PROPERTY

2007

a. The platform is an immovable property. Under Article 415 (9) of the Civil Code, docks and
structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed
place on a river, lake or coast are immovable property.
Here, the floating platform is a petroleum operation facility and it is intended to remain
permanently where it is situated, even if it is tethered to a ship which is anchored to the seabed.
Therefore, applying the said provision, the platform is an immovable property.
b. The equipment and living quarters of the crew are immovable property. Under Art. 415 (3) of
the Civil Code everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it
cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object are
immovable.
Here, both the equipment and the living quarters are permanently attached to the platform
which is also an immovable. Therefore, it follows that the equipment and the living quarters are
immovable.
c. Trees, plants and flowers planted in the garden area of the platform are immovable property.
Under Article 415 (2) of the civil code trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are attached to
the land or form an integral part of an immovable are immovable property.
Here, the garden forms an integral part of an immovable, the petroleum operation facility.
Hence it follows that the trees, plants and flowers are immovable property.

1997

a. The warehouse is an immovable property. According to Article 415 (1) land, buildings, roads
and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil are immovable property.
Here, the warehouse is built on the disputed land located in Malolos, Bulacan but Pedro
filed the cause of action for annulment of the deed in Quezon City. Hence, the proper venue
to recover the immovable property is where it is actually situated which is Malolos, Bulacan.
The action should have been filed in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.

1995

a. The furniture-making machinery is movable property. According to Article 415 (5) of the Civil
Code, machinery, to be considered as immovable must be installed by the owner of the
tenement.
Here, the furniture-making machine was not installed by Salvador but by his lessee –
NARRAMIX. Salvador being a major stockholder is inconsequential for the corporation has
distinct personality from its stockholders. Hence, the machinery in making furniture is not
an immovable property.
b. The machinery is an immovable property. When there is a provision in the lease contract
making the lessor, at the end of the lease, owner of the machinery installed by the lessee,
the said machinery is considered to have been installed by the lessor through the lessee
who acted merely as his agent. Having been installed by the owner of the tenement, the
machinery become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of the Civil Code.
JURISPRUDENCE

 Power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination.

 Properties of public dominion are owned by the general public. Public use is “use that is not
confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public”.
Note: Under Article 530 of the Civil Code, only things and rights which are susceptible of being
appropriated may be the object of possession.
 Being of public dominion, a creek cannot be registered under the torrens system in the name of
any individual.
 Mining patents are vested rights that cannot be impaired.
 To be vested, a right must have a title – legal or equitable – to the present or future enjoyment
of property
 Property under public domain is outside the commerce of man and disposition thereof is null
and void.
 Property belonging to the public domain cannot be made a subject of a deed of donation
between private persons.
Note: No one can give what one does not have, NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET. The contract
of donation is executed by the donor who has no proprietary right over the object of the
contract, is null and void and produces no legal effect whatsoever.
 Acquisition through prescription does not apply to land of public domain without state
declaration of its conversion to private ownership.

The general rule, all government lands are of public dominion but for a public dominion to be
patrimonial, the appropriate agency convert that public domain as alienable and disposable plus a
positive act from the state declaring such ADL as patrimonial meaning not intended for public use. The
important requirement is the positive act converting the land into a patrimonial property.

A Property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or
ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being
such. Abandonment must be definite.

NOTE: It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own
sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by Congress. It
requires executive and legislative concurrence.

Basically, all the lands of public dominion, must be converted into an alienable and disposable land and
declared as patrimonial for any private entity to appropriate it.

2017

a. The declaration did not change its status as property of public domain for the lot occupied
by Mike but the lot occupies by Rigor was effectively removed from the ambit of public
domain. In Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic, the declaration by the State of the conversion
into patrimonial properties must be made in the form of a law duly enacted by Congress or
 by a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is duly authorized by law. With
such express declaration, the properties are effectively removed from the ambit of public
dominion.
Here, the Government declared the land occupied by Mike as alienable and disposable and
the one cultivated by Rigor as no longer intended for public use or public service. Aside from
a declaration that the property is alienable and disposable, it must be expressly declared
that the property is not anymore intended for public use. Hence, the lot occupied of Rigor
can now be appropriated accordingly while the lot occupied by Mike cannot.

b. No, Mike cannot assert right of ownership by prescription. Under the law, there must be a
positive act converting land of public dominion into patrimonial property aside from being
declared as alienable and disposable. Here, there was no positive act declaring the lot
occupied Mike as patrimonial property. Hence, Mike cannot own the land by prescription.
c. No, Rigor has no legal basis. He occupied the lot only in 1960, and not since June 12, 1945 or
earlier for him to successfully appropriate the land by filing an action for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title. Likewise, he cannot claim the land by prescription. The land
was converted into patrimonial in 1991, prescription began to run only in 1991. Hence, he
did not complete the 30-year period required by law for extraordinary prescription. Even
under the shorter 10-year ordinary prescription, Rigor cannot acquire ownership because
possession was not in good faith and without just title.