1. Case: Davao Saw Mill Co. v.

Castillo

Facts: The petitioner operated a sawmill on leased land, which he didn't own. The lease agreement
stated that buildings and improvements would become the lessor's property after the lease, but not
machinery. Some of the machinery was bolted to cement foundations.

Issue: Whether the machinery should be considered real or personal property.

Ruling: The court classified the machinery as personal property. Despite being bolted down, the lessee
treated the machinery as personal property in legal transactions and it was levied upon as personalty.
Machinery placed by a tenant doesn't become immovable unless the tenant acted as the owner's agent.

2. Case: Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng

Facts: Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., secured a loan from Cu Unjieng e Hijos with a mortgage on two parcels
of land. Later, the company decided to expand its sugar central's capacity by buying additional
machinery. B.A. Green, the company's president, asked Berkenkotter for a loan to purchase the
machinery, promising reimbursement from a loan from Cu Unjieng e Hijos. Berkenkotter provided the
loan, enabling the company to buy the machinery.

Issue: Whether the additional machinery, installed after the original mortgage, is subject to the
mortgage.

Ruling: The court held that the machinery, installed to expand the sugar central's capacity, constitutes a
permanent improvement and is subject to the mortgage. Even though the machinery was purchased
with a loan from Berkenkotter and held as security, it remains part of the mortgaged property. The sale
of the machinery by the company doesn't transfer ownership but only the right of redemption, subject
to the original mortgage.

3. Case: Lopez v. Orosa

Facts: Lopez invested in Orosa's theater business and provided lumber for the construction of Plaza
Theatre. Despite assurances of payment, Lopez was only partially paid. Orosa attempted to obtain a bank
loan using Plaza Theatre's properties as collateral, including land mortgaged to Luzon Surety Company. In
lieu of payment, Orosa assigned his shares in Plaza Theatre to Lopez. Lopez sued for payment, seeking to
sell the theater properties to cover the debt.

Issue: Whether a materialman’s lien extends to the land where a building is erected or solely to the
structure.

Held: The lien only attaches to the building and not the land. The law gives preference to unpaid work or
materials only with respect to the real estate upon which the construction occurred. As there is no
specific provision stating otherwise, the lien only applies to the immovable property for which the
obligation was incurred—in this case, the building. Therefore, the decision affirming this interpretation is
upheld, with costs against the appellant.
4. Case: Associated Insurance and Surety Company, Inc. v. Isabel Iya, Adriano Valino, and Lucia Valino

Facts: The Valinos owned a house under installment purchase while the land belonged to the Philippine
Realty Corporation. They obtained a bond from Associated Insurance and Surety Company, pledging the
house as security. However, they also mortgaged the land and the house to Isabel Iya to secure another
debt. The surety company foreclosed on the house due to the Valinos' default on their bond obligation,
leading to a public sale where the company acquired the property. Iya claimed her right over the land
and house through her mortgage.

Issue: Dispute arises regarding which mortgage takes precedence - the one to Iya or the one to the
surety company.

Held: The building is subject to the real estate mortgage in favor of Iya. A building is considered
immovable property regardless of ownership of the land. Therefore, the chattel mortgage on the
building, executed by the Valinos, was invalid. The registration of the chattel mortgage on the building
had no effect as it concerned real property, rendering it null and void.

5. Case: Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. and Honorable Court of
Appeals

Facts: Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. (Wearever) assigned receivables to Makati Leasing and Finance
Corporation (Makati Leasing) and secured the debt with a Chattel Mortgage on raw materials and
machinery. When Wearever defaulted, Makati Leasing sought to foreclose the mortgage, leading to a
dispute over whether the machinery could be foreclosed upon as it was deemed real property by the
Court of Appeals (CA).

Issue: Is the machinery considered real or personal property?

Held: The machinery is deemed personal property. Parties can agree to treat property as personal even if
it would naturally be considered real, as long as no third party's rights are prejudiced. Therefore, the
machinery, though attached to the ground, can be treated as personal property under a chattel
mortgage, especially since Wearever benefited from this arrangement and should not be allowed to
deny its validity now.

6. Case: Board of Assessment Appeals v. MERALCO

Facts: Meralco owned steel towers in Quezon City used for transmitting electricity from its hydroelectric
plant. The city assessed these towers for real property tax, leading to a dispute.

Issue: Whether the steel towers constitute real property for real property tax purposes.

Held: The steel towers are not considered real property for tax purposes. They don't fit the criteria under
Article 415 of the Civil Code as they are not buildings or constructions adhered to the soil, not fixed to
the ground, and not intended for industry or works on the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision against the city assessors.

7. Case: Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

Issue: Whether the pipeline is subject to realty tax.

Held: Yes, the pipelines are subject to realty tax as they fall under the definition of real property. The
pipes are constructions adhered to the soil and cannot be separated without dismantling them.
Therefore, they are liable for real property tax. The decision to affirm the tax assessment is upheld.

8. Case: Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

Facts: Caltex loaned various equipment to gas station operators under lease agreements, including
underground tanks, pumps, and compressors. The city assessor of Pasay City classified these items as
taxable real property. However, the city board of tax appeals ruled them as personal property.

Issue: Whether the gas station equipment and machinery are subject to realty tax.

Held: The equipment and machinery, essential for the gas station's operation and permanently affixed to
the site, are taxable improvements and machinery under the Real Property Tax Code. While they may be
considered personal property in some contexts, for taxation purposes, they are treated as real property.

9. Case: Benguet Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

Facts: The Provincial Assessor of Zambales imposed realty tax on Benguet Corporation's tailings dam and
the land beneath it, considering them taxable improvements. Benguet argued that the dam is not a
separate improvement but an integral part of the mine, serving as a pollution control device.

Issue: Whether the tailings dam qualifies as an improvement upon the land, making it subject to realty
tax.

Ruling: Yes. Applying Article 415 of the Civil Code, which defines real property, the tailings dam is
classified as an improvement upon the mine and thus subject to realty tax. The dam's permanent
attachment to the land and its purpose of enhancing the mine's utility meet the criteria for taxation
under the Real Property Tax Code.

10. Case: Tumalad v. Vicencio 1971

Facts: Alberta Vicencio and Emiliano Simeon borrowed money from Gavino and Generosa Tumalad,
using their house as collateral through a chattel mortgage. When Vicencio defaulted, the house was
foreclosed and sold to Tumalad. Vicencio contested, arguing that the mortgage was invalid because the
house, being immovable, should have been subject to a real estate mortgage.

Issue: Whether or not the chattel mortgage over the house, which is deemed immovable, is valid?

Ruling: Yes. Despite being immovable, the house could be treated as personal property through
agreement between the parties. Vicencio, by executing the chattel mortgage, treated the house as
chattel and is now estopped from claiming otherwise. Additionally, since the house was on rented land,
it was considered personal property as it was placed there by someone with only temporary rights.
Therefore, the mortgage is valid.

Ejectment case

11. Usero v CA

Facts: This is a consolidated petition assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners and
the private respondent are registered owners of neighboring parcels of land wherein between the lots is
a low-level strip of land with stagnant body of water. Whenever there is a storm or heavy rain, the water
therein would flood thereby causing damage to houses of the Polinars prompting them to build a
concrete wall on the bank of the strip of land about 3meters from their house and riprapped the soil in
that portion.

The Useros claimed ownership of the strip, demanded the halt of the construction but the Polinars never
heeded believing that the strip is part of a creek. However, the Polinars offered to pay for the land. As
the parties still failed to settle, both filed separate complaints for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Court
ruled in favor of the petitioner, while the regional trial court reversed and ordered the dismissal of the
complaint and confirmed the existence of the creek between the lots.

Issue: Whether or not the disputed strip of land is part of the creek hence part of public domain

Held: YES. Art. 420 of the Philippine New Civil Code (NCC) provides for properties which are part of
public domain. A creek is included in the phrase "and others of similar character". A creek, which refers
to a recess or arm of a river is a property belonging to the public domain, therefore not susceptible of
private ownership. Being a public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens system under the
name of any individual.