Burgos Sr. vs.

AFP
Doctrine: The machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under the search warrant.
Facts: Petitioner assails the validity of the 2 search warrants issued by Judge Cruz-Pano of CFI of Rizal. The said warrant searched the office,
printing machines and equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used for printing and publication of We Forum newspaper. Also
the papers, documents and books of Burgos, Sr., the publisher and editor of We Forum newspaper were seized. The said premises were locked
and publications were discontinued. Respondents contend that petitioners should have filed motion to quash the said warrants and petition should
be dismissed on the ground of laches. Furthermore the seized articles have already been used in a prior criminal case and he is already estopped
from challenging the validity of the warrants.
Issue: Whether or not the machineries and equipment seized can be validly subject of a search warrant?
Held: Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "machinery, receptables, 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" are considered immovable property. In Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo 9 where this legal provision was invoked, this Court ruled that
machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed
by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner.
In the case at bar, petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. This being the case,
the machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.