DOCTRINE: The business of providing telecommunication or telephone services is

likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of the Revised
Penal Code.

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS
Petitioner was charged with Theft under Art. 308 of the RPC by stealing and using the
international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting ISR, which is a
method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables,
antennae 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. Petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari was dismissed by the
CA hence the instant petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of Theft under Art. 308 of the RPC.

HELD
Yes, the SC ruled that term “personal property” in the RPC should be interpreted in the
Context of Civil Code provisions. The only requirement for a personal property to be the
object of theft under the penal code is that it be capable of appropriation, to appropriate
means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. As illustrated in the case, appropriation
of forces of nature which are brought under control by science such as electrical energy
can be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such
forces of nature. Petitioner is engaging in ISR or the unauthorized routing of
international long distance calls.

The act of conducting ISR operation by illegally connecting various equipment or

apparatus provided by PLDT telephone system constitutes the acts of subtraction. The
business providing telephone communication or telephone services is likewise personal
property which can be object of theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. Business may be
appropriated under Sec. 2 of Act No. 3752, hence, could be object of theft.
DOCTRINE: 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 Act. 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.

CAPITOL WIRELESS INC. vs. THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATANGAS

G.R. No. 180110, May 30, 2016
PERALTA, J.:

FACTS
Petitioner is a Philippine corporation in the business of providing international
telecommunications services. Capwire has signed agreements with other local and
foreign telecommunications companies covering an international network of submarine
cable systems. Petitioner claims that it is co-owner only of the so-called Wet Segment of
the APCN and alleges that the Wet Segment is laid in international and not Philippine
waters. Capwire submitted a Sworn Statement of True Value of Real Properties at the
respondent’s office. The Provincial Assessor had determined that the submarine cable
systems described in Capwire’s Sworn Statement of True Value of Real Properties are
taxable real property.

ISSUE
Whether or not submarine cables may be subject to real property tax.

HELD
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that submarine or undersea communications cables are
akin to electric transmissions lines which the SC has recently declared in Manila Electric
Company vs. City Assessor as no longer exempted from real property tax and may
qualify as “machinery” subject to real property tax under the Local Government Code.
Both electric lines and communication 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 Art. 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. 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.
DOCTRINE: ART. 415. The following are immovable property
(5) 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;

SERG’S PRODUCT, INC. vs. PCI LEASING AND FINANCE INC.

G.R. No. 137705, August 22, 2000
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS
PCI filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for a sum of money with an application for a writ
of replevin. Respondent Judge issued a writ of replevin directing its sheriff to seize and
deliver machineries and equipment to PCI after 5 days and upon the payment of the
necessary expenses. In the implementation of the said writ, the sheriff proceeded to
petitioner’s factory, seized one machinery with word that he would return for the other.
Petitioners filed a motion for special protective order, invoking the power of the Court to
control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its processes, praying for a
directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of a writ of replevin. 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.

ISSUE
Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERG’s became real
property by virtue of immobilization.

HELD
No, the SC ruled that the machineries that were the subjects of the Writ of Seizure were
placed by petitioners in the factory built on their own land. Indisputably, they were
essential and principal elements of their chocolate-making industry. Hence, 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. 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 estopped from claiming otherwise. In the present case, the Lease
Agreement clearly provides that the machineries in question are to be considered as
personal property.
DOCTRINE: For determining whether machinery is real property subject to real
property tax, the definition and requirements under the Local Government Code are
controlling.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY vs. THE CITY ASSESSOR

G.R. No. 166102 (J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO) (AUGUST 5, 2015)

FACTS
MERALCO, on February 20, 1989, received from the City Assessor of Lucena a copy of
Tax Declaration that electric facilities, classified as capital investment of the company:
a) transformer and electric post; b) transmission line; c) insulator; and d) electric meter,
were subjected to real property tax as of 1985. MERALCO appealed before the LBAA of
Lucena City and claimed that its capital investment consisted only of its substation
facilities and that MERALCO was exempted from payment of real property tax on said
substation facilities. The LBAA rendered a decision finding that under its franchise,
MERALCO was required to pay a tax equal to 5% of its gross earnings whereas the poles,
wires, insulators, transformers and electric meters of MERALCO were considered as real
properties. Six years later, MERALCO again received a letter from the City Treasurer of
Lucena, which they were being assessed for real property delinquency on its
machineries beginning 1990. MERALCO sought recourse from the CA, however it was
rejected.

ISSUE
Whether or not the transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators and
electric meters of MERALCO is subject to real property tax.

HELD
Yes, under the Section 199(0) and 232 of the LGC, it 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.” However, Art. 415(par. 5) of the Civil Code
considers as immovable property 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.” As between the Civil Code, a
general law governing property and property relations, and the LGC, a special law
granting local government units the power to impose real property tax, then the latter
shall prevail. Therefore, for determining whether machinery is real property subject to
real property tax, the definition and requirement under the LGC are controlling.
DOCTRINE: ARTICLE 415. The following are immovable property
(5) 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.

PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF AGUSAN DEL SUR vs. FILIPINAS PALM OIL

PLANTATION, INC.
G.R. No. 183416 (LEONEN, J.) (OCTOBER 05, 2016)

FACTS
Filipinas is a private organization engaged in palm oil plantation with a total land area
of more than 7,000 hectares of NDC lands in Agusan del Sur. Harvested fruits from oil
palm trees are converted into oil through Filipinas’ milling plant in the middle of the
plantation area. After the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was passed, NDC lands
were transferred to CARL beneficiaries who formed themselves as the merged NGPI-
NGEI Cooperatives. Filipinas entered into a lease contract agreement with NGPI-NGEI.
Petitioner assessed Filipinas’ properties found within the plantation area, which
Filipinas assailed before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. LBAA adopted
Filipinas’ claims and found that the roads of any kind, as well as improvements, should
not be taxed since these roads were intermittently used by the public. LBAA considered
the road equipment and mini haulers are movables that are vital to Filipinas’ business.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Filipinas’ roads equipment and mini haulers shall be considered as
real property and be subject to real property tax.

HELD
Yes, Art. 415(5) of the Civil Code considers as immovable or real properties
“machineries, 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 said industry or works.” The Civil
Code, however, does not define “machinery.” Therefore, for determining whether
machinery is real property subject to real property tax, the definition and requirements
under the LGC prevails over the Civil Code.
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Article 419 of the Civil Code, property, in relation to the person
to whom it belongs, is either of public dominion or private ownership.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPS. ILDEFONSO ALEJANDRE

G.R. No. 217336, October 17, 2018
CAGUIOA, J.:

FACTS
Sps. Alejandre filed an application for the registration of Lot No. 6487 under PD No.
1529. They alleged that they are the owners of the subject property by virtue of a deed of
sale or conveyance and that it was sold to them by its former owner by way of a Deed of
Absolute Sale and is presently occupying the said land. The LRA submitted a Report
noting that there were discrepancies in the plan submitted by the spouses, and were
referred to the Lands Management Sector for verification and correction. Applicant-
spouses filed their evidences in the trial court. Subsequently, the LRA submitted its
Final Report stating that the corrected technical description of the subject land and no
more discrepancies exist. The Republic filed its Opposition to the application citing
several grounds and one of it is that the subject property applied for is a portion of the
public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines which is not subject to
private appropriation. The trial court rendered a decision granting the application for
registration. CA in its decision denied the appeal of the Republic.

ISSUE
Whether or not the subject lot is a private property.

HELD
No, pursuant to Article 419 of the Civil Code, property, in relation to the person whom it
belongs, is either of public domain or private ownership.

There are three kinds of property of public dominion: 1) those intended for public use;
2) those intended for some public service; and 3) those intended for the development of
national wealth. In turn, the Civil Code classifies property of private ownership into
three categories: 1) patrimonial property of the State under Articles 421 and 422; 2)
patrimonial property of LGUs under Article 424; and 3) property belonging to private
individuals under Article 425. Sec. 3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution, which embodies
Regalian Doctrine, classifies lands of the public domain into five categories agricultural
lands, forest lands, timber lands, mineral lands and national park. Sec. 3 mandates that
only lands classified as agricultural land may be declared alienable and thus susceptible
of private ownership. This premise the well-entrenched rule that all lands not appearing
to be clearly of private dominion or ownership presumptively belongs to the State.
Respondents failed to prove the nature or classification of the land. In the absence of
such incontrovertible proof of private ownership, the well-entrenched presumption
from the Regalian Doctrine that the subject land is of public domain or dominion must
be overcome, respondent failed to do so.