Sibal v. Valdez

PROPERTY LAW

Sibal v. Valdez

G.R. No. L-26278, August 4, 1927

Facts:

The deputy sheriff of Tarlac attached and sold to Valdez the sugarcane planted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked for the redemption of sugarcane. Valdez said that it cannot be subject to redemption because it is a personal property.

Issue:

Whether or not the sugarcane in question is a personal property.

Ruling:

Sugarcane is under real property as ungathered products. The Supreme Court of Louisiana provided that standing crops are considered as part of the land to which they are attached but the immovability provided for is only one in abstract. The existence of a right on the growing crop is mobilization by anticipation, a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the crop movable and the right acquired therin.

Supreme Court lowered the award for damage to the defendant to P8,900.80 by acknowledging the fact that some of the sugarcane were owned by the petitioner and by reducing the calculated expected yield profit that defendant would have made if the petitioner did not judicially prevent him from planting and harvesting.

Serg’s Products, Inc. v. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc.

PROPERTY LAW

Serg’s Products, Inc. v. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc.

G.R. No. 137705,  August 22, 2000

Facts:

PCI Leasing and Finance Inc. filed a case for collection of a sum of money as well as a writ of replevin for the seizure of machineries subjected for a chattel mortgage executed by the petitioner Serg’s Products, Inc in favor of the former.

Petitioner filed a motion for special protective order. It asserts that machineries were real property and could not be subject of chattel mortgage.

Issue:

Whether or not the subject machineries are real property and could not be subject of a chattel mortgage.

Ruling:

The machineries in question have become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry and, thus, have become immovable in nature. Nonetheless, they are still proper subjects for a chattel mortgage.

Contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal. After such agreement, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise.

Manila Electric Co. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

PROPERTY LAW

Manila Electric Co. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

G.R. No. L-47943, May 31, 1982

Facts:

Petitioner Manila Electric Co. questions the decision of the respondent Central Board of Assessment Appeals which held that petitioner’s pipeline to be subjected to realty tax. Pursuant to a concession, petitioner installed a pipeline system from Manila to Batangas. Meanwhile, the provincial assessor of Laguna treated the pipeline as a real property. So, petitioner appealed the assessments to Board of Assessment Appeals of Laguna. The board upheld the assessments and the decision became final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy by the appellant. Petitioner contends that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the decision. Hence, the petitioner’s recourse to file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the tanks together with the pipelines are taxable real property.

Ruling:

The Supreme court ruled in affirmative. It held that while two storage tanks are not embedded in the land, they may nevertheless be considered as improvements on the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry. It is undeniable that the two tanks have been installed  with some degree of permanence needed by the petitioner for its operations.

Petition is dismissed. The Board questioned decision is affirmed.