Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Min da n aoBus Co. Vs.C ity Assessor &Treasurer 1.

Petitioner is a public utility solely engagedin transporting passengers and cargoes bymotor trucks, over its authorized public linesin Mindanao.2. Petitioner has its main office and shop at Cagayan de Oro. . Court of !a" #ppeals holds Minadanao $usCo. as liable to the payment of the %ealty !a"on its maintenance and repair e&uipment.'. !he Machineries in &uestion is valued at P',((( assessed by the City #ssessor of Cagayan, as these machineries are sitting oncement or )ooden platforms.*+&uipments, +lectric -elder Machine, .torm$oring Machine, /rinder, $attery Charger,0ydraulic Press, etc1 -O2 Court of !a"#ppeals erred inupholding the City#ssessors contentionthat the said tools ande&uipments areimmovables and areta"able real properties. !he tools and e&uipments in&uestion at bar, by theirnature, are 2O! essential andprincial elements of petitioners business of transporting passengers andcargoes. !hey are merelyincidentalsac&uired asmovables and used only fore"pediency to facilitateand3or improve its services.+ven )ithout these tools, thebusinesss may be carried on.!hus, the tools 4 e&uips arenot sub5ect to %ealty !a". Movable e&uipments, to beimmobilized incontemplation of la), must be essential and principalelements of an industry or )orks.

'.On oct. 16,178(, 9udge !anada issued anorder granting /oulds Motion for :ssuanceof -rite of +"ecution. ;ap filed for Motionfor %econsideration but )as denied. 0ence,this case.

MACHINERYENGINEERINGSUPPLIESVS CA 1. Machinery 4+ngrng .upplies filed acomplaint for replevin against :PO<imestone Co :nc, for the recovery of themachines and e&uipment sold and deliveredto barrio $igti, $ulacan.2. March 1 , 176 , 9udge Pecson issued anorder to seize and take immediatepossession of the properties .March 17.heriffs of $ulacan and a cre)technicalmen and laborers proceeded ande"ecuted courts order. Mngr of the :POcompany through a letter e"ecuted a protest against the seizure of the %eal Properties in&uestion on the ground that they are not personal properties. Contending that theduty of the sheriff is ministerial in nature,they continued. #s %oco *pres. of M+.:1,insisted in dismantling the e&uipments onhis o)n responsibility, alleging that the bond)as posted for, deputy sheriffs directed that supports of the machines be cut.'.March 2(:PO Co. filed an urgent motionfor the return of the properties seized./ranted.March 21=eputy .heriff returned, bydepositing the properties along the road,)ithout the benefit of inventory and )ithout reinstalling them in their former position.March 2'.heriff filed an urgent motion,asking the court that M+.: be ordered toprovide the re&uired aid to comply )ith thecourts order.March (Court ordered Prov .heriff andM+.: to reinstate the machineries removed,in their normal and previous condition.May'Court ordered M+.: to furnish thenecessary funds and cre) to effect thereinstallation )ithin 6days. -O2 replevin )asapplicable to theproperties in &uestion. 6. C# decided to uoheld!Csdecision. Plaintiff filed forrevie) on the ground that they acted on grave abuse of discretion !he special civil action of %eplevin is applicable onlyto personal property. !hemachinery and e&uipmentsin &uestion appeared to bethat of attached to the and,particularly to the concretefoundation of saidpremises, in a fi"edmanner, in such a )ay that the former cannot beseparated therefrom)ithout breaking thematerial or deterioration of the ob5ect. !hereby, it became an immovable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FelsENERGY INC VS PROVINCE OF BATANGAS !he e&uipment and living&uarters of the cre), beingpermanently attached tothe platform, )hich is alsoan immovable, areimmovables. !his isespecially so that they areintended to meet the needsof the business andindustry of the corporation SergsProducTS INC VS PCI LEASING AND FINANCE !he machines, that )erethe sub5ects of the )rit of seizure, )ere placed bypetitioners in the factorybuilt on their o)n land.:ndisputably, they )ereessential and principalelements of theirchocolate>making industry.0ence, although each of them )as movable on itso)n, all of them havebecome immobilized bydestination because theyare essential and principalelements of the industry.!he contracting partiesho)ever may validlystipulate that a realproperty be considered aspersonal. #fter agreeing tosuch stipulation, they areconse&uently estoppedfrom claiming other)ise.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi