Luis Marcos P. Laurel vs. Hon Zeus C.

Abrogar
GR. No. 155076; January 13, 2009
Justice Ynares -Santiago

FACTS: Accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long
distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a
method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenae,
and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of
the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using
its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in
the said amount.

Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)," on the ground that the
factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft. The trial
court denied the Motion to Quash. Petitioner's special civil action for certiorari was dismissed
by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with this Court.

ISSUES

RULING
DOCTRINE

Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas

GR No. 180110; May 30, 2016

FACTS: Capitol Wireless Inc. (Capwire) is a Philippine corporation that provides international
telecommunications services. Capwire has signed agreements with other local and foreign
telecommunications companies covering an international network of submarine cable systems,
with said agreements providing for co-ownership and other rights among the parties over the
network. Petitioner claims that it is only a co-owner of the so-called "Wet Segment" of the
APCN (Asia Pacific Cable Network System), which is laid in international, rather than
Philippine, waters. Capwire submitted a Sworn Statement of True Value of Real Properties to the
Provincial Treasurer's Office in Batangas City, Batangas Province, on May 15, 2000, for the Wet
Segment of its system. As a result, the respondent Provincial Assessor of Batangas issued and
assessments of Real Property against Capwire and determined that the submarine cable systems
are taxable real property. Capwire contested it on the grounds that said cable system lies outside
of Philippine territory, thus on international waters. As a result, Capwire received a Warrant of
Levy and a Notice of Auction Sale, respectively, from the respondent on February 7, 2003 and
March 4, 2003. As a result of this petition.
ISSUES: Whether or not the submarine communications cables are classified as taxable real
property?
RULING: YES. Submarine or undersea communications cables are akin to electric
transmission lines which are no longer exempted from real property tax and may qualify as
"machinery" subject to real property tax under the Local Government Code.
The Court sees no reason to distinguish between submarine cables used for
communications and aerial or underground wires or lines used for electric transmission, so that
both property do not merit a different treatment in the aspect of real property taxation.
Both electric lines and communications cables, in the strictest sense, are not directly
adhered to the soil but pass through posts, relays or landing stations, but both may be classified
under the term "machinery" as real property under Article 415(5) of the Civil Code for
the simple reason that such pieces of equipment serve the owner's business or tend to meet
the needs of his industry or works that are on real estate. Even objects in or on a body of water
may be classified as such, as "waters" is classified as an immovable property.
Thus, absent any showing from Capwire of any express grant of an exemption for its
lines and cables from real property taxation, then this interpretation applies and Capwire's
submarine cable may be held subject to real property tax.

DOCTRINE

Serg’s Products Incorporated vs. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc.

GR No. 137705; August 22, 2000

FACTS: PCI Leasing filed a complaint for a sum of money with an application for a writ of
replevin. Writ of Replevin was granted directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries
and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses.
Serg's Products Inc. filed a motion for special protective order but the motion was opposed by
PCI Leasing, on the ground that the properties were still personal and therefore still subject to
seizure and a writ of replevin.
Serg's Products Inc. asserted that the properties sought to be seized were immovables. They
argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to innocent third parties.
Appellate court held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only
been leased, not owned, by petitioners.
ISSUES: Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERG’s became real
property by the virtue of immobilization.
RULING: NO. Court held that the machines were placed by petitioners in the factory built on
their own land. Indisputably, they were essential and principal elements of their chocolate-
making industry. Although each of them was movable or personal property on its own, all of
them have become "immobilized by destination" because they are essential and principal
elements in the industry. Court agreed with petitioners that said machines are real, not personal
pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.
However, the Court held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be
considered as personal. After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently stopped from
claiming otherwise. In this case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in
question are to be considered as personal property. Hence, the petitioners are stopped from
denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the
circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. In treating the machines as
personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting parties
are concerned. Third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characterizing
the subject machinery as personal.
DOCTRINE

Manila Electric Company vs. The City Assessor

GR No. 166102; August 5, 2015

FACTS: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the
Decision1 dated May 13, 2004 and Resolution dated November 18, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 67027. The appellate court affirmed the Decision3 dated May 3, 2001 of the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in CBAA Case No. L-20-98, which, in turn,
affirmed with modification the Decision4 dated June 17, 19985 of the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of Lucena City, Quezon Province, as regards Tax Declaration Nos.
019-6500 and 019-7394, ruling that MERALCO is liable for real property tax on its
transformers, electric posts (or poles), transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters,
beginning 1992.
MERALCO failed to persuade the Court of Appeals that the transformers, transmission lines,
insulators, and electric meters mounted on the electric posts of MERALCO were not real
properties. The appellate court invoked the definition of "machinery" under Section 199(o) of the
Local Government Code and then wrote that:
We firmly believe and so hold that the wires, insulators, transformers and electric
meters mounted on the poles of [MERALCO] may nevertheless be considered as
improvements on the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful in
distributing electricity. The said properties are actually, directly and exclusively
used to meet the needs of [MERALCO] in the distribution of electricity.
In addition, "improvements on land are commonly taxed as personalty
phenomenon to see things classed as real property for purposes of taxation which
on general principle might be considered personalrealty even though for some
purposes they might be considered personalty. It is a familiar property."

ISSUES: Whether or not the transformers, electric posts (or poles), transmission lines, insulators,
and electric meters are real properties.
RULING: YES. While the Local Government Code still does not provide for a specific
definition of "real property," Sections 199(o) and 232 of the said Code, respectively, gives an
extensive definition of what constitutes "machinery" and unequivocally subjects such machinery
to real property tax. The Court reiterates that the machinery subject to real property tax under the
Local Government Code "may or may not be attached, permanently or temporarily to the real
property;" and the physical facilities for production, installations, and appurtenant service
facilities, those which are mobile, self-powered or self-propelled, or are not permanently
attached must (a) be actually, directly, and exclusively used to meet the needs of the particular
industry, business, or activity; and (2) by their very nature and purpose, be designed for, or
necessary for manufacturing, mining, logging, commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes.
Article 415, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code declares as immovables or real properties "[l]and,
buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil." The land, buildings, and
roads are immovables by nature "which cannot be moved from place to place," whereas the
constructions adhered to the soil are immovables by incorporation "which are essentially
movables, but are attached to an immovable in such manner as to be an integral part thereof."57
Article 415, paragraph (3) of the Civil Code, referring to everything attached to an immovable in
a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated there from without breaking the
material or deterioration of the object," are likewise immovables by incorporation. In contrast,
the Local Government Code considers as real property machinery which "may or may not be
attached, permanently or temporarily to the real property," and even those which are "mobile."
Meralco v. City Assessor GR No. 166102
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decision1
dated May 13, 2004 and Resolution
dated November 18, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67027. The appellate
court affirmed the Decision3 dated
May 3, 2001 of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in CBAA Case No. L-20-98,
which, in turn, affirmed with
modification the Decision4 dated June 17, 19985 of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals
(LBAA) of Lucena City, Quezon
Province, as regards Tax Declaration Nos. 019-6500 and 019-7394, ruling that MERALCO is
liable for real property tax on its
transformers, electric posts (or poles), transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters,
beginning 1992.
MERALCO failed to persuade the Court of Appeals that the transformers, transmission lines,
insulators, and electric meters
mounted on the electric posts of MERALCO were not real properties. The appellate court
invoked the definition of "machinery"
under Section 199(o) of the Local Government Code and then wrote that:
We firmly believe and so hold that the wires, insulators, transformers and electric meters
mounted on the poles of [MERALCO] may nevertheless be
considered as improvements on the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful in
distributing electricity. The said properties are actually, directly
and exclusively used to meet the needs of [MERALCO] in the distribution of electricity.
In addition, "improvements on land are commonly taxed as realty even though for some purposes
they might be considered personalty. It is a familiar
personalty phenomenon to see things classed as real property for purposes of taxation which on
general principle might be considered personal
property."
Issue: Whether or not the transformers, electric posts (or poles), transmission lines, insulators,
and electric meters are real
properties.
Held: While the Local Government Code still does not provide for a specific definition of "real
property," Sections 199(o) and
232 of the said Code, respectively, gives an extensive definition of what constitutes "machinery"
and unequivocally subjects
such machinery to real property tax. The Court reiterates that the machinery subject to real
property tax under the Local
Government Code "may or may not be attached, permanently or temporarily to the real
property;" and the physical facilities for
production, installations, and appurtenant service facilities, those which are mobile, self-powered
or self-propelled, or are not
permanently attached must (a) be actually, directly, and exclusively used to meet the needs of the
particular industry, business,
or activity; and (2) by their very nature and purpose, be designed for, or necessary for
manufacturing, mining, logging,
commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes.
Article 415, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code declares as immovables or real properties "[l]and,
buildings, roads and constructions
of all kinds adhered to the soil." The land, buildings, and roads are immovables by nature "which
cannot be moved from place to
place," whereas the constructions adhered to the soil are immovables by incorporation "which
are essentially movables, but are
attached to an immovable in such manner as to be an integral part thereof."57 Article 415,
paragraph (3) of the Civil Code,
referring to "[ejverything 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," are likewise immovables by
incorporation. In contrast, the Local
Government Code considers as real property machinery which "may or may not be attached,
permanently or temporarily to the
real property," and even those which are "mobile."
Article 415, paragraph (5) of the Civil Code considers as immovable or real properties
"[machinery, receptacles, 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." The Civil Code, however, does not
define “machinery." The properties under Article 415, paragraph (5) of the Civil Code are
immovable by destination, or "those which are essentially movables, but by the purpose for
which they have been placed in an immovable, partake of the nature of the latter because of the
added utility derived therefrom."58 These properties, including machinery, become immobilized
if the following requisites concur: (a) they are placed in the tenement by the owner of such
tenement; (b) they are destined for use in the industry orwork in the tenement; and (c) they tend
to directly meet the needs of said industry or works.59 The first two requisites are not found
anywhere in the Local Government Code
Furthermore, in Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals,62 the Court
acknowledged that "[It is a familiar phenomenon to see things classed as real property for
purposes of taxation which on general principle might be considered personal property."
Therefore, for determining whether machinery is real property subject to real property tax, the
definition and requirements under the Local Government Code are controlling.

DOCTRINE

Provincial Assessor of Agusan Del Sur vs. Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation Inc.
GR No. 183416; October 5, 2016
FACTS: Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation Inc. (Filipinas) is a private organization engaged in palm
oil plantation. Its plantation is situated in National Development Company (NDC) lands in
Agusan Del Sur. With the plantation, there are also three (3) plantation roads and a number of
residential homes constructed by Filipinas for its employees. After the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was passed, NDC lands were transferred to CARL
beneficiaries who formed themselves as the merged NDC-GuthriePlantations, Inc.- NDC-
Guthrie Estates, Inc. (NGPI-NGEI) Cooperatives. Filipinas entered into a lease contract
agreement with NGPI-NGEI as lessee of the lands where its plantation is operated.
The Provincial-Assessor of Agusan del Sur (Provincial Assessor) assessed Filipinas’
properties found within the plantation area which Filipinas assailed before the Local Board
of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) on the ground that the Provincial Assessor erred in
imposing real property taxes against Filipinas for the roads, bridges, culverts, pipes and canals as
these belonged to the cooperatives.
The LBAA found that roads of any kind, as well as all their improvements,
should not be taxed since these roads were intermittently used by the public. On
appeal, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) affirmed such ruling. The CBAA
denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Provincial Assessor. The Court
of Appeals held that the land owned by NGPI-NGEI, which Filipinas has been leasing, cannot be
subjected to real property tax since these are owned by cooperatives that are tax-exempt.

ISSUES:
RULING
DOCTRINE: The exemption from real property taxes given to cooperative applies regardless of
whether or not the land owned is leased. This exemption benefits the cooperative’s lessee.

Republic vs. Spouses Ildefonso Alejandre and Zenaida Ferrer Alejandre

GR No. 217336; October 17, 2018

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Teofilo C. Villarico vs. Vivencio Sarmiento

GR No. 136438; November 11, 2004

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Kawayan Hills Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. 136438; November 11, 2004

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Republic vs. Spouses Guillermo Alonso and Inocencia Britanico

GR No. 210738, August 14, 2019

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE
 Teofilo Alolino vs. Fortunato Flores
GR No. 198774, April 04, 2016

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Republic vs. Rovency Realty & Amp Development. Corp

GR No. 190817; January 10, 2018

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Gatchalian vs. Flores

GR No. 190817; January 19, 2018

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Hi-Lon Manufacturing vs. COA

GR No. 210669; August 01, 2017

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE
OWNERSHIP CASES

Jessica Lio Martinez vs. Heirs of Remberto F. Lim

GR No. 234655; September 11, 2019

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

German Management & Amp. Services Inc. vs. CA

GR No. 76217; September 14, 1989 (Doctrine of Self Help)

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

National Power Corp. vs. Ibrahim

GR No. 168732; June 29, 2007 (Right to Sub-surface and Airspace)

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Edna Palero – Tan vs. Ciriaco I. Urdaneta Jr.

AM No. P-07-2399; June 18, 2008 (Right to Hidden Treasure)

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

RIGHTS OF ACCESSION
 - General Principles
- Accession Industrial
- Accession Natural

Spouses Julian Belvis vs. Conrado Erola

GR No. 239727; July 24, 2019

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Leviste Management System Inc. vs. Legazpi Towers 200

GR No. 199353; April 4, 2018

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Spouses Maximo Espinoza vs. Spouses Antonio Mayandoc

GR No. 211170, July 3, 2017

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Erlinda Dinglasan Delos Santos vs. Alberto Abejon

GR No. 215820; March 20, 2017

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Josephine P. De Los Reyes vs. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan

GR No. 214587, February 20, 2018
FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Pen Devt. Vs Martinez Leyba

GR No. 211845; August 09, 2017

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Guillermo Salvador vs. Patricia Inc.

GR No. 195834; November 9, 2016

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE

Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp. vs. Heirs of Basilio Llanes

GR No. 194114; March 27, 2019

FACTS
ISSUES
RULING
DOCTRINE