Property Quiz 1 (Midterms) 2023 - Golosino Flashcards
At the garage of Surigao Bus Company, the management installed platforms, machineries, and equipment needed for the repair of their buses plying the routes from Tandag to Davao City and vice versa. During period of assessment, the City Treasurer together with the personnel from the Assessor’s Office, assessed these platforms, machineries, and equipment as taxable under the category of personal property. The City Mayor opposed and insisted that the tax rate must be for real property.
Who is correct? Why?
Reference: Article 415 Paragraph 5
The City Treasurer and the personnel from the Assessor’s Office are correct.
Under the Civil Code, a transportation business is not carried on in a building or in the compound. Moreover, machineries and equipment must be essential and principal elements in the industry for it to be considered real property.
In the case at bar, the machineries and equipment in question are not essential but merely incidental to the bus company because even without such equipment, its business can still operate.
Therefore, the installed platforms, machineries, and equipment should be considered a personal property.
X is a bird lover. To express his love for birds, he created a beautiful pigeon house at the highest part of his house. Few years lapsed and hundreds of pigeons congregated there. Then one day, Y approached X and offered the latter for a handsome amount of money in exchange of the lovely pigeons. X obliged and they entered into a contract involving a real property. This was opposed by the tax collector, insisting that the contract must have been a contract for a movable property considering the pigeons can freely fly around/
Who is correct? X and Y, or the tax collector? Why?
Reference: Article 415 Paragraph 6
X and Y are correct.
The Civil Code states that pigeon-houses intended to be permanently attached to the land and forming a permanent part of it including the animals are considered real property.
In the present case, the pigeons, even if they can freely fly around, has the intent to return to the pigeon-house and thus should be considered as real property.
Hence, the contract entered by X and Y is correct.
The Municipality of Holbo enacted an ordinance which was duly approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan whereby an old national road which was found to be dangerous and unfit for passage was converted to become a site for a public market. After the conversion, many businessmen entered into concessions with the local government. This was opposed by Mr. Z who contended that the conversion was improper. The Mayor countered that Z is now estopped from attacking the validity of the conversion because it was done through proper legal maneuvers, in fact an ordinance was crafted and was duly approved by the proper authority.
Who is correct, the Mayor or Mr. Z? Why?
Reference: Article 422
Mr. Z is correct.
Under the Civil Code, roads are considered property of public dominion and a conversion of which to a patrimonial property falls under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government and can only be converted by the latter’s action.
In the case at bar, the Municipality of Holbo and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan were the ones who enacted and approved the ordinance, respectively, and not the Congress.
Hence, Mr. Z’s contention that the conversion was improper is correct.
Can we appropriate low tidal flats when for a long time the waters receded? Why?
Reference: Article 420
No, we cannot appropriate low tidal flats when for a long time the waters receded.
Under the law on property, tidal flats are considered property of public dominion and, therefore, such properties cannot be appropriated.
Mr. X owned a mountain resort over a government property which was abandoned for almost 50 years and was long, long time ago being reclassified by the government as patrimonial property. After almost 30 years of peaceful, open, and undisturbed possession of the said property, he was asked by the government authorities to vacate said property. He claimed ownership over it under the zest of prescription.
Was his defense tenable? Why?
Reference: Article 424 Comment 7
No, Mr. X’s defense is untenable.
The Civil Code provides that government properties, even when abandoned, do not prescribe. Moreover, possession of patrimonial property of the government, whether spanning decades, or centuries, cannot ipso facto ripen into ownership.
