Hans Case Digest Repo
Hans Case Digest Repo — Study Smart, Pass the Bar
Home/Property/Chapter I — Classification of Property/People's Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co.

People's Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co.

a. Preliminary Provisions (Art. 414) — After-acquired property; immobilization by destination
Subject Home
16px
←Previous: Prudential Bank v. PanisPrevious case
Primary source ↗Next: Board of Assessment Appeals, Q.C. v. MeralcoNext case→

On this page

  • Gist
  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Ruling
  • Ratio
  • Doctrine
  • Provisions
Primary source ↗

Title

People's Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co.

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967

The case involves a foreclosure of two real estate mortgages (REM) where the mortgagor (DALCO) subsequently acquired additional machineries and equipment for use in its lumber concession. The respondent argued that these "after-acquired properties" were personal property and thus not subject to the REM because the mortgage was not registered in accordance with the Chattel Mortgage Law. The Supreme Court affirmed that the machineries were immobilized by destination under Article 415(5) of the Civil Code, as they were essential to the industry carried on in the premises and the parties had expressly agreed to treat them as real property.

Core Doctrine

The central doctrine is that under Article 415(5), machineries and equipment intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry, are immovable property; consequently, an "after-acquired property" clause in a real estate mortgage validly attaches to such items without need for separate chattel mortgage registration.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17500)

Case DigestChapter I — Classification of Property

People's Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co.

G.R. No. L-17500 · May 16, 1967 · Supreme Court

a. Preliminary Provisions (Art. 414) — After-acquired property; immobilization by destination

Gist

The case involves a foreclosure of two real estate mortgages (REM) where the mortgagor (DALCO) subsequently acquired additional machineries and equipment for use in its lumber concession. The respondent argued that these "after-acquired properties" were personal property and thus not subject to the REM because the mortgage was not registered in accordance with the Chattel Mortgage Law. The Supreme Court affirmed that the machineries were immobilized by destination under Article 415(5) of the Civil Code, as they were essential to the industry carried on in the premises and the parties had expressly agreed to treat them as real property.

Core Doctrine

The central doctrine is that under Article 415(5), machineries and equipment intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry, are immovable property; consequently, an "after-acquired property" clause in a real estate mortgage validly attaches to such items without need for separate chattel mortgage registration.

Facts

  • On July 13, 1950, Dahican Lumber Co. (DALCO) executed a deed of mortgage in favor of People’s Bank and Trust Co. (Petitioner) to secure loans used to develop a lumber concession. On the same date, DALCO executed a second mortgage in favor of Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila (Atlantic) to secure the unpaid balance of the sale price of the concession.
  • Both mortgage deeds contained a provision extending the mortgage lien§ to "after-acquired properties," stipulating that all buildings, machineries, fixtures, and equipment subsequently acquired or used in connection with the premises "shall immediately be and become subject to the lien" of the mortgages. Both mortgages were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte.
  • Following the execution of the mortgages, DALCO purchased various machineries and equipment, worth approximately P2.5 million, from suppliers including Connell Bros. Co. and Dahican American Lumber Co. (DAMCO). DALCO failed to pay the loans upon maturity, and the Petitioner granted several extensions.
  • On December 16, 1952, DALCO’s Board of Directors passed a resolution agreeing to rescind the sales of the newly acquired equipment to Connell and DAMCO in an attempt to return the items to the suppliers and exclude them from the mortgage lien. Petitioner demanded the cancellation of these rescission agreements, but the respondents refused.
  • On February 12, 1953, the Petitioner and Atlantic commenced foreclosure proceedings. The trial court eventually ordered the sale of all machineries and equipment, realizing P175,000, which was deposited in court pending the determination of whether the "after-acquired properties" were subject to the mortgage.
  • The trial court ruled that the machineries were real property under Article 415(5)§. DALCO, DAMCO, and Connell Bros. appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the "after-acquired" machineries and equipment used in the lumber concession were immobilized by destination under Article 415§(5) of the Civil Code, thereby becoming subject to the real estate mortgage without need for chattel mortgage registration.
Secondary issues. (1) Whether the "after-acquired property" clause in the mortgage is valid. (2) Whether the respondents DAMCO and Connell Bros. had superior rights as unpaid sellers.

Ruling

Main issue. YES — the after-acquired machinery and equipment were immobilized by destination and so passed under the real estate mortgages without any second registration. Article 415(5) makes real property of "machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works," and these were bought for the lumber concession in addition to or in replacement of the machinery already there. "In Law, therefore, they must be deemed to have been immobilized, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved herein — which were registered as such — did not have to be registered a second time as chattel mortgages in order to bind the 'after acquired properties' and affect third parties."
Secondary issues. (1) YES — the after-acquired property clause is valid and binding. The parties "had treated the 'after acquired properties' as real properties by expressly and unequivocally agreeing that they shall automatically become subject to the lien" of the real estate mortgages, and are held in estoppel to say otherwise; Article 2127 independently extends a mortgage to the improvements on the mortgaged premises. This is what distinguishes Davao Saw Mill, where the parties had treated the machinery as personalty by executing chattel mortgages over it. (2) NO — DAMCO and Connell Bros. have no right superior to the mortgagee; the goods were immobilized on installation and the registered real estate mortgages bind them.
"Modified as above indicated, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. With costs.". (Note: The modification pertained only to the measure of damages for receivership, affirming the property characterization and foreclosure).

Ratio

  • The Court’s reasoning is anchored on Article 415§(5), which defines real property as including "machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works".
  • The Court ruled that it is undisputed that the "after-acquired properties" were purchased for use in the development of the lumber concession and were in addition to, or in replacement of, those existing at the time of the mortgage.
  • Thus, "In Law, therefore, they must be deemed to have been immobilized, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved herein — which were registered as such — did not have to be registered a second time as chattel mortgages in order to bind the 'after acquired properties' and affect third parties".
  • Regarding the Davao Sawmill citation, the Court distinguished it by noting that in Davao Sawmill, the parties treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel mortgages.
  • In the present case, the parties "had treated the 'after acquired properties' as real properties by expressly and unequivocally agreeing that they shall automatically become subject to the lien of the real estate mortgages executed by them".
  • This consensus impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties, and they are now held in estoppel to question it.
  • Furthermore, under Article 2127§, a mortgage extends to "natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received".
  • Since the machineries became part of the improvements of the mortgaged premises through immobilization, the REM lien attached to them by operation of law and contract.

Doctrine

  1. Immobilization by Destination§: Machineries and equipment essential to an industry conducted on land or in a building are real property under Art. 415§(5) when placed by the owner (or one acting as his agent) for the needs of the industry.
  2. After-Acquired Property Clause: A stipulation in a mortgage deed extending the lien to properties to be subsequently acquired by the mortgagor is "neither unlawful nor immoral, its obvious purpose being to maintain, to the extent allowed by circumstances, the original value of the properties given as security".
  3. Registration Requirement: Real property by destination (immobilized machinery) is governed by the laws on immovables. Registration in the real property registry is sufficient to bind third parties, and separate chattel mortgage registration is not required.
  4. Estoppel in Property Classification: When parties expressly and unequivocally agree in a contract to treat specific property as real property for the purpose of a mortgage, they are estopped from subsequently claiming it is personal property to avoid the lien.
The Court noted that while DAMCO and Connell Bros. claimed to be unpaid sellers, the evidence showed they were stockholders and agents who merely financed purchases, not the actual suppliers. As financiers, they could not claim a superior lien over the mortgage.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT. The case involves a foreclosure of two real estate mortgages (REM) where the mortgagor (DALCO) subsequently acquired additional machineries and equipment for use in its lumber concession. The respondent argued that these "after-acquired properties" were personal property and thus not subject to the REM because the mortgage was not registered in accordance with the Chattel Mortgage Law. The Supreme Court affirmed that the machineries were immobilized by destination under Article 415§(5) of the Civil Code, as they were essential to the industry carried on in the premises and the parties had expressly agreed to treat them as real property. The central doctrine is that under Article 415§(5), machineries and equipment intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry, are immovable property; consequently, an "after-acquired property" clause in a real estate mortgage validly attaches to such items without need for separate chattel mortgage registration.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

  • On July 13, 1950, Dahican Lumber Co. (DALCO) executed a deed of mortgage in favor of People’s Bank and Trust Co. (Petitioner) to secure loans used to develop a lumber concession.
  • On the same date, DALCO executed a second mortgage in favor of Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. of Manila (Atlantic) to secure the unpaid balance of the sale price of the concession.
  • Both mortgage deeds contained a provision extending the mortgage lien to "after-acquired properties," stipulating that all buildings, machineries, fixtures, and equipment subsequently acquired or used in connection with the premises "shall immediately be and become subject to the lien" of the mortgages.
  • Both mortgages were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte.
  • Following the execution of the mortgages, DALCO purchased various machineries and equipment, worth approximately P2.5 million, from suppliers including Connell Bros.
  • Co. and Dahican American Lumber Co. (DAMCO).
  • DALCO failed to pay the loans upon maturity, and the Petitioner granted several extensions.
  • On December 16, 1952, DALCO’s Board of Directors passed a resolution agreeing to rescind the sales of the newly acquired equipment to Connell and DAMCO in an attempt to return the items to the suppliers and exclude them from the mortgage lien.
  • Petitioner demanded the cancellation of these rescission agreements, but the respondents refused.
  • On February 12, 1953, the Petitioner and Atlantic commenced foreclosure proceedings.
  • The trial court eventually ordered the sale of all machineries and equipment, realizing P175,000, which was deposited in court pending the determination of whether the "after-acquired properties" were subject to the mortgage.
  • The trial court ruled that the machineries were real property under Article 415§(5).
  • DALCO, DAMCO, and Connell Bros. appealed to the Supreme Court.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Bank)

The Bank argued that the "after-acquired properties" were covered by the REM because they were immobilized by destination under Article 415§(5). They contended that since the items were placed in the real properties mortgaged and used for the lumber industry, they became part of the immovable under Article 2127§, and the "after-acquired property" clause was valid and binding.

B. Respondent/Defense (DALCO, DAMCO, Connell)

Respondents argued the mortgages were void as to the after-acquired properties because they were not registered in the Chattel Mortgage Registry. They invoked the ruling in Davao Sawmill Co. vs. Castillo, claiming the properties did not become immobilized because DALCO did not own the land of the concession. They further claimed to be "unpaid sellers" with a superior lien.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether the "after-acquired" machineries and equipment used in the lumber concession were immobilized by destination under Article 415§(5) of the Civil Code, thereby becoming subject to the real estate mortgage without need for chattel mortgage registration.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

(1) Whether the "after-acquired property" clause in the mortgage is valid. (2) Whether the respondents DAMCO and Connell Bros. had superior rights as unpaid sellers.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

YES — the after-acquired machinery and equipment were immobilized by destination and so passed under the real estate mortgages without any second registration. Article 415(5) makes real property of "machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works," and these were bought for the lumber concession in addition to or in replacement of the machinery already there. "In Law, therefore, they must be deemed to have been immobilized, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved herein — which were registered as such — did not have to be registered a second time as chattel mortgages in order to bind the 'after acquired properties' and affect third parties."

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

(1) YES — the after-acquired property clause is valid and binding. The parties "had treated the 'after acquired properties' as real properties by expressly and unequivocally agreeing that they shall automatically become subject to the lien" of the real estate mortgages, and are held in estoppel to say otherwise; Article 2127 independently extends a mortgage to the improvements on the mortgaged premises. This is what distinguishes Davao Saw Mill, where the parties had treated the machinery as personalty by executing chattel mortgages over it. (2) NO — DAMCO and Connell Bros. have no right superior to the mortgagee; the goods were immobilized on installation and the registered real estate mortgages bind them.
"Modified as above indicated, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects. With costs.". (Note: The modification pertained only to the measure of damages for receivership, affirming the property characterization and foreclosure).

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

  • The Court’s reasoning is anchored on Article 415§(5), which defines real property as including "machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works".
  • The Court ruled that it is undisputed that the "after-acquired properties" were purchased for use in the development of the lumber concession and were in addition to, or in replacement of, those existing at the time of the mortgage.
  • Thus, "In Law, therefore, they must be deemed to have been immobilized, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved herein — which were registered as such — did not have to be registered a second time as chattel mortgages in order to bind the 'after acquired properties' and affect third parties".
  • Regarding the Davao Sawmill citation, the Court distinguished it by noting that in Davao Sawmill, the parties treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel mortgages.
  • In the present case, the parties "had treated the 'after acquired properties' as real properties by expressly and unequivocally agreeing that they shall automatically become subject to the lien of the real estate mortgages executed by them".
  • This consensus impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties, and they are now held in estoppel to question it.
  • Furthermore, under Article 2127§, a mortgage extends to "natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received".
  • Since the machineries became part of the improvements of the mortgaged premises through immobilization, the REM lien attached to them by operation of law and contract.

B. Doctrines/Rules

  1. Immobilization by Destination: Machineries and equipment essential to an industry conducted on land or in a building are real property under Art. 415§(5) when placed by the owner (or one acting as his agent) for the needs of the industry.
  2. After-Acquired Property Clause: A stipulation in a mortgage deed extending the lien to properties to be subsequently acquired by the mortgagor is "neither unlawful nor immoral, its obvious purpose being to maintain, to the extent allowed by circumstances, the original value of the properties given as security".
  3. Registration Requirement: Real property by destination (immobilized machinery) is governed by the laws on immovables. Registration in the real property registry is sufficient to bind third parties, and separate chattel mortgage registration is not required.
  4. Estoppel in Property Classification: When parties expressly and unequivocally agree in a contract to treat specific property as real property for the purpose of a mortgage, they are estopped from subsequently claiming it is personal property to avoid the lien.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

  • The Court noted that while DAMCO and Connell Bros. claimed to be unpaid sellers, the evidence showed they were stockholders and agents who merely financed purchases, not the actual suppliers.
  • As financiers, they could not claim a superior lien over the mortgage.

D. Topic Integration

  • The relationship is DIRECT.
  • This case is the definitive authority on how the intent of the parties, coupled with the functional necessity of machinery to an industry, creates "immovable property by destination" under Article 415§(5).
  • It clarifies the intersection between contract law (estoppel/after-acquired clauses) and property law (immobilization), confirming that such items are governed by the rules on real property.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD (Unanimous decision).

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 415, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title I (Classification of Property), Chapter 1 (Immovable Property)

The following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;

(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;

(3) 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;

(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;

(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included;

(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;

(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;

(9) 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;

(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property. (334a)

Why it is cited here

Paragraph (5) is the one that decides this case, and it is the most conceptually interesting entry in the article because the thing it immobilises is movable by nature.

"Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works."

Three requirements, and each is worth isolating.

Placed by the owner of the tenement. A lessee's machinery is not immobilised, because the paragraph speaks of the owner. This is immobilisation by destination, and only the person who owns the land can destine anything to it.

Intended for an industry carried on there. The purpose must be the tenement's industry, not the owner's convenience.

Tending directly to meet the needs of that industry. Machinery incidental to the business is not enough; it must serve the industry directly.

When all three are met the machinery becomes immovable, which is why after-acquired equipment installed on a mortgaged tenement is swept into the real estate mortgage. It is not that the mortgage reaches out to catch it — the equipment has become part of the immovable the mortgage already covers.

Civil Code

Article 2127, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title XVI (Pledge, Mortgage and Antichresis), Chapter 3 (Mortgage)

The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received when the obligation becomes due, and to the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use, with the declarations, amplifications and limitations established by law, whether the estate remains in the possession of the mortgagor, or it passes into the hands of a third person. (1877)

Why it is cited here

The mortgage-law counterpart that completes the reasoning.

Article 2127 extends a mortgage to the natural accessions, improvements, growing fruits and rents not yet received, and to "the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use."

Read with Article 415(5), the two articles work in sequence and it is worth keeping the order straight. Article 415(5) answers a question of classification — the machinery has become immovable, part of the tenement. Article 2127 then answers a question of coverage — a mortgage on the tenement carries its improvements and accessions.

The after-acquired property clause in the deed is therefore doing less work than it appears to. Even without it, machinery destined to the tenement's industry by its owner becomes part of what was mortgaged.

Civil Code

Article 414, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title I (Classification of Property)

All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:

(1) Immovable or real property; or

(2) Movable or personal property. (333)

Why it is cited here

The binary that makes immobilisation by destination consequential: property is either immovable or movable, with nothing in between.

That is why paragraph (5) matters commercially. The same sawmill equipment is either part of an immovable — reachable by a real estate mortgage, transferred with the land, taxable as realty — or a chattel needing its own chattel mortgage and its own registration. Article 415 decides which, and the answer changes the entire security architecture of a transaction.

Study digest — refer to the full text of the decision for accuracy. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/may1967/gr_l-17500_1967.html

Cited laws & provisions

Article 415, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title I (Classification of Property), Chapter 1 (Immovable Property)

The following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;

(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;

(3) 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;

(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;

(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included;

(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;

(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;

(9) 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;

(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property. (334a)

Why it is cited here

Paragraph (5) is the one that decides this case, and it is the most conceptually interesting entry in the article because the thing it immobilises is movable by nature.

"Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works."

Three requirements, and each is worth isolating.

Placed by the owner of the tenement. A lessee's machinery is not immobilised, because the paragraph speaks of the owner. This is immobilisation by destination, and only the person who owns the land can destine anything to it.

Intended for an industry carried on there. The purpose must be the tenement's industry, not the owner's convenience.

Tending directly to meet the needs of that industry. Machinery incidental to the business is not enough; it must serve the industry directly.

When all three are met the machinery becomes immovable, which is why after-acquired equipment installed on a mortgaged tenement is swept into the real estate mortgage. It is not that the mortgage reaches out to catch it — the equipment has become part of the immovable the mortgage already covers.

Full entry below ↓

Article 2127, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title XVI (Pledge, Mortgage and Antichresis), Chapter 3 (Mortgage)

The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received when the obligation becomes due, and to the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use, with the declarations, amplifications and limitations established by law, whether the estate remains in the possession of the mortgagor, or it passes into the hands of a third person. (1877)

Why it is cited here

The mortgage-law counterpart that completes the reasoning.

Article 2127 extends a mortgage to the natural accessions, improvements, growing fruits and rents not yet received, and to "the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use."

Read with Article 415(5), the two articles work in sequence and it is worth keeping the order straight. Article 415(5) answers a question of classification — the machinery has become immovable, part of the tenement. Article 2127 then answers a question of coverage — a mortgage on the tenement carries its improvements and accessions.

The after-acquired property clause in the deed is therefore doing less work than it appears to. Even without it, machinery destined to the tenement's industry by its owner becomes part of what was mortgaged.

Full entry below ↓

Article 414, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title I (Classification of Property)

All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:

(1) Immovable or real property; or

(2) Movable or personal property. (333)

Why it is cited here

The binary that makes immobilisation by destination consequential: property is either immovable or movable, with nothing in between.

That is why paragraph (5) matters commercially. The same sawmill equipment is either part of an immovable — reachable by a real estate mortgage, transferred with the land, taxable as realty — or a chattel needing its own chattel mortgage and its own registration. Article 415 decides which, and the answer changes the entire security architecture of a transaction.

Full entry below ↓