You are on page 1of 6

The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city assessor. 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.R.MINDANAO BUS CO. Movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must first be "essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established. not essential and principal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the equipment in question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real estate. by their nature. RULING: No. No. . its business may he be continue to function. be deemed real property. so the company filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the assessment. The CTA held that the Company was liable to the payment of the realty tax on its maintenance and repair equipment. Without costs. WHEREFORE. a repair shop. which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece of land. The City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed said maintenance and repair equipment. the company filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court." The tools and equipments in question in this instant case are. The equipments in question are destined only to repair or service the transportation business. the machineries assessed by the respondent are not real properties. According to paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil which provides machinery. Hence. the machineries are place on wooden and cement platforms. blacksmith and carpentry shops. They are merely incidentals-acquired as movables and used only for expediency to facilitate and/or improve its service. ISSUE: Whether or not the machineries assessed by the respondent are real properties. The company is also owner to the land where it maintains and operates a garage. CITY ASSESSOR G. Said equipments may not. The company appealed the assessment to the Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that the same are not realty. Even without such tools and equipments. as demanded by the law. L-17870 FACTS: Mindanao Bus Company is a public utility engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks in Mindanao has its main offices in Cagayan de Oro. receptacles. and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works are immovable properties. vs. therefore.

Inc.. Encarnacion. 103 PHILS 401 FACTS: Petitioner. Hodges (48 Of. "A true building (not merely superimposed on the soil) is immovable or real property.. this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Inc. On appeal taken by respondent. of New York vs. In due course. but immovable property. which absolved said respondent from the complaint.” ISSUE: Whether or not the house is personal property. which levied upon a house. apart from recovering damages. Rivera refused to surrender it. upon the ground that. built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him. credit or other personal property not capable of manual delivery. although the writ of attachment in favor of Evangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila prior to the sale in favor of respondent. Neither this principle.. and that the latter is now the true owner of said property It appears that a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to respondent. When Evangelista sought to take possession of the house. Santos Evangelista. instituted Civil Case in the Court of First Instance of Manila for a sum of money. 464). However. 630. 5374). whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary or lessee. nor said view. 644. De Jesus vs. Evangelista instituted the present action against respondent and Ricardo Rivera. although in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. with respect to the ..EVANGELISTA vs. much less a debt. the CFI Manila rendered judgment for Evangelista. it is "ostensibly a personal property. It is based. Much less is it in point where there has been no contract whatsoever. Gaz. Jaramillo. Standard Oil Co. Gaz. 72 Phil. is applicable to strangers to said contract. 2664. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO. who bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued in said case. in Laddera vs. This is the doctrine of our Supreme Court in Leung Yee vs. RULING: No. the said house is not a personal property. Strong Machinery Company. jointly and severally until said delivery. had been rendered in favor respondent herein. upon the principle of estoppel.. It is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for purposes of said contract (Luna vs... 37 Phil. this view is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista. by filing copy of said writ and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila. sentencing Rivera and Alto Surety to deliver the house in question to Evangelista and to pay him. partly. plus costs. Juan Dee Co. for the purpose of establishing his title over said house. the attachment having been levied as if the house in question were immovable property. 44 Phil. upon the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety & Insurance Co. * 48 Of. securing possession thereof. As explicitly held. as the highest bidder at an auction sale held in compliance with a writ of execution issued in Civil Case of the same court for the sum of money. he obtained a writ of attachment.. Evangelista did not acquire thereby a preferential lien. as plaintif therein. After due trial.

It is so ordered. Inc. . a gathering as it were in advance. was not subject to redemption. of the Civil Code that growing sugar cane is considered personal property and not real property and is subject to attachment and sale. the sugar cane in question is considered personal property. Under the facts of the record notwithstanding the provisions of par.status of the house involved as in the case at bar. Although standing crops and the fruits of the trees not gathered and trees before they are cut down are considered as part of the land to which they are attached. RULING: Yes. attached and sold to the defendant Emiliano J. ISSUE: Whether or not the sugar cane is to be classified as personal property. VALDEZ 50 PHILS 512 FACTS: Plaintif. the interest thereon and any assessments or taxes which he may have paid thereon after the purchase. as such. The Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant holding that the sugar cane in question was personal property and. SIBAL vs. Chattel Mortgage law provides that all personal property shall be subject to mortgage. deputy sherif of the Province of Tarlac. At common law all annual crops which are raised by yearly manurance and labor and especially owe their existence to cultivation may be levied as personal property. sugar cane is a personal property. Valdez refused to accept the money and to return the sugar cane to the plaintif. Valdez the sugar cane planted by the plaintif and his tenants on seven parcels of land and that within 1 year from the date of the attachment and sale the plaintif ordered to redeem said sugar cane and tendered to Valdez the amount sufficient to cover the price paid by the latter. 2 of Article 334. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. the Alto Surety & Insurance Co. Our jurisprudence recognizes the possible mobilization of the growing crop. and the interest corresponding thereto. and another one shall be entered affirming that of Court of Instance of Manila with the costs of the instance against respondent. with costs. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed. The existence of a right on the growing crop is mobilization by anticipation. So ordered. by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. rendering the crop movable and the right acquired therein. Hence. WHEREFORE. among others. Sibal alleged that the defendant Vitaliano Mamawal. WHEREFORE. However.

Petitioner City Assessor of Quezon City declared the aforesaid steel towers for real property tax under Tax declaration after denying respondent's petition to cancel these declarations. Moreover. WHEREFORE. and (3) the City Treasurer of Quezon City is held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. 10 SCRA 69 FACTS: Philippine Commission enacted Act No. is not in point because in the instant case the steel towers were regarded as poles and under its franchise Meralco’s poles are exempt from taxation. Respondent paid the amount under protest. and filed a petition for review in the CTA which rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of the said tax declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund to the respondent the motion for reconsideration having been denied the instant petition for review was filed. They were removable from their metal frames. the steel towers were not attached to any land or building. the steel tower is not a real property. These are assigned as errors by the petitioner in the brief. the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against petitioners. In upholding the cause of respondents. 484 which authorized the Municipal Board of Manila to grant a franchise to construct. Meralco’s steel towers were held not to be subject to realty tax. which required respondent to pay as real property tax on the said steel towers. . the CTA held that: (1) the steel towers come within the term "poles" which are declared exempt from taxes under part II paragraph 9 of respondent's franchise. RULING: No. (2) the steel towers are personal properties and are not subject to real property tax. ISSUE: Whether or not the steel towers is a real property. MANILA ELECTRIC CO. maintain and operate an electric street railway and electric light. heat and power system in the City of Manila and its suburbs to the person or persons making the most favorable bid.BOARD OF ASSESMENT APPEALS vs. an appeal was taken by respondent to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City.