7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 1/15

Basco vs PAGCOR GR 91649 (May 14, 1991)Posted on November 20, 2012GR 91649197 SCRA 2, 6

May 14, 1991

!AC"S:Petitioners seek to annul the PAGCOR charter – PD 1869 – for being allegedlcontrar to !orals" #ublic #olic and order" !ono#olistic $ tends to%ard&cron econo!'" %ai(ing the )anila Cit go(ern!ent*s right to i!#oseta+es $ license fees" and (iolating the e,ual #rotection clause" localautono! and other state #olicies in the Constitution-

#SS$%S:

.hether PD 1869 is (alid-

&%':

%very a* +as - .s /avor .+e resm.o- o/ co-s...o-a.y- For alaw to be nullifed" it must be shown that there is a clear & unequivocalbreach o the Constitution- /he grounds or nullity must be clear and beyondreasonable doubt - /he ,uestion of %ether PD 1869 is a %ise legislation is u#for Congress to deter!ine- /he o*er o/ 'G$s .o rea.e amb- through the grant of franchises"licenses or #er!its *as *.+3ra*- by P 771" and is -o* ves.e3

ecsvey o- .+e Na.o-a Gover-me-.- 0ecessaril" the power todemand/collect license ees is no longer vested in the City o Manila-'G$s +ave -o o*er .o .a Gover-me-. -s.rme-.a.es- PAC!""being a GOCC" is thereore e#empt rom local ta#es- "+e Na.o-aGover-me-. s sreme over oca over-me-.s- As such" merecreatures o the $tate cannot deeat national policies  using the #o%er to ta+as a &tool for regulation'- "+e o*er .o .a ca--o. be ao*e3 .o 3e/ea.a- -s.rme-.a.y o/ .+e very e-..y *+c+ +as .+e -+ere-. o*er.o *e3 .- /he power o %s to impose ta#es & ees is always sub'ect tolimitation provided by Congress- /he #rinci#le of oca a.o-omy 3oes -o. ma5e 'G$s sovere- *.+-

a s.a.e" it si!#l !eans 3ece-.raa.o-- A law doesn(t have to operate in equal orce on all persons/things- /he e,ual#rotection clause doesn*t #reclude classication of indi(iduals %ho !a beaccorded di2erent treat!ent under the la% as long as the classication is notunreasonable3arbitrar- )he mere act that some gambling activities arelegali*ed under certain conditions+ while others are prohibited+ does not render the applicable laws unconstitutional,

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 2/15

Baes v CA RP GR 10806 (y 6, 199:)Posted on As. 10, 201:

4#ouses 5eli+ aes $ Rafaela aes ( CA and Re#ublic of the Phili##inesGR 17876

 ul 6" 199

5AC/4

;44<=.O0 aes o%ned >ot 1?-

@=>DAr.; 461, NCC– Ri(er beds abandoned through 0A/<RA> C@A0G= ipso acto belong to o%ner %hose lands are occu#ied b thene% course in #ro#ortion to the are lost- O%ners of the land adoining the ri(er bed ha(e the right to ac,uire b#aing its (alue B!ust not e+ceed (alue of ne% bed*s area- change is due to concessioners authori*ed by the overnment+ the concession may be granted toconcessioners, 0o grant land belongs to o%ners of land co(ered b the %aters- )ust not #reudice tge su#eriorrights of third #ersons %ith suEcient title-#/ a rara- o*-er s e-..e3 .o come-sa.o- /or 3amae<oss 3e .o -a.ra reaso-s, .+ere s -oreso- -o. .o come-sa.e *+e- .+e c+a-e *as e=ec.e3 .+ro+ ar.>ca mea-s;

 /he loss %as caused b a deliberate act of Go(ern!ent- /he Go(ern!ent is obliged to co!#ensate aes for theloss-

@o%e(er" aes has alread been co!#ensated through the fair e+change of lots bet%een hi! and the Go(ern!ent-

Posted in Avso-" Case es.s  F /agged Accesso-" Avso-" CA" !e Baes"  y 199:"  y 6"o*-ers+" Proer.y" Ra/aea BaesF 'eave a rey

%as ?a, e. a v N'RC a-3 Broa3 S.ree. "aor- GRNo; '@70:8 As. 2:, 199:Posted on As. :, 201:

%as ?a, e. a v N'RC a-3 Broa3 S.ree. "aor-As. 2:, 199:'@70:8&%':Re 1, Sec.o- 2(c), Boo5 ### of the #meme-.- Res o/ 'abor Co3e" #ro(ides the =le!ents of )e!bershi# of a )anagerial 4ta2:B1 that his #ri!ar dut consists of the #erfor!ance of %orkdirectl related to !anage!ent #olicies

BH that he custo!aril and regularl e+ercises discretion and inde#endent udg!ent in the #erfor!ance of hisfunctionsB that he regularl and directl assists in the !anage!ent of theestablish!ent andBI that he does not de(ote his t%ent #er cent of his ti!e to %ork other than those described abo(e-Jilluga*s #ri!ar %ork or dut is to cut or #re#are #atterns for ite!s to be se%n-

 /he dut to la do%n3i!#le!ent an of the !anage!ent #olicies lies in their !anager and assistant !anager-.hile he distributes and assigns %ork to e!#loees in the absence of the !anager $ the assistant !anager" thedut is onl occasional- Also" Jilluga does not #artici#ate in #olic?!aking- Rather" his #osition*s functions in(ol(ee+ecution of a##ro(ed and established #olicies-;n &5ranklin aker Co!#an of the Phili##ines (- /raano'" employees who do not participate in policy.maing but are given ready policies to e#ecute and standard practices to observe are not managerial employees -

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 3/15

Jilluga is denitel a rank and le e!#loee hired to #erfor! the %ork of the cutter and not hired to #erfor!su#er(isor or !anagerial functions- /he fact that he is unifor!l #aid b the !onth does not e+clude hi! fro! thebenets of +o3ay ay- @e should also be #aid in addition to the 1th !onth #a" his o(erti!e #a" holida#a" #re!iu! #a for holida and rest da" and ser(ice incenti(e lea(e #a-5or abandon!ent to constitute a (alid cause for dis!issal" there !ust be a deliberate and unustied refusal of thee!#loee to resu!e his e!#lo!ent- )ere absence is not suEcient" it !ust be acco!#anied b o(ert actsunerringl #ointing to the factthat the e!#loee si!#l does not %ant to %ork an!ore- 8 At an rate" dis!issal of an e!#loee due to his#rolonged absence %ithout lea(e b reason of illness dul established b the #resentation of 

a !edical certicate is not ustied- 9 ;n the case at bar" ho%e(er" considering that #etitioner Jilluga absentedhi!self for four BI das%ithout lea(e and %ithout sub!itting a !edical certicate to su##ort his clai! of illness"the i!#osition of a sanctionis ustied" but surel" not dis!issal" in the light of the fact that this is #etitioner*s rsto2ense- ;n lieu ofreinstate!ent" #etitioner Jilluga should be #aid se#aration #a %here reinstate!ent can no longerbe e2ected in(ie% of the long #assage of ti!e or because of the realities of the situation- 17 ut #etitioner shouldnot be grantedback%ages in addition to reinstate!ent as the sa!e is not ust and e,uitable under thecircu!stances consideringthat he %as not entirel free fro! bla!e-

As to the other ele(en #etitioners" there is no clear sho%ing that the %ere dis!issed because thecircu!stancessurrounding their dis!issal %ere not e(en alleged- @o%e(er" %e disagree %ith the nding of res#ondentCo!!ission that the ele(en #etitioners are inde#endent contractors-5or an e!#loer?e!#loee relationshi# to e+ist" the follo%ing ele!ents are generall considered: &B1 theselectionand engage!ent of the e!#loee and engage!ent of the e!#loeeBH the #a!ent of %ages B the #o%er of dis!issal and BI the #o%er to control the e!#loee*s conduct-'

 /he !ere fact that #etitioners %ere #aid on a #iece?rate basis is no argu!entthat herein #etitioners %ere note!#loees- /he ter! &%age' has been broadl dened in Article 9K of the >aborCode as re!uneration or earnings"ca#able of being e+#ressed in ter!s of !one %hether +ed or ascertained on ati!e" task" #iece or co!!issionbasis- - - -' /he facts of this case indicate that #a!ent b the #iece is ust a !ethod of co!#ensation and doesnotdene the essence of therelation- 1 /he #etitioners %ere allo%ed to #erfor! their %ork at ho!e does not like%ise i!#l absence of controland su#er(ision- /he control test calls !erel for the e+istence of a right to control the !anner of doing the%ork" not the actual e+ercise of the right-

;n deter!ining %hether the relationshi# is that of e!#loer and e!#loee or one of an inde#endentcontractor"'each case !ust be deter!ined on its o%n facts and all the features of the relationshi# are to beconsidered-' 1Considering that #etitioners %ho are either se%ers" re#air!en or ironer" ha(e been in the e!#lo of #ri(ateres#ondent as earl as 19KH or at the latest in 19K6" faithfull rendering ser(ices %hich are desirable ornecessarfor the business of #ri(ate res#ondent" and obser(ing !anage!ent*s a##ro(ed standards set for theirres#ecti(elines of %ork as %ell as the custo!ers* s#ecications" #etitioners should be considered e!#loees" notinde#endentcontractors-;nde#endent contractors are those %ho e+ercise inde#endent e!#lo!ent" contracting to do a #iece of %orkaccording to their o%n !ethods and %ithout being subected to control of their e!#loer e+ce#t as to theresult oftheir %ork- the nature of the di2erent #hases of %ork in a tailoring sho# %here the custo!ers*s#ecications !ustbe follo%ed to the letter" it is inconcei(able that the %orkers therein %ould not be subectedto control-befollo%ed to the letter" it is inconcei(able that the %orkers therein %ould not be subected to control-;n Rosario rothers" ;nc- (- O#le" 16 this Court ruled that tailors and si!ilar %orkers hired in the tailoringde#art!ent"although #aid %eekl %ages on #iece %ork basis" are e!#loees not inde#endent contractors-Accordingl" asregular e!#loees" #aid on a #iece?rate basis" #etitioners are not entitled to o(erti!e #a" holida#a" #re!iu! #afor holida3rest da and ser(ice incenti(e lea(e #a- /heir clai! for se#aration #a should also bedened for lack ofe(idence that the %ere in fact dis!issed b #ri(ate res#ondent- /he should be #aid" ho%e(er"their 1th !onth#a under P-D- 81" since the are e!#loees not inde#endent contractors-Posted in Case es.s" 'abor S.a-3ar3s F /agged %as ?a" 'abor S.a-3ar3s F 'eave a rey

's Marcos 'are v &o-; es AbroarPosted on  -e 29, 201:

's Marcos 'are vs &o-; es AbroarGR No; 1076

 a-ary 1:, 2009!AC"S>aurel %as charged %ith "+e/. under Ar.; :08 of the RPC for allegedl taking" stealing" and using P>D/Lsinternational long distance calls b conducting ;nternational 4i!#le Resale B;4R – &a !ethod of outing andco!#leting international long?distance calls using lines" cables" antennae" and3or air %a(e fre,uenc %hich connectdirectl to the local3do!estic e+change facilities of the countr %here the call is destined'- P>D/ alleged that thisser(ice %as stolen fro! the! using their o%n e,ui#!ent and caused da!age to the! a!ounting toPH7"K7"61-9H-P>D/ alleges that the international calls and business of #ro(iding teleco!!unication or tele#hone ser(ice are#ersonal #ro#erties ca#able of a##ro#riation and can be obects of theft-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 4/15

#SS$%.O0 >aurelLs act constitutes /heft&%'Ar.;:08" RPC: "+e/. is co!!itted b an #erson %ho" %ith intent to gain but without violence against" or intimidation o persons nor orce upon things" shall take #ersonal #ro#ert of another %ithout the latter*s consent-%eme-.s o/ "+e/. under Ar.;:08, RPC:

1- /here be taking of Personal Pro#ertH- 4aid Personal Pro#ert belongs to another

- /aking be done %ith ;ntent to GainI- /aking be done %ithout the o%ner*s consent- 0o (iolence against" or inti!idation of" #ersons or force u#on things

Perso-a Proer.y – anything susceptible o appropriation and not included in "eal Property  /hus" the ter! &#ersonal #ro#ert' as used in Ar.;:08, RPC should be inter#reted in the conte+t of the Ci(il CodeLsdenition of real and #ersonal #ro#ert- Conse,uentl" an #ersonal #ro#ert" tangible or intangible" cor#oreal orincor#oreal" ca#able of a##ro#riation !a be the subect of theft BM<4 ( Carlos <4 ( /a!bunting <4 ( GenatoM" solong as the sa!e is not included in the enu!eration of Real Pro#erties under the Ci(il Code-

 /he onl re,uire!ent for #ersonal #ro#ert to ca#able of theft" is that it be subect to a##ro#riation-

Ar.; 416 (:) of the Cv Co3e dee!s 0Forces o 1ature2 which are brought under the control o science " asPersonal Pro#ert-

 /he a##ro#riation of forces of nature %hich are brought under control b science can be achie(ed b ta!#ering %ithan a##aratus used for generating or !easuring such forces of nature" %rongfull redirecting such forces of naturefro! such a##aratus" or using an de(ice to fraudulentl obtain such forces of nature-

;n the instant case" the act of conducting ;4R o#erations b illegall connecting (arious e,ui#!ent or a##aratus toP>D/*s tele#hone sste!" through %hich #etitioner is able to resell or re?route international long distance calls usingP>D/*s facilities constitute$ubtraction-)oreo(er" interest in business should be classied as #ersonal #ro#ert since it is ca#able of a##ro#riation" and notincluded in the enu!eration of real #ro#erties-

 /herefore" the business of #ro(iding teleco!!unication or tele#hone ser(ice are #ersonal #ro#ert %hich can bethe obect of theft under Art- 78 of the RPC- /he act of engaging in ;4R is an act of &subtraction' #enaliNed underthe said article-

.hile international long?distance calls take the for! of electrical energ and !a be considered as #ersonal#ro#ert" the said long?distance calls do not belong to P>D/ since it could not ha(e ac,uired o%nershi# o(er such

calls- P>D/ !erel encodes" aug!ents" enhances" decodes and trans!its said calls using its co!#le+co!!unications infrastructure and facilities-

4ince P>D/ does not o%n the said tele#hone calls" then it could not (alidl clai! that such tele#hone calls %eretaken %ithout its consent-

.hat constitutes /heft is the use of the P>D/Ls co!!unications facilities %ithout P>D/Ls consent- /he theft lies inthe unla%ful taking of the tele#hone ser(ices $ businesses-

 /he A!ended ;nfor!ation should be a!ended to sho% that the #ro#ert subect of the theft %ere ser(ices andbusiness of the o2ended #art-

Posted in Case es.s" Crm-a 'a* ##" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 2009"Ar.ce :08" /orces o/ 

-a.re" GR 1076" &o-; es Abroar"  a-ary 1:"  a-ary 2009" 's Marcos 'are" erso-aroer.y" P'"" RPC" Sb.rac.o-" "+e/. F 'eave a rey

Ma5a. 'eas- a-3 !-a-ce Cor;, vs earever "e.e

Ms, #-c;,Posted on  -e 29, 201:

Ma5a. 'eas- a-3 !-a-ce Cor;, vs earever "e.e Ms, #-c;,122 SCRA 296GR No; '@8469May 16, 198:

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 5/15

!AC"S.eare(er /e+tile )ills" ;nc- e+ecuted a chattel !ortgage contract in fa(or of )akati >easing and 5inance Cor#orationco(ering certain ra% !aterials and !achiner- <#on default" )akati >easing led a #etition for udicial foreclosureof the #ro#erties !ortgaged- Acting on )akati >easing*s a##lication for re#le(in" the lo%er court issued a %rit of seiNure- Pursuant thereto" the sheri2 enforcing the seiNure order seiNed the !achiner subect !atter of the!ortgage- ;n a #etition for certiorari and #rohibition" the Court of A##eals ordered the return of the !achiner onthe ground that the sa!e can?not be the subect of re#le(in because it is a real #ro#ert #ursuant to ArticleI1 of the ne% Ci(il Code" the sa!e being attached to the ground b !eans of bolts and the onl %a to re!o(e it fro!

.eare(er te+tile*s #lant %ould be to drill out or destro the concrete oor- .hen the !otion for reconsideration of )akati >easing %as denied b the Court of A##eals" )akati >easing ele(ated the !atter to the 4u#re!e Court-#SS$%.hether the !achiner in suit is real or #ersonal #ro#ert fro! the #oint of (ie% of the #arties-&%'

 /here is no logical ustication to e+clude the rule out the #resent case fro! the a##lication of the #ronounce!entin )umalad v 3icencio" I1 4CRA 1I- #/ a +ose o/ s.ro- ma.eras" like %hat %as in(ol(ed inthe )umalad case" may be co-s3ere3 as erso-a roer.y /or roses o/ eec.- a c+a..e mor.ae.+ereo- as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be pre'udiced thereb" thereis absolutel no reason %h a !achiner" %hich is movable in its nature and beco!esimmobili*ed only by destination or purpose" !a not be like%ise treated as such- /his is reall because o-e *+o +as so aree3 ses.oe3 /rom .+e 3e-y- .+e es.e-ce o/ .+e c+a..e mor.ae-;n reecting #etitioner*s assertion on the a##licabilit of the )umalad doctrine" the CA las stress on the fact that thehouse in(ol(ed therein %as built on a land that did not belong to the o%ner of such house- ut .+e a* ma5es -o3s.-c.o- *.+ resec. .o .+e o*-ers+ o/ .+e a-3 o- *+c+ .+e +ose s b.  and .e should not lado%n distinctions not conte!#lated b la%-

;t !ust be #ointed out thatthe characteri*ation by the private respondent is indicative o the

intention and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties - As stated in $tandard !il Co, o 1ew 4or v, 5aramillo+ 66 Phil, 789+ it is undeniable that the parties to a contract may " b agree!ent" treat as personal property that which by nature would be a real property  as long as no interest of third #arties %ould be#reudiced thereb-

 /he status of the subect !atter as !o(able or i!!o(able #ro#ert %as not raised as an issue before the lo%ercourt and the CA" e+ce#t in a su##le!ental !e!orandu! in su##ort of the #etition led in the a##ellate court-

 /here is no record sho%ing that the !ortgage has been annulled" or that ste#s %ere taken to nullif the sa!e- Onthe other hand" res#ondent has beneted fro! the said contract-

%.y 3c.a.es .+a. o-e s+o3 -o. be-e>. a. .+e ee-se o/ a-o.+er;As such" #ri(ate res#ondent could no longer be allo%ed to i!#ugn the eEcac of the chattel !ortgage after it hasbeneted therefro!-

 /herefore" the ,uestioned !achiner should be considered as #ersonal #ro#ert-

Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 122 SCRA 296" 198:" GR '@8469" Ma5a. 'eas-a-3 !-a-ce Cor" May 16" May 198:" movabe roer.y" erso-a roer.y"Proer.y" earever "e.e Ms F 'eave a rey

Ca.e vs Ce-.ra Boar3 o/ Assessme-. AeasPosted on  -e 24, 201:

Ca.e vs Ce-.ra Boar3 o/ Assessme-. Aeas C.y Assessor o/ PasayGR No; '@0466May :1, 1982

 /his case is about the realt ta+ on !achiner and e,ui#!ent installed b Calte+ BPhili##ines ;nc-" in its gasstations located on leased land-

!AC"SCalte+ loaned !achines and e,ui#!ent to gas station o#erators under an a##ro#riate lease agree!ent or recei#t-

 /he lease contract sti#ulated that u#on de!and" the o#erators shall return to Calte+ the !achines and e,ui#!entin good condition as %hen recei(ed" ordinar %ear and tear e+ce#ted- /he lessor of the land" %here the gas station is located" does not beco!e the o%ner of the !achines and e,ui#!entinstalled therein- Calte+ retains the o%nershi# thereof during the ter! of the lease-

 /he Cit Assessor of Pasa Cit characteriNed the said ite!s of gas station e,ui#!ent and !achiner as ta+ablerealt- @o%e(er" the Cit oard of /a+ A##eals ruled that the are #ersonalt- /he Assessor a##ealed to the Centraloard of Assess!ent A##eals-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 6/15

 /he oard held on une " 19KK that the said !achines are real #ro#ert %ithin the !eaning of 4es- Bk $ B! and8 of the Real Pro#ert /a+ Code" PD I6I" and that the Ci(il Code denitions of real and #ersonal #ro#ert in ArticlesI1 and I16 are not a##licable in this case-

#SS$%.O0 the #ieces of gas station e,ui#!ent and !achiner #er!anentl aE+ed b Calte+ to its gas station and#a(e!ent should be subect to realt ta+-

&%'Sec;2 of the Assessme-. 'a* #ro(ides that the realt ta+ is due o- rea roer.y, -c3- a-3, b3-s,mac+-ery, a-3 o.+er mroveme-.s not s#ecicall e+e!#ted in 4ec- thereof-Sec;: of the Rea Proer.y "a Co3e #ro(ides the follo%ing denitions:

k ;!#ro(e!ents – a (aluable addition !ade to #ro#ert or an a!elioration in its condition!ore than!ere re#airs or re#lace!ent of %asteintended to enhance its (alue" beaut" or utilit

! )achiner – !achines" !echanical contri(ances" instru!ents" a##liances" and a##aratus attached tothe real estateincludes the #hsical facilities a(ailable for #roductioninstallation and a##urtenant ser(icefacilities-

 /he subect !achines and e,ui#!ent are ta+able i!#ro(e!ent and !achiner %ithin the !eaning of theAssess!ent >a% and the Real Pro#ert /a+ Code" because the sa!e are necessar to the o#eration of the gasstation and ha(e been attached3aE+ed3e!bedded #er!anentl to the gas station site-

#mroveme-.s o- a-3 are commo-y .ae3 as rea.y eve- .+o+ .+ey m+. be co-s3ere3erso-a.y; &;t is a fa!iliar #heno!enon to see things classied as real #ro#ert for #ur#oses of ta+ation %hich on

general #rinci#le !ight be considered #ersonal #ro#ert' B4tandard Oil Co-" (s ara!illo" II P@;> 67- /his case is also easil distinguishable fro! oard of Assess!ent A##eals (s- )anila =lectric Co-" B119 Phil- H8%here )eralcoLs steel to%ers %ere e+e!#ted fro! ta+ation- /he steel to%ers %ere considered #ersonalt becausethe %ere attached to s,uare !etal fra!es b !eans of bolts and could be !o(ed fro! #lace to #lace %henunscre%ed and dis!antled-

0or are Calte+Ls gas station e,ui#!ent and !achiner the sa!e as the tools and e,ui#!ent in the re#air sho# of abus co!#an %hich %ere held to be #ersonal #ro#ert not subect to realt ta+ B)indanao us Co- (s- Cit Assessor"116 Phil- 71-

)he Central :oard o Assessment Appeals did not commit a grave abuse o discretion in upholding the City  Assessor;s imposition o the realty ta# on Calte#;s gas station and equipment,Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 1982" Ca.e vs Ce-.ra Boar3 o/ Assessme-.Aeas" '@0466" May 1982" May :1" movabe roer.y" erso-a roer.y" rea roer.y" Rea Proer.y "a" rea.y .a F 'eave arey

M-3a-ao Bs Coma-y vs C.y AssessorPosted on  -e 24, 201:

M-3a-ao Bs Coma-y vs C.y Assessor116 P&#' 01GR No; '@17870Se.ember 29, 1962!AC"S

 /he Cit Assessor of Cagaan de Oro Cit assessed a realt ta+ on se(eral e,ui#!ent and !achineries of )indanaous Co- /hese e,ui#!ent %ere #laced on %ooden or ce!ent #latfor!s and can be !o(ed around in the busco!#an*s re#air sho#- /he bus co!#an a##ealed the assess!ent to the oard of /a+ A##eals on the ground thatthe sa!e are not realt- /he oard of /a+ A##eals of the Cit" ho%e(er" sustained the cit assessor- /hus" the busco!#an a##ealed to the Court of /a+ A##eals" %hich like%ise sustained the cit assessor-&%'Ar.; 41 of the 0CC classies the follo%ing as i!!o(able #ro#ert:

+++

B )achiner" rece#tacles" instru!ents or i!#le!ents intended b the o%ner #f the tene!ent for anindustr or %orks %hich !a be carried on in a building or on a #iece of land" and %hich tend directl to!eet the needs of the said industr or %orks

0ote that the sti#ulation e+#ressl states that the e,ui#!ent are #laced on %ooden or ce!ent #latfor!s- /he canbe !o(ed around and about in #etitionerLs re#air sho#-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 7/15

efore !o(ables !a be dee!ed i!!obiliNed in conte!#lation of Article I1 B" it is necessar that the !ustrst be &essential' and &#rinci#al' ele!ents of an industr or %orks without which such industry or wors would beunable to unction or carry on the industrial purpose or which it was established,;n this case" the tools and e,ui#!ent in ,uestion are b their nature" not essential and #rinci#al ele!ents of )indanao us Co-*s business of trans#orting #assengers and cargoes b !otor trucks- /he are !erel incidentalsQ ac,uired as !o(ables and used onl for e+#edienc to facilitate and3or i!#ro(e its ser(ice- =(en %ithout suchtools and e,ui#!ents" its business !a be carried on-

Aside fro! the ele!ent of essentialit the Art-I1 B also re,uires that the industr or %orks be carried on in abuilding or on a #iece of land- A sa%!ill %ould also be installed in a building on land !ore or less #er!anentl" andthe sa%ing is conducted in the land3building-@o%e(er" in the instant case" the e,ui#!ents in ,uestion are destined onl to re#air or ser(ice the trans#ortationbusiness" %hich is not carried on in a building or #er!anentl on a #iece of land" as de!anded b la%- /hee,ui#!ents in ,uestion are not absolutel essential to the #etitionerLs trans#ortation business" and #etitionerLsbusiness is not carried on in a building" tene!ent or on a s#ecied land-

As such" the e,ui#!ents in ,uestion are not dee!ed real #ro#ert because the trans#ortation business is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece o land+ as de!anded b la%-)he transportation business could be carried on without the repair or service shop+ i its rolling equipment isrepaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another,

 /herefore" the i!#osition of realt ta+ on the !aintenance and re#air e,ui#!ent %as not #ro#er because the#ro#erties in(ol(ed %ere not real #ro#ert under Article I1 B-

Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 116 P&#' 01" 1962"Ar.ce 41" Caaya- 3e OroC.y" Case es." C.y Assesor" Cv Co3e" eme-." mmovabe roer.y"'@17870" mac+-es; roer.y" M-3a-ao BsComa-y" movabe roer.y" erso-a roer.y" Proer.y Case es." Proer.y cases" rea roer.y" rea.y .a" Se.ember1962" Se.ember 29 F 'eave a rey

'e- Dee vs S.ro- Mac+-ery CoPosted on  -e 22, 201:

'e- Dee vs S.ro- Mac+-ery Co;:7 P&#' 644GR No; '@1168!ebrary 1, 1918!AC"S

 /he Compania Agricola Filipina BCA5 #urchased fro! $trong Machinery Co, rice–cleaning !achines %hich CA5installed in one of its buildings-As securit for the #urchase #rice" CA5 e+ecuted a chattel mortgage on the machines and the building on %hich

the had been installed-.hen C=5 failed to #a" the registered !ortgage %as foreclosed and $trong Machinery Co, #urchased the building- /his sale %as annotated in the Chattel )ortgage Registr->ater" $trong Machinery Co, also #urchased fro! Agricola the lot on %hich the building %as constructed- /he sale%asnLt registered in the Registr of Pro#ert </ $trong Machinery Co, took #ossession of the building and the lot-@o%e(er" the sa!e building had been #re(iousl #urchased b >eung ee" a creditor of  Agricola" at a sheri2Ls saledes#ite his kno%ledge of the #rior sale in fa(or of $trong Machinery Co,- /he sale to >eung ee %as registered in theRegistr of Pro#ert-#SS$%S1- .as the #ro#ertLs nature changed b its registration in the Chattel )ortgage RegistrSH- .ho has a better right to the #ro#ertS&%'1- .here the interest con(eed is of the nature of real #ro#ert" the #lacing of the docu!ent on record in theChattel )ortgage Registr is a futile act-C+a..e Mor.ae refers to the mor.ae o/ Perso-a Proer.y eec.e3 - .+e ma--er a-3 /ormrescrbe3 - .+e s.a..e;4ince the building is R%A' PROP%R"D " its sale as annotated in the Chattel )ortgage Registr cannot  be gi(en thelegal e2ect of registration in the Registr of Real Pro#ert-)he mere act that the parties decided to deal with the building as personal property does not change its character as real property,0either the original registr in the chattel !ortgage registr" nor the annotation in said registr of the sale of the!ortgaged #ro#ert had an e2ect on the building-

1- Ar.; 147: of the 0e% Ci(il Code #ro(ides the follo%ing rules on deter!ining o%nershi# of #ro#ert %hichhas been sold to di2erent (endees:

;f Personal Pro#ert – grant o%nershi# to #erson %ho <st possessed it in good aith

;f Real Pro#ert – grant o%nershi# to #erson %ho <st recorded it in the "egistry 

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 8/15

;f no entr – grant to #erson %ho <st possessed in good aith;f no #roof of #ossession – grant to #erson %ho presents oldest title

4ince >eung ee #urchased the #ro#ert des#ite kno%ledge of the #re(ious #urchase of the sa!e b $trongMachinery Co," it follo%s that >eung ee %as not  a #urchaser in good faith-&One %ho #urchases real estate %ith kno%ledge of a defect or lack of title in his (endor cannot clai! that he hasac,uired title thereto in good faith as against the true o%ner of the land or of an interest therein- /he sa!e rule!ust be a##lied to one %ho has kno%ledge of facts %hich should ha(e #ut hi! u#on such in,uir and in(estigationas !ight be necessar to ac,uaint hi! %ith the defects in the title of his (endor-'

Goo3 !a.+" or the %ant of it" is a Es.a.e or co-3.o- o/ m-3 *+c+ ca- o-y be F3e3 o/ by ac.a or/a-ce3 .o5e-s or s-s; B.ilder (s- Gil!an" Jt-" 7I" 7 Cf- Cardenas >u!ber Co- (s- 4hadel" H >a- Ann-"H79I?H798 Pinkerton ros- Co- (s- ro!le" 119)ich-" 8" 17" 1K-&o-es.y O/ #-.e-.o- is the +o-es. a*/ -.e-. co-s...- oo3 /a.+- ;t i!#lies a/ree3om /rom5-o*e3e a-3 crcms.a-ces *+c+ o+. .o . a erso- o- -ry- As such+ proo o such nowledge overcomes the presumption o good aith,5ollo%ing the rule on #ossessor rights #ro(ided in Ar.; 147:" $trong Machinery Co, has a better right to the#ro#ert since it rst #urchased the sa!e ahead of >eung ee" the latter not being a #urchaser in good faith-Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y " Proer.y  F /agged 1918" :7 P&#' 644" Ar.ce 147:" b3-" Casees." c+a..e mor.ae" C+a..e Mor.ae Res.ry" Cv Co3e" !ebrary 1" oo3 /a.+" GR '@1168" +o-es.y o/ -.e-.o-" 'e- Dee" Ne* Cv Co3e" o3es. ..es" erso-a roer.y"ossessor - oo3 /a.+" ossessoryr+.s" Proer.y" Proer.y Case es." Proer.y cases" roer.y r+." rc+aser - oo3 /a.+" rea roer.y" rea roer.yreos.ra.o-" res.ra.o-" S.ro- Mac+-ery Co F 'eave a rey

Boar3 o/ Assessme-. Aeas HC v M%RA'COPosted on  -e 22, 201:Boar3 o/ Assessme-. Aeas, H;C; vs Meraco10 SCRA 68GR No; '@1::4

 a-ary :1, 1964!AC"SOn 0o(e!ber 1" 19" the TC Cit Assessor declared the )=RA>COLs steel to%ers subect to real #ro#ert ta+-After the denial of )=RA>COLs #etition to cancel these declarations" an a##eal %as taken to the TC oard of Assess!ent A##eals" %hich re,uired res#ondent to #a P11"61-86 as real #ro#ert ta+ on the said steel to%ers forthe ears 19H to 196-)=RA>CO #aid the a!ount under #rotest" and led a #etition for re(ie% in the Court of /a+ A##eals BC/A %hichrendered a decision ordering the cancellation of the said ta+ declarations and the refunding to )=RA>CO b the TCCit /reasurer of P11"61-86-#SS$%Are the steel to%ers or #oles of the )=RA>CO considered real or #ersonal #ro#ertiesS&%'Poe – long" co!#arati(el slender" usuall clindrical #iece of %ood" ti!ber" obect of !etal or the like an u#right

standard to the to# of %hich so!ething is aE+ed or b %hich so!ething is su##orted-)=RA>COLs steel su##orts consists of a fra!e%ork of I steel bars3stri#s %hich are bound b steel cross?ar!s ato# of %hich are cross?ar!s su##orting high?(oltage trans!ission %ires" and their sole function is to su##ort3carr such%ires- /he e+e!#tion granted to #oles as ,uoted fro! Par. ##, Par;9 of res#ondentLs franchise is deter!ined b theuse to %hich such #oles are dedicated-;t is e(ident that the %ord &#oles'" as used in Ac. No; 484 and incor#orated in the #etitionerLs franchise" should notbe gi(en a restricti(e and narro% inter#retation" as to defeat the (er obect for %hich the franchise %as granted-

 /he #oles should be taken and understood as #art of )=RA>COLs electric #o%er sste! for the con(eance of electric current to its consu!ers-Ar.; 41 of the 0CC classies the follo%ing as i!!o(able #ro#ert:

B1 >ands" buildings" roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil

+++

B =(erthing attached to an i!!o(able in a +ed !anner" in such a %a that it cannot be se#aratedtherefro! %ithout breaking the !aterial or deterioration of the obect

+++

B )achiner" rece#tacles" instru!ents or i!#le!ents intended b the o%ner #f the tene!ent for anindustr ot %orks %hich !a be carried on in a building or on a #iece of land" and %hich tend directl to!eet the needs of the said industr or %orks

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 9/15

5ollo%ing these classications" M="A%C!;s steel towers should be considered personal property - ;t should be notedthat the steel to%ers:

Ba are neither buildings or constructions adhered to the soil

Bb are not attached to an i!!o(able in a +ed !anner – the can be se#arated %ithout breaking the!aterial or deterioration of the obect

U are not !achineries" rece#tacles or instru!ents" and e(en if the are" the are not intended for anindustr to be carried on in the #re!ises-

Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 10 SCRA 68" 1964" Ac. No 484" Ar.; 41" Ar.ce41" Boar3 o/ Assessme-. Aeas HC v M%RA'CO" b3-s" case 3es.s"co-s.rc.o-s" mmovabe roer.y"  a-ary1964"  a-ary :1" '@1::4" a-3s" mac+-ery" M%RA'CO"movabe roer.y" Ne* Cv Co3e" erso-a roer.y" oes" Proercases" Proer.y case 3es.s"Heo- C.y" rea roer.y" rea vs erso-a roer.y" s.ee oes" s.ee .o*ers F 'eave a rey

Pas.or Ao v CAPosted on  -e 21, 201:

Pas.or ; Ao vs CA, &o-; Mo-.aIo Or., "+e Prov-ca S+er= o/ Srao, a-3 Grace Par5 %--eer-, #-c;GR No; '@17898Oc.ober :1, 1962!AC"S

Ago bought sa%!ill !achineries and e,ui#!ents fro! Grace Park =ngineer Do!ineering" ;nc- BGP=D A chattel!ortgage %as e+ecuted o(er the said #ro#erties to secure the un#aid balance of PH"777" %hich Ago agreed to #ain install!ent basis-ecause Ago defaulted in his #a!ent" GP=D instituted e+tra?udicial foreclosure #roceedings of the !ortgage- /oenoin the foreclosure" Ago instituted a s#ecial ci(il case in the C5; of Agusan- /he #arties then arri(ed at aco!#ro!ise agree!ent-@o%e(er" a ear later" Ago still defaulted in his #a!ent- GP=D led a !otion for e+ecution %ith the lo%er court"%hich %as e+ecuted on 4e#te!ber H" 199-Acting u#on the %rit of e+ecution" the Pro(incial 4heri2 of 4urigao le(ied u#on and ordered the sale of the sa%!ill!achineries and e,ui#!ent-<#on being ad(ised that the #ublic auction sale %as set on Dece!ber I" 199" Ago led a #etition for certiorari and#rohibition on Dece!ber 1" 199 %ith the CA- @e alleged that his counsel onl recei(ed the co# of the udg!enton 4e#te!ber H" 199 – t%o das after the e+ecution of the %rit that the order of sale of the le(ied #ro#erties %asin gra(e abuse of discretion and in e+cess of urisdiction and that the 4heri2 acted illegall b le(ing the#ro#erties and atte!#ting to sell the! %ithout #rior #ublication of the notice of sale thereof in so!e ne%s#a#er of general circulation as re,uired b the Rules of Court-

 /he CA issued a %rit of #reli!inar inunction against the 4heri2" but it turned out that the #ro#erties %ere alreadsold on Dece!ber I" 199- /he CA ordered the 4heri2 to sus#end the issuance of the Certicate of 4ale until thedecision of the case- /he CA then rendered its decision on 0o(e!ber 9" 1967-#SS$%S1- ;s the fact that #etitioner %as #resent in o#en court as the udg!ent %as rendered" suEcient notice of the said

 udg!entSH- .as the 4heri2Ls sale of the !achineries and e,ui#!ent at a #ublic auction (alid des#ite lack of #ublication of the notice of saleS&%'1 0o- /he !ere #ronounce!ent of the udg!ent in o#en court does not constitute a rendition of udg!ent-)he fling o the 'udge;s signed decision with the Cler o Court constitutes the rendition o a valid and binding 'udgment -Sec; 1, Re : of the Res o/ Cor. re,uire that all udg!ents be rendered - *r.-, erso-ay a-33rec.y reare3 by .+e F3e, a-3 s-e3 by +m, s.a.- ceary a-3 3s.-c.y .+e /ac.s a-3 .+e a*o- *+c+ . s base3, >e3 *.+ .+e cer5 o/ .+e cor.;Prior to the ling" the decision could still be subect to a!end!ent and change and !a not constitute the real

 udg!ent of the court-

)oreo(er" the hearing of the udg!ent in o#en court does not constitute (alid notice thereof- 1o 'udgment can benotifed to the parties unless it has previously been rendered,Sec;7 o/ Re 27 e+#ressl re,uires that >-a or3ers or F3me-.s be serve3 e.+er erso-ay or byres.ere3 ma-

 /he signed udg!ent not ha(ing been ser(ed u#on the #etitioner" said udg!ent could not be e2ecti(e u#on hi!%ho had not recei(ed it- As a conse,uence" the issuance of the %rit of e+ecution is null and (oid" ha(ing beenissued before #etitioner %as ser(ed a co# of the decision" #ersonall or b registered !ail-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 10/15

H /he subect sa%!ill !achineries and e,ui#!ent beca!e real estate #ro#erties in accordance %ith the #ro(isionof Ar.; 41 () of the NCC:

AR/- I1 – /he follo%ing are i!!o(able #ro#ert:

++++

B )achiner" rece#tacles" instru!ents or i!#le!ents intended b the o%ner of the tene!ent for anindustr or %orks %hich !a be carried on in a building or on a #iece of land" and %hich tend directl to!eet the needs of the said industr or %orks

 /he installation of the sa%!ill !achineries in the building of Gold Pacic 4a%!ill" ;nc-" for use in the sa%ing of logscarried on in the said building con(erted the! into "eal Properties as the beca!e a necessar $ #er!anent #artof the building or real estate on %hich the sa!e %as constructed-And if the are udiciall sold on e+ecution %ithout the necessar ad(ertise!ent of sale b #ublication in ane%s#a#er as re,uired in Sec;16 o/ Re :9 of the Res o/ Cor." the sale !ade b the sheri2 %ould be null and(oid-Posted in Case es.s" Movabe Proer.y vs Rea Proer.y" Proer.y  F /agged 1962" Ar.ce 41" CA"c+a..e mor.ae" CvCo3e" /orecosre" Grace Par5 %--eer om-eer- -c" mmovabe roer.y" '@17898" mac+-ery" Mo-.aIo Or." movaberoer.y" -o.ce" -o.ce o/ F3me-." Oc.ober 1962" Oc.ober :1" oe- cor." Pas.or Ao" Pas.or Ao v CA" Pas.or ;Ao" Prov-ca S+er= o/ Srao" rea roer.y"Res o/ Cor." Sec1 Re :" Sec.o- 7 Re 27" Srao F 'eave a rey

avao Sa*m Co; vs Cas.oPosted on  -e 21, 201:avao Sa*m Co; vs Cas.o61 P&#' 709GR No; '@40411As. 7, 19:A tenant #laced !achines for use in a sa%!ill on the landlordLs land-

!AC"SDa(ao 4a%!ill Co-" o#erated a sa%!ill- /he land u#on %hich the business %as conducted %as leased fro! another#erson- On the land" Da(ao 4a%!ill erected a building %hich housed the !achiner it used- 4o!e of the !achines%ere !ounted and #laced on foundations of ce!ent- ;n the contract of lease" Da(o 4a%!ill agreed to turn o(er freeof charge all i!#ro(e!ents and buildings erected b it on the #re!ises %ith the e+ce#tion of !achineries" %hichshall re!ain %ith the Da(ao 4a%!ill- ;n an action brought b the Da(ao >ight and Po%er Co-" udg!ent %asrendered against Da(ao 4a%!ill- A %rit of e+ecution %as issued and the !achineries #laced on the sa%!ill %erele(ied u#on as #ersonalt b the sheri2- Da(ao >ight and Po%er Co-" #roceeded to #urchase the !achiner and

other #ro#erties auctioned b the sheri2-#SS$%Are the !achineries real or #ersonal #ro#ertS&%'Ar.;41 of the 0e% Ci(il Code #ro(ides that Real Pro#ert consists of:

B1 >ands" buildings" roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil

+++

B )achiner" rece#tacles" instru!ents or i!#le!ents intended b the o%ner #f the tene!ent for anindustr ot %orks %hich !a be carried on in a building or on a #iece of land" and %hich tend directl to!eet the needs of the said industr or %orks

A##ellant should ha(e registered its #rotest before or at the ti!e of the sale of the #ro#ert- .hile not conclusi(e"the a##ellantLs characteriNation of the #ro#ert as chattels is indicati(e of intention and i!#resses u#on the#ro#ert the character deter!ined b the #arties-

)achiner is naturall !o(able- @o%e(er" !achiner !a be i!!obiliNed b destination or #ur#ose under thefollo%ing conditions:

Ge-era Re: /he !achiner onl beco!es i!!obiliNed if #laced in a #lant b the o%ner of the #ro#ert or #lant-;!!obiliNation cannot be !ade b a tenant" a usufructuar" or an #erson ha(ing onl a te!#orar right-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 11/15

%ce.o-: /he tenant" usufructuar" or te!#orar #ossessor acted as agent of the o%ner of the #re!ises or heintended to #er!anentl gi(e a%a the #ro#ert in fa(or of the o%ner-

As a ruleGo!eN ( CA GR KKKK7 BDece!ber 1" 1988

Posted on  y 2, 201:

Posted in % @ Pbca.o-, Oos.o-, a-3 e/a." 'a-3, ".es a-3 ee3s" ? @ Or-a Res.ra.o- F'eave a rey

Rebc v NasPosted on  y 2:, 201:

GR 199 a-ary 2:, 2007!AC"S#SS$%S&%'Posted in % @ Pbca.o-, Oos.o-, a-3 e/a." 'a-3, ".es a-3 ee3s" ? @ Or-a Res.ra.o-  F/agged 199" GR1996"  a-ary 2007 F 'eave a rey

Or.as Co;, 'm.e3 Par.-ers+ vs; !ea. Ba-5 a-3 "rs.

Co; '@24670 (ecember 14, 1979)Posted on Oc.ober 2:, 2012

G;R; No; '@24670

94 SCRA ::ecember 14, 1979!ac.sJPlainti2 is engaged in real estate business" de(elo#ing and selling lots to the #ublic" #articularl the @igh%a @ills4ubdi(ision along =D4A" )andaluong" RiNal-On )arch I" 19H" #lainti2 entered into se#arate agree!ents of sale %ith Augusto Padilla Angeles and 0ati(idadAngeles o(er H #arcels of land B>ots 0os- and 6" lock 1" of the @igh%a @ills 4ubdi(ision- On ul 19" 196H the(endees transferred their rights and interests o(er the said lots to =!!a Cha(eN- /he #lainti2 e+ecuted thecorres#onding deeds of sale in fa(or of =!!a Cha(eN u#on #a!ent of the #urchase #rice- oth the agree!entsand the deeds of sale thereafter e+ecuted contained the sti#ulation that the #arcels of land subect of the deeds of sale &shall be used b the uer e+clusi(el for residential #ur#oses'- /he restrictions %ere later annotated in the

 /ransfer Certicates of /itles co(ering the said lots issued in the na!e of Cha(eN-=(entuall" defendant?a##ellee ac,uired >ots 0o- and 6 %ith the building restrictions also annotated in theircorres#onding /C/s- >ot 0o- %as bought directl fro! Cha(eN &free fro! all liens and encu!brances' %hile >ot0o-6 %as ac,uired through a &Deed of =+change' fro! Re#ublic 5lour )ills-Plainti2 clai!s that the restrictions %ere i!#osed as #art of its general building sche!e designed for thebeautication and de(elo#!ent of the @igh%a @ills 4ubdi(ision %hich for!s #art of its big landed estate %hereco!!ercial and industrial sites are also designated or established-Defendant !aintains that the area along the %estern #art of =D4A fro! 4ha% oule(ard to the Pasig Ri(er" hasbeen declared a co!!ercial and industrial None" #er Resolution0o-HK of the )unici#al Council of )andaluong- ;talleges that #lainti2 &co!#letel sold and transferred to third #ersons all lots in said subdi(ision facing =D4A' andthe subect lots thereunder %ere ac,uired b it &onl on une H" 196H or !ore than H ears after the area +++ hadbeen declared a co!!ercial and industrial None'-On or about )a " 196" defendant?a##ellee began construction of a building de(oted to banking #ur#oses but%hich it clai!s could also be used e+clusi(el for residential #ur#oses- /he follo%ing da" the #lainti2 de!anded in%riting that the construction of the co!!ercial building be sto##ed but the defendant refused to co!#lcontending that the construction %as in accordance %ith the Noning regulations-#sses:1- .hether Resolution 0o- HK s?1967 is a (alid e+ercise of #olice #o%er-H- .hether the said Resolution can nullif or su#ersede the contractual obligations assu!ed b defendant?a##ellee-&e3:1- es- /he (alidit of Resolution 0o-HK %as ne(er ,uestioned- ;n fact" it %as i!#liedl ad!itted in the sti#ulation of facts" %hen #lainti2?a##ellant did not dis#ute the sa!e- @a(ing ad!itted the (alidit of the subect resolution"

#lainti2?a##ellant cannot no% change its #osition on a##eal-@o%e(er" assu!ing that it is not et too late to ,uestion the (alidit of the said resolution" the #osture isunsustainable-)unici#alities are e!#o%ered b la% through 4ec- of RA HH6I B>ocal Autono! Act to to ado#t Noning andsubdi(ision ordinances or regulations for the !unici#alit- /he la% does not restrict the e+ercise of the #o%erthrough an ordinance- /herefore" granting that Resolution 0o-HK is not an ordinance" it certainl is a regulator!easure %ithin the intend!ent of the %ord &regulation' under the #ro(ision-An e+a!ination of 4ec-1H of the sa!e la% re(eals that the i!#lied #o%er of a !unici#alit should be &liberallconstrued in its fa(or' and that &an fair and reasonable doubt as to the e+istence of the #o%er should beinter#reted in fa(or of the local go(ern!ent and it shall be #resu!ed to e+ist-' An e+ce#tion to the general %elfare#o%ers delegated to !unici#alities is %hen the e+ercise of its #o%ers %ill conict %ith (ested rights arising fro!contracts- /he e+ce#tion does not a##l to the case at bar-

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 12/15

H- .hile non?i!#air!ent of contacts is constitutionall guaranteed" the rule is not absolute since it has to bereconciled %ith the legiti!ate e+ercise of #olice #o%er- ;n(ariabl described as the &!ost essential" insistent andilli!itable of #o%ers' and the &greatest and !ost #o%erful attribute of go(ern!ent'" the e+ercise of #olice #o%er!a be udiciall in,uired into and corrected onl if it is ca#ricious" %hi!sical" unust or unreasonable" there ha(ingbeen a denial of due #rocess or a (iolation of an other a##licable constitutional guarantee-

Resolution 0o-HK" 4?1967 declaring the %estern #art of =D4A fro! 4ha% oule(ard to the Pasig Ri(er as an

industrial or co!!ercial None %as #assed b the )unici#al Council of )andaluong in the e+ercise of #olice #o%erto safeguard3#ro!ote the health" safet" #eace" good order and general %elfare of the #eo#le in the localit- udicialnotice !a be taken of the conditions #re(ailing in the area" es#eciall %here >ots 0os- and 6 are located- =D4Asu##orts an endless strea! of traEc and the resulting acti(it" noise and #ollution %hich are hardl conduci(e tothe health" safet or %elfare of the residents in its route- /he )unici#alit of )andaluong %as reasonabl ustiedunder the circu!stances in #assing the subect resolution-

 /hus" the state" in order to #ro!ote the general %elfare" !a interfere %ith #ersonal libert" %ith #ro#ert" and %ithbusiness and occu#ations- Persons !a be subected to all kinds of restraint and burdens" in order to secure thegeneral co!fort" health and #ros#erit of the state" and to this funda!ental ai! of the Go(ern!ent" the rights of the indi(idual are subordinated-

Posted in Case es.s" Co-s...o-a 'a*" 'a-3, ".es a-3 ee3s" 'oca Poce Po*er" Pbc Corora.o-  F /agged 1979" 94SCRA ::" As.o Pa3a" Ba-5-" Case es." Cer.>ca.e o/ ".e"Co-s...o-a" co-s.rc.o-" co-.rac.aoba.o-s" ecember 14" ee3 o/ %c+a-e" 3ee3s o/ sae"es." %SA" %mma C+ave" G;R; No; '@24670" e-era*e/are" Ge-era e/are Case" e-era *e/are o*ers" &+*ay &s Sb3vso-" 'GC" 'm.e3 Par.-ers+ vs; !ea. Ba-5 a-3 "rs. Co;" 'oca A.o-omy Ac." Ma-3ayo-" No; '@24670" -o-@marme-. o/ co-.rac.s" o" Or.as" Or.as Co;"Or.as

vs !ea." Or.as vs; !ea. Ba-5 a-3 "rs. Co;" Pas Rver" oce o*er" PbCor" Pbc Corora.o-" R;A; No; 2644" RA2644" rea.o-" Reso.o- No; 27" Reso.o- No;27 s@1960" Ra" Se3; 16" S+a* Boevar3" "C"" "ra-s/er Cer.>ca.e o/ ".e" o-- or3-a-ces" o-- rea.o-s F 'eave a rey

M-ca.y o/ ParaKae vs ?;M; Rea.y Corora.o- GR

127820 (y 20, 1998)Posted on Oc.ober 4, 2012

G;R; No; 127820292 SCRA 676

 y 20, 1998

!ac.s:Pursuant to 4angguniang aan Resolution 0o- 9?9" 4eries of 199" the )unici#alit of ParaVa,ue led aCo!#laint for e+#ro#riation against J-)- Realt Cor#oration" o(er t%o #arcels of land- Allegedl" the co!#laint %asled &for the #ur#ose of alle(iating the li(ing conditions of the under#ri(ileged b #ro(iding ho!es for the ho!elessthrough a socialiNed housing #roect-' Petitioner" #ursuant to its 4angguniang aan Resolution 0o- KK" 4eries of 

1991" #re(iousl !ade an o2er to enter into a negotiated sale of the #ro#ert %ith #ri(ate res#ondent" %hich thelatter did not acce#t- /he R/C authoriNed #etitioner to take #ossession of the subect #ro#ert u#on its de#osit %iththe clerk of court of an a!ount e,ui(alent to 1W of its fair !arket (alue- Pri(ate Res#ondent led an ans%eralleging that Ba the co!#laint failed to state a cause of action because it %as led #ursuant to a resolution and notto an ordinance as re,uired b RA K167 and Bb the cause of action" if an" %as barred b a #rior udg!ent or res

 udicata- On #ri(ate res#ondent*s !otion" its ans%er %as treated as a !otion to dis!iss- /he trial court dis!issedthe co!#laint

#sse:.hether a >ocal Go(ern!ent <nit can e+ercise its #o%er of e!inent do!ain #ursuant to a resolution b its la%?!aking bod-

&e3:<nder 4ection 19" of the #resent >ocal Go(ern!ent Code BRA K167" it is stated as the rst re,uisite that >G<s cane+ercise its #o%er of e!inent do!ain if there is an ordinance enacted b its legislati(e bod enabling the !unici#alchief e+ecuti(e- A resolution is not an ordinance" the for!er is onl an o#inion of a la%?!aking bod" the latter is ala%- /he case cited b Petitioner in(ol(es P K" %hich %as the #re(ious >ocal Go(ern!ent Code" %hich isob(iousl no longer in e2ect- RA K167 #re(ails o(er the ;!#le!enting Rules" the for!er being the la% itself and thelatter onl an ad!inistrati(e rule %hich cannot a!end the for!er-" therefore" the !achiner should be considered as Personal Pro#ert" since it %as not #laced on the land b theo%ner of the said land-

%as ?a, e. a v N'RC a-3 Broa3 S.ree. "aor- GR

No; '@70:8 As. 2:, 199:Posted on As. :, 201:

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 13/15

%as ?a, e. a v N'RC a-3 Broa3 S.ree. "aor-

As. 2:, 199:

'@70:8

&%':

Re 1, Sec.o- 2(c), Boo5 ### of the #meme-.- Res o/ 'abor Co3e" #ro(ides the =le!ents of 

)e!bershi# of a )anagerial 4ta2:

B1 that his #ri!ar dut consists of the #erfor!ance of %orkdirectl related to !anage!ent #olicies

BH that he custo!aril and regularl e+ercises discretion and inde#endent udg!ent in the #erfor!ance of his

functions

B that he regularl and directl assists in the !anage!ent of theestablish!ent and

BI that he does not de(ote his t%ent #er cent of his ti!e to %ork other than those described abo(e-

Jilluga*s #ri!ar %ork or dut is to cut or #re#are #atterns for ite!s to be se%n-

 /he dut to la do%n3i!#le!ent an of the !anage!ent #olicies lies in their !anager and assistant !anager-

.hile he distributes and assigns %ork to e!#loees in the absence of the !anager $ the assistant !anager" the

dut is onl occasional- Also" Jilluga does not #artici#ate in #olic?!aking- Rather" his #osition*s functions in(ol(e

e+ecution of a##ro(ed and established #olicies-

;n &5ranklin aker Co!#an of the Phili##ines (- /raano'" employees who do not participate in policy.maing but 

are given ready policies to e#ecute and standard practices to observe are not managerial employees -Jilluga is denitel a rank and le e!#loee hired to #erfor! the %ork of the cutter and not hired to #erfor!

su#er(isor or !anagerial functions- /he fact that he is unifor!l #aid b the !onth does not e+clude hi! fro! the

benets of +o3ay ay- @e should also be #aid in addition to the 1th !onth #a" his o(erti!e #a" holida

#a" #re!iu! #a for holida and rest da" and ser(ice incenti(e lea(e #a-

5or abandon!ent to constitute a (alid cause for dis!issal" there !ust be a deliberate and unustied refusal of the

e!#loee to resu!e his e!#lo!ent- )ere absence is not suEcient" it !ust be acco!#anied b o(ert acts

unerringl #ointing to the factthat the e!#loee si!#l does not %ant to %ork an!ore- 8 At an rate" dis!issal of 

an e!#loee due to his#rolonged absence %ithout lea(e b reason of illness dul established b the #resentation of 

a !edical certicate is not ustied- 9 ;n the case at bar" ho%e(er" considering that #etitioner Jilluga absented

hi!self for four BI das%ithout lea(e and %ithout sub!itting a !edical certicate to su##ort his clai! of illness"

the i!#osition of a sanctionis ustied" but surel" not dis!issal" in the light of the fact that this is #etitioner*s rst

o2ense- ;n lieu ofreinstate!ent" #etitioner Jilluga should be #aid se#aration #a %here reinstate!ent can no longer

be e2ected in(ie% of the long #assage of ti!e or because of the realities of the situation- 17 ut #etitioner should

not be grantedback%ages in addition to reinstate!ent as the sa!e is not ust and e,uitable under the

circu!stances consideringthat he %as not entirel free fro! bla!e-

As to the other ele(en #etitioners" there is no clear sho%ing that the %ere dis!issed because the

circu!stancessurrounding their dis!issal %ere not e(en alleged- @o%e(er" %e disagree %ith the nding of 

res#ondentCo!!ission that the ele(en #etitioners are inde#endent contractors-

5or an e!#loer?e!#loee relationshi# to e+ist" the follo%ing ele!ents are generall considered: &B1 the

selectionand engage!ent of the e!#loee and engage!ent of the e!#loee

BH the #a!ent of %ages B the #o%er of dis!issal and BI the #o%er to control the e!#loee*s conduct-'

 /he !ere fact that #etitioners %ere #aid on a #iece?rate basis is no argu!entthat herein #etitioners %ere not

e!#loees- /he ter! &%age' has been broadl dened in Article 9K of the >aborCode as re!uneration or earnings"

ca#able of being e+#ressed in ter!s of !one %hether +ed or ascertained on ati!e" task" #iece or co!!ission

basis- - - -' /he facts of this case indicate that #a!ent b the #iece is ust a !ethod of co!#ensation and does

notdene the essence of the

relation- 1 /he #etitioners %ere allo%ed to #erfor! their %ork at ho!e does not like%ise i!#l absence of 

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 14/15

controland su#er(ision- /he control test calls !erel for the e+istence of a right to control the !anner of doing the

%ork" not the actual e+ercise of the right-

;n deter!ining %hether the relationshi# is that of e!#loer and e!#loee or one of an inde#endent

contractor"'each case !ust be deter!ined on its o%n facts and all the features of the relationshi# are to be

considered-' 1Considering that #etitioners %ho are either se%ers" re#air!en or ironer" ha(e been in the e!#lo of #ri(ateres#ondent as earl as 19KH or at the latest in 19K6" faithfull rendering ser(ices %hich are desirable or

necessarfor the business of #ri(ate res#ondent" and obser(ing !anage!ent*s a##ro(ed standards set for their

res#ecti(elines of %ork as %ell as the custo!ers* s#ecications" #etitioners should be considered e!#loees" not

inde#endentcontractors-

;nde#endent contractors are those %ho e+ercise inde#endent e!#lo!ent" contracting to do a #iece of 

%orkaccording to their o%n !ethods and %ithout being subected to control of their e!#loer e+ce#t as to the

result oftheir %ork- the nature of the di2erent #hases of %ork in a tailoring sho# %here the custo!ers*

s#ecications !ustbe follo%ed to the letter" it is inconcei(able that the %orkers therein %ould not be subected

to control-befollo%ed to the letter" it is inconcei(able that the %orkers therein %ould not be subected to control-

;n Rosario rothers" ;nc- (- O#le" 16 this Court ruled that tailors and si!ilar %orkers hired in the tailoring

de#art!ent"although #aid %eekl %ages on #iece %ork basis" are e!#loees not inde#endent contractors-

Accordingl" asregular e!#loees" #aid on a #iece?rate basis" #etitioners are not entitled to o(erti!e #a" holida

#a" #re!iu! #afor holida3rest da and ser(ice incenti(e lea(e #a- /heir clai! for se#aration #a should also be

dened for lack ofe(idence that the %ere in fact dis!issed b #ri(ate res#ondent- /he should be #aid" ho%e(er"

their 1th !onth#a under P-D- 81" since the are e!#loees not inde#endent contractors-

BorFa, r; v; COM%'%C GR 1::49 (Se.ember :, 1998)Posted on Oc.ober 4, 2012

G;R; No; 1::49L 29 SCRA 17

Se.ember :, 1998

!ac.s:

 ose /- Ca#co" r- %as elected Jice )aor of Pateros on anuar 18" 1988 for a ter! ending une 7" 199H- On

4e#te!ber H" 1989" he beca!e )aor u#on the death of the incu!bent" Cesar ora- On )a 11" 199H" he ran and

%as elected )aor for a ter! of three ears %hich ended on une 7" 199- On )a 8" 199" he %as re?elected)aor for another ter! of three ears ending ul 7" 1998- On )arch HK" 1998" Ca#co led a certicate of 

candidac for )aor of Pateros relati(e to the )a 11" 1998 elections- Petitioner ena!in ora" r-" %ho %as also a

candidate for )aor" sought Ca#co*s dis,ualication on the theor that the latter %ould alread ha(e ser(ed as

!aor for three consecuti(e ter!s b une 7" 1998 and %ould thereafter be ineligible to ser(e for another ter!

after that- /he CO)=>=C ruled in fa(or of Ca#co saing that &;n both the Constitution and the >ocal Go(ern!ent

Code" the three?ter! li!itation refers to the ter! of oEce for %hich the local oEcial %as elected- ;t !ade no

reference to succession to an oEce to %hich he %as not elected-' Ca#co %on in the elections against ora-

#sse:

.hether a (ice?!aor %ho succeeds to the oEce of !aor b o#eration of la% and ser(es the re!ainder of the

ter! is considered to ha(e ser(ed a ter! in that oEce for the #ur#ose of the three?ter! li!it-

&e3:

 /he Court ruled in fa(or of Ca#co- /he ter! ser(ed !ust therefore be one for %hich the oEcial concerned %as

elected- ;f he is not ser(ing a ter! for %hich he %as elected because he is si!#l continuing the ser(ice of the

oEcial he succeeds" such oEcial cannot be considered to ha(e full ser(ed the ter! not%ithstanding his (oluntar

renunciation of oEce #rior to its e+#iration- /here is a di2erence bet%een the case of a (ice?!aor and that of a

!e!ber of the @ouse of Re#resentati(es %ho succeeds another %ho dies" resigns" beco!es inca#acitated" or is

re!o(ed fro! oEce- /he (ice?!aor succeeds to the !aorshi# b o#eration of la%- On the other hand" the

Re#resentati(e is elected to ll the (acanc- ;n a real sense" therefore" such re#resentati(e ser(es a ter! for %hich

he %as elected- /o consider Ca#co to ha(e ser(ed the rst ter! in full B%hen he succeeded the !aorshi# u#on

7/17/2019 Digested Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digested-case-568f31ac4ee21 15/15

de!ise of Cesar ora and therefore ineligible to run a third ti!e for reelection %ould be not onl to falsif realit

but also to undul restrict the right of the #eo#le to choose %ho! the %ish to go(ern the!- @ence" the #etition

%as dis!issed-