Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Yap vs. Tanada

Yap appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to pay money owed for a water pump installed in his home. The appellate court affirmed this decision. Yap then filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that the pump had become immovable property since it was installed in his home. The Supreme Court ruled against Yap, finding that the pump could be removed without being broken or deteriorated, and thus did not meet the legal definition of immovable property.

Uploaded by

Julie Ann
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Yap vs. Tanada

Yap appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to pay money owed for a water pump installed in his home. The appellate court affirmed this decision. Yap then filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that the pump had become immovable property since it was installed in his home. The Supreme Court ruled against Yap, finding that the pump could be removed without being broken or deteriorated, and thus did not meet the legal definition of immovable property.

Uploaded by

Julie Ann
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Yap vs.

Tañada

Facts:

The case began in the City Court of Cebu with the filing by Goulds Pumps International (Phil.),
Inc. (Goulds for brevity) of a complaint against Yap and his wife, seeking recovery of P1,459.30
representing the balance of the price and installation cost of a water pump in the latter's
premises. The City Court ruled in favor of Goulds and ordered Yap to pay the former the sum of
P1,459.30 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum until fully paid.

Yap appealed to the Court of First Instance. The appeal was assigned to the sala of respondent
Judge Tañada. Tañada affirmed the decision of the City Court. A writ of execution was issued.
With this, the Sheriff levied on the water pump in question and scheduled the execution sale. The
said property was sold to Goulds as the highest bidder.

Yap filed his petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the pump installed had become immovable property by its being installed in his
residence.

Held:

The Court ruled on the negative. The Civil Code considers as immovable property, among
others, anything "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." The pump does
not fit this description. It could be, and was in fact separated from Yap's premises without being
broken or suffering deterioration. Obviously the separation or removal of the pump involved
nothing more complicated than the loosening of bolts or dismantling of other fasteners.

You might also like