Scribd
Upload
77 views7 pages

Movable Property in Burgos Sr Case

The Supreme Court ruled that office and printing machines used in newspaper operations were movable, not immovable property, and could be seized under a search warrant. While machinery intended for industry on a property can be considered immovable, the petitioners did not claim to own the land or building. As movable property, the machines fell under the scope of items that could be seized according to the Rules of Court.

Uploaded by

Carl Angelo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views7 pages

Movable Property in Burgos Sr Case

The Supreme Court ruled that office and printing machines used in newspaper operations were movable, not immovable property, and could be seized under a search warrant. While machinery intended for industry on a property can be considered immovable, the petitioners did not claim to own the land or building. As movable property, the machines fell under the scope of items that could be seized according to the Rules of Court.

Uploaded by

Carl Angelo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Burgos Sr v Chief of Staff, AFP

G.R. No. 64261, December 26, 1984

“Machinery”

http://rizal.library.ateneo.edu/node/792
ISSUE/S
• Whether or not office and printing
machines and equipment used in the
operations of a newspaper company
are immovable property?
• Whether or not they may be seized
under a search warrant?

https://www.britannica.com/technology/printi
ng-press
RULES
Laws/Cases/Others Rule
Art. 415[5], Civil Machinery…intended by the owner of the tenement for an
Code 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…are immovable property.
Davao Sawmill Co. v Machinery which falls under Article 415[5] is considered
Castillo, G.R. No. immovable only when it was placed by the owner or his
40411, August 7, agent.
1935
Section 2, Rule 126 A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
of the Rules of Court personal property.
ANALYSIS: FACTS

Petitioners filed
an action for
Office and
the return of
printing
Petitioners and Judge Cruz- the seized
machines,
other accused Pano issued 2 articles and to Petitioners
equipment,
were suspected search warrants enjoin the raised several
motor vehicles
of using two to search the respondents arguments to
and other
newspaper premises of from using nullify the
articles, alleged
companies in “Metropolitan these articles as search
to be in
subversive Mail” and “We evidence in the warrants.
possession of
activities Forum” criminal case
petitioner Cruz,
filed against
were seized.
petitioners and
other accused.
ANALYSIS:
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPERTY

“bolted to the
ground”

https://twitter.com/buenacna/status/1045308010241773568?lang=hu
ANALYSIS: ARGUMENTS
Petitioners Respondents
The office and printing machines N/A
and equipment could not be seized
because they are real properties.
Petitioner Cruz did not claim to be N/A
the owner of the land and
building.
CONCLUSION

❖ The subject office and printing machines are movable property,


hence, may be seized under a search warrant.
• While the subject office and printing machines were used directly
in the operations of the newspaper companies, since petitioners
do not allege that they are the owner of the land and building on
which the subject machineries were bolted to, Art. 415[5] of the
Civil Code does not apply. Thus, the subject machinery are
considered movable property.
• Moreover, since the subject machinery are movable, they can be
seized under a search warrant under Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court.

You might also like