In the Mindanao bus company case, yung transportantion company case I was refferiend awhile ago sabi

ng supreme court no, the industry is not carried on in this building where this repairshop is located their
equipment there should not be considered as immobilized but remain personal properties. Can the
parties agree that a certain machinery which has been installed by the owner of a tenement for an
industry or works will be carried on in that building and it tends to meet directly the needs of those
industry or works, can the owner of that machinery and a creditor agree to treat these machinery as
personal property subjected to chattel mortgage? Is that allowable the answer is yes, in other words
again the principle of estoppel shall apply although th machinery inside the building where installed by
the owner and they tend to meet the industry or works carried on in that building, if the parties agree
neither of them can question the validity of the chattel mortgage later on.
Next point, in number 6 of article 415, the law deals with animal houses pigeon houses fishponds and
other breading houses of similar nature. The animals in these places are included. So if there is a pigeon
house, permanently attached to the land, the pigeons are also considered real property, of course
pigeions sometimes fly around, even the fish ponds if you have bangus, the bangus in the fishpond are
also considered immovable even if they are swimming around. For purposes of sale however, they are
considered movable property. So if you enter into a contract of sale of the bangus in your fish pond, that
is a sale of personal property, of if you donate the bangus into a certain individual it is a donation of
personal property. Of course if you would have to donate real property you would have to execute a
public document.
Number 7. What about insecticides? Same rules should apply
Number 8, the waters refer to here are the natural waters so if you have several drums of watter which
you keep in your yard. The waters in those drums cannot be considered as covered by number 8. Ang
sinasabi dyan ay waters in rivers, lakes or lagoons, yan, natural waters
Number 9, a question is already asked regarding this,basta nasa fixed place, example FELS ENERGY CASE,
power barges are real property, yung floating restaurant dyan sa area, it is floating but it remains at a
fixed place. Going off at a cruse in manila bay is movable property
10, so please remember the enumberation of real property under article 415, and look at what in turn
are considered movable property under 416 and 417 of the civil code
Certain real property are under special provision of law are movable property, ex. Growing crops, under
certain provisions of law they are movable property. Under chattel mortgage law and under the civil
code provisions of sales. Sibal vs valdez mobilization by anticipation
Forces of nature which are brought under control of science, electricity, wind power, nuclear power
Shares of stock in any corporation, personal property regardless of the fact that the corporation is real
property.
Property of public dominium vs private ownership
Remember art 420, those intended for public use, public service or for the development of national
welfare
Use roads streets, parks
Property is for public use within the civil code if it is open indiscriminately to the public. Anyone can use
it that is property for public use property of public dominion is subject to other rules, they canot be
made the subject matter of contracts, cannot be sold cannot be leased or otherwise made subject to
contracts, cannot be acquired by prescription, cannot be attached and sold in public auction to satisfy
any judgment, cannot be burdened with easement, cannot be registered or titled in a way in the torrens
system, and a title is issued it is not a valid title. The government ahs property of 2 kinds, property of
public dominium nad patrimonial property
Patrimonial, just like any other properties, they can be subject to contracts. Property of public dominiun
as long as it remains such is subject to rules. Is it possible to convert properties of public dominion to
patrimonial properties? Yes
1. No longer actually used for public use
2. No longer actually being devoted for public service
Does not automatically convert them into patrimonial properties

Must be a formal declaration by the executive or legislative of such conversion, otherwise
property of public dominion
In the case of property of political subdivisions, reponggi cases, property of the Philippines
located in japan, for reparation in war, intended for our embassy but was never used for that
purpose, after a long period of time there was an attempt to sell these properties, the supreme
court said the mere fact that the properties in japan had not been actually used for their original
purpose does not automatically convert them into partrimonial property they remain part of
public domain and consequently not available for private dominion or ownership until there is a
declaration of the government of such. Abandonment must be express and not impliedly made.
On the part of lgus their property is also divided into property for public use and patrimonial
Public use must be open indiscriminately to the public otherwise it cannot be for public use
In case the supreme court in determining whether a property of a local govt unit should be
considered as public or patrimonial, the supreme court opted to apply the special laws
governing municipal coproation thus in the caase of zamboanga del norte vs city of zamboanga,
we cannot decide strictly along the lines and parameters of the civil code this involved the
creation of anew local government carved out of a political region, the supreme court instead
considered the use of the property whether it is for govt purposes or not as long as the property
was used for govet purposes it wa considered property for public use or public property.

Still on this point, in the absence of clear evidence as to the source of the funds used in
acquiring the property which is currently being held by local government unit, the presumption
of the property or the land came from the state salas vs jarencio and other cases. The local
government is currently holding property but there was no clear source or how it was acquired,
the assumption is the land came from the state and the government is merely holding it in trust
for the benefits of the locality of the state. If that is so those properties cannot be considered
patrimonial properties, they will be considered public properties and the national government
will have absolute control over these properties

In some cases decided by the supreme court it has been made clear that local government units
cannot enter into contracts cannot even validly authorize by meanso f ordinance th awarding of
contracts over certain streets in favor of private individuals for purposes of having a flee market
there, as long as a street remains a street it is for public use and therefore it is beyond the
power of the local government unit t odeal with by means of contracts.

In the case of the local government converting the land into flee market, the local government
has the right to convert it, but without actually withdrawing it for public use, they remain as a
street and as a flee market that cannot be done. As long as it is not withdrawn they can only be
used for public use and cannot be used to contract for flee market.

You recall the ruling of the supreme court in chavez vs. pea, there was this agreement between
the public estates authority and amari amari would reclaim areas of manila bay, and as payment
they will be paid with reclaimed lands, supreme court said that with respect to the reclaimed
lands on freedom island which are covered by titles in the name of the public estates
authority,they are alienable lands of the public domain, but they may only be leased but not
sold to private corporations, of course they may be sold to fil citizens with respect to submerged
areas they are inalienable and outside the commerce of man only after pea has reclaimed them
may the government reclassify them as alienable and disposable lands. If no longer needed for
public service. The transfer of the submerged lands to amari since the constitution prohibits the
alienation of our natural resources. Other than agricultural land of the public domain.

Ownership, remember the traditional attributes of ownership, generally what are the righst of
an owner, right to use right to the fruits, right to jus abutendi should never be interpreted as the
right ot use it is merely the right ot consume the thing by its use. Right to dispose and right to
vindicate or recover you also remember the limitations on the rights of ownership these are
limitations which may come either from the state in the exercise of its inherent powers of the
government which are police power, power of eminent domain, taxation, or these may be
limitaitons imposed by certain provisions of law such as the civil code provision on easements,
these may be limitations imposed by the person transmitting the property I may impose certain
limitations on your use of the property for example.

In conection with the rights of ownership you remember the doctrine of self help art. 429
An owner or lawful possessor is allowed by law to the use of such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful deprivation or physical invasion
or usurpation of his property. Only reasonable force should be used. Doctrine can be invoked
only at the time when there is an actual or threatened unlawful or physical invasion and not
thereafter. If the property is alrady taken by the third person you are not allowed to use force
you must seek the aid of judicial authority.

One of the best examples in connection with the doctrine of selfhelp, german management and
services, herewas a land owner, eh wnted to develop is property in favor of german
management and services. German management went to the property and discovered that
certain individuals are occupying nad cultivating the property so german maangement used
physical force to oust these occupants who are cultivating portions of that property. Later on
they tried to invoke the principle of self help, the court said thats not proper because it was not
disputed that when they tried to enter the property those occupants were already there
cultivating the land for some time. A party in peaceable and quiet possession shall not be turned
down by a stronghand, violence or terror accoding to the court
The doctrine of self help can only be invoked at the time of actual or threatened dispossession.
Owner cannot take the law into his own hands.

Still on ownership, the owner of property has the right to enclose his property with a fense, wall
or any other means, there is a very beautiful case in connection I referred to custodio vs ca,
there was property owned by a person there was no fence around his property, so some of
hisneighbors were passingthrough his land to reach the public road, later on the property owner
decided to enclose his property with a fence, consequently, his neighbors could no longer pass
to his land they had to take a more round about route to reach the public street. They filed a
case for damages, the court said this is an example of damnum absque injuria the property
owner was simply exerciseing a right explicitly granted to him by law the right to enclose his
property with a fense. If in the meantime great inconvenience was caused to his neighbors who
now had to take a more longer route to reach the street is just too bad but thye obviously have
no legal right to claim damages. Please take not that when the case was decided there was no
easement yet. So as long as there is no easement yet, you can perfectly enclose your property
that is indicated in article 430 of the civil code. A property owner of course ahs the jus utendi,
right to use his property but the right to use ones property must be exercised so as not to injure
others, sic utere tuo utal use your own so as not to injure others. In one case there were two
adjoining properties, the owner of the higher property built theron certain articfical bodies of
water, articifial lakes, waterpots etc. unfortunately, during inclement or bad weather, some of
these constructions were washed away and they fell to the adjoining lower estate. The court
dismissed the case, the supreme court said it should be reinstated, applying article 431, while
you have the right to use yoru propert you should use it in ushc a way so as not to injure others,
obviously, the court saw that the use of the artificial lakes froom the higher estate as something
that causes during bad weather some damage to the lower adjoining estates. You also take note

Art. 432 of the civil code, sometimes referred to as the emergency doctrine or rule, if you are
the owner of the thing, the law says you have no right to prohibit the interference of another
person with your property, as long as the interrefence is necessary to prevent an imminent
dager asd nas long as the threatened damage or injury is much greater than the damage which
would arise to you from the interefence of such property. In this connection, the view has been
advanced to which I agree that negligence on the part of the person interfering does not
preclude resort to the rule under article 432. If for example, while I was using my car, another
vehicle owned and driven by mr x was being driven recklessly slammed nto a meralco post and
started to go out in smoke, mr x would have the right to use if I have a fire extinguisher for
example, mr ex would have the lawful use to that fire extinguisher. His negligence does not
preclude him from invoking article 432. Any damage to the use of the fire extinguisher is much
less than the damage of completely burning his car. In that case I submit the requirements
under article 432 would clearly be met.

You just read articles 433 and 434 actually possession under a claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of ownership the true owner must resolve to judicial process if he
wants to recover his property. And then the requirement in an action to recover the property
the property must be: (1) identified, and (2) the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own
evidence. And not on the weakness of the defendants claim which is in accord with the rule,
that he who alleges has the burden of proof.

Article 435 is simply a restatement of the basic principle of constitutional law

Article 436, is the restatement of the rule on police power, of course the moment the state
government execises its police power then property rights must necessarily give, and if property
is taken or damaged or destroyedas a consequence of police power then there is no indemnity
there, the only indemnity there is the feeling of satisfaction that somehow you have contributed
to the common good.

Article 437 the owner of the property is not only the owner as to its surface, but of everything
under it, if you are the owner of a parcel of land you own not only the surface of the land but
everything under it, of course, that does not necessarily mean that the provision everything
under it has to be taken in its literal sense, if there are for example minerals under your land
that does not belong to you, it belongs to the state under the regalian doctrine. The question is
up to what depth will you be considred owner of what is beneath your land, does it extend to
the middle of the earth? The rule of thumb is it extends only up to such depth as you can still
make use of it. In the case decided by he supreme court, it would seem that it is quite deep, I
refer to NPC vs. Ibrahim for example, he was a property owner, unknown to him the NPC
constructed a tunnel, passing beneath his land because the NPC is drawing water from Agos
river, so the property owner was not aware that there was land, it was only much later when he.