Ladera vs.

Hodges-under art 415- the law makes no distinction as to whether the owner of the land is or is not the owner of the
building. In immovables by incorporation, the only criterion is union or incorporation with the soild. Hence the house built on another
land is an immovable. In sales of immovables the lack of title of the vendor taints the rights of subsequent purchasers. Good faith is
not equivalent to title.
Tumalad vs. Vicencio-chattel mortgage over the house. Although a building is an immovable, the parties to a contract may by
agreement treat as personal property that which by nature is a real property however they are stopped from subsequently claiming
otherwise.
Yap vs. Tanada-Water pump installed is movable property. The provision that anything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner...
does not fit the description. The separation or removal of the pump involved is nothing more complicated than the loosening of bolts
or dismantling of other fasteners.
Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Jaramillo-house conveyed by chattel mortgage. Petitioner sought its registration but was
denied by RD. The duties of RD with respect to the registration of chattel mortagage is purely ministerial character, no conferred
judicial or quasi judicial power to determine the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. It role
is to register it. (cite tumalad vs. Vicencio)
Burgos Sr vs. Chieff of staff-seizure of printing machines bolted to the ground.-machinery which is movable by nature becomes
immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any
other person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as agent of the owner.
Leung yee vs. Strong machinery co.- rice cleaning machine sold and then registered In chattel registry, the building where the
machinery is housed is also sold but was not registered in the registry of real property. The building is a real property, its sale and
annotation in the Chattel registry cannot be given effect of registration in the registry of real property. The chattel registration had no
effect in the building.)but the petitioner here was not in good faith.
-although it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes , in the absence of stipulation, improvements thereon, including the
building, still a building by itself may bemortgaged apart from the land on which it is built, for the building is considered as
immovable property.
Mindanao Bus Co. Inc vs. Cit Assesor-tax for repair machines in a bus line- in order for properties to be immobilized, it must be first
essential and principal element of an industry or work without which such industry or work would be unable to function or carry on
the industrial purpose for which it is established.
Peoples bank vs. Dahican lumber-whether the after acquired machinery be included in the previous real estate mortgage-They are
deemed immobilized, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved which were registered as such did not have to be
registered a second time as chattel mortagage in order to bind after acquired properties and affect third parties.
Makati Leasing vs. Wearever Textile-chattel mortgage of movable property bolted to the ground. Is it real property?(same ruling with
tumalad vs. Vicencio)
Sergs Products vs. PCI leasing-machines essential to chocolate making factory are real property, but parties may agree to treat the
same as personal property(same with tumalad vs. Vicencio)
Prudential bank vs. Panis-may a house built on rented land be the object of mortgage. Yes.in a real estate mortgage provided that
the parties agree, and does not prejudice 3d persons.
Davao sawmill vs. Castillo-tenant placed machines for use in a sawmill on the land of the landlord- machinery is personal because it
was not placed on the land by the owner of the said land. Immobilization by destination or purposes cannot generally be made by a
person whose possess of the property is only temporary.
Berkenkotter vs. Cu unjieng- additional machines- the mortageg of a parcel of land generally includes all future improvements that
may be found on said parcel. They are essential and principal elements of the sugar central.
When is machinery attached to land or tenement considered immovable?-par. 5 art. 415
Exception-when placed on the land or tenement by a tenant(davao ssawmill.) exception to exception-when tenant had promised to
leave the machinery on the tenement at the end of the lease, or when he acted only as agent of the owner of the land
Board or Assessment appeals vs Meralco-steel towers or poles of meralco are personal properties. They are neither buillind or constr.,
they ar not machineries etc.
Sugar quotas are personal properties for they are considered under the law as real rights over immovable property just like servitudes
and esements.
SIbal vs. Valdez-sugar cane although growing fruits and ordinarily real property however it must be registered as personal property for
purposes of chattel mortgage law and for purposes of attachment. It mobilizes by anticipation.

U.S. vs. Carlos-jumper-electirictyis personal-like gas it may be stolen.

Govt. Vs. Cabangins-a private property was submerged beca of the action of the waves in of sea, he reclaimed the land-the
government owns the reclaimed land, by letting it submerged, a may be said to have abandoned it.
Salas vs. Jarencia-city of manila has torrens title of a certain area, however the national govt. Enacted a law making the land
alienable. Is it valid. Yes. There being no proof that the city acquired the property by its own funds, the presumption is it was given by
the state in trust.
Tantoco vs. Municipal council-properties devoted to public or governmental purposes cannot be attached.