7Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20329 March 16, 1923
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, petitioner,vs.JOAQUIN
JARAMILLO, as register of deeds of the City of Manila,
respondent.
Ross, Lawrence and Selph for petitioner.City Fiscal Revilla and
Assistant City Fiscal Rodas for respondent.
STREET, J.:
This cause is before us upon demurrer interposed by the
respondent, Joaquin Jaramillo, register of deeds of the City of
Manila, to an original petition of the Standard Oil Company of New
York, seeking a peremptory mandamus to compel the respondent to
record in the proper register a document purporting to be a chattel
mortgage executed in the City of Manila by Gervasia de la Rosa,
Vda. de Vera, in favor of the Standard Oil Company of New York.
It appears from the petition that on November 27, 1922, Gervasia
de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the lessee of a parcel of land
situated in the City of Manila and owner of the house of strong
materials built thereon, upon which date she executed a document in
the form of a chattel mortgage, purporting to convey to the
petitioner by way of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said
lot and the building which stands thereon.
The clauses in said document describing the property intended to
be thus mortgage are expressed in the following words:
Now, therefore, the mortgagor hereby conveys and transfer to the
mortgage, by way of mortgage, the following described personal
property, situated in the City of Manila, and now in possession of
the mortgagor, to wit:
(1) All of the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in
and to the contract of lease hereinabove referred to, and in and to
the premises the subject of the said lease;
(2) The building, property of the mortgagor, situated on the
aforesaid leased premises.
After said document had been duly acknowledge and delivered, the
petitioner caused the same to be presented to the respondent,
Joaquin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the City of Manila, for
the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record of
chattel mortgages. Upon examination of the instrument, the
respondent was of the opinion that it was not a chattel mortgage,
for the reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not appear
to be personal property, within the meaning of the Chattel Mortgage
Law, and registration was refused on this ground only.
We are of the opinion that the position taken by the respondent
is untenable; and it is his duty to accept the proper fee and place
the instrument on record. The duties of a register of deeds in
respect to the registration of chattel mortgage are of a purely
ministerial character; and no provision of law can be cited which
confers upon him any judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine
the nature of any document of which registration is sought as a
chattel mortgage.
The original provisions touching this matter are contained in
section 15 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508), as amended
by Act No. 2496; but these have been transferred to section 198 of
the Administrative Code, where they are now found. There is nothing
in any of these provisions conferring upon the register of deeds
any authority whatever in respect to the "qualification," as the
term is used in Spanish law, of chattel mortgage. His duties in
respect to such instruments are ministerial only. The efficacy of
the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that
it operates as constructive notice of the existence of the
contract, and the legal effects of the contract must be discovered
in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice.
Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source
of title, and affects nobody's rights except as a specifies of
notice.
Articles 334 and 335 of the Civil Code supply no absolute
criterion for discriminating between real property and personal
property for purpose of the application of the Chattel Mortgage
Law. Those articles state rules which, considered as a general
doctrine, are law in this jurisdiction; but it must not be
forgotten that under given conditions property may have character
different from that imputed to it in said articles. It is
undeniable that the parties to a contract may by agreement treat as
personal property that which by nature would be real property; and
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. Other situations are constantly
arising, and from time to time are presented to this court, in
which the proper classification of one thing or another as real or
personal property may be said to be doubtful.
The point submitted to us in this case was determined on
September 8, 1914, in an administrative ruling promulgated by the
Honorable James A. Ostrand, now a Justice of this Court, but acting
at that time in the capacity of Judge of the fourth branch of the
Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District, in the City
of Manila; and little of value can be here added to the
observations contained in said ruling. We accordingly quote
therefrom as follows:
It is unnecessary here to determine whether or not the property
described in the document in question is real or personal; the
discussion may be confined to the point as to whether a register of
deeds has authority to deny the registration of a document
purporting to be a chattel mortgage and executed in the manner and
form prescribed by the Chattel Mortgage Law.
Then, after quoting section 5 of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act
No. 1508), his Honor continued:
Based principally upon the provisions of section quoted the
Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, in an opinion dated
August 11, 1909, held that a register of deeds has no authority to
pass upon the capacity of the parties to a chattel mortgage which
is presented to him for record. A fortiori a register of deeds can
have no authority to pass upon the character of the property sought
to be encumbered by a chattel mortgage. Of course, if the mortgaged
property is real instead of personal the chattel mortgage would no
doubt be held ineffective as against third parties, but this is a
question to be determined by the courts of justice and not by the
register of deeds.
In Leung Yee vs. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson
(37 Phil., 644), this court held that where the interest conveyed
is of the nature of real, property, the placing of the document on
record in the chattel mortgage register is a futile act; but that
decision is not decisive of the question now before us, which has
reference to the function of the register of deeds in placing the
document on record.
In the light of what has been said it becomes unnecessary for us
to pass upon the point whether the interests conveyed in the
instrument now in question are real or personal; and we declare it
to be the duty of the register of deeds to accept the estimate
placed upon the document by the petitioner and to register it, upon
payment of the proper fee.
The demurrer is overruled; and unless within the period of five
days from the date of the notification hereof, the respondent shall
interpose a sufficient answer to the petition, the writ of mandamus
will be issued, as prayed, but without costs. So ordered.1
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935
DAVAO SAW MILL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant,vs.APRONIANO G.
CASTILLO and DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC.,
defendants-appellees.
Arsenio Suazo and Jose L. Palma Gil and Pablo Lorenzo and Delfin
Joven for appellant.J.W. Ferrier for appellees.
MALCOLM, J.:
The issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of
the decision in the trial court and as set forth by counsel for the
parties on appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the
properties described in the complaint. The trial judge found that
those properties were personal in nature, and as a consequence
absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the
plaintiff.
The Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber
concession from the Government of the Philippine Islands. It has
operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu,
municipality of Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon
which the business was conducted belonged to another person. On the
land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the
machinery used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly
personal property, the conflict concerning machines which were
placed and mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of
lease between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there
appeared the following provision:
That on the expiration of the period agreed upon, all the
improvements and buildings introduced and erected by the party of
the second part shall pass to the exclusive ownership of the party
of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any
amount for said improvements and buildings; also, in the event the
party of the second part should leave or abandon the land leased
before the time herein stipulated, the improvements and buildings
shall likewise pass to the ownership of the party of the first part
as though the time agreed upon had expired: Provided, however, That
the machineries and accessories are not included in the
improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the
expiration or abandonment of the land leased.
In another action, wherein the Davao Light & Power Co.,
Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw, Mill Co., Inc., was the
defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in
that action against the defendant in that action; a writ of
execution issued thereon, and the properties now in question were
levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. No third party claim was
filed for such properties at the time of the sales thereof as is
borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein. Indeed the
bidder, which was the plaintiff in that action, and the defendant
herein having consummated the sale, proceeded to take possession of
the machinery and other properties described in the corresponding
certificates of sale executed in its favor by the sheriff of
Davao.
As connecting up with the facts, it should further be explained
that the Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., has on a number of occasions
treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel
mortgages in favor of third persons. One of such persons is the
appellee by assignment from the original mortgages.
Article 334, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Civil Code, is in point.
According to the Code, real property consists of
1. Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhering to the soil;
x x x x x x x x x
5. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements
intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection
with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are
expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of
industry.
Appellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last
mentioned paragraph. We entertain no doubt that the trial judge and
appellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines
flowing from the facts.
In the first place, it must again be pointed out that the
appellant should have registered its protest before or at the time
of the sale of this property. It must further be pointed out that
while not conclusive, the characterization of the property as
chattels by the appellant is indicative of intention and impresses
upon the property the character determined by the parties. In this
connection the decision of this court in the case of Standard Oil
Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo ( [1923], 44 Phil., 630), whether
obiter dicta or not, furnishes the key to such a situation.
It is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the
resolution of this appeal on side issues. It is machinery which is
involved; moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any
building or land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a
lessee for use in a building erected on the land by the latter to
be returned to the lessee on the expiration or abandonment of the
lease.
A similar question arose in Puerto Rico, and on appeal being
taken to the United States Supreme Court, it was held that
machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized
when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but
not when so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person
having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the
agent of the owner. In the opinion written by Chief Justice White,
whose knowledge of the Civil Law is well known, it was in part
said:
To determine this question involves fixing the nature and
character of the property from the point of view of the rights of
Valdes and its nature and character from the point of view of
Nevers & Callaghan as a judgment creditor of the Altagracia
Company and the rights derived by them from the execution levied on
the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant. Following the
Code Napoleon, the Porto Rican Code treats as immovable (real)
property, not only land and buildings, but also attributes
immovability in some cases to property of a movable nature, that
is, personal property, because of the destination to which it is
applied. "Things," says section 334 of the Porto Rican Code, "may
be immovable either by their own nature or by their destination or
the object to which they are applicable." Numerous illustrations
are given in the fifth subdivision of section 335, which is as
follows: "Machinery, vessels, instruments or implements intended by
the owner of the tenements for the industrial or works that they
may carry on in any building or upon any land and which tend
directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works." (See
also Code Nap., articles 516, 518 et seq. to and inclusive of
article 534, recapitulating the things which, though in themselves
movable, may be immobilized.) So far as the subject-matter with
which we are dealing machinery placed in the plant it is plain,
both under the provisions of the Porto Rican Law and of the Code
Napoleon, that machinery which is movable in its nature only
becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the
property or plant. Such result would not be accomplished,
therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a
usufructuary or any person having only a temporary right.
(Demolombe, Tit. 9, No. 203; Aubry et Rau, Tit. 2, p. 12, Section
164; Laurent, Tit. 5, No. 447; and decisions quoted in
Fuzier-Herman ed. Code Napoleon under articles 522 et seq.) The
distinction rests, as pointed out by Demolombe, upon the fact that
one only having a temporary right to the possession or enjoyment of
property is not presumed by the law to have applied movable
property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by causing it
by an act of immobilization to become the property of another. It
follows that abstractly speaking the machinery put by the
Altagracia Company in the plant belonging to Sanchez did not lose
its character of movable property and become immovable by
destination. But in the concrete immobilization took place because
of the express provisions of the lease under which the Altagracia
held, since the lease in substance required the putting in of
improved machinery, deprived the tenant of any right to charge
against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was expressly
stipulated that the machinery so put in should become a part of the
plant belonging to the owner without compensation to the lessee.
Under such conditions the tenant in putting in the machinery was
acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with the
obligations resting upon him, and the immobilization of the
machinery which resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the
owner in giving by contract a permanent destination to the
machinery.
x x x x x x x x x
The machinery levied upon by Nevers & Callaghan, that is,
that which was placed in the plant by the Altagracia Company,
being, as regards Nevers & Callaghan, movable property, it
follows that they had the right to levy on it under the execution
upon the judgment in their favor, and the exercise of that right
did not in a legal sense conflict with the claim of Valdes, since
as to him the property was a part of the realty which, as the
result of his obligations under the lease, he could not, for the
purpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately against. (Valdes
vs. Central Altagracia [192], 225 U.S., 58.)
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment appealed
from will be affirmed, the costs of this instance to be paid by the
appellant.1
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15334 January 31, 1964
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CITY ASSESSOR and CITY TREASURER OF
QUEZON CITY, petitioners,vs.MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,
respondent.
Assistant City Attorney Jaime R. Agloro for petitioners.Ross,
Selph and Carrascoso for respondent.
PAREDES, J.:
From the stipulation of facts and evidence adduced during the
hearing, the following appear:
On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No.
484 which authorized the Municipal Board of Manila to grant a
franchise to construct, 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. Charles M. Swift was awarded the said franchise on
March 1903, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in
Ordinance No. 44 approved on March 24, 1903. Respondent Manila
Electric Co. (Meralco for short), became the transferee and owner
of the franchise.
Meralco's electric power is generated by its hydro-electric
plant located at Botocan Falls, Laguna and is transmitted to the
City of Manila by means of electric transmission wires, running
from the province of Laguna to the said City. These electric
transmission wires which carry high voltage current, are fastened
to insulators attached on steel towers constructed by respondent at
intervals, from its hydro-electric plant in the province of Laguna
to the City of Manila. The respondent Meralco has constructed 40 of
these steel towers within Quezon City, on land belonging to it. A
photograph of one of these steel towers is attached to the petition
for review, marked Annex A. Three steel towers were inspected by
the lower court and parties and the following were the descriptions
given there of by said court:
The first steel tower is located in South Tatalon, Espaa
Extension, Quezon City. The findings were as follows: the ground
around one of the four posts was excavated to a depth of about
eight (8) feet, with an opening of about one (1) meter in diameter,
decreased to about a quarter of a meter as it we deeper until it
reached the bottom of the post; at the bottom of the post were two
parallel steel bars attached to the leg means of bolts; the tower
proper was attached to the leg three bolts; with two cross metals
to prevent mobility; there was no concrete foundation but there was
adobe stone underneath; as the bottom of the excavation was covered
with water about three inches high, it could not be determined with
certainty to whether said adobe stone was placed purposely or not,
as the place abounds with this kind of stone; and the tower carried
five high voltage wires without cover or any insulating
materials.
The second tower inspected was located in Kamuning Road, K-F,
Quezon City, on land owned by the petitioner approximate more than
one kilometer from the first tower. As in the first tower, the
ground around one of the four legs was excavate from seven to eight
(8) feet deep and one and a half (1-) meters wide. There being very
little water at the bottom, it was seen that there was no concrete
foundation, but there soft adobe beneath. The leg was likewise
provided with two parallel steel bars bolted to a square metal
frame also bolted to each corner. Like the first one, the second
tower is made up of metal rods joined together by means of bolts,
so that by unscrewing the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and
reassembled.
The third tower examined is located along Kamias Road, Quezon
City. As in the first two towers given above, the ground around the
two legs of the third tower was excavated to a depth about two or
three inches beyond the outside level of the steel bar foundation.
It was found that there was no concrete foundation. Like the two
previous ones, the bottom arrangement of the legs thereof were
found to be resting on soft adobe, which, probably due to high
humidity, looks like mud or clay. It was also found that the square
metal frame supporting the legs were not attached to any material
or foundation.
On November 15, 1955, petitioner City Assessor of Quezon City
declared the aforesaid steel towers for real property tax under Tax
declaration Nos. 31992 and 15549. After denying respondent's
petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal was taken by
respondent to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which
required respondent to pay the amount of P11,651.86 as real
property tax on the said steel towers for the years 1952 to 1956.
Respondent paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for
review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA for short) which rendered a
decision on December 29, 1958, ordering the cancellation of the
said tax declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon
City to refund to the respondent the sum of P11,651.86. The motion
for reconsideration having been denied, on April 22, 1959, the
instant petition for review was filed.
In upholding the cause of respondents, 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; (2) the steel towers are personal properties and are not
subject to real property tax; and (3) the City Treasurer of Quezon
City is held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. These
are assigned as errors by the petitioner in the brief.
The tax exemption privilege of the petitioner is quoted
hereunder:
PAR 9. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes upon
its real estate, buildings, plant (not including poles, wires,
transformers, and insulators), machinery and personal property as
other persons are or may be hereafter required by law to pay ...
Said percentage shall be due and payable at the time stated in
paragraph nineteen of Part One hereof, ... and shall be in lieu of
all taxes and assessments of whatsoever nature and by whatsoever
authority upon the privileges, earnings, income, franchise, and
poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the grantee from
which taxes and assessments the grantee is hereby expressly
exempted. (Par. 9, Part Two, Act No. 484 Respondent's Franchise;
emphasis supplied.)
The word "pole" means "a long, comparatively slender usually
cylindrical piece of wood or timber, as typically the stem of a
small tree stripped of its branches; also by extension, a similar
typically cylindrical piece or object of metal or the like". The
term also refers to "an upright standard to the top of which
something is affixed or by which something is supported; as a
dovecote set on a pole; telegraph poles; a tent pole; sometimes,
specifically a vessel's master (Webster's New International
Dictionary 2nd Ed., p. 1907.) Along the streets, in the City of
Manila, may be seen cylindrical metal poles, cubical concrete
poles, and poles of the PLDT Co. which are made of two steel bars
joined together by an interlacing metal rod. They are called
"poles" notwithstanding the fact that they are no made of wood. It
must be noted from paragraph 9, above quoted, that the concept of
the "poles" for which exemption is granted, is not determined by
their place or location, nor by the character of the electric
current it carries, nor the material or form of which it is made,
but the use to which they are dedicated. In accordance with the
definitions, pole is not restricted to a long cylindrical piece of
wood or metal, but includes "upright standards to the top of which
something is affixed or by which something is supported. As
heretofore described, respondent's steel supports consists of a
framework of four steel bars or strips which are bound by steel
cross-arms atop of which are cross-arms supporting five high
voltage transmission wires (See Annex A) and their sole function is
to support or carry such wires.
The conclusion of the CTA that the steel supports in question
are embraced in the term "poles" is not a novelty. Several courts
of last resort in the United States have called these steel
supports "steel towers", and they denominated these supports or
towers, as electric poles. In their decisions the words "towers"
and "poles" were used interchangeably, and it is well understood in
that jurisdiction that a transmission tower or pole means the same
thing.
In a proceeding to condemn land for the use of electric power
wires, in which the law provided that wires shall be constructed
upon suitable poles, this term was construed to mean either wood or
metal poles and in view of the land being subject to overflow, and
the necessary carrying of numerous wires and the distance between
poles, the statute was interpreted to include towers or poles.
(Stemmons and Dallas Light Co. (Tex) 212 S.W. 222, 224; 32-A Words
and Phrases, p. 365.)
The term "poles" was also used to denominate the steel supports
or towers used by an association used to convey its electric power
furnished to subscribers and members, constructed for the purpose
of fastening high voltage and dangerous electric wires alongside
public highways. The steel supports or towers were made of iron or
other metals consisting of two pieces running from the ground up
some thirty feet high, being wider at the bottom than at the top,
the said two metal pieces being connected with criss-cross iron
running from the bottom to the top, constructed like ladders and
loaded with high voltage electricity. In form and structure, they
are like the steel towers in question. (Salt River Valley Users'
Ass'n v. Compton, 8 P. 2nd, 249-250.)
The term "poles" was used to denote the steel towers of an
electric company engaged in the generation of hydro-electric power
generated from its plant to the Tower of Oxford and City of
Waterbury. These steel towers are about 15 feet square at the base
and extended to a height of about 35 feet to a point, and are
embedded in the cement foundations sunk in the earth, the top of
which extends above the surface of the soil in the tower of Oxford,
and to the towers are attached insulators, arms, and other
equipment capable of carrying wires for the transmission of
electric power (Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Oxford, 101
Conn. 383, 126 Atl. p. 1).
In a case, the defendant admitted that the structure on which a
certain person met his death was built for the purpose of
supporting a transmission wire used for carrying high-tension
electric power, but claimed that the steel towers on which it is
carried were so large that their wire took their structure out of
the definition of a pole line. It was held that in defining the
word pole, one should not be governed by the wire or material of
the support used, but was considering the danger from any elevated
wire carrying electric current, and that regardless of the size or
material wire of its individual members, any continuous series of
structures intended and used solely or primarily for the purpose of
supporting wires carrying electric currents is a pole line
(Inspiration Consolidation Cooper Co. v. Bryan 252 P. 1016).
It is evident, therefore, that the word "poles", as used in Act
No. 484 and incorporated in the petitioner's franchise, should not
be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to defeat the
very object for which the franchise was granted. The poles as
contemplated thereon, should be understood and taken as a part of
the electric power system of the respondent Meralco, for the
conveyance of electric current from the source thereof to its
consumers. If the respondent would be required to employ "wooden
poles", or "rounded poles" as it used to do fifty years back, then
one should admit that the Philippines is one century behind the age
of space. It should also be conceded by now that steel towers, like
the ones in question, for obvious reasons, can better effectuate
the purpose for which the respondent's franchise was granted.
Granting for the purpose of argument that the steel supports or
towers in question are not embraced within the term poles, the
logical question posited is whether they constitute real
properties, so that they can be subject to a real property tax. The
tax law does not provide for a definition of real property; but
Article 415 of the Civil Code does, by stating the following are
immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil;
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Everything 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;
x x x x x x x x x
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended
by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be
carried in a building or on a piece of land, and which tends
directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
x x x x x x x x x
The steel towers or supports in question, do not come within the
objects mentioned in paragraph 1, because they do not constitute
buildings or constructions adhered to the soil. They are not
construction analogous to buildings nor adhering to the soil. As
per description, given by the lower court, they are removable and
merely attached to a square metal frame by means of bolts, which
when unscrewed could easily be dismantled and moved from place to
place. They can not be included under paragraph 3, as they are not
attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, and they can be
separated without breaking the material or causing deterioration
upon the object to which they are attached. Each of these steel
towers or supports consists of steel bars or metal strips, joined
together by means of bolts, which can be disassembled by unscrewing
the bolts and reassembled by screwing the same. These steel towers
or supports do not also fall under paragraph 5, for they are not
machineries, receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if
they were, they are not intended for industry or works on the land.
Petitioner is not engaged in an industry or works in the land in
which the steel supports or towers are constructed.
It is finally contended that the CTA erred in ordering the City
Treasurer of Quezon City to refund the sum of P11,651.86, despite
the fact that Quezon City is not a party to the case. It is argued
that as the City Treasurer is not the real party in interest, but
Quezon City, which was not a party to the suit, notwithstanding its
capacity to sue and be sued, he should not be ordered to effect the
refund. This question has not been raised in the court below, and,
therefore, it cannot be properly raised for the first time on
appeal. The herein petitioner is indulging in legal technicalities
and niceties which do not help him any; for factually, it was he
(City Treasurer) whom had insisted that respondent herein pay the
real estate taxes, which respondent paid under protest. Having
acted in his official capacity as City Treasurer of Quezon City, he
would surely know what to do, under the circumstances.
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against the petitioners.1
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-50466 May 31, 1982
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., petitioner,vs.CENTRAL BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT APPEALS and CITY ASSESSOR OF PASAY, respondents.
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the realty tax on machinery and equipment
installed by Caltex (Philippines) Inc. in its gas stations located
on leased land.
The machines and equipment consists of underground tanks,
elevated tank, elevated water tanks, water tanks, gasoline pumps,
computing pumps, water pumps, car washer, car hoists, truck hoists,
air compressors and tireflators. The city assessor described the
said equipment and machinery in this manner:
A gasoline service station is a piece of lot where a building or
shed is erected, a water tank if there is any is placed in one
corner of the lot, car hoists are placed in an adjacent shed, an
air compressor is attached in the wall of the shed or at the
concrete wall fence.
The controversial underground tank, depository of gasoline or
crude oil, is dug deep about six feet more or less, a few meters
away from the shed. This is done to prevent conflagration because
gasoline and other combustible oil are very inflammable.
This underground tank is connected with a steel pipe to the
gasoline pump and the gasoline pump is commonly placed or
constructed under the shed. The footing of the pump is a cement pad
and this cement pad is imbedded in the pavement under the shed, and
evidence that the gasoline underground tank is attached and
connected to the shed or building through the pipe to the pump and
the pump is attached and affixed to the cement pad and pavement
covered by the roof of the building or shed.
The building or shed, the elevated water tank, the car hoist
under a separate shed, the air compressor, the underground gasoline
tank, neon lights signboard, concrete fence and pavement and the
lot where they are all placed or erected, all of them used in the
pursuance of the gasoline service station business formed the
entire gasoline service-station.
As to whether the subject properties are attached and affixed to
the tenement, it is clear they are, for the tenement we consider in
this particular case are (is) the pavement covering the entire lot
which was constructed by the owner of the gasoline station and the
improvement which holds all the properties under question, they are
attached and affixed to the pavement and to the improvement.
The pavement covering the entire lot of the gasoline service
station, as well as all the improvements, machines, equipments and
apparatus are allowed by Caltex (Philippines) Inc. ...
The underground gasoline tank is attached to the shed by the
steel pipe to the pump, so with the water tank it is connected also
by a steel pipe to the pavement, then to the electric motor which
electric motor is placed under the shed. So to say that the
gasoline pumps, water pumps and underground tanks are outside of
the service station, and to consider only the building as the
service station is grossly erroneous. (pp. 58-60, Rollo).
The said machines and equipment are loaned by Caltex to gas
station operators under an appropriate lease agreement or receipt.
It is stipulated in the lease contract that the operators, upon
demand, shall return to Caltex the machines and equipment in good
condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
The lessor of the land, where the gas station is located, does
not become the owner of the machines and equipment installed
therein. Caltex retains the ownership thereof during the term of
the lease.
The city assessor of Pasay City characterized the said items of
gas station equipment and machinery as taxable realty. The realty
tax on said equipment amounts to P4,541.10 annually (p. 52, Rollo).
The city board of tax appeals ruled that they are personalty. The
assessor appealed to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
The Board, which was composed of Secretary of Finance Cesar
Virata as chairman, Acting Secretary of Justice Catalino Macaraig,
Jr. and Secretary of Local Government and Community Development
Jose Roo, held in its decision of June 3, 1977 that the said
machines and equipment are real property within the meaning of
sections 3(k) & (m) and 38 of the Real Property Tax Code,
Presidential Decree No. 464, which took effect on June 1, 1974, and
that the definitions of real property and personal property in
articles 415 and 416 of the Civil Code are not applicable to this
case.
The decision was reiterated by the Board (Minister Vicente Abad
Santos took Macaraig's place) in its resolution of January 12,
1978, denying Caltex's motion for reconsideration, a copy of which
was received by its lawyer on April 2, 1979.
On May 2, 1979 Caltex filed this certiorari petition wherein it
prayed for the setting aside of the Board's decision and for a
declaration that t he said machines and equipment are personal
property not subject to realty tax (p. 16, Rollo).
The Solicitor General's contention that the Court of Tax Appeals
has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this case is not correct.
When Republic act No. 1125 created the Tax Court in 1954, there was
as yet no Central Board of Assessment Appeals. Section 7(3) of that
law in providing that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to review by
appeal decisions of provincial or city boards of assessment appeals
had in mind the local boards of assessment appeals but not the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals which under the Real Property
Tax Code has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the said
local boards of assessment appeals and is, therefore, in the same
category as the Tax Court.
Section 36 of the Real Property Tax Code provides that the
decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall become
final and executory after the lapse of fifteen days from the
receipt of its decision by the appellant. Within that fifteen-day
period, a petition for reconsideration may be filed. The Code does
not provide for the review of the Board's decision by this
Court.
Consequently, the only remedy available for seeking a review by
this Court of the decision of the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals is the special civil action of certiorari, the recourse
resorted to herein by Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
The issue is whether the pieces of gas station equipment and
machinery already enumerated are subject to realty tax. This issue
has to be resolved primarily under the provisions of the Assessment
Law and the Real Property Tax Code.
Section 2 of the Assessment Law provides that the realty tax is
due "on real property, including land, buildings, machinery, and
other improvements" not specifically exempted in section 3 thereof.
This provision is reproduced with some modification in the Real
Property Tax Code which provides:
SEC. 38. Incidence of Real Property Tax. There shall be levied,
assessed and collected in all provinces, cities and municipalities
an annual ad valorem tax on real property, such as land, buildings,
machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real
property not hereinafter specifically exempted.
The Code contains the following definitions in its section
3:
k) Improvements is a valuable addition made to property or an
amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs
or replacement of waste, costing labor or capital and intended to
enhance its value, beauty or utility or to adapt it for new or
further purposes.
m) Machinery shall embrace machines, mechanical contrivances,
instruments, appliances and apparatus attached to the real estate.
It includes the physical facilities available for production, as
well as the installations and appurtenant service facilities,
together with all other equipment designed for or essential to its
manufacturing, industrial or agricultural purposes (See sec. 3[f],
Assessment Law).
We hold that the said equipment and machinery, as appurtenances
to the gas station building or shed owned by Caltex (as to which it
is subject to realty tax) and which fixtures are necessary to the
operation of the gas station, for without them the gas station
would be useless, and which have been attached or affixed
permanently to the gas station site or embedded therein, are
taxable improvements and machinery within the meaning of the
Assessment Law and the Real Property Tax Code.
Caltex invokes the rule that machinery which is movable in its
nature only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner
of the property or plant but not when so placed by a tenant, a
usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless
such person acted as the agent of the owner (Davao Saw Mill Co. vs.
Castillo, 61 Phil 709).
That ruling is an interpretation of paragraph 5 of article 415
of the Civil Code regarding machinery that becomes real property by
destination. In the Davao Saw Mills case the question was whether
the machinery mounted on foundations of cement and installed by the
lessee on leased land should be regarded as real property for
purposes of execution of a judgment against the lessee. The sheriff
treated the machinery as personal property. This Court sustained
the sheriff's action. (Compare with Machinery & Engineering
Supplies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 70, where in a
replevin case machinery was treated as realty).
Here, the question is whether the gas station equipment and
machinery permanently affixed by Caltex to its gas station and
pavement (which are indubitably taxable realty) should be subject
to the realty tax. This question is different from the issue raised
in the Davao Saw Mill case.
Improvements on land are commonly taxed as realty even though
for some purposes they might be considered personalty (84 C.J.S.
181-2, Notes 40 and 41). "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" (Standard Oil Co.
of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630, 633).
This case is also easily distinguishable from Board of
Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Co., 119 Phil. 328, where
Meralco's steel towers were considered poles within the meaning of
paragraph 9 of its franchise which exempts its poles from taxation.
The steel towers were considered personalty because they were
attached to square metal frames by means of bolts and could be
moved from place to place when unscrewed and dismantled.
Nor are Caltex's gas station equipment and machinery the same as
tools and equipment in the repair shop of a bus company which were
held to be personal property not subject to realty tax (Mindanao
Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 116 Phil. 501).
The Central Board of Assessment Appeals did not commit a grave
abuse of discretion in upholding the city assessor's is imposition
of the realty tax on Caltex's gas station and equipment.
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision and resolution of the Central
Board of Assessment Appeals are affirmed. The petition for
certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958
SANTOS EVANGELISTA, petitioner,vs.ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE
CO., INC., respondent.
Gonzalo D. David for petitioner.Raul A. Aristorenas and Benjamin
Relova for respondent.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
Briefly, the facts are: On June 4, 1949, petitioner herein,
Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case No. 8235 of the Court of
First, Instance of Manila entitled " Santos Evangelista vs. Ricardo
Rivera," for a sum of money. On the same date, he obtained a writ
of attachment, which levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land
situated in Manila and leased to him, by filing copy of said writ
and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Manila, on June 8, 1949. In due course,
judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who, on October 8,
1951, bought the house at public auction held in compliance with
the writ of execution issued in said case. The corresponding
definite deed of sale was issued to him on October 22, 1952, upon
expiration of the period of redemption. When Evangelista sought to
take possession of the house, Rivera refused to surrender it, upon
the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety
& Insurance Co., Inc. respondent herein and that the latter is
now the true owner of said property. It appears that on May 10,
1952, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to
respondent, as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on
September 29, 1950, in compliance with a writ of execution issued
in Civil Case No. 6268 of the same court, entitled "Alto Surety
& Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Maximo Quiambao, Rosario Guevara and
Ricardo Rivera," in which judgment, for the sum of money, had been
rendered in favor respondent herein, as plaintiff therein. Hence,
on June 13, 1953, Evangelista instituted the present action against
respondent and Ricardo Rivera, for the purpose of establishing his
(Evangelista) title over said house, securing possession thereof,
apart from recovering damages.
In its answer, respondent alleged, in substance, that it has a
better right to the house, because the sale made, and the definite
deed of sale executed, in its favor, on September 29, 1950 and May
10, 1952, respectively, precede the sale to Evangelista (October 8,
1951) and the definite deed of sale in his favor (October 22,
1952). It, also, made some special defenses which are discussed
hereafter. Rivera, in effect, joined forces with respondent. After
due trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment
for Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and respondent to deliver the
house in question to petitioner herein and to pay him, jointly and
severally, forty pesos (P40.00) a month from October, 1952, until
said delivery, plus costs.
On appeal taken by respondent, this decision was reversed by the
Court of Appeals, which absolved said respondent from the
complaint, upon the ground that, 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, Evangelista did
not acquire thereby a preferential lien, the attachment having been
levied as if the house in question were immovable property,
although in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is "ostensibly
a personal property." As such, the Court of Appeals held, "the
order of attachment . . . should have been served in the manner
provided in subsection (e) of section 7 of Rule 59," of the Rules
of Court, reading:
The property of the defendant shall be attached by the officer
executing the order in the following manner:
(e) Debts and credits, and other personal property not capable
of manual delivery, by leaving with the person owing such debts, or
having in his possession or under his control, such credits or
other personal property, or with, his agent, a copy of the order,
and a notice that the debts owing by him to the defendant, and the
credits and other personal property in his possession, or under his
control, belonging to the defendant, are attached in pursuance of
such order. (Emphasis ours.)
However, the Court of Appeals seems to have been of the opinion,
also, that the house of Rivera should have been attached in
accordance with subsection (c) of said section 7, as "personal
property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping
in his custody", for it declared that "Evangelists could not have .
. . validly purchased Ricardo Rivera's house from the sheriff as
the latter was not in possession thereof at the time he sold it at
a public auction."
Evangelista now seeks a review, by certiorari, of this decision
of the Court of Appeals. In this connection, it is not disputed
that although the sale to the respondent preceded that made to
Evangelists, the latter would have a better right if the writ of
attachment, issued in his favor before the sale to the respondent,
had been properly executed or enforced. This question, in turn,
depends upon whether the house of Ricardo Rivera is real property
or not. In the affirmative case, the applicable provision would be
subsection (a) of section 7, Rule 59 of the Rules of Court,
pursuant to which the attachment should be made "by filing with the
registrar of deeds a copy of the order, together with a description
of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by
leaving a copy of such order, description, and notice with the
occupant of the property, if any there be."
Respondent maintains, however, and the Court of Appeals held,
that Rivera's house is personal property, the levy upon which must
be made in conformity with subsections (c) and (e) of said section
7 of Rule 59. Hence, the main issue before us is whether a house,
constructed the lessee of the land on which it is built, should be
dealt with, for purpose, of attachment, as immovable property, or
as personal property.
It is, our considered opinion that said house is not personal
property, much less a debt, credit or other personal property not
capable of manual delivery, but immovable property. As explicitly
held, in Laddera vs. Hodges (48 Off. Gaz., 5374), "a true building
(not merely superimposed on the soil) is immovable or real
property, whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by
usufructuary or lessee. This is the doctrine of our Supreme Court
in Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Company, 37 Phil., 644. And it is
amply supported by the rulings of the French Court. . . ."
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. Encarnacion, * 48 Off. Gaz., 2664; Standard Oil
Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil., 630; De Jesus vs. Juan Dee
Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464). However, this view is good only insofar
as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon
the principle of estoppel. Neither this principle, nor said view,
is applicable to strangers to said contract. Much less is it in
point where there has been no contract whatsoever, with respect to
the status of the house involved, as in the case at bar. Apart from
this, in Manarang vs. Ofilada (99 Phil., 108; 52 Off. Gaz., 3954),
we held:
The question now before us, however, is: Does the fact that the
parties entering into a contract regarding a house gave said
property the consideration of personal property in their contract,
bind the sheriff in advertising the property's sale at public
auction as personal property? It is to be remembered that in the
case at bar the action was to collect a loan secured by a chattel
mortgage on the house. It is also to be remembered that in practice
it is the judgment creditor who points out to the sheriff the
properties that the sheriff is to levy upon in execution, and the
judgment creditor in the case at bar is the party in whose favor
the owner of the house had conveyed it by way of chattel mortgage
and, therefore, knew its consideration as personal property.
These considerations notwithstanding, we hold that the rules on
execution do not allow, and, we should not interpret them in such a
way as to allow, the special consideration that parties to a
contract may have desired to impart to real estate, for example, as
personal property, when they are, not ordinarily so. Sales on
execution affect the public and third persons. The regulation
governing sales on execution are for public officials to follow.
The form of proceedings prescribed for each kind of property is
suited to its character, not to the character, which the parties
have given to it or desire to give it. When the rules speak of
personal property, property which is ordinarily so considered is
meant; and when real property is spoken of, it means property which
is generally known as real property. The regulations were never
intended to suit the consideration that parties may have privately
given to the property levied upon. Enforcement of regulations would
be difficult were the convenience or agreement of private parties
to determine or govern the nature of the proceedings. We therefore
hold that the mere fact that a house was the subject of the chattel
mortgage and was considered as personal property by the parties
does not make said house personal property for purposes of the
notice to be given for its sale of public auction. This ruling is
demanded by the need for a definite, orderly and well defined
regulation for official and public guidance and would prevent
confusion and misunderstanding.
We, therefore, declare that the house of mixed materials levied
upon on execution, although subject of a contract of chattel
mortgage between the owner and a third person, is real property
within the purview of Rule 39, section 16, of the Rules of Court as
it has become a permanent fixture of the land, which, is real
property. (42 Am. Jur. 199-200; Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co.,
37 Phil., 644; Republic vs. Ceniza, et al., 90 Phil., 544; Ladera,,
et al. vs. Hodges, et al., [C.A.] Off. Gaz. 5374.)" (Emphasis
ours.)
The foregoing considerations apply, with equal force, to the
conditions for the levy of attachment, for it similarly affects the
public and third persons.
It is argued, however, that, even if the house in question were
immovable property, its attachment by Evangelista was void or
ineffective, because, in the language of the Court of Appeals,
"after presenting a Copy of the order of attachment in the Office
of the Register of Deeds, the person who might then be in
possession of the house, the sheriff took no pains to serve Ricardo
Rivera, or other copies thereof." This finding of the Court of
Appeals is neither conclusive upon us, nor accurate.
The Record on Appeal, annexed to the petition for Certiorari,
shows that petitioner alleged, in paragraph 3 of the complaint,
that he acquired the house in question "as a consequence of the
levy of an attachment and execution of the judgment in Civil Case
No. 8235" of the Court of First Instance of Manila. In his answer
(paragraph 2), Ricardo Rivera admitted said attachment execution of
judgment. He alleged, however, by way a of special defense, that
the title of respondent "is superior to that of plaintiff because
it is based on a public instrument," whereas Evangelista relied
upon a "promissory note" which "is only a private instrument"; that
said Public instrument in favor of respondent "is superior also to
the judgment in Civil Case No. 8235"; and that plaintiff's claim
against Rivera amounted only to P866, "which is much below the real
value" of said house, for which reason it would be "grossly unjust
to acquire the property for such an inadequate consideration."
Thus, Rivera impliedly admitted that his house had been attached,
that the house had been sold to Evangelista in accordance with the
requisite formalities, and that said attachment was valid, although
allegedly inferior to the rights of respondent, and the
consideration for the sale to Evangelista was claimed to be
inadequate.
Respondent, in turn, denied the allegation in said paragraph 3
of the complaint, but only " for the reasons stated in its special
defenses" namely: (1) that by virtue of the sale at public auction,
and the final deed executed by the sheriff in favor of respondent,
the same became the "legitimate owner of the house" in question;
(2) that respondent "is a buyer in good faith and for value"; (3)
that respondent "took possession and control of said house"; (4)
that "there was no valid attachment by the plaintiff and/or the
Sheriff of Manila of the property in question as neither took
actual or constructive possession or control of the property at any
time"; and (5) "that the alleged registration of plaintiff's
attachment, certificate of sale and final deed in the Office of
Register of Deeds, Manila, if there was any, is likewise, not valid
as there is no registry of transactions covering houses erected on
land belonging to or leased from another." In this manner,
respondent claimed a better right, merely under the theory that, in
case of double sale of immovable property, the purchaser who first
obtains possession in good faith, acquires title, if the sale has
not been "recorded . . . in the Registry of Property" (Art. 1544,
Civil Code of the Philippines), and that the writ of attachment and
the notice of attachment in favor of Evangelista should be
considered unregistered, "as there is no registry of transactions
covering houses erected on land belonging to or leased from
another." In fact, said article 1544 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, governing double sales, was quoted on page 15 of the
brief for respondent in the Court of Appeals, in support of its
fourth assignment of error therein, to the effect that it "has
preference or priority over the sale of the same property" to
Evangelista.
In other words, there was no issue on whether copy of the writ
and notice of attachment had been served on Rivera. No evidence
whatsoever, to the effect that Rivera had not been served with
copies of said writ and notice, was introduced in the Court of
First Instance. In its brief in the Court of Appeals, respondent
did not aver, or even, intimate, that no such copies were served by
the sheriff upon Rivera. Service thereof on Rivera had been
impliedly admitted by the defendants, in their respective answers,
and by their behaviour throughout the proceedings in the Court of
First Instance, and, as regards respondent, in the Court of
Appeals. In fact, petitioner asserts in his brief herein (p. 26)
that copies of said writ and notice were delivered to Rivera,
simultaneously with copies of the complaint, upon service of
summons, prior to the filing of copies of said writ and notice with
the register deeds, and the truth of this assertion has not been
directly and positively challenged or denied in the brief filed
before us by respondent herein. The latter did not dare therein to
go beyond making a statement for the first time in the course of
these proceedings, begun almost five (5) years ago (June 18, 1953)
reproducing substantially the aforementioned finding of the Court
of Appeals and then quoting the same.
Considering, therefore, that neither the pleadings, nor the
briefs in the Court of Appeals, raised an issue on whether or not
copies of the writ of attachment and notice of attachment had been
served upon Rivera; that the defendants had impliedly admitted-in
said pleadings and briefs, as well as by their conduct during the
entire proceedings, prior to the rendition of the decision of the
Court of Appeals that Rivera had received copies of said documents;
and that, for this reason, evidently, no proof was introduced
thereon, we, are of the opinion, and so hold that the finding of
the Court of Appeals to the effect that said copies had not been
served upon Rivera is based upon a misapprehension of the specific
issues involved therein and goes beyond the range of such issues,
apart from being contrary to the aforementioned admission by the
parties, and that, accordingly, a grave abuse of discretion was
committed in making said finding, which is, furthermore,
inaccurate.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
reversed, and another one shall be entered affirming that of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, with the costs of this instance
against respondent, the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. It is
so ordered.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989
THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitionervs.RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL,
respondent.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Pena & Marcos for
respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
The basic question before the Court is the legal classification
of mangrove swamps, or manglares, as they are commonly known. If
they are part of our public forest lands, they are not alienable
under the Constitution. If they are considered public agricultural
lands, they may be acquired under private ownership. The private
respondent's claim to the land in question must be judged by these
criteria.
The said land consists of 178,113 square meters of mangrove
swamps located in the municipality of Sapian, Capiz. Ruperto
Villareal applied for its registration on January 25, 1949,
alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
possession of the land for more than forty years. He was opposed by
several persons, including the petitioner on behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines. After trial, the application was approved by
the Court of First Instance. of Capiz. 1 The decision was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. 2 The Director of Forestry then came to
this Court in a petition for review on certiorari claiming that the
land in dispute was forestal in nature and not subject to private
appropriation. He asks that the registration be reversed.
It should be stressed at the outset that both the petitioner and
the private respondent agree that the land is mangrove land. There
is no dispute as to this. The bone of contention between the
parties is the legal nature of mangrove swamps or manglares. The
petitioner claims, it is forestal and therefore not disposable and
the private respondent insists it is alienable as agricultural
land. The issue before us is legal, not factual.
For a proper background of this case, we have to go back to the
Philippine Bill of 1902, one of the earlier American organic acts
in the country. By this law, lands of the public domain in the
Philippine Islands were classified into three grand divisions, to
wit, agricultural, mineral and timber or forest lands. This
classification was maintained in the Constitution of the
Commonwealth, promulgated in 1935, until it was superseded by the
Constitution of 1973. That new charter expanded the classification
of public lands to include industrial or commercial, residential,
resettlement, and grazing lands and even permitted the legislature
to provide for other categories. 3 This provision has been
reproduced, but with substantial modifications, in the present
Constitution. 4
Under the Commonwealth Constitution, which was the charter in
force when this case arose, only agricultural lands were allowed to
be alienated. 5 Their disposition was provided for under C.A. No.
141. Mineral and timber or forest lands were not subject to private
ownership unless they were first reclassified as agricultural lands
and so released for alienation.
In the leading case of Montano v. Insular Government, 6
promulgated in 1909, mangrove swamps or manglares were defined by
the Court as:
... mud flats, alternately washed and exposed by the tide, in
which grows various kindred plants which will not live except when
watered by the sea, extending their roots deep into the mud and
casting their seeds, which also germinate there. These constitute
the mangrove flats of the tropics, which exist naturally, but which
are also, to some extent cultivated by man for the sake of the
combustible wood of the mangrove and like trees as well as for the
useful nipa palm propagated thereon. Although these flats are
literally tidal lands, yet we are of the opinion that they cannot
be so regarded in the sense in which that term is used in the cases
cited or in general American jurisprudence. The waters flowing over
them are not available for purpose of navigation, and they may be
disposed of without impairment of the public interest in what
remains.
x x x
Under this uncertain and somewhat unsatisfactory condition of
the law, the custom had grown of converting manglares and nipa
lands into fisheries which became a common feature of settlement
along the coast and at the same time of the change of sovereignty
constituted one of the most productive industries of the Islands,
the abrogation of which would destroy vested interests and prove a
public disaster.
Mangrove swamps were thus considered agricultural lands and so
susceptible of private ownership.
Subsequently, the Philippine Legislature categorically declared,
despite the above-cited case, that mangrove swamps form part of the
public forests of this country. This it did in the Administrative
Code of 1917, which became effective on October 1 of that year,
thus:
Section 1820. Words and phrase defined. - For the purpose of
this chapter 'public forest' includes, except as otherwise
specially indicated, all unreserved public land, including nipa and
mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever character.
It is noteworthy, though, that notwithstanding this definition,
the Court maintained the doctrine in the Montano case when two
years later it held in the case of Jocson v. Director of Forestry:
7
...the words timber land are always translated in the Spanish
translation of that Act (Act of Congress) as terrenos forestales.
We think there is an error in this translation and that a better
translation would be 'terrenos madereros.' Lumber land in English
means land with trees growing on it. The mangler plant would never
be called a tree in English but a bush, and land which has only
bushes, shrubs or aquatic plants growing on it cannot be called
'timber land.
xxx xxx xxx
The fact that there are a few trees growing in a manglare or
nipa swamps does not change the general character of the land from
manglare to timber land.
More to the point, addressing itself directly to above-quoted
Section 1820, the Court declared:
'In the case of Mapa vs. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep.,
175), this Court said that the phrase agricultural lands as used in
Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are
not timber or mineral lands.
Whatever may have been the meaning of the term 'forestry' under
the Spanish law, the Act of Congress of July 1st 1902, classifies
the public lands in the Philippine Islands as timber, mineral or
agricultural lands, and all public lands that are not timber or
mineral lands are necessarily agricultural public lands, whether
they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm
lands.
The definition of forestry as including manglares found in the
Administrative Code of 1917 cannot affect rights which vested prior
to its enactment.
These lands being neither timber nor mineral lands, the trial
court should have considered them agricultural lands. If they are
agricultural lands, then the rights of appellants are fully
established by Act No. 926.
The doctrine was reiterated still later in Garchitorena Vda. de
Centenera v. Obias, 8 promulgated on March 4, 1933, more than
fifteen years after the effectivity of the Administrative Code of
1917. Justice Ostrand declared for a unanimous Court:
The opposition rests mainly upon the proposition that the land
covered by the application there are mangrove lands as shown in his
opponent's Exh. 1, but we think this opposition of the Director of
Forestry is untenable, inasmuch as it has been definitely decided
that mangrove lands are not forest lands in the sense in which this
phrase is used in the Act of Congress.
No elaboration was made on this conclusion which was merely
based on the cases of Montano and Jocson. And in 1977, the above
ruling was reaffirmed in Tongson v. Director of Forestry, 9 with
Justice Fernando declaring that the mangrove lands in litis were
agricultural in nature. The decision even quoted with approval the
statement of the trial court that:
... Mangrove swamps where only trees of mangrove species grow,
where the trees are small and sparse, fit only for firewood
purposes and the trees growing are not of commercial value as
lumber do not convert the land into public land. Such lands are not
forest in character. They do not form part of the public
domain.
Only last year, in Republic v. De Porkan, 10 the Court, citing
Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 11 reiterated the ruling in the Mapa
case that "all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands
are necessarily agricultural public lands, whether they are used as
nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary farm lands.
But the problem is not all that simple. As it happens, there is
also a line of decisions holding the contrary view.
In Yngson v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 12
promulgated in 1983, the Court ruled "that the Bureau of Fisheries
has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamp lands or mangrove lands
forming part of the public domain while such lands are still
classified as forest lands.
Four months later, in Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of
Forestry, 13 the Court was more positive when it held, again
through Justice Gutierrez:
The Heirs of Jose Amunategui maintain that Lot No. 885 cannot be
classified as forest land because it is not thickly forested but is
a 'mangrove swamps.' Although conceding that 'mangrove swamp' is
included in the classification of forest land in accordance with
Section 1820 of the Revised Administrative Code, the petitioners
argue that no big trees classified in Section 1821 of the said Code
as first, second and third groups are found on the land in
question. Furthermore, they contend that Lot 885, even if it is a
mangrove swamp, is still subject to land registration proceedings
because the property had been in actual possession of private
persons for many years, and therefore, said land was already
'private land' better adapted and more valuable for agricultural
than for forest purposes and not required by the public interests
to be kept under forest classification.
The petition is without merit.
A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain
does not lose such classification simply because loggers or
settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover. Parcels of land
classified as forest land may actually be covered with grass or
planted to crops by kaingin cultivators or other farmers. 'Forested
lands' do not have to be on mountains or in out-of-the-way places.
Swampy areas covered by mangrove trees, nipa palms, and other trees
growing in brackish or sea water may also be classified as forest
land. The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or
status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land
actually looks like. Unless and until the land classsified as
'forest' is released in an official proclamation to that effect so
that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the
public domain, the rules on confirmation of imperfect titles do not
apply.'
The view was maintained in Vallarta v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 14 where this Court agreed with the Solicitor General's
submission that the land in dispute, which he described as "swamp
mangrove or forestal land," were not private properties and so not
registerable. This case was decided only twelve days after the De
Porkan case.
Faced with these apparent contradictions, the Court feels there
is a need for a categorical pronouncement that should resolve once
and for all the question of whether mangrove swamps are
agricultural lands or forest lands.
The determination of this question is a function initially
belonging to the legislature, which has the authority to implement
the constitutional provision classifying the lands of the public
domain (and is now even permitted to provide for more categories of
public lands). The legislature having made such implementation, the
executive officials may then, in the discharge of their own role,
administer our public lands pursuant to their constitutional duty "
to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed' and in accordance
with the policy prescribed. For their part, the courts will step
into the picture if the rules laid down by the legislature are
challenged or, assuming they are valid, it is claimed that they are
not being correctly observed by the executive. Thus do the three
departments, coordinating with each other, pursue and achieve the
objectives of the Constitution in the conservation and utilization
of our natural resources.
In C.A. No. 141, the National Assembly delegated to the
President of the Philippines the function of making periodic
classifications of public lands, thus:
Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time
classify the lands of the public domain into:
(a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Lumber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands
from one class to another, for the purposes of their administration
and disposition.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition
of alienable or disposable lands, the President, upon
recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are open to
disposition or concession under this Act.
With particular regard to alienable public lands, Section 9 of
the same law provides:
For the purpose of their administration and disposition, the
lands of the public domain alienable or open to disposition shall
be classified, according to the use or purposes to which such lands
are destined, as follows:
(a) Agricultural;
(b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar
productive purposes;
(c) Educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; and
(d) Reservations for townsites and for public and quasi-public
uses.
The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time make the
classifications provided for in this section, and may, at any time
and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to
another.
As for timber or forest lands, the Revised Administrative Code
states as follows:
Sec. 1826. Regulation setting apart forest reserves- Revocation
of same. - Upon there commendation of the Director of Forestry,
with the approval of the Department Head, the President of the
Philippines may set apart forest reserves from the public lands and
he shall by proclamation declare the establishment of such reserves
and the boundaries thereof, and thereafter such forest reserves
shall not be entered, sold, or otherwise disposed of, but shall
remain as such for forest uses, and shall be administered in the
same manner as public forest.
The President of the Philippines may in like manner by
proclamation alter or modify the boundaries of any forest reserve
from time to time, or revoke any such proclamation, and upon such
revocation such forest reserve shall be and become part of the
public lands as though such proclamation had never been made.
Sec. 1827. Assignment of forest land for agricultural purposes.
- Lands in public forest, not including forest reserves, upon the
certification of the Director of Forestry that said lands are
better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest
purposes and not required by the public interests to be kept under
forest, shall be declared by the Department Head to be agricultural
lands.
With these principles in mind, we reach the following
conclusion:
Mangrove swamps or manglares should be understood as comprised
within the public forests of the Philippines as defined in the
aforecited Section 1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917. The
legislature having so determined, we have no authority to ignore or
modify its decision, and in effect veto it, in the exercise of our
own discretion. The statutory definition remains unchanged to date
and, no less noteworthy, is accepted and invoked by the executive
department. More importantly, the said provision has not been
challenged as arbitrary or unrealistic or unconstitutional assuming
the requisite conditions, to justify our judicial intervention and
scrutiny. The law is thus presumed valid and so must be respected.
We repeat our statement in the Amunategui case that the
classification of mangrove swamps as forest lands is descriptive of
its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of
what the land actually looks like. That determination having been
made and no cogent argument having been raised to annul it, we have
no duty as judges but to apply it. And so we shall.
Our previous description of the term in question as pertaining
to our agricultural lands should be understood as covering only
those lands over which ownership had already vested before the
Administrative Code of 1917 became effective. Such lands could not
be retroactively legislated as forest lands because this would be
violative of a duly acquired property right protected by the due
process clause. So we ruled again only two months ago in Republic
of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 15 where the possession of
the land in dispute commenced as early as 1909, before it was much
later classified as timberland.
It follows from all this that the land under contention being
admittedly a part of the mangrove swamps of Sapian, and for which a
minor forest license had in fact been issued by the Bureau of
Forestry from 1920 to 1950, it must be considered forest land. It
could therefore not be the subject of the adverse possession and
consequent ownership claimed by the private respondent in support
of his application for registration. To be so, it had first to be
released as forest land and reclassified as agricultural land
pursuant to the certification the Director of Forestry may issue
under Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The private respondent invokes the survey plan of the mangrove
swamps approved by the Director of Lands, 16 to prove that the land
is registerable. It should be plain, however, that the mere
existence of such a plan would not have the effect of converting
the mangrove swamps, as forest land, into agricultural land. Such
approval is ineffectual because it is clearly in officious. The
Director of Lands was not authorized to act in the premises. Under
the aforecited law, it is the Director of Forestry who has the
authority to determine whether forest land is more valuable for
agricultural rather than forestry uses, as a basis for its
declaration as agricultural land and release for private
ownership.
Thus we held in the Yngson case:
It is elementary in the law governing the disposition of lands
of the public domain that until timber or forest lands are released
as disposable and alienable neither the Bureau of Lands nor the
Bureau of Fisheries has authority to lease, grant, sell or
otherwise dispose of these lands for homesteads, sales patents,
leases for grazing or other purposes, fishpond leases and other
modes of utilization.
The Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to administer and
dispose of swamp lands or mangrove lands forming part of the public
domain while such lands are still classified as forest land or
timber land and not released for fishery or other purposes.
The same rule was echoed in the Vallarta case, thus:
It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that
forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not
registerable. The adverse possession which can be the basis of a
grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title cases cannot
commence until after the forest land has been declared alienable
and disposable. Possession of forest land, no matter bow long
cannot convert it into private property.'
We find in fact that even if the land in dispute were
agricultural in nature, the proof the private respondent offers of
prescriptive possession thereof is remarkably meager and of dubious
persuasiveness. The record contains no convincing evidence of the
existence of the informacion posesoria allegedly obtained by the
original transferor of the property, let alone the fact that the
conditions for acquiring title thereunder have been satisfied.
Nowhere has it been shown that the informacion posesoria has been
inscribed or registered in the registry of property and that the
land has been under the actual and adverse possession of the
private respondent for twenty years as required by the Spanish
Mortgage Law. 17 These matters are not presumed but must be
established with definite proof, which is lacking in this case.
Significantly, the tax declarations made by the private
respondent were practically the only basis used by the appellate
court in sustaining his claim of possession over the land in
question. Tax declarations are, of course, not sufficient to prove
possession and much less vest ownership in favor of the declarant,
as we have held in countless cases. 18
We hold, in sum, that the private respondent has not established
his right to the registration of the subject land in his name.
Accordingly, the petition must be granted.
It is reiterated for emphasis that, conformably to the
legislative definition embodied in Section 1820 of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1917, which remains unamended up to now,
mangrove swamps or manglares form part of the public forests of the
Philippines. As such, they are not alienable under the Constitution
and may not be the subject of private ownership until and unless
they are first released as forest land and classified as alienable
agricultural land.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and
the application for registration of title of private respondent is
DISMISSED, with cost against him. This decision is immediately
executory.
SO ORDERED.THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152115. January 26, 2005]
NIMFA USERO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS.
HERMINIGILDO & CECILIA POLINAR, respondents.
[G.R. No. 155055. January 26, 2005]
LUTGARDA R. SAMELA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS.
HERMINIGILDO & CECILIA POLINAR, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
Before this Court are two consolidated petitions for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The first petition,
docketed as G.R. No. 152115, filed by Nimfa Usero, assails the
September 19, 2001 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP
No. 64718. The second petition, docketed as G.R. No. 155055, filed
by Lutgarda R. Samela, assails the January 11, 2002 decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP NO. 64181.
The undisputed facts follow.
Petitioners Lutgarda R. Samela and Nimfa Usero are the owners
respectively of lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Golden Acres Subdivision,
Barrio Almanza, Las Pias City.
Private respondent spouses Polinar are the registered owners of
a parcel of land at no. 18 Anahaw St., Pilar Village, Las Pias
City, behind the lots of petitioners Samela and Usero.
Situated between the lots of the parties is a low-level strip of
land, with a stagnant body of water filled with floating water
lilies; abutting and perpendicular to the lot of petitioner Samela,
the lot of the Polinars and the low-level strip of land is the
perimeter wall of Pilar Village Subdivision.
Apparently, every time a storm or heavy rains occur, the water
in said strip of land rises and the strong current passing through
it causes considerable damage to the house of respondent Polinars.
Frustrated by their predicament, private respondent spouses, on
July 30, 1998, erected a concrete wall on the bank of the low-level
strip of land about three meters from their house and rip-rapped
the soil on that portion of the strip of land.
Claiming ownership of the subject strip of land, petitioners
Samela and Usero demanded that the spouses Apolinar stop their
construction but the spouses paid no heed, believing the strip to
be part of a creek. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace, the
Polinars offered to pay for the land being claimed by petitioners
Samela and Usero. However, the parties failed to settle their
differences.
On November 9, 1998, petitioners filed separate complaints for
forcible entry against the Polinars at the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Las Pias City. The case filed by petitioner Samela was docketed
as Civil Case No. 5242, while that of petitioner Usero was docketed
as Civil Case No. 5243.
In Civil Case No. 5242, petitioner Samela adduced in evidence a
copy of her Transfer Certificate of Title, plan of consolidation,
subdivision survey, the tax declaration in her name, and affidavits
of petitioner Usero and a certain Justino Gamela whose property was
located beside the perimeter wall of Pilar Village.
The spouses Polinar, on the other hand, presented in evidence
their own TCT; a barangay certification as to the existence of the
creek; a certification from the district engineer that the western
portion of Pilar Village is bound by a tributary of Talon Creek
throughout its entire length; boundary and index map of Pilar
Village showing that the village is surrounded by a creek and that
the Polinar property is situated at the edge of said creek; and
pictures of the subject strip of land filled with water lilies.
On March 22, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision in favor
of petitioner Samela:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment ordering the
defendants to vacate and remove at their expense the improvements
made on the subject lot; ordering the defendants to pay the
plaintiff P1,000.00 a month as reasonable compensation for the use
of the portion encroached from the filing of the complaint until
the same is finally vacated; and to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as
reasonable attorneys fees plus costs of suit.[3]
In a parallel development, the Metropolitan Trial Court, in
Civil Case No. 5243, issued an order on February 29, 2000,
directing petitioner Usero and the Polinar spouses to commission a
professional geodetic engineer to conduct a relocation survey and
to submit the report to the trial court.
On April 24, 2000, Mariano Flotilde, a licensed geodetic
engineer, conducted a relocation survey of Useros property covered
by TCT No. T- 29545. The result of the said relocation survey, as
stated in his affidavit, was as follows:
1. That I executed a relocation survey of Lot 2, Block 5, (LRC)
PCS-4463 covered by TCT No. T-29545 registered in the name of Nimfa
O. Usero;
2. That according to my survey, I found out that there is no
existing creek on the boundary of the said lot;
3. That based on the relocation plan surveyed by the
undersigned, attached herewith, appearing is the encroachment on
the above-mentioned lot by Spouses Herminigildo and Cecilia Polinar
with an area of FORTY THREE (43) SQUARE METERS;
4. That this affidavit was made in compliance with Court Order
dated February 23, 2000 of Metropolitan Trial Court, Las Pias City,
Branch LXXIX.[4]
On August 25, 2000, the Metropolitan Trial Court decided in
favor of petitioner Usero:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff
and against the defendants ordering them:
a) To vacate and remove at their expense the improvement made on
the subject lot;
b) To pay the plaintiff P1,000.00 a month as reasonable
compensation for the portion encroached from the time of the filing
of the complaint until the same is finally vacated;
c) To pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as reasonable attorneys fees plus
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The Polinar spouses appealed the decisions of the two Municipal
Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias, Branch 253
which heard the appeals separately.
On December 20, 2000, the Regional Trial Court, deciding Civil
Case No. 5242, reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered
the dismissal of the complaint. It confirmed the existence of the
creek between the northwestern portion of the lot of petitioner
Samela and the southwestern portion of the lot of the spouses
Polinar:
Finding the existence of a creek between the respective
properties of the parties, plaintiff-appellee cannot therefore lay
claim of lawful ownership of that portion because the same forms
part of public dominion. Consequently, she cannot legally stop the
defendants-appellants from rip-rapping the bank of the creek to
protect the latters property from soil erosion thereby avoiding
danger to their lives and damage to property.
Absent a lawful claim by the plaintiff-appellee over the subject
portion of that lot, defendants-appellants are not duty bound to
pay the former compensation for the use of the same. As a result,
they may maintain the said improvements introduced thereon subject
to existing laws, rules and regulations and/or ordinances
appurtenant thereto.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision rendered by Branch
79 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Las Pias is REVERSED.
Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On March 16, 2001, the Regional Trial Court, in Civ