1. WoN the chattel mortgage and the sale between Uy Kim and
Piansay were valid.
PROVISIONS: Art 416 of the Civil Code
RULING + RATIO:
1. No.
Mrs. Uy Kim had no right to foreclose the alleged chattel
mortgage constituted in her favor, because it was in reality a
mere contract of an unsecured loan.
o Even if the chattel mortgage was registered, since
what was conveyed was in the nature of real property,
the registration of the document in the registry of
chattels is merely a futile act and produces no effect.
She could not, in the same token, have sold it validly to
Salvador Piansay.
Regardless of the validity of a contract constituting a chattel
mortgage on a house, as between the parties to the said
contract, the same cannot and doesnt bind third persons who
arent parties to the aforementioned contract or their privies.
o As a consequence, the sale of the house in question
in the proceedings for the sale of the house in the
proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of said
chattel mortgage, is null and void insofar as
Mangubat is concerned and didnt confer upon Kim
as buyer in said sale, any dominical right in and to
said house.
DISPOSITION: Appealed cases are affirmed with costs against
petitioners.
RULING + RATIO:
Yes, Sugar cane in the case at bar is to be considered as personal
property. A crop raised on leased premises in no sense forms part of
the immovable. It belongs to the lessee, and may be sold by him,
whether it be gathered or not, and it may be sold by his judgment
creditors.
Ungathered products have the nature of personal property. In other
words, the phrase personal property should be understood to
include ungathered products. Crops, whether growing or standing in
the field ready to be harvested, are, when produced by annual
cultivation, no part of the realty
Paragraph 2, Article 334 of the Civil Code interpreted by the
Tribunal Supremo de Espana as that growing crops may be
considered as personal property
Sugar cane may come under the classification of real property as
"ungathered products" in paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code,
which enumerates as real property as "Trees, plants, and ungathered
products, while they are annexed to the land or form an integral part
of any immovable property." That article, however, has received in
recent years an interpretation by the Tribunal Supremo de Espaa,
which holds that, under certain conditions, growing crops may be
considered as personal property. (Decision of March 18, 1904, vol.
97, Civil Jurisprudence of Spain.) Thus, under Spanish authorities,
pending fruits and ungathered products may be sold and transferred
as personal property. Also, the Supreme Court of Spain, in a case of
ejectment of a lessee of an agricultural land, held that the lessee was
entitled to gather the Products corresponding to the agricultural year
because said fruits did not go with the land but belonged separately to
the lessee. And further, under the Spanish Mortgage Law of 1909, as
amended, the mortgage of a piece of land does not include the fruits
and products existing thereon, unless the contract expressly provides
otherwise
Chattel Mortgage Law recognizes growing crops as personal
property
Act 1508, the Chattel Mortgage Law, fully recognizes that growing
Author: Arcellana
DOCTRINE:
The requisite of registration in the registry of the purchase of a vessel
is necessary and indispensable in order that the purchaser's rights are
maintained against a claim by third persons.
FACTS:
1. It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs were the owners of
a pilot boat Valentina stranded in Tingloy in Bauan, Batangas and
Rivera took charge of the boat, claiming to be the owner, and plaintiffs
thus unable to derive profit from it.
2. The boat is owned by "Gelito and Co" with co-partners Gelito for 2/3
share and Sy Qui for 1/3 share. Afterwards Gelito sold his share to Sy
Qui.
3. Sy Qui then sold the boat to Rivera for 2500 pesos on Jan 4, 1915
and had it registered in the Bureau of Customs on March 17,
1915.
4. Then to enforce a payment of a certain sum of money, the boat was
bought by Rubiso in a public auction on January 23, 1915 and had it
registered in the Collector of Customs on January 27, 1915.
5. The complaint asks the defendant for indemnification and the
delivery of the boat.
ISSUE:
1. WoN Rubiso has a better right to the boat Valentina.
PROVISIONS:
Article 573 of the Code of Commerce: Merchant vessels constitute
property which may be acquired and transferred by any of the
means recognized by law. The acquisition of a vessel must
appear in a written instrument, which shall not produce any effect
with respect to third persons if not inscribed in the registry of
vessels.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES.
Even though Rivera was the first one who bought the boat,
it was Rubiso who registered the vessel first in the office of
the Collector of Customs. Rivera only registered the vessel
on March 17, 1915 while Rubiso had it registered on
January 27, 1915 in the same month of the purchase.
With respect to the rights of the two purchasers, whichever
of them who registered the vessel first is the one entitled
by the protection of the law, which considers him the
absolute owner of the boat and free from encumbrances
and claims.
Rivera is now considered a third person who was directly
affected by the registration. Ships and vessels, whether
moved by steam or sail, partake the nature of real property
on account of their value in the world of commerce.
RULING + RATIO:
1) Yes they are personal property making them subject to the Chattel
Mortgage law.
Vessels are considered as personal property under the civil law (Code of
Commerce) and under the common law. Therefore since they are personal
property they are subject to the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
2) No, the mortgages on the boats are not valid as the lack
requirements provided by law and therefore they cannot be foreclosed.
The Chattel Mortgage law requires a sufficient chattel mortgage to include an
affidavit of good faith appended to the mortgage and recorded therewith. The
absence of the affidavit vitiates a mortgage as against creditors and
subsequent encumbrancers. Therefore this chattel mortgage in
unenforceable against third persons.
Author: Ramirez
US v Carlos (1911)
Petition: Appeal from a judgment of CFI
Petitioners: United States
Respondents: Ignacio Carlos
Ponencia: Per Curiam
DOCTRINE:
The true test of what may be stolen (or what can be considered a
personal property) is not whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, but
whether, being possessed of value, a person other than the owner, may
appropriate the same.
FACTS:
1. Ignacio Carlos was accused of the crime of theft for stealing 2,273
kilowatts of electric current worth P 909.20, the property of Manila
Electric Railroad and Light Company.
2. The court issued a warrant of arrest. He demurred and refused to
enter a plea. He claims that what he did does not constitute and
offense.
3. His counsel asserts that larceny applies only to corporeal property.
The subjects of larceny are tangibles, movables, chattels,
something that can be taken away, and some that had intrinsic
value. Electricity is said to be an unknown force.
4. He was guilty and was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months and 21
days presidio correccional. From this, Carlos appeals.
ISSUE:
1. WoN electrical energy may be stolen
PROVISIONS:
Art 416(3): Forces of nature which are brought under control by science.
RULING + RATIO:
1. YES.
In US v Genato, the defendant used a jumper to steal
electricity. It was ruled that even without ordinances, the
right of ownership of electric current is secured.
Electricity is no longer regarded as fluid, but its
manifestations and effects, like those of gas, can be seen
and felt.
Issue:
1.) Whether or not Ramirez claim to the mortgage should be given
preference over Fidelity and
Co on the grounds of :
A.) That the first mortgage of Strochecker with
Fidelity & Surety Co. is not valid because the property
which is the subject matter thereof is not capable of
being mortgaged
Facts:
1.) On March 10, 1919, Strochecker executed a mortgage in
favor of the Fidelity & Surety Co. and registed in due time in the
registry of property.
2.) On September 22, 1919 another mortgage was
executed in favor of Ramirez and the mortgage was also
registered in the registry.
3.) Ramirez claims preference on the mortgage on the following
grounds:
A.) That the first mortgage of Strochecker with Fidelity &
Surety Co. is not valid because the property which is the
subject matter thereof is not capable of being mortgaged
B.) That the amount due the appellant is a purchase price,
citing art 1922 of the Civil
Code as support of his claims
C.) That his mortgage is but a modification of the security
given by the debtor on February 15, 1919, that is prior to
the mortgage exccuted in favor of Fidelity and Surety Co.
Held+Ratio:
1.) No. As to the first ground, the thing that was mortgaged to the
corporation was described as a drug business known as Antigua
Botica Ramirez. With regard to the nature of the property thus
mortgaged, which is one-half interest in the business described,
such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and
not included in the enumeration of real properties in article
335 of the Civil code and may be the subject of mortgage.
All personal property may be mortgaged.
conclusions of their report are: (1) the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer
to AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public domain which the
government has not classified as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot
alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of title covering the Freedom Islands
are thus void, and (3) the JVA itself is illegal.
On March 30, 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended Joint Venture
Agreement. On May 28, 1999, the Office of the President under the
administration of then President Joseph E. Estrada approved the Amended
JVA.
Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by the Office of the President,
petitioner now prays that on "constitutional and statutory grounds the
renegotiated contract be declared null and void."
ISSUES:
WON the physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged
areas make the land inalienable and disposable lands of public domain.
PROVISION: Sec.3 Art. 12 of the Constitution, Title I and III of CA No. 141
RULING + RATIO:
NO. Foreshore and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they
are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere
physical act of reclamation by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does
not convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain.
Likewise, the mere transfer by the National Government of lands of the public
domain to PEA does not make the lands alienable or disposable lands of the
public domain, much less patrimonial lands of PEA.
Absent two official acts a classification that these lands are alienable or
disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not
needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable lands
of the public domain. Only such an official classification and formal
declaration can convert reclaimed lands into alienable or disposable lands of
the public domain, open to disposition.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The PEA and Amari
Coastal Bay Development Corporation are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from
implementing the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which is hereby declared NULL
and VOID ab initio.
RULING + RATIO:
1) NO
It is no longer public domain because it has already been granted to
Morato under the Homestead Patent, which is as indefeasible as a
Torrens title.
o BUT!
CA 141 is the law which governs land registration.
o The government grants Homestead Patents to private
individuals in the hopes that it would promote the
maintenance and growth of agricultural lands.
o The same law outlines conditions for keeping the lands, and
the governments power to take back the patents if the public
purpose is not met.
In a philosophical sense, it does not exactly become private land
(jura regalia) because the private citizen is not free to use it fully
(moratorium on encumbrances)
o Within those 5 years, Morato had merely an inchoate right to
the land. She could not yet dispose of it as she wished.
DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED.
Author: Joss P.
FACTS:
1.) Ramon Lanzar filed a petition for registration of a title of a
parcel of land arguing that he is the owner thereof in fee
simple
2.) Director of Lands argued that the land is a foreshore which
meant that it forms part of public domain
3.) RTC ruled in favor of Lanzar explaining that the property has
been in the latters possession for more than 30 years
4.) CA reversed, explaining that the land being an accretion
formed by the action of the sea is public domain thereby not
being subject to appropriation
ISSUES:
1. WoN the title may be registered on the ground of 30 years of
adverse possession by Lanzar
RULING + RATIO: NO.
1. The shores and land reclaimed from the sea while they
FACTS:
1. Ignacio filed an application to registers his land (mangrove)
with an area of 37,877 sq m located in Navotas, Rizal.
2. He amended his application by stating that he owned the
parcel of land through accretion.
3. Dir. Of Lands, Valeriano and Gutierrez opposed the
application. Gutierrez withdrew his opposition.
4. The land actually adjoins a parcel of land acquired by Ignacio
through the government and a part which was formed by
accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of Manila
Bay.
5. The Dir of Land on the other sought that the parcel of land is a
foreshore land, covered by the ebb and flow of the tide, thus
forming part of the public domain.
ISSUE: WoN the land forms part of the public domain
PROVISION: Art 4 of Law of Waters of 1866
space allotments therein for which they paid daily fees to the
municipal government.
5. After an investigation conducted by the municipal attorney,
respondent Vicente A. Macalino, as OIC of the office of the
mayor of San Fernando, issued a resolution requiring the
municipal treasurer and the municipal engineer to demolish the
stalls in the subject place. The reaction of the petitioners was to file
a petition for prohibition.
Ponencia: CRUZ, J.
DOCTRINE:
A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the
subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking.
FACTS:
1. In the public market of San Fernando, Pampanga, along Mercado
Street, a strip of land measuring 12 by 77 meters on which stands
a conglomeration of vendors stalls together forming what is
commonly known as a talipapa is the subject of the petition.
2. The petitioners claim they have a right to remain in and conduct
business in this area by virtue of a previous authorization granted
to them by the municipal government. The respondents deny this
and justify the demolition of their stalls as illegal constructions on
public property.
3. The dispute goes back to 1961, when the municipal council of San
Fernando adopted Resolution No. 218 authorizing some 24
members of the Fernandino United Merchants and Traders
Association to construct permanent stags and sell in the abovementioned place. A case was filed and the CFI of Pampanga
issued a writ of preliminary injunction. While this case was
pending, the municipal council of San Fernando adopted
Resolution G.R. No. 29, which declared the subject area as "the
parking place and as the public plaza of the municipality,
thereby impliedly revoking Resolution No. 218, series of 1961. Four
years later, Judge Andres C. Aguilar decided the aforesaid case
and held that the land occupied by the petitioners, being public in
nature, was beyond the commerce of man and therefore could
not be the subject of private occupancy.
4. The decision was apparently not enforced, for the petitioners
were not evicted from the place; in fact, according to them they
and the 128 other persons were in 1971 assigned specific areas or
ISSUES:
WON the petitioners have the right to occupy the subject land.
PROVISION:
Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets,
the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for
public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities. (not
mentioned in the case)
RULING + RATIO:
None.
A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be
the subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking. This is
elementary.
Applying this well-settled doctrine, we rule that the petitioners had
no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises and
cannot insist in remaining there now on the strength of their
alleged lease contracts. They should have realized and accepted
this earlier, considering that even before Civil Case No. 2040 was
decided, the municipal council of San Fernando had already adopted
Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, declaring the area as the parking
place and public plaza of the municipality.
Even assuming a valid lease of the property in dispute, the resolution
could have effectively terminated the agreement for it is settled that
the police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through
the medium of a contract.
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.
PROVISION:
Civil Code
Article 422: Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public
use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the
State
Cebu City Charter
Section 31. Legislative Powers. Any provision of law and executive order to
the contrary notwithstanding, the City Council shall have the following
legislative powers:
(34) ...; to close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or
square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or
conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City
may be lawfully used or conveyed.
RULING + RATIO:
I.
2. The lot was awarded to the herein petitioner being the highest bidder
and on March 3, 1969, the City of Cebu, through the Acting City
Mayor, executed a deed of absolute sale to the herein petitioner for a
total consideration of P10,800.00. 3 By virtue of the aforesaid deed of
absolute sale, the petitioner filed an application with the Court of First
instance of Cebu to have its title to the land registered.
3. On June 26, 1974, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a
motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the property
sought to be registered being a public road intended for public use is
considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the
commerce of man. Consequently, it cannot be subject to registration
by any private individual.
ISSUES:
I.
Does the City Charter of Cebu City (Republic Act No. 3857) under
Section 31, paragraph 34, give the City of Cebu the valid right to
declare a road as abandoned?
II.
II.
YES. From the foregoing provision from the Cebu City Charter, it is
undoubtedly clear that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city
road or street.
a. The city council, it would seem to us, is the authority
competent to determine whether or not a certain property is
still necessary for public use.
b. Such power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary. And
the discretion will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered
with by the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or
collusion. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed.
So the fact that some private interests may be served
incidentally will not invalidate the ordinance.
Yes. Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's
application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it
follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property
which can be the object of an ordinary contract
Facts:
Subject Roppongi property is one of the four properties in
Japan acquired by the Philippine Govt. under the Reparation
Agreement entered with Japan as part of the indemnification to
the Filipino people for the losses in life and property and their
suffering during WWII. Other lots being:
Nampeidai property (site of Philippine
Embassy Chancery)
Kobe Commercial property (warehouse and
parking lot of consulate staff)
Kobe Residential property (vacant residential
lot)
The Reparation Agreement was valued at $550M payable in
20yrs to be fixed by both governments. The Reparation Law
prescribes the national policy on procurement and utilization
of reparations and development loans; those which belong to
the govt. and which may be availed of by private entities.
The Roppongi property consists of the land and building for
the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy and as intended
became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the later was
transferred to Nampeidai, when the Roppongi building needed
major repairs. Due to the failure of the govt. to provide
necessary funds, Roppongi remained undeveloped.
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents,
ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads,
and others of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are
intended for some public service or for the development of the national
wealth. (339a)
Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the
preceding article, is patrimonial property. (340a)
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or
for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. (341a)
Issue:
W/N the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the
Philippine Government?
Held:
No. The Govt cannot alienate said Roppongi property and others.
Ratio:
1. The Roppongi lot is a property of PUBLIC DOMINION.
The nature of the lot as property for public service is expressly
spelled out. It is expressly spelled out by the terms dictated in
the Reparation Agreement which bind both the Philippine and
Japanese govt. that these properties were assigned to the
government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was
specifically designated to house the Philippine Embassy. There
is no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is
convincingly shown that the property is patrimonial, which
respondents failed to show.