YAP VS.

TANADA

FACTS: RATIO:
• Goulds Pumps International, Inc. filed a complaint against • Yap’s argument that the water pump had become
Yap and his wife, seeking recovery of P1,459.30. immovable property by its being installed in his residence
representing the balance price and installation cost of is untenable.
water pump in the latter’s premises. • The Civil Code considers as immovable property among
• When the case was called for trial, counsel for the plaintiff others anything “attached to an immovable property in a
was appeared but none of the defendants came despite fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated
notices having been served upon them. Hence, plaintiff therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of
was allowed to present evidence ex parte and judgment the object”.The pump does not fit in the description. It
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. could be and was in fact separated from Yap’s premises
• Yap appealed to the respondent judge but he did not without being broken or suffering deterioration. Obviously
appear for the pre-trial. Hence, the respondent judge the separation or removal of the pump involved more
declared him in default and rendered judgment ordering complicated than the loosening of bolts or dismantling of
him to pay Goulds the sum equivalent to the balance price, other fasteners.
interest and attorney’s fees.
• Yap then filed for a motion for reconsideration but Tanada
issued an order granting Gould’s motion for the issuance of
writ of execution. The Sheriff levied on the water pump in
question. But in view of the motion for reconsideration
filed by Yap, the suspension for the sale was directed by
Judge Tanada.
• But the copy of the order was not transmitted to the
Sheriff so the later proceeded with the scheduled auction
sale, and the latter delivered a report of its partial
execution.
• Yap contended that the sale was made without the notice
required by Sec.18, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court “notice
by publication in case of execution of sale of real property,
the pump and its accessories being immovable because
attached to the ground with character of permanency.

ISSUE(S)/HELD:
Whether the pump in question is an immovable property
and hence must conform to the requirements set forth in
Sec.18, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on notice and
publication. NO.

Zenaida Resuma Razon

Property