yung lupa, does it mean kasali na doon substantially adheres to the land and not one
ang bahay? which merely superimposed on the soil.

Again, in a contract, pwede mong iseparate ang Now, take note also, that a building, is at all times,
lease ng lupa at ang lease ng bahay or mortgage ng be considered as an immovable basta lang
lupa or ang mortgage ng bahay, iba-iba ang provided –balik tayo doon sa first –only requirement
kanilang treatment, they cannot be treated as one. niya it must be adhered to the soil.

Building –A house is Immovable by Incorporation. A Now, building is considered as an immovable but,

house or building is classified as an immovable by take note, there are –I think nadaanan niyo na ang
reason of adherence to the soil. Doctrine of Estoppel way back sa inyong OBliCon.
Okay?
Take note of the term “adherence to the soil,”
meaning, there is some sense of permanency over I presume you are familiar with the Doctrine of
–there is permanency yung sa structure itself. Estoppel.

Building must be adhered to the soil itself. Now, there are instances wherein the parties, for
example, yung bahay is ginagawa nilang subject for
Now, what if yung mga common na mga a chattel mortgage. And when we speak of chattel
establishment, yung mga modern establishment or mortgage, only movable property ang pwede lang
structures or mga businesses. Ano ang kanilang ma-considered as a chattel.
building?

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Pero may ibang parties that would consider the from claiming that they cannot claim na mali yung
building as part, ico-consider nila as a chattel. Yes, agreement nila.
icoconsider nila as subject for chattel.
But if it affects third person, of course, it requires
Now, does that mean na, okay, since both parties the application of law and as between application of
agree na consider na siya as chattel, the building law and the agreement of the parties, of course, the
itself, the house itself will consider or turn into a law will prevail.
movable property?
And since application of law will prevail, titignan
The answer is NO. Take note. This is the general natin kung ano ba ang building under 415. Since, it
rule: Buildings are always immovable because it is is considered as an immovable then rule in favor na
the law itself that provides for its classification. yung property itself or yung bahay itself is
Immovable siya always. considered as an immovable.

Now, yung sinasabi natin na, okay, ginawa nilang Now, the building by itself is a real or immovable
subject to chattel, does that mean na consider na property distinct from the land on which it is
siya as a movable property? constructed and therefore can be separated subject
to a contract.
The answer is NO. Ganito, if it is both parties agree,
both parties agree, na itong lupa, itong bahay As I mentioned kanina, itong si number 1, it doesn’t
subject siya as chattel. It is an agreement between mean na yung house and lot, kung e-su-subject for
them, so in other words, if in the event may REM or ireal-estate mortgage yung lupa, kasali na
magrereklamo ang isang party na hindi man valid yung bahay, no, it does not, hindi ganyan yung
yung ating agreement, hindi man valid yung chattel. application.
For the reason that yung Bahay is under the law
considered siya as immovable. Now, anyone cannot You can sell your house, iretain mo yung lupa,
claim that defense. Hindi sila pwede mag- depende sa agreement or emortgage mo ang lupa,
agreement by reason of estoppel. Again, they are emortgage mo ang bahay, different person, pwede
estopped from claiming, na ni-agree na man sila, so, yan sila.
it is treated to them na movable property.
Now, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building,
The only exception for this is, hindi mag-aapply yung separate and distinct of the land, in the
agreement nila is when there is an innocent third enumeration of what we constitute real properties
party involved here or when the question itself only mean one thing that the building is by itself an
provides for the application of law. immovable property.

Now, cases of Punzalan versus Vda de Lacsamana Now, ordinarily, in Article 2127 of the Civil Code
extends the effects of the real estate mortgage to
Now, for the cases, I will just assign cases and accessions and accessories found on the
ediscuss natin to by Thursday next week, second hypothecated property when secured obligations
hour sa Property. Now, we’ll just discuss the cases. become due, thus, the provision has been seen by
the court to mean that all improvements
But again, ganito, again, buildings are always subsequently introduced or owned by the
considered, they are always considered as mortgagor on the encumbered property are
immovable property that is a rule. Now, if the deemed to form part of the mortgagee.
parties themselves agree na econsider nila yung
bahay or any building as a chattel then so be it. Now, the case of Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery
Agreement na yun sa dalawa. They are estopped and Company. This is one of the cases we will
discuss next Thursday and assigned case ito siya.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
The ownership of such accessions or accessories Now, the purpose, ang kanyang purpose of buying
also belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the the house is for him to demolish it at ibenta at a
principal. In cases, however, where there is clear salvage price kung ano yung makukuha niya doon.
and convincing evidence to prove that principal
and accessory are not owned by one and the same Now, in that case, the house itself may not be
person or in the presumption shall not be applied considered as an immovable, because, again, the
that the actual ownership shall be upheld. purpose of which, ang purpose ng parties bakit niya
ibinenta, bakit niya binili yung bahay is for the
So ganito, the house itself may be considered as an purpose of demolition –is for the purpose of
accession. Now if there is no question on that, on acquiring kung ano yung salvage value, kung ano pa
question of ownership, it is presumed that the ang makuhang pwedeng ma-salvage don sa bahay.
owner of the land, is the owner of the building that
is the presumption. If that is their intention, the house itself is
considered as movable property. Let’s go to, tignan
But as an exception, if there are other proof na mo ang kanilang intention ng parties, eventually,
pwede mong maipakita na different owners ito, idedemolish ang bahay or yung building then that
then the application of Article 415 paragraph 3 will may be treated as movable property.
apply that the ownership of the land and the
building is owned by different personality. The law makes no distinction as to whether or not
the owner of the land is or is not the owner of the
Also, while it is true that the mortgage land building hence a building is an immovable property
necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation, regardless whether or not the structure and the
the improvements thereon, still a building by itself land on which it is adhered to belong to the same
may be mortgage apart from the land which it has owner or whether is it erected by the owner of the
been built, in cases where ownership of the building land or usufructuary or lessee.
does not belong to the owner of the land as such a
mortgage as real estate mortgage to the building Now, the parties to a contract may, by agreement,
will be considered as immovable property even if treat it as a personal property that which by nature
dealt with separately. would be a real property. We have intended to
erode the doctrine of estoppel that the building is
Ganito, how about yung mga squatters, kung meron by itself is immovable property.
silang ecoconstruct na cemented or concrete house,
although, hindi yan sa kanila or yung mga usurper. The fact remains that the nature of the building
Although the house built on the land of another does not depend on the way the parties deal with
person, concrete siya, di basta-basta ma kuan, it it. The classification of the property into real or
was adhered to the soil, it doesn’t mean na yung personal is provided for by law and may not
building is considered as movable property. therefore be changed by the agreement of the
parties as such even if the parties may treat it as
Again, the definition or the classification itself was personal property that which under the law is a real
provided under 415 and 415, again, is an exclusive property. That agreement does not, in anyway, alter
list. Since andun na siya kahit hindi ikaw ang may- the character of the property as an immovable or
ari ng lupa pero may kinonstruct ka diyan na bahay, real property.
then that is considered as an immovable property,
yung bahay. Another case na ediscuss natin next week is the case
of Evangelista vs. Alto Surety, an insurance company
The only exception for that is when, merong lupa, as well as cases of Navarro vs. Pineda, Tumalad vs.
andon sa lupa, is merong let’s say, merong Vicencio, and Associated Insurance and Surety
dilapidated house na. Now, binenta niya yung lupa Corporation vs. IYA. These cases would demonstrate
pati yung bahay. Yung lupa, of course, kanya yun. the Doctrine of Estoppel as to the application of

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Article 415 paragraph specifically on building so Since nag-agree na sila, niregister na nila sa Register
we’ll discuss cases next meeting at eaassign ko to sa of Deeds, so, there is this intention by the parties na
kanila. econsider siya as a movable property, so that is the
only effect sa chattel mortgage. Otherwise, if iba
Now, as we mentioned kanina, that both parties yung effect, if irecognize talaga ni Chattel Mortgage
may agree and consider the Doctrine of Estoppel Registry na, okay, econsider natin siya as a movable
that they cannot change or they cannot use the property, now, what if it will affect another innocent
defense that void yung agreement nila because third person, in that case magiging futile yung
again, the subject property itself is considered as an Article 415 itself because, again, pupunta tayo, ang
immovable property but since maregister siya, ano eaapply natin is yung agreement ng both parties.
ba ang effect nito ireregister mo yung bahay, yung
building as a movable property? And can the Again, the law itself is explicit kung paano niya
Register of Deed refuse registration sa building as a kinlassify ang building and since it is immovable and
chattel? it affects third person and it requires the
application of law considered siya as immovable
In the case of Standard Oil Company vs. Jaramillo, property under Article 415, but again, as to the
an also a designated case ediscuss next week. A parties as to a chattel mortgage they are not
Register of Deed may not refuse the registration of allowed to assail the validity of the said agreement
chattel on the pretext that the subject matter under the principle of estoppel.
thereof is not a personal property. Why? The
Register of Deeds has purely ministerial function. …“constructions adhered to the soil”

The only, the discussion as to the classification of Another item found in the first paragraph of Article
property is best left to the discretion of the Court. Si 415.
Court na ang pwede magdecide kung ano ba yan
siya, is it considered as a movable or not? Now, any construction (roads) which is adhered to
the soil that is permanently attached to the land is
But si Register of Deeds kailangan niya yan iregister considered as Immovable by Incorporation.
provided kumpleto lahat ng documents, nagbayad
sila, etc. etc. because again, purely ministerial ang In the case of Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp vs
kanyang function. CBAA, designated case din ito.

But what is the effect once maregister na siya? The Steel Towers are considered as movable property.
effect of that is WALA. Wala siyang effect actually. Steel towers, yung mga poste ng MERALCO, poste
It was provided in Associated Insurance and Surety ng Davao Light, poste ng kahit anong power
Corporation vs. IYA that the registration of a chattel generating company diyan, they are considered as
covering a building in a chattel mortgage registry, movable property. But take note of the ruling of
produces no effect, whatsoever, for over the interest Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp vs CBAA (1964) as
conveyed is in the nature of real property. compared to the case of MERALCO vs The City
Assessor of Lucena City (2015) case. There is a
The Registration of the document in the registry of confusion as to the classification of steel towers,
the chattel is merely a futile act. ano ba siya? Is it considered as a movable or not?

So, wala siyang effect, but sa aking opinion, the only Because kung titingnan natin yung 1964 case, the
effect is that it only recognizes the intention or the Supreme Court itself ruled na movable siya by
agreement between the parties and diyan na reason that it is removable and merely attached to
papasok si Doctrine of Estoppel. a square metal frame by means of bolts which when
unscrewed could be easily dismantled and move

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
from place to place, yan yung ruling niya. And there movable, it is subject for real property tax. Now
is nothing wrong with the ruling in 1964. under the Local Government Code, machinery
embraces machines, equipment, mechanical
Now, here comes 2015 case, sa 2015 kinonsider ni conjuvances, instruments, appliances or apparatus
SC na immovable property ang steel towers. Now, if which may or may not be attach permanently or
eside-to-side mo yung dalawang cases, that is why, temporarily to the real property.
warn ko kayo na you have to look at the issue
involve sa dalawa. This is one of the basis as to why applicable or dapat
patawan siya ng real property tax. It includes the
Because in the 2015 case, the primary or the main physical facilities for production, the installations
issue for this is to the application of the real and appurtenant service, facilities those which are
property tax. Whether or not steel towers is mobile, self-powered or self-propelled and those
subject for real property tax. are not permanently attached to the real property
which are actually, directly and exclusively –the
Again, the 2015 case, existing na or andun na si magic terms, gamit ito siya pagdating niyo rin sa
Local Government Code, applicable na siya. In 1964, Taxation.
wala pa, hindi pa nagkuan si Local Government
Code. The application of which is binased nila dun sa The ADE (Actually, Directly and Exclusively-Used)
provision ni Article 415. to meet the needs of a particular industry.

Ganito, mao ni inyong timan-an, take note of the Now going back sa definition ng machineries, sa
date, the date, ang issue regarding sa pagclassify Civil Code, wala ito siya, kailangan siya naka-attach
ng steel tower as movable or immovable. Tingnan mismo sa of an immovable property.
nyo yung date,
For example, a machine used in Brewery, dapat
if it is before the Local Government Code=apply niyo naka-attach siya doon sa, let’s say, sa ground ng
si 1964 case. building, so that is considered as immovable. Now,
because of that hindi mo siya basta-bastang
But after, upon the effectivity of the Local matanggal or kung tatanggalin mo man siya, it will
Government Code- you have to apply the provision cause substantial damage over the immovable itself
of the Local Government Code as to the applicable or the machine itself.
definition kung ano yung mga subject ng immovable
property. Now, sa Local Government Code, on the other
hand, it does not, wala siyang ganitong
Now, in this case, in 2015 case, ganito, one of their requirement, in fact, kahit na movable siya or not
ruling bakit sinabi ni SC na subject siya, that the steel provided actually, directly and exclusively-used in a
towers itself is subject for real property tax is particular industry or business or activity, then it is
because ano ba yung tower? considered as an immovable property which is
subjected for real property tax.
The tower itself is considered as a machinery, now,
let us go to the definition of machinery dun sa… So that is why, careful kayo sa pag-apply ng
Machinery as to the Civil Code provides that it must dalawang kaso, but mostly man gud karon, the
be set, put or establish by the owner himself for the distinction between Article 415 and the Local
purpose of his industry, para gamiton sa iyang Government Code provision as to the definition of
industry or business. immovable property especially sa steel towers, only
deals with tax purposes, real property tax.
In the definition of machinery under sa Local
Government Code, even if immovable siya or

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
So most likely, mag-aapply dito is 2015 but if you So careful kayo sa pagdecipher kung ano talaga ang
would be asked, how would you categorize a steel issue nito, again, medyo confusing siya. If itatanong
tower? Tanggalin natin yung issue ni tax, you can sa inyo, ano ba siya, ano ba yung steel towers? If
apply the 1964 case in support sayong Article 415 na that is, yan yung question, you can apply the 1964
provision, yung kanila. But again, if purposes of case. But, for purposes of, it cannot be subjected for
determination kung subject ba siya for real property real property tax then apply the provision of the
tax then 2015 ruling will apply. Local Government Code.

Now, as between the Civil Code and the general law Now, there is a question raised here:
governing Property and Property Relation and the
Local Government Code, a special law granting local What if the owner of the container van gawin po nila
government units power to impose real property na house talaga?
tax, the latter prevails stated otherwise, for the
purpose from the wording of the case, from the Hindi po ba pwede magfall ang container van as an
wording of the Justices itself, stated otherwise, for immovable by incorporation or destination?
the purpose of determining whether machinery is
real property subject to real property tax, the
Now ganito. When we say building or the house
definition requirements under the Local
itself and using the material, yung container van.
Government Code are controlling.
Then yung if yung pagkakalagay ng van itself is
meron syang mga poste poste yung mga poste para
So careful kayo sa pagdecipher kung ano talaga ang lang hindi sya basta basta mamove then that is still
issue nito, again, medyo confusing siya. If itatanong considered as superimposition. now as to the
sa inyo, ano ba siya, ano ba yung steel towers? If question: Can the container van be considered as
that is, yan yung question, you can apply the 1964 destination or ?purpose?
case. But, for purposes of, it cannot be subjected for
real property tax then apply the provision of the
The answer is No. Because again the classification
Local Government Code.
of building is by incorporation.

So most likely, mag-aapply dito is 2015 but if you

Ganito, if the container van itself ginawa nila as a
would be asked, how would you categorize a steel
foundation meron silang, nagdig pa sila sa ground
tower? Tanggalin natin yung issue ni tax, you can
para magconduct, magtayo ng poste etc2. Then
apply the 1964 case in support sayong Article 415 na
they that can be considered as an immovable na sya
provision, yung kanila. But again, if purposes of
Yung meron na talagang adherence to the soil.
determination kung subject ba siya for real property
Yung mga nakikita kasi natin usually yung mga
tax then 2015 ruling will apply.
container van merong steel post na kagaya lang sya
ng isang tower na i-screw2 lang nila, para hindi lang
Now, as between the Civil Code and the general law sila magmomove, that is just a mere super
governing Property and Property Relation and the imposition. kung titingann natin yung weight is
Local Government Code, a special law granting local parang hindi na talaga sya magmmomove but by
government units power to impose real property means of equipment, pwede sya by analogy, para
tax, the latter prevails stated otherwise, for the lang din sya parang bahay kubo yung poste nya is
purpose from the wording of the case, from the tuturok lang sya sa ground pero madali lang sya
wording of the Justices itself, stated otherwise, for tanggalin so that is the concept sa yung sa container
the purpose of determining whether machinery is van but unless if merong poste talga na itatayo,
real property subject to real property tax, the then ilang stories yung or ilang container van ang
definition requirements under the Local nakalagay doon then that maybe considered as an
Government Code are controlling. immovable property

1st session Aug-06-2021 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
ang plano nila is iexpand nila yung SM, now there
Associated Insurance and Surety Company v IYA was this protest kasi mag eexpand sila, maraming
pine trees ang ma-aapaktohan,ganito ang solution
Piansay vs David
nila. ililipat natin yung mga pinetrees because that
Standard Oil COmpany v Jaramillo defines Baguio city. They are known for their pine
Meralco Sureties Industrial Corp v CBAA 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 ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
So ngayon yan yung issue natin: And once ilipat na sya, andun na sya, natanim na
sya sa ibang lugar, it will again return to its
how would you consider or ano yung classification classification as immovable property.Again tignan
ng pine tree? nyo kung saan sya galing yung pun. You have to
know whether it is from from a forest land,
ANS: of course if andyan pa sya sa land, naka tayo agricultural, industrial, or commercial land. Yan
pa yung kahoy, that is considered as immovable yung basehan ninyo to consider that as an
property. immovable or not.

Pero once matanggal yan sya or maputol, or ma- As to “growing fruit”, while it is attached to the
knock down ng strong wind, then that is considered plant itself, that is considered as an immovable
as a movable properrty na. property BUT once harvested it will be considered
as a movable property.
Except kung yung na-uproot or natumba na kahoy,
if andun sya sa timber or forest land, kahit na uproot Except when ungathered fruits may become a
yan sya or kahit yung kahoy itself yung mga illegal personal property for the purpose of sale of the
na pagputol nung kahoy ifeferry na sya or whole or part of part of the crops.
itatransfern na sya sa iba,if that tree or trunk itself
is galing sya sa forest land then kahit putol na yan In addition, ungathered fruits have the nature of
sya it is considered as an immovable property, since personal property for purposes of attachment and
nag form part parin sya sa timber land execution in applying the provisions of the chattel
mortgage law.
kaya nga hinuhuli ito ng mga authorities
In this case, application again nito is in doctrine of
now going back to the question, what if meron yun estoppel as to the purposes of execution in applying
silang ililipat nila yung kahoy, iuproot nila kasali the provisions the chattel mortgage law.
yung ugat kasali yung some soil, from that place,
yung maapektohan ng, expansion ililipat na saibang Now in any of the enumeration, provided in article
lugar? 415 pabalikbalik yung application ni doctrine of
estoppel
now from the time, the pine tree was was traveled
or ferried, ano sya? Generally, growing fruits is considered as an
immovable property BUT once uprooted, harvested,
is it considered as immovable or not? 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
the answer is simple, you have to look at the
na sya, ibinenta na sya ng may ari, meron nang
classification of land. Kung saan sya kinuha, again
contract, andun pa yung fruit sa kanyang tree, then
if it is a timber land, kung galing sya sa timber land
that itself is considered as personal property of and
or forest land, From the time it was uprooted and
also for purpose of attachment and execution.
then it was transfered to another, during that time
it is still considered as an immovable property.
Par. 3 “Everything attached to an immovable in a
fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
But if the pine tree itself is located in an agricultural
separated therefrom without breaking the
land, or a commercial, or industrial land itself and
material or deterioration of the object.”
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 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed mog answer na #5. Applicable provision maybe #3
manner in such a way that it cannot be separated or same pod sa #4.
there from without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object. For example: a gargoyle, meron kang gargoyle for
aesthetic purposes nilagy mo doon sa bahay for the
Now attachment in this case, attachment under purpose of aesthetics, ornamentation, etc2 Now by
number 3, it must be in a fixed manner. So these that by itself is considered and you are the owner,
proprties are immovable by incorporation. Their that is considered as a immovable property
attachment to an immovable must be in a fixed
manner that in such a way they cannot be separated but what if hindi ikaw ang may ari ng bahay,
there from without breaking the material or nilagay mo sya doon, inattach mo sya, sinemento
deterioration of the object. mo sya kung tatanggalin mo, it will cause
substantial damage or deterioaration, again pwede
Now take note also as compared to paragraph 4 and sya magfall kay #3.
5, sino ba yung pwede mag attach ng movable or
mag incorporate ng movable sa immovable? It would depend or defer as to the requirements.

If icompare nimo sya sa number 4 and 5, number 4 So you must familiarize the provisions for the
and 5 provides that it must be the owner or the requirements provided under paragraph 3,4, &5 kay
agent who must place that movable property sa mao ni ang confusing provisions as to the 415. Dira
immovable. Now if it is not the owner or his agent, usually ginakuha ang questions.
then that is considered as movable.
The principle of estoppel, again applied with respect
Example for that is yung sa number 5 - the to the property. The fact that the machineries are
machinery itself. heavy, bolted, or cemented to the real property
does not make them immovable under 415 as
The machinery must be placed by the owner. between the parties intent has be looked into. Thus
if the parties treat them as chattel. They are bound
Ito rin yung favorite source ng bar questions. to their agreement under the principle of estoppel
not withstanding the fact that the machinery may
Kasi ganito, machinery, hindi sya ang naglagay dun have been attached to the immovable in a fixed
sa property but it was attached sa immovable in a manner or may not be separated therefrom w/o
fixed manner and it cannot be separated there from breaking the material or deterioration of the object
without breaking the material or deterioration of in which it is attached
the object.
So again, it can be subjected, the partsythemselves
While it may not fall under #5, pwede sya magfall sa maybe bound by the doctrine of estoppel. So again
#3. 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 kahit hindi yung may-ari ang naglagay dun sa
property itself but nagfall yung requirements under
#3.That can be considered as an immovable Now again, one of the parties cannot claim in the
property. future na hindi yan sya considered as movable
because it was permanently attached at kung
tatanggalin natin it will cause deterioration sa
Now again take note ana since tendency ana is
material itself to cause substantial damage.
hatagan mog isa ka question - okay machinery na
attach sya. Kinsa man nag attach ana? ayaw dayon

1st session Aug-06-2021 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 ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Par 5. “Machinery, receptacles, instruments or machinery is considered an immovable property
implements intended by the owner of the from the time it was attached to the property.
tenement for an industry or works which may be
carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and But if the agreement, nakalagay doon sa contract of
which tend directly to meet the needs of the said lease is that kukunin sya lahat ni leasee, wala syang
industry or works” iiwan na machinery, then that is considered as a
movable property.
they are considered as immovable by destinations.
But again you have to consider si paragraph #3.
Again be familiarized by the requisites:
Kaya you have to be familiarized with the
1. They must be machinery, receptacles, requirements.
instruments, or implements.
If the tenant himself is engaged in the particular sort
2. They must be placed by the owner of the of business, then it will fall under par 5 of 415.
tenement or by his agent.
“There must be and industry or work carrying on in
3. There must be an industry or work in such such building or piece of land and lastly they must
building or in the piece of land, and tend directly to the needs of the said industry.”

4. it is essential and not mere incidental or they

Meaning that the machinery itself has to be used
must tend directly to meet the needs of the said
essential siya sa kanyang negosyo. Now if he is
industry or work.
engaged in bottling business or yung kalamansi
juice business, then yung machinery in for example
Now ganito ang scenario, the owner of the property
extraction of kalamansi juice and for bottling naka
is engaged in some sort of business or industy.
attach sya doon ni owner, then that is considered as
an immovable.
For example:
Now what if, sa kanyang compound, meron din
meron siyang business na kalamansi juice business, syang vulcanizing shop? Ang purpose lang niya is to
binobottle sya. Now any machinery placed there in cater yung mga vehicle ng may-ari or ng
the by the owner himself is considered and it was management.
attached there for it to be used for his/her business
will be considered as immovable property if he's
In that case, yung machinery allotted for that
the owner
particular purpose sa vulcanizing purpose that is
NOT considered as an imovable property under 415
now what if ganito, leasee lang sya, ganyan naman paragragraph 5 because it is not essential need sa
talaga yung scenario. Nag rent lang sya ng property, kanyang business.
so yung business nya is same parin, yung kalamansi
juice business. Meron syang nilagaya doon na
Again, tignan mo kung ano yung main business
machineries
nya.Titingnan mo yung nature ng instrument or
machine.
now you have to look at the intention or the
content of the contract of lease.
If the business itself can pursue, or maka operate pa
rin sya kahit wala yun sya, it is not considered
Kasi, If at the end of the lease, ganito yung essential.
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 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
And since it is not essential, it is not considered as pursuant to a contract that it shall belong to the
an immovable property but if the business owner, it then becomes immobilized as to that
maapektohan kung wala ito, masira lang sya, tenant and even as against his assignee assignee,
maapektohan sya then that is considered as an who had sufficient notice of such stipulation.
immovable property under paragraph 5 of article
415. Now, also the properties mentioned in paragraph 5
are immovable by destination and they are
The requirement that they must be placed by the converted into real properties by reason of their
owner or by his agent that is provided in the case of purpose
Davao Sawmill vs Castillo.
Also, there must be essential and principal elements
Now in this case, the machinery which is movable of the industry or works. It is necessary that they
by nature becomes immobilized placed by the must be essential and principal elements of the
owner of the tenement, property, or plant but not industry or works without which such industry or
so when placed by tenant usufructuary or any other works would be unable to function or carry on the
person having only temporary right unless such industrial purpose for which it was established
person acted as an agent of lessee.
We must distinguish therefore those movables
So that is the precise reason na bakit at the end of which become immobilized "via" destination
the contract, the machine itself is mapupunta sya sa because they are essential and principal elements
lessor it is considered as immovable because the of the industry from those which are not to be
lessee himself is acting as the agent of the lessor sa considered immobilized because they are merely
pag attach niya doon sa property incidental and not essential and principal.

Again under paragraph 5 of article 415, it must be Also, again the doctrine of estoppel will also be
placed by the owner or by his agent, take note of applied with respect to properties which are
that. considered immobilized by reason of its destination
by the purpose of paragraph 5.
Now hence if the machinery, receptacles,
instrument, or implements are not placed by the Case point is the case of Surge Products
owner of the tenement or his agent these Incorporated vs ECI Leasing.
properties remain as movable and are not covered
into real properties. Now if there is an agreement, again, same concept
pa rin. Agreement by the parties, it must agreed by
An exception will arise however if in the contract of the parties that the machine itself is considered,
lease it is stipulated that such machinery, although by law as an immovable, but because of
receptacles, instrument, or implements placed the agreement of the parties, it was recorded or it
there by the lesee will become at the termination of was registered as a chattel then if it will not affect
the lease will become property of the lessor for in any innocent third person, then their agreement will
that case they will be considered as immovable apply.
properties since enticing them the lessee will just be
acting as an agent of the lessor. The doctrine of Estoppel is applicable in the future if
meron silang problema they cannot dispute yung
So that is in the case of Davao Sawmill Company vs nature nya, because again they are bound sa
Castillo and this was further reiterated in the case kanilang agreement.
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 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
Par 6.”Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, So in that case yung isda kinonsider nila as movable
fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in property.
case their owner has placed them or preserves
them with the intention to have them GR: the animals itself is considered immovable, EXP:
permanently attached to the land, and forming a if there is a special law which explicitly provides that
permanent part of it; the animals in these places it is movable.
are included.”
Par. 7 “Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land”
The structures mentioned in paragraph 6, just like
in enumeration 4 and 5, they must be placed by the Of course if ang fertilizers naa pa sa bag niya or sa
owner themselves. sack that is considered as movable pa. Pero once
applied na sya, that is considered immovable
It requires that the are placed by the owner in order property.
to acquire the same nature or consideration of a
real property even if not placed by the owner. Par 8. “Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
However, such structure may still qualify as real either running or stagnant.”
property under paragraph 1 of article 415 being
construction attached to the soil provided that such Now generally, these are (yung mga Mines
attachment must be permanent in character. quarries, slagdumps, waters) andyan pa sya, wala
pang na-extract na minerals dyan, the slagdumps
In other words, although it is not the owner who itself, that quarries itself, kung nakuha mo na sya,
placed that houses, yung mga pig pens ba dyan or dinig mo na sya, nilagay mo sa isang lugar, that is
construction kung saan maninirahan ang mga still considered as immovable property.
hayop, then that is considered as structures under
paragraph 1 provided again di lang sya super But once you extract the minerals doon sa
imposition, it is adhered to the soil. slagdumps, that is considered movable property na.

Not only the construction or not only those houses Waters- is considered, either running or stagnant,
are considered as immovable even the animals are considered immovable property. By analogy is
inside they are also considered immovable. it is like land. Dimo sya basta basta ilipat.

The only exception for that is when there is a special Par 9. “Docks and structures which, though
law which explicitly provides that the animal in that floating, are intended by their nature and object to
particular house/shelter is considered movable, remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast”
again if may special law lang.
They are considered as immovable, though floating,
If wala, then the animals itself are considered as as long as they aren't impended by their nature to
immovable property as defined by law. remain at a fixed place at a river, lake or coast.

An example for that is yung mga isda sa fish pond. One of the previous bar question is ganito --

The fish pond itself is considered as immovable. Merong platform, and on that platform, naka
Since bahay yun ng mga isda, naturally yung mga anchored lang sya sa isang lugar.Doon sa platform
isda doon is din considered as immovable but by is merong mga sheds, meron pa ngang mga
reason of the provision of the RPC as provision of halaman na nakatanim doon, may mga structures.
qualified theft kinonsider sya as movable property
for purposes sa elements of qualified theft.

1st session Aug-06-2021 GENOTA, JALANDONI

 PROPERTY ATTY. JUNE EREK C. YLANAN
The question is how would you treat the plants na Now another case was tinanong ko to as an exam
itinanim doon, the shed na itinanim doon, yung last year, the case of
building na naka-attach sya sa platform, and the
platform itself. How would you consider that? (Phels Energy incorporated vs the Province of
Batangas)
Suggested answer: They are considered as
immovable. Ganito ang situation: Power barges ang question
Ano ba ang power barges? How would you classify
Let's start from the platform. The platform itself is these power barges?
considered as an immovable. By incorporation, it
was attached sa water. The water acts like a land. Now the power barges was used by the electric
Para lang syang land kung saaan sya naatach.For company for the purpose of electric generation.
that matter, although floating sya, but it will remain
in the same spot, although it will move a few meters, Although these power barges are movable, but they
pero andyan pa rin sya. remain at a fixed place or they are moored in
Gingoog port. Doon lang sya, ang purpose lang nya
So by that reason it is considered as an immovable. is for power generation.

Now how about the plants which was planted doon Can the power barges be subjected for real property
sa platform? tax?

Now that was also considered as an immovable Different views ani; If you will use the provision of
property. Application nya is andun sa paragraph 2. the LGC, tama.
(Na those plants which are attached to the soil)
If you also use the provision unser the 415, pwede
Now again, since the platform itself is immovable sya.
and since it was incorporated to an immovable, the
plant itself is considered as immovable. Again, they are considered as structures, they are
moored in a particular place, they are just placed
how about the sheds? there for purposes of power generation.

Now the sheds, these are just mere super Hindi nila to nimomove from place to place, in fact
imposition.They are considered as immovable it was anchored in that particular place. Since it was
anchored, the water itself is considered as if it was
BUT those structures which are naka attach sa land, since it was an immovable inattach mo sya
mismo sa platform at kung tatanggalin mo sya, it doon, the power barges was incorporated doon sa
will cause substantial damage over a particular area water, then that becomes a immovable property.
sa platform, then that structure is considered as And since it's an immovable property, it is subjected
immovable property. for real property tax.

Now ganito, the premise is that the water itself, ang Again if ang answer pod ninyo is machinery siya,
application nya is parang land.The platform itself, based under the definition of the local government
although it is movable, but it was incorporated sa code, no problem, tama ragihapon na sya.
water, which is considered as an immovable -- so in
that case naging immovable property na sya. Now, Phels Energy was decided 2007, yung isa is
2015.

1st session Aug-06-2021 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