46. U.S. v.

Tambunting 41 Phil 364

Facts:

This appeal was instituted for the purpose of reversing a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the city of Manila, finding the accused, Manuel Tambunting, guilty
of stealing a quantity of gas belonging to the Manila Gas Corporation. The accused
and his wife became occupants of the upper floor of the house situated at No. 443,
Calle Evangelista, in the city of Manila. In this house the Manila Gas Corporation
had previously installed apparatus for the delivery of gas on both the upper and
lower floors, consisting of the necessary piping and a gas meter, which last
mentioned apparatus was installed below. When the occupants at whose request
this installation had been made vacated the premises, the gas company
disconnected the gas pipe and removed the meter, thus cutting off the supply of
gas from said premises. Upon June 2, 1919, one of the inspectors of the gas
company visited the house in question and found that gas was being used, without
the knowledge and consent of the gas company, for cooking in the quarters
occupied by the defendant and his wife: to effect which a short piece of iron pipe
had been inserted in the gap where the gas meter had formerly been placed, and
piece of rubber tubing had been used to connect the gas pipe in the kitchen with
the gas stove, or plate, used for cooking.

Issue: Whether or not gas can be subject of Theft.

Held: Yes, the clandestine substraction and appropriation of gas, without the
consent of the owner, et animo lucrandi, constitutes theft. The right of the
ownership of electric current is secured by articles 517 and 518 of the Penal Code;
the application of these articles in cases of substraction of gas, a fluid used for
lighting, and in some respects resembling electricity, is confirmed by the rule laid
down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of January 20, 1887, and April
1, 1897, construing and enforcing the provisions of articles 530 and 531 of the
Penal Code of that country, articles identical with articles 517 and 518 of the code
in force in these Islands." These expressions were used in a case which involved the
substraction and appropriation of electrical energy and the court held, in
accordance with the analogy of the case involving the theft of gas, that electrical
energy could also be the subject of theft.

47. Associated Insurance v. Iya 103 Phil 972

Facts:
Adriano Valino and Lucia A. Valino, husband and wife, were the owners and
possessors of a house of strong materials constructed on Lot No. 3, Block No. 80 of
the Grace Park Subdivision in Caloocan, Rizal, which they purchased on installment
basis from the Philippine Realty Corporation. On November 6, 1951, to enable her
to purchase on credit rice from the NARIC, Lucia A. Valino filed a bond in the sum of
P11,000.00 (AISCO Bond No. G-971) subscribed by the Associated Insurance &
Surety Co., Inc., and ,as counter-guaranty therefor, the spouses Valino executed an
alleged chattel mortgage on the aforementioned house in favor of the surety
company, which encumbrance was duly registered with the Chattel Mortgage
Register of Rizal on December 6, 1951. The Valinos, to secure payment of an
indebtedness in the amount of P12,000.00, executed a real estate mortgage over
the lot and the house in favor of Isabel lya, which was duly registered and
annotated at the back of the certificate of title.

Issue:

Whether or not the building is an immovable property.

Held:

Yes, immovable status of building is unaffected by change of ownership of land. A

building is an immovable property irrespective of whether or not said structure and
the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner. It cannot be divested
of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it is constructed
belongs to another. If the status of the building were to depend on the ownership of
the land, a situation would be created where a permanent fixture changes its
nature or character as the ownership of the land changes hands. As personal
properties could only be the subject of a chattel mortgage, the execution of a
chattel mortgage on a building is invalid and a nullity, the registration of the chattel
notwithstanding. The registration of the chattel in the Chattel Mortgage Registry
produced no effect whatsoever for where the interest conveyed is in the nature of a
real property, the registration of the document in the registry of chattels is merely a
futile act. Thus the registration of the chattel mortgage of a building of strong
materials produce no effect as far as the building is concerned