COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

Tumalad vs Vicencio 41 SCRA 143 Facts: On 1 September 1955 Vicencio and Simeon, defendantsappellants, executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the Tumalads, plaintiff-appellees over their house of strong materials over a lot in Quiapo, hich ere being rented from !adrigal " #ompan$, %nc& The mortgage as executed to guarantee a loan of '(,)**&** received from the Tumalads, pa$able ithin one $ear at 1+, per annum& The mode of pa$ment as '15*&** monthl$, %t as also agreed that default in the pa$ment of an$ of the amorti-ations ould cause the remaining unpaid balance to become immediatel$ due and pa$able, the #hattel !ortgage enforceable, and the Sheriff of !anila authori-ed to sell the !ortgagor.s propert$ after necessar$ publication& /hen Vicencio and Simeon defaulted in pa$ing, the mortgage as extra0udiciall$ foreclosed, and on +1 !arch 1952, the house as sold at public auction pursuant to the said contract& 3s highest bidder, the Tumalads ere issued the corresponding certificate of sale& On 1) 3pril 1952, the Tumalads commenced case in the municipal court of !anila, pra$ing that the house be vacated and its possession surrendered to them, and for Vicencio and Simeon to pa$ rent of '+**&** monthl$ up to the time the possession is surrendered& The municipal court rendered its decision in favor of the Tumalads& 4efendant-appellants impugned the legalit$ of the chattel mortgage claiming that the$ are still the o ner of the house but aived their rights to introduce evidence& 5earl$ a $ear after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had been demolished on 1( and 15 6anuar$ 1951 b$ virtue of a decision obtained b$ the lessor of the land on hich the house stood for non-pa$ment of rentals& Issues: 1& +& /O5 the sub0ect matter of the mortgage hich is a house of strong material can be sub0ect of real estate mortgage or a chattel mortgage& /hether or not the defendants are legall$ bound to pa$ rentals to the plaintiffs during the period of 1 $ear provided b$ la for the redemption of the extra0udiciall$ foreclosed house&

chattel mortgage, defendants-appellants could onl$ have meant to conve$ the house as a chattel& 7ence if a house belonging to a person stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it ma$ be mortgaged as a personal propert$ as so stipulated in the document of mortgage& %t should be noted that the principle is predicated on statements b$ the o ner declaring his house to be chattel& 'art$ in a chattel mortgage cannot 8uestion the validit$ of the chattel mortgage entered into& The doctrine of estoppels therefore applies to the defendant-appellants& Since the defendant-appellants ere occup$ing the house at the time the auction of sale, the$ are entitled to remain in possession during the period of redemption or ithin one $ear from the date of auction sale and to collect the rents or profits during the said period& 3nd since the plaintiff-appellees right to posses as not $et born at the filing of the complaint, there could be no violation or breach thereof& The Supreme #ourt reversed the decision appealed from and entered another dismissing the complaint, ith costs against plaintiffs-appellees& Meralco vs CBAA 114 SCRA 2 3 Facts: 'ursuant to a pipeline concession issued under the 'etroleum 3ct of 19(9, 9epublic 3ct 5o& :)1, !eralco Securities installed from ;atangas to !anila a pipeline s$stem consisting of c$lindrical steel pipes 0oined together and buried not less than one meter belo the surface along the shoulder of the public high a$& The pipes are embedded in the soil hile the valves are elded to the pipes so as to ma<e the pipeline s$stem one single piece of propert$ from end to end& 'ursuant to the 3ssessment =a , #ommon ealth 3ct 5o& (1*, the provincial assessor of =aguna treated the pipeline as real propert$ and issued Tax 4eclarations& Issues:

Held: The inclusion of the building separate and distinct from the land in the enumeration of hat ma$ constitute real propert$, that the building is b$ itself an immovable propert$& 7o ever deviations have been allo ed for various reasons speciall$ if it is stipulated in the sub0ect of contract& %n the case at bar, although there is no specific statement referring to the sub0ect house as a personal propert$, $et b$ ceding, selling or transferring a propert$ b$ a$ of /hether or not the !eralco Securities 'ipeline S$stem in =aguna is a sub0ect to a realt$ tax& Held: The #ourt ordered that #;33 did not ith grave abuse and discretion and acted ithin its 0urisdiction in sustaining the holding of the provincial assessor that !eralco Securities 'ipeline S$stem

1 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

in =aguna is sub0ect to a realt$ tax for the follo ing reasons that the pipes are machiner$ or improvements and regarded as realt$ because the$ are constructions adhered to the soil& %t is attached to the land in such a a$ that it cannot be separated therefrom ithout dismantling the steel pipes hich are elded to the pipeline& %n so far as the pipeline uses valves, pumps and control devices to maintain the flo of the oil, it is in a sense a machiner$ ithin the meaning of the 9eal 'ropert$ Tax #ode& Thus, the #ourt dismiss the petition and the 8uestioned decision and resolution of the lo er court is affirmed& Meralco vs CBAA 114 SCRA 2!" Facts: This case is about the imposition of the realt$ tax on t o oil storage tan<s installed in 1929 b$ !anila >lectric #ompan$ on a lot in San 'ascual, ;atangas hich it leased in 192) from #altex ?'hil&@, %nc& The storage tan<s are made of steel plates elded and assembled on the spot& Their bottoms rest on a foundation consisting of compacted earth as the outermost la$er& The tan< is not attached to its foundation& %t is not anchored or elded to the concrete circular all& %ts bottom plate is not attached to an$ part of the foundation b$ bolts, scre s or similar devices& The tan< merel$ sits on its foundation& 'ipelines ere installed on the sides of each tan< and are connected to the pipelines of the !anila >nterprises %ndustrial #orporation& The ;oard concludes that hile the tan<s rest or sit on their foundation, the foundation itself and the alls, di<es and steps, hich are integral parts of the tan<s, are affixed to the land hile the pipelines are attached to the tan<s and re8uired !eralco to pa$ realt$ taxes on the t o tan<s& Issue: /hether or not the + oil tan<s installed b$ !eralco in ;atangas is a sub0ect to a realt$ tax& Held: The S# ruled that hile the t o storage tan<s are not embedded in the land, the$ ma$, nevertheless, be considered as improvements on the land, enhancing its utilit$ and rendering it useful to the oil industr$& %t is undeniable that the t o tan<s have been installed ith some degree of permanence as receptacles for the considerable 8uantities of oil needed b$ !eralco for its operations& Thus, the t o tan<s should be held sub0ect to realt$ tax because the$ ere considered real propert$&

7enceforth, the petition is dismissed& The ;oardAs 8uestioned decision and resolution are affirmed& Board o# Assessment vs Meralco 1" SCRA !$ Facts: The 'hilippine #ommission enacted 3ct 5o& ()( hich authori-ed the !unicipal ;oard of !anila to grant a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric street rail a$ and electric light, heat and po er s$stem in the #it$ of !anila& !eralcoAs electric po er is generated b$ its h$dro-electric plant located at ;otocan Balls, =aguna and is transmitted to the #it$ of !anila b$ means of electric transmission ires, running from the province of =aguna to the said #it$& These electric transmission ires hich carr$ high voltage current, are fastened to insulators attached on steel to ers constructed b$ respondent at intervals, from its h$dro-electric plant in the province of =aguna to the #it$ of !anila& The respondent !eralco has constructed (* of these steel to ers ithin Que-on #it$, on land belonging to it& The #it$ 3ssessor of Que-on #it$ declared the aforesaid steel to ers for real propert$ tax under Tax& 9espondent paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for revie in the #ourt of Tax 3ppeals Issue: /hether or not the !eralco poles constitute real properties so as the$ can be sub0ected to a real propert$ tax& Held: The S# ruled that !eralcoAs steel to ers ere considered poles ithin the meaning of paragraph 9 of its franchise hich exempts its poles from taxation& The steel to ers ere considered personalt$ because the$ ere removable and merel$ attached to s8uare metal frames b$ means of bolts and could be moved from place to place hen unscre ed and dismantled& Burthermore, the$ are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, and the$ can be separated ithout brea<ing the material or causing deterioration upon the ob0ect to hich the$ are attached& %ote: Poles - as used to denote the steel to ers of an electric compan$ engaged in the generation of h$dro-electric po er generated from its plant& Calte& vs CBAA 114 SCRA 2'! Facts:

2 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

This case is about the realt$ tax on machiner$ and e8uipment installed b$ #altex ?'hilippines@ %nc& in its gas stations located on leased land& The machines and e8uipment consists of underground tan<s, elevated tan<, elevated ater tan<s, ater tan<s, gasoline pumps, computing pumps, ater pumps, car asher, car hoists, truc< hoists, air compressors and tireflators& The building or shed, the elevated ater tan<, the car hoist under a separate shed, the air compressor, the underground gasoline tan<, neon lights signboard, concrete fence and pavement and the lot here the$ are all placed or erected, all of them used in the pursuance of the gasoline service station business formed the entire gasoline service-station& The lessor of the land, here the gas station is located, does not become the o ner of the machines and e8uipment installed therein& #altex retains the o nership thereof during the term of the lease& Issue:

or essential to its manufacturing, industrial or agricultural purposes& (S vs Carlos 21 )*il ++3 Facts: %gnacio #arlos has been a consumer of electricit$ furnished b$ the !anila >lectric 9ailroad and =ight #ompan$ for a building containing the residence of the accused and : other residences& 9epresentatives of the compan$ believing that more light is consumed than hat is sho n in the meter installed an additional meter on the pole outside #arlos. house to compare the actual consumption and found out that the latter used a 0umper& Burther, a 0umper as found in a dra er of a small cabinet in the room of the defendant.s house ere the meter as installed& %n the absence of an$ explanation for #arlos. possession of said device, the presumption raised as that #arlos as the o ner of the device hose onl$ use as to deflect the current from the meter& Thus he as charged ith the crime of theft amounting to +,+1:E/ of electric po er orth 9*9&+* pesos& Issue:

/hether or not the pieces of gas station e8uipment and machiner$ enumerated are sub0ect to realt$ tax& Held:

/hether or not the court erred in declaring that the electrical energ$ ma$ be stolen& Held:

The 3ssessment =a provides that the realt$ tax is due Con real propert$, including land, buildings, machiner$, and other improvementsC& S# hold that the said e8uipment and machiner$, as appurtenances to the gas station building or shed o ned b$ #altex ?as to hich it is sub0ect to realt$ tax@ and hich fixtures are necessar$ to the operation of the gas station, for ithout them the gas station ould be useless, and hich have been attached or affixed permanentl$ to the gas station site or embedded therein, are taxable improvements and machiner$ ithin the meaning of the 3ssessment =a and the 9eal 'ropert$ Tax #ode& %ote: Improvements D is a valuable addition made to propert$ or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement of aste, costing labor or capital and intended to enhance its value, beaut$ or utilit$ or to adapt it for ne or further purposes& Machinery D shall embrace machines, mechanical contrivances, instruments, appliances and apparatus attached to the real estate& %t includes the ph$sical facilities available for production, as ell as the installations and appurtenant service facilities, together ith all other e8uipment designed for

%t is true that electricit$ is no longer, as formerl$, regarded b$ electricians as a fluid, but its manifestation and effects, li<e those of gas, ma$ be seen and felt& The true test of hat is a proper sub0ect of larcen$ seems to be not hether the sub0ect is corporeal, but hether it is capable of appropriation b$ another than the o ner& The court ruled that electricit$, the same as gas, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold li<e other personal propert$ and is capable of appropriation b$ another& %t is also susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger 8uantit$, and of being transported from place to place& So no error as committed b$ the trial court in holding that electricit$ is a sub0ect of larcen$& BH Ber,en,otter vs Cu (n-ien. !1 )*il !!3 Facts: The !abalacat Sugar #o&, %nc&, o ner of the sugar central situated in !abalacat, 'ampanga, obtained from #u Fn0ieng e 7i0os, a loan secured b$ a first mortgage constituted on t o parcels and land C ith all its buildings, improvements, sugar-cane mill, steel rail a$, telephone line, apparatus, utensils and hatever forms part or is necessar$ complement of said sugar-cane mill, steel rail a$,

3 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

telephone line, no existing or that ma$ in the future exist is said lots& Shortl$ after said mortgage had been constituted, the !abalacat Sugar #o&, %nc&, decided to increase the capacit$ of its sugar central b$ bu$ing additional machiner$ and e8uipment, so that instead of milling 15* tons dail$, it could produce +5*& The estimated cost of said additional machiner$ and e8uipment as approximatel$ '1**,***& %n order to carr$ out this plan, 3& Green, president of said corporation, proposed to the plaintiff, ;&7& ;er<en<otter, to advance the necessar$ amount for the purchase of said machiner$ and e8uipment& The president of the !abalacat Sugar #o&, %nc&, applied to #u Fn0ieng e 7i0os for an additional loan of '15,*** offering as securit$ the additional machiner$ and e8uipment ac8uired b$ said ;&3& Green and installed in the sugar central after the execution of the original mortgage deed, on 3pril +1, 19+1, together ith hatever additional e8uipment ac8uired ith said loan& ;&3& Green failed to obtain said loan& Issues: /hether or not, the lo er court erred in declaring that the additional machiner$ and e8uipment as improvement can be permanentl$ attached to a mortgage of the sugar central& Held: That the installation of a machiner$ and e8uipment in a mortgaged sugar central, in lieu of another of less capacit$, for the purpose of carr$ing out the industrial functions of the latter and increasing production, constitutes a permanent improvement on said sugar central and sub0ects said machiner$ and e8uipment to the mortgage constituted thereon& /avao Sa0 Mill !1 )*il "' Facts: The 4avao Sa !ill #o&, %nc&, is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the 'hilippine %slands& %t has operated a sa mill in the sitio of !aa, barrio of Tigatu, municipalit$ of 4avao, 'rovince of 4avao& 7o ever, the land upon hich the business as conducted belonged to another person& On the land the sa mill compan$ erected a building hich housed the machiner$ used b$ it& %n another action, herein the 4avao =ight " 'o er #o&, %nc&, as the plaintiff and the 4avao, Sa , !ill #o&, %nc&, as the defendant, a 0udgment as rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action against the defendant in that actionH a rit of execution issued thereon, and the properties no in 8uestion ere levied upon as personalt$ b$ the sheriff& 5o third part$ claim as filed for such

properties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out b$ the record made b$ the plaintiff herein& Issue: /hether or not the machiner$ mounted on foundations of cement and installed b$ the lessee on a lease land be regarded as real propert$& Held: The machiner$ hich is movable in its nature onl$ becomes immobili-ed hen placed in a plant b$ the o ner of the propert$ or plant but not hen so placed b$ a tenant, a usufructuar$, or an$ person having onl$ a temporar$ right, unless such person acted as agent of the o ner& %mmobili-ation b$ destination or purpose made b$ a person hose possession T>'O939I, other ise e ill be forced intended to give the propert$ permanentl$ o ner of the premises& cannot generall$ be of propert$ is onl$ to presume that he a a$ in favor of the

1overnment o# t*e )*il Islands vs Ca2an.is +3 )*il 112 Facts: 3 certain lots ere formerl$ a part of a large parcel of land belonging to the predecessor of the herein claimants and appellees& Brom the $ear 1)92 said land began to ear a a$, due to the action of the aves of !anila ;a$, until the $ear 19*1 hen the said lots became completel$ submerged in ater in ordinar$ tides, and remained in such a state until 191+ hen the Government undertoo< the dredging of Vitas >stuar$ in order to facilitate navigation, depositing all the sand and silt ta<en from the bed of the estuar$ on the lo lands hich ere completel$ covered ith ater, surrounding that belonging to the 'hilippine !anufacturing #ompan$, thereb$ slo l$ and graduall$ forming the lots, the sub0ect matter of this proceeding& Issue: /hether or not the lo er court erred in not holding that the lots in 8uestion are of the public domain the same having been gained from the sea b$ accession, b$ fillings made b$ the ;ureau of 'ublic /or<s and b$ the construction of the brea<- ater& Held: The Supreme #ourt held that the lots in 8uestion having disappeared on account of the gradual erosion due to the ebb and flo of the tide, and having remained in such a state until the$ ere reclaimed from the sea b$ the filling in done b$ the Government, the$ are public land in the sense that neither the

4 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

herein claimants-appellees nor their predecessors did an$thing to prevent their destruction& ;$ virtue hereof, the 0udgment appealed from the lo er court is reversed& Ce2u 3&4.en vs Bercilles !! SCRA 4$1 Facts: This is a case on a petition for the revie of the order of the #ourt of Birst %nstance of #ebu dismissing petitionerAs application for registration of title over a parcel of land situated in the #it$ of #ebu& The parcel of land sought to be registered as onl$ a portion of !& ;orces Street, !abolo, #ebu #it$& On September +:, 192), the #it$ #ouncil of #ebu, through 9esolution 5o& +19:, approved on October :, 192), declared the terminal portion of !& ;orces Street, !abolo, #ebu #it$, as an abandoned road, the same not being included in the #it$ 4evelopment 'lan& 3ssistant 'rovincial Biscal of #ebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the propert$ 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& #onse8uentl$, it cannot be sub0ect to registration b$ an$ private individual& Issue: /hether or not the declaration of the road as abandoned ma<e it patrimonial propert$ hich ma$ be the ob0ect of a common contract& Held: Since that portion of the cit$ street sub0ect of petitionerAs application for registration of title as ithdra n from public use, it follo s that such ithdra n portion becomes patrimonial propert$ hich can be the ob0ect of an ordinar$ contract& 3rticle (++ of the #ivil #ode expressl$ provides that C'ropert$ of public dominion, hen no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial propert$ of the State&C 'ropert$ thus ithdra n from public servitude ma$ be used or conve$ed for an$ purpose for hich other real propert$ belonging to the #it$ ma$ be la full$ used or conve$ed&

22 SCRA 1334 Facts: 'rior to its incorporation as a chartered cit$, the !unicipalit$ of Jamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Jamboanga 'rovince& On October 1+, 19:2, #ommon ealth 3ct :9 as approved converting the !unicipalit$ of Jamboanga into Jamboanga #it$& Sec& 5* of the 3ct also provided that D ;uildings and properties hich the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place ill be ac8uired and paid for b$ the #it$ of Jamboanga at a price to be fixed b$ the 3uditor General& The properties and buildings referred to consisted of 5* lots and some buildings constructed thereon, located in the #it$ of Jamboanga and covered individuall$ b$ Torrens certificates of title in the name of Jamboanga 'rovince& On 6une 2, 195+, 9epublic 3ct 111 as approved dividing the province of Jamboanga into t o ?+@K Jamboanga del 5orte and Jamboanga del Sur& 'roperties and the obligations of the province of Jamboanga shall be divided e8uitabl$ bet een the 'rovince of Jamboanga del 5orte and the 'rovince of Jamboanga del Sur b$ the 'resident of the 'hilippines, upon the recommendation of the 3uditor General& 7o ever, on 6une 11, 1921, 9epublic 3ct :*:9 as approved amending Sec& 5* of #ommon ealth 3ct :9 b$ providing that D3ll buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province of Jamboanga and located ithin the #it$ of Jamboanga are hereb$ transferred, free of charge, in favor of the said #it$ of Jamboanga& Issue: /O5 Jamboanga del 5orte is deprived of its private properties ithout due process and 0ust compensation&

Rulin.: The fact that the +2 lots are registered strengthens the proposition that the$ are trul$ private in nature& On the other hand, that the +( lots used for governmental purposes are also registered is of no

)rovince o# 5am2oan.a del %orte vs 5am2oan.a Cit4

5 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

significance since registration cannot convert public propert$ to private& 3ppl$ing 3rt& (+( of 5##, all the properties in 8uestion, except the t o ?+@ lots used as 7igh School pla$grounds, could be considered as patrimonial properties of the former Jamboanga province& >ven the capital site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and the school sites ill be considered patrimonial for the$ are not for public use& The$ ould fall under the phrase Cpublic or<s for public serviceC

the land in 8uestion pertains to the State and the #it$ of !anila merel$ acted as trustee for the benefit of the people therein for hom the State can legislate in the exercise of its legitimate po ers& %f it ere its patrimonial propert$ h$ should the #it$ of !anila be re8uesting the 'resident to ma<e representation to the legislature to declare it as such so it can be disposed of in favor of the actual occupantsL There could be no more blatant recognition of the fact that said land belongs to the State and as simpl$ granted in usufruct to the #it$ of !anila for municipal purposes&

Salas vs 6arencio 4! SCRA 34

Fa ts$ Fa ts$
On Bebruar$ +(, 1919, the (th ;ranch of the #ourt of Birst %nstance of !anila, acting as a land registration court, rendered 0udgment declaring the #it$ of !anila the o ner in fee simple of a parcel of land containing an area of 9,2)9&) s8uare meters, more or less& On various dates in 19+(, the #it$ of !anila sold portions of the aforementioned parcel of land in favor of 'ura Villanueva& On September +1, 192*, the !unicipal ;oard of !anila, presided b$ then Vice-!a$or 3ntono 6& Villegas, adopted a resolution re8uesting 7is >xcellenc$, the 'resident of the 'hilippines to consider the feasibilit$ of declaring the #it$ propert$ bounded b$ Blorida, San 3ndres, and 5ebras<a Streets, containing a total area of 1,(5* s8uare meters as a patrimonial propert$ of the #it$ of !anila for the purpose of reselling these lots to the actual occupants thereof& There is therefore a precedent that this parcel of land could be subdivided and sold to bona fide occupants& The bill as passed b$ the Senate and approved b$ the 'resident and became 93 (11)& Issue: /O5 the propert$ involved in 93 (11) is a private or patrimonial propert$ of the #it$ of !anila&

Amunate.ui vs /irector o# Forestr4 12! SCRA !' Facts: There ere t o petitions for revie on certiorari 8uestioning the decision of the #ourt of 3ppeals hich declared the disputed propert$ as forest land, not sub0ect to titling in favor of private persons, ;orre and 3munategui& The 4irector of Borestr$, through the 'rovincial Biscal of #api-, also filed an opposition to the application for registration of title claiming that the land as mangrove s amp hich as still classified as forest land and part of the public domain& 3nother oppositor, >meterio ;ereber filed his opposition insofar as a portion of =ot 5o& ))5 containing 111,952 s8uare meters as concerned and pra$ed that title to said portion be confirmed and registered in his name& Issue: /O5 the lot in 8uestion can be sub0ect of registration and confirmation of title in the name of the private person& Held: The opposition of the 4irector of Borestr$ as strengthened b$ the appellate courtAs finding that timber licenses had to be issued to certain licensees and even 6ose 3munategui himself too< the trouble to as< for a license to cut timber ithin the area& %t as onl$ sometime in 195* that the propert$ as converted into fishpond but onl$ after a previous arning from the 4istrict Borester that the same could not be done because it as classified as Cpublic forestM& 3 forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simpl$ because loggers or settlers ma$ have stripped it of its forest cover& CBorest landsC do not have to be on mountains or in out of the a$ places& S amp$ areas covered b$ mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees gro ing in

Rulin.: The conclusion of the respondent court that 9epublic 3ct 5o& (11) converted a patrimonial propert$ of the #it$ of !anila into a parcel of disposable land of the State and too< it a a$ from the #it$ ithout compensation is, therefore, unfounded& %n the last anal$sis

6 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

brac<ish or sea ater ma$ also be classified as forest land& The possession of forest lands, no matter ho long, cannot ripen into private o nership& Therefore, the lot in 8uestion never ceased to be classified as forest land of public domain& 7an8ar vs /irector o# 7ands $ SCRA 134 Facts: This is a petition to revie on certiorari the decision of the #ourt of 3ppeals declaring the propert$ sought to be registered as the propert$ of the public domain devoted to public use not susceptible of private appropriation& 'etitioner, 9amon =an-ar, filed an application for registration of title to a parcel of land located in the 4istrict of !olo, %loilo #it$ in the #ourt of Birst %nstance of %loilo alleging that he is the o ner in fee simple of the land in 8uestion and as<ing that the title thereto be registered in his name& %n 3ugust 1921, the 4irector of =ands and the #it$ of %loilo filed an opposition to the application on the ground that the land in 8uestion a foreshore land hich forms part of the public domain and is needed b$ the #it$ of %loilo as a road right of a$ of the !olo 3revalo ;oulevard, and that the applicant had not possessed the propert$& The 4irector of =ands and the #it$ of %loilo appealed to the #ourt of 3ppeals reversed the decision of the #ourt of Birst %nstance of %loilo and held that the land in 8uestion, being an accretion formed b$ the action of the sea, is propert$ of the public domain and not susceptible of private appropriation& Issue: /O5 the title to the land in 8uestion hich as formed b$ action of the sea as an accretion ma$ be registered on the basis of adverse possession for over :* $ears& Held: The occupation or material possession of an$ land formed upon the shore b$ accretions and alluvium deposits occasioned b$ the sea, here the occupant or possessor is a private person and holds ithout previous permission or authori-ation from the Government, is illegal possession on his part and amounts to nothing more than a mere detainer of the land, hich is out of the sphere of the commerce of men, as belonging to the public domain and being allotted to public uses and for the use of all persons ho live at the place here it is situated&

=ands added to the shores b$ accretion and alluvial deposits caused b$ action of the sea, form part of the public domain& /hen the$ are no longer ashed b$ the ater of the sea and are not necessar$ for purposes of public utilit$, or for the establishment of special industries, or for coast-guard service, the Government shall declare them to be propert$ of the o ners of the estates ad0acent thereto and as increment thereof& 9a: vs 1ra.eda 121 SCRA 244 Facts: !aximino 9ico executed a 4eed of 3bsolute Sale in favor of the petitioner 4onato 9e$es Iap ho as then a #hinese national& 9espondent 6ose 3& 9ico is the eldest son of !aximino 9ico, one of the vendors& 3fter the lapse of nearl$ fifteen $ears from and after the execution of the deed of absolute sale, 4onato 9e$es Iap as admitted as a Bilipino citi-en and allo ed to ta<e his oath of allegiance to the 9epublic of the 'hilippines& On 4ecember 1, 1921, the petitioner ceded the ma0or portion of a lot hich he ac8uired b$ purchase under the deed of sale in favor of his engineer son, Belix Iap, ho as also a Bilipino citi-en because of the Bilipino citi-enship of his mother and the naturali-ation of his father 4onato 9e$es Iap& Subse8uentl$, =ourdes 9ico, aunt and co-heir of respondent 6ose 3& 9ico sold the remaining portion of that lot to the petitioner ho had his rights& 4onato 9e$es Iap, has been in possession of the lots in 8uestion since 19:9, openl$, publicl$, continuousl$, and adversel$ in the concept of o ner until the present time& Issue: /O5 the sale of residential lot in 8uestion to a #hinese national is null and void in spite of the fact that the vendee had been a naturali-ed born Bilipino citi-en& Held: The litigated propert$ is no in the hands of a naturali-ed Bilipino& %t is no longer o ned b$ a dis8ualified vendee& 9espondent, as a naturali-ed citi-en, as constitutionall$ 8ualified to o n the sub0ect propert$& There ould be no more public polic$ to be served in allo ing petitioner to recover the land as it is alread$ in the hands of a 8ualified person&

7 #Page

COLLEGE OF LAW, NORSU

Case Digests on Property Law Johann Heinri h !a"ongo

%f the ban on aliens from ac8uiring not onl$ agricultural but also urban lands, is to preserve the nation.s lands for future generations of Bilipinos, that aim or purpose ould not be th arted but achieved b$ ma<ing la ful the ac8uisition of real estate b$ aliens ho became Bilipino citi-ens b$ naturali-ation& Therefore, the amended 0udgment of the respondent court is reversed&

8 #Page