G.R. No.

6295

September 1, 1911

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IGNACIO CARLOS, defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM: FACTS: Ignacio Carlos was charged of the crime of theft. He was found guilty for stealing two thousand two hundred and seventy-three (2,273) kilowatts of electric current of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company. He was sentenced to one year, eight months and twentyone days' presidio correccional, to pay the MERALCO in the sum of P865.26 and to the payment of the costs. Ignacio Carlos then sought for appeal arguing that electricity cannot be stolen.

ISSUE: Whether or not electricity may be stolen.

HELD: Yes. It may be true that electricity is no longer considered by electricians as a fluid. But it is also true that its manifestation and effects, like gas, may be seen and felt. To test if a thing may be stolen, what should be known is if the thing can be owned by one person other than the owner, and not if the thing can be touched. If the thing can be owned, then it may be stolen. Electricity has a value. It is bought and sold like other personal property. It can be separated from a larger quantity and can be transported from place to place. Therefore, electricity may be stolen.

PICOP vs Base Metals

FACTS: In 1987, the Central Mindanao Mining and Development Corporation (CMMI) entered into an Agreement with Banahaw Mining and Development Corporation (Banahaw Mining) whereby the Banahaw Mining agreed to act as Mine Operator for the mining operation of CMMCI in Agusan del Sur. A Mines Temporary Permit was issued accordingly. Since a portion of Banahaw Minings mining claims was located in PICOP Resources Inc.s logging rights in Agusan del Sur, PICOP allowed Banahaw Mining an access or right of way to its mining claims. In 1991, Banahaw Mining converted its mining claims to applications for Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA). While the MPSA were pending, Banahaw Mining assigned its rights and interests over thirty-seven (37) mining claims to Base Metals Mineral Resources Corporation (Base Metals). On March 10, 1997, Base Metals amended Banahaw Minings pending MPSA applications with the Bureau of Mines to substitute itself as applicant and to submit additional documents in support of the application. The amended MPSA applications were published in accordance with the requirements of the Mining Act of 1995. On November 18, 1997, PICOP filed with the Mines Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Caraga Regional Office No. XIII an Adverse Claim and/or Opposition to private respondent Base Metals application. The application was denied on the ground that the area, being a forest or timberland is closed to mining operations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the said area is an area where mining is prohibited by law.

HELD: No. In our laws, there is the so-called policy of multiple land use. This means that is allowed that forests may be used not only for one purpose, but for its best uses. Furthermore, RA 7942 gives a mining contractor the right to enter a timber concession and cut timber therein and the surface owner the right to be paid for the damages done to his property by the mining operation. The same law also expressly allows mining even in forests or timberland subject to existing rights and reservations. Therefore, mining is allowed in forests or in timberlands, but subject to limitations and provisions of the law.

Sunset View Condominium Corporation FACTS: Aguilar-Bernares Realty and Lim Sui Leng are both assignees of a unit in the Sunset View Condominium Project. Their assignors bought their respective units from Tower Builders, Inc. on installment. Consequently, Sunset View Condominium Corporation filed a complaint for collection of assessments levied on the unit before the Court of First Instance, Branch 30, Pasay City. Judge Jose C. Campos Jr., the presiding judge, dismissed the cases reasoning out that the cases should be properly filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission because the private respondents are shareholders of the said condominium corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents are shareholders of Sunset View Condominium Corporation.

HELD: No. The Condominium Act or RA 4726 states that a membership or shareholding in a corporation is only transferred based on the exact nature of interest acquired by a purchaser of a unit as indicated in the duly registered master deed of a condominium corporation. Moreover, the master deed of the Sunset View clearly states that ownership of a stockholding is an essential condition to the ownership of a unit, and that ownership of a unit would depend on the contract entered into by the parties. In this case, their contract specifically provided that ownership is only transferred after full payment of the total purchase price by the buyer. In sum and in this case, it is only when the buyer has paid in full that he becomes an owner of a unit, and being an owner of a unit makes him a shareholder of the condominium corporation. Therefore, private respondents, who have not paid in full, are not owners of their respective units, and, consequently, not shareholders of Sunset View Condominium Corporation. This case should still be heard by CFI-30, Pasay City.