TUMALAD V.

VICENCIO 41 SCRA 143 FACTS: Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs Tumalad over their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and company. This was executed to guarantee a loan, payable in one year with a 12% per annum interest. The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan. The house was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest bidder. A corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that the latter vacate the house as they were the proper owners. HELD: Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that buildings are immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties may agree to treat as personal property those by their nature would be real property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from subsequently claiming otherwise. In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property through chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant conveys the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise. LEUNG YEE V. F.L STRONG MACHINERY CO. AND WILLIAMSON 37 SCRA 644 FACTS: 1. First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning machinery from the machinery company and this was secured by a chattel mortgage on the machinery and the building to which it was installed. Upon failure to pay, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed, the building and machinery sold in public auction and bought by the machinery company. 2. Days after, the Compania Agricola Filipina executed a deed of sale over the land to which the building stood in favor of the machinery company. This was done to cure any defects that may arise in the machinery companys ownership of the building.

3. Second mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattel mortgage was excecuted, Compania executed a real estate mortgage over the building in favor of Leung Yee, distinct and separate from the land. This is to secure payment for its indebtedness for the construction of the building. Upon failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed. 4. The machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be declared the rightful owner of the building. The trial court held that it was the machinery company which was the rightful owner as it had its title before the building was registered prior to the date of registry of Leung Yees certificate. HELD: The building in which the machinery was installed was real property, and the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed the character as real property. It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry of the instrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and the machinery installed therein, nor the annotation in the registry of the sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the building is concerned. *LANDMARK CASE G.R. No. 101083 En Banc PONENTE: Davide, Jr., J FACTS: The petitioners, all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents, filed a petition to cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. This case is filed not only on the appellants right as taxpayers, but they are also suing in behalf of succeeding generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility in so far as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Together with the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), the petitioners presented scientific evidence that deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies. One of these is the reduction of the earths capacity to process carbon dioxide, otherwise known as the greenhouse effect. Continued issuance by the defendant of TLAs to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs. Appellants have July 30, 1993

exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendants office regarding the plea to cancel the said TLAs. The defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel existing TLAs. ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing on the said case Admitting that all facts presented are true, whether or not the court can render a valid judgement in accordance to the prayer of the complaints Whether or not the TLAs may be revoked despite the respondents standing that these cancellation of these TLAs are against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution HELD: The petitioners have locus standi (legal standing) on the case as a taxpayers (class) suit. The subject matter of complaint is of common and general interest to all the citizens of the Philippines. The court found difficulty in ruling that the appellants can, for themselves, and for others file a class suit. The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology has been clearly stated. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. The granting of the TLAs, as the petitioners claim to be done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology hence, the full protection thereof requires that no TLAs should be renewed or granted. The appellants have also submitted a document with the sub-header CAUSE OF ACTION which is adequate enough to show, prima facie, the violation of their rights. On this basis, these actions must therefore be granted, wholly or partially. Despite the Constitutions non-impairment clause, TLAs are not contracts, rather licenses; thus, the said clause cannot be invoked. Even if these are protected by the said clause, these can be revoked if the public interest so required as stated in Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705). Furthermore, Section 16 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that: The State shall protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the government. The said right is also clear as the DENRs duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded. It is not a contract, property or property right protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK V. JARAMILLO 44 SCRA 630 FACTS:

De la Rosa was the lessee of a piece of land, on which a house she owns was built. She executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the petitionerpurporting the leasehold interest in the land and the ownership of house. After such, the petitioner moved for its registration with the Register of Deeds, for the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record of chattel mortgages. After examination, the respondent was in the opinion that the properties were not subjects of a chattel mortgage. HELD: Position taken by the respondent is untenable. His duties are mainly ministerial only in nature and no law confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power. Generally, he should accept the qualification of the property adopted by the person who presents the instrument for registration and should place the instrument on record, upon payment of the proper fee, leaving the effects of registration to be determined by the court if such question should arise for legal determination. The Civil Code supplies no absolute criterion in discriminating between real property and personal property for purposes of the application of the Chattel Mortgage Law. The articles state general doctrines, nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that under given conditions, property may have character different from that imputed to it in the said articles. It is undeniable that the parties in a contract may by agreement treat as personal property that which by nature would be real property. DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO 61 SCRA 709 FACTS: Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession. It operated a sawmill on a land, which it doesnt own. Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation in which after the lease agreement, all buildings and improvements would pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include machineries and accessories. In connection to this, petitioner had in its sawmill machineries and other equipment wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement. HELD: The machinery must be classified as personal property. The lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging to another, with the understanding that the machinery was not included in the improvements which would pass to the lessor on the expiration of the lease agreement. The lessee also treated the machinery as personal

property in executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. The machinery was levied upon by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ of execution obtained without any protest being registered. Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary, or any person having temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. MINDANAO BUS COMPANY V. CITY ASSESSOR AND TREASURER 6 SCRA 197 FACTS: Petitioner is engaged in a public utility business, solely engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks, over its authorized lines in Mindanao. It owns a main office and branch offices. To be found in their offices are machineries and equipment, which were assessed by the City Assessor as real properties. HELD: Movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of law must first be essential and principal elements of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established. We may here distinguish those movables, which are essential and principal elements of an industry, from those which may not be so considered immobilized by destination because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. In the case at bar, the tools and equipments in question are by their nature not essential and principal elements of petitioners business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals.