Machinery & Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. Court of AppealsG.R. No. L-7057. October 29, 1954.

Concepcion, J.:

Doctrine: Said machinery and equipment were "intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry" carried on said immovable and tended "directly to meet the needs of said industry." For these reasons, they were already immovable pursuant to paragraph 3 and 5 of Article 415 of Civil Code.

Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for replevin in the CFI of Manila against Ipo Limestone Co., Inc. and Dr. Antonio Villarama for the recovery of the machineries and equipments sold and delivered to defendants at their factory in Bigti, Norzagaray, Bulacan. Respondent judge issued order for Provincial Sheriff to seize and take immediate possession of the properties. But the equipment could not possibly be dismantled without causing damage to the wooden frames attached to them. As Roco, pet's president, insisted in dismantling it on his own responsibility, alleging that bond was posted for such, the deputy sheriffs directed that some of the supports thereof be cut. Defendant filed counter-bond. Trial court ordered return and reinstallation of machineries. Petitioner deposited them along the road, near the quarry of the defendant without reinstallation rendering them useless. Petitioner complains that the respondent Judge had disregarded his manifestation that equipments seized are the Petitioner's property until fully paid for and as such never became immovable and ordinarily replevin may be brought to recover any specific personal property unlawfully taken or detained from the owner thereof, provided such property is capable of identification and delivery; but replevin will not lie for the recovery of real property or incorporeal personal property.

Issue: W/N the equipment can be seized by the sheriff?

Ruling: When the sheriff repaired to the premises of respondent, Ipo Limestone Co., Inc., the machinery and equipment in question appeared to be attached to the land, particularly to the concrete foundation of said premises, in a fixed manner, in such a way that the former could not be separated from the latter "without breaking the material or deterioration of the object." Hence, in order to remove said outfit, it became necessary, not only to unbolt the same, but, also, to cut some of its wooden supports. Moreover, said machinery and equipment were "intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry" carried on said immovable and tended "directly to meet the needs of the said industry." For these reasons, they were already immovable property pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 415 of Civil Code of the Philippines, which are substantially identical to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 334 of the Civil Code of Spain. As such immovable property, they were not subject to replevin.