ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR vs REMEDIOS VDA. DE LACSAMANA et al

 ANTONIO PUNSALAN, JR vs REMEDIOS VDA. DE LACSAMANA et al

 G.R. No. L-55729

March 28, 1983

FACTS:

Antonio Punsalan, Jr was a former owner of a parcel of land situated in Bamban, Tarlac which Punsalan mortgaged to PNB. Due to failure of payment of the mortgage, PNB foreclose the property and PNB won the property in the bidding in a foreclosure proceeding.
While the property is still under the possession of Punsalan, upon securing a permit from the City Mayor of Tarlac, constructed a warehouse on said property. Petitioner declared said warehouse for tax purposes and later on had the warehouse leased to Hermogenes Sibal for a period of 10 years. PNB then executed a deed of sale of the property which was amended particularly to include in the sale the warehouse and the improvement thereon.
Punsalan commenced a suit for "Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages" against herein respondents PNB and Lacsamana essentially impugning the validity of the sale of the building as embodied in the Amended Deed of Sale. Among his allegations was that the bank did not own the building and thus, it should not be included in the said deed.
Lacsamana averred the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action in that she was a purchaser for value and invoked the principle in Civil Law that the "accessory follows the principal". PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid considering that the building was real property under article 415 (1) of the New Civil Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warehouse is considered a movable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code?

RULING:

Yes. The warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property as provided in article 415(1) of the Civil Code. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable property.

ANTONIA BICERRA et al vs TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN BARBOSA

ANTONIA BICERRA et al vs TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN BARBOSA

G.R. No. L-16218

November 29, 1962

FACTS:

Antonia Bicerra, et al (Biceras) were owners of a house built on the land owned by them situated in the Municipality of Lagangilang. Sometime in January 1957, Tomasa Teneza, et al, fociably demolished the house claiming to be the owners thereof. The materials of the house were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras filed a complaint claiming to have suffered actual damages and prayed that the plaintiffs be declared the owners of the house in question and/or the materials that resulted in its dismantling.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject demolished house is considered as immovable property under Article 415 under the Civil Code?

RULING:

No. A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Art. 415, par. 1, Civil Code). This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But once the house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its character as an immovable likewise ceases.

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL vs HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL vs HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

G.R. No. 155076
January 13, 2009

FACTS:

Luis Laurel (Laurel) was charged willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities.

PLDT claimed such the “international phone calls” which are “electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver,” are personal properties under Art. 416(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science

Laurel claims that the telephone conversation is not synonymous to electric current or impulses hence it is not susceptible of appropriation, thus cannot be considered a personal property.

ISSUE:

Is Laurel Guilty of Theft of Personal Property?

RULING:

The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the Penal Code is that it be capable of appropriation. The act of conducting International Simple Resale (ISR) operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone’s

(PLDT’s) telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone’s (PLDT’s) facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction.

Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Though Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated.

Following the ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil.933 (1922), business should also be classified as personal property. Since the Business of providing telecommunication service is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property.