Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

155076 January 13, 2009

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, Petitioner, vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 150, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY Respondents. RESOLUTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On February 27, 2006, this Courts First Division rendered judgment in this case as follows: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court and the Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to issue an order granting the motion of the petitioner to quash the Amended Information. SO ORDERED.1 By way of brief background, petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The Amended Information charged the accused with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows: On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount. CONTRARY TO LAW.2 Petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)," on the ground that the factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft. The trial court denied the Motion to Quash the Amended Information, as well petitioners subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioners special civil action for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with this Court. In the above-quoted Decision, this Court held that the Amended Information does not contain material allegations charging petitioner with theft of personal property since international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. It maintains that the Amended Information charging petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient; that it states the names of all the accused who were specifically charged with the crime of theft of PLDTs international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service on or about September 10 to 19, 1999 in Makati City by conducting ISR or International Simple Resale; that it identifies the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service of PLDT as the personal properties which were unlawfully taken by the accused; and that it satisfies the test of sufficiency as it enabled a person of common understanding to know the charge against him and the court to render judgment properly. PLDT further insists that the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Codes definition of real and personal property. The enumeration of real properties in Article 415 of the Civil Code is exclusive such that all those not included therein are personal properties. Since Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code used the words "personal property" without qualification, it follows that all "personal properties" as understood in the context of the Civil Code, may be the subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of theft. PLDT also argues that "taking" in relation to theft under the Revised Penal Code does not require "asportation," the sole requisite being that the object should be capable of "appropriation." The element of "taking" referred to in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable coupled with the intention, at the time of the "taking," of withholding it with the character of permanency. There must be intent to appropriate, which means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. Thus, the term "personal properties" under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to only personal properties which are "susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity and of being transported from place to place." PLDT likewise alleges that as early as the 1930s, international telephone calls were in existence; hence, there is no basis for this Courts finding that the Legislature could not have contemplated the theft of international telephone calls and the unlawful transmission and routing of electronic voice signals or impulses emanating from such calls by unlawfully tampering with the telephone device as within the coverage of the Revised Penal Code. According to respondent, the "international phone calls" which are "electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver," are personal properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of the Civil Code deems "forces of nature" (which includes electricity) which are brought under the control by science, are personal property.

In his Comment to PLDTs motion for reconsideration, petitioner Laurel claims that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a communication carried out using the telephone. It is not synonymous to electric current or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as personal property susceptible of appropriation. Petitioner claims that the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not produce or generate telephone calls. It only provides the facilities or services for the transmission and switching of the calls. He also insists that "business" is not personal property. It is not the "business" that is protected but the "right to carry on a business." This right is what is considered as property. Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as "property," the same may not be subject of theft. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with respondent PLDT that "international phone calls and the business or service of providing international phone calls" are subsumed in the enumeration and definition of personal property under the Civil Code hence, may be proper subjects of theft. It noted that the cases of United States v. Genato,3 United States v. Carlos4 and United States v. Tambunting,5 which recognized intangible properties like gas and electricity as personal properties, are deemed incorporated in our penal laws. Moreover, the theft provision in the Revised Penal Code was deliberately couched in broad terms precisely to be all-encompassing and embracing even such scenario that could not have been easily anticipated. According to the OSG, prosecution under Republic Act (RA) No. 8484 or the Access Device Regulations Act of 1998 and RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 does not preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of theft. The latter embraces unauthorized appropriation or use of PLDTs international calls, service and business, for personal profit or gain, to the prejudice of PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand, the special laws punish the surreptitious and advanced technical means employed to illegally obtain the subject service and business. Even assuming that the correct indictment should have been under RA 8484, the quashal of the information would still not be proper. The charge of theft as alleged in the Information should be taken in relation to RA 8484 because it is the elements, and not the designation of the crime, that control. Considering the gravity and complexity of the novel questions of law involved in this case, the Special First Division resolved to refer the same to the Banc. We resolve to grant the Motion for Reconsideration but remand the case to the trial court for proper clarification of the Amended Information. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters consent. The elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the definition of the term "personal property" in the penal code provision on theft had been established in

Philippine jurisprudence. This Court, in United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Tambunting, consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. Moreover, since the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the term "personal property" has had a generally accepted definition in civil law. In Article 335 of the Civil Code of Spain, "personal property" is defined as "anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property)." Thus, the term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on statutory construction that where words have been long used in a technical sense and have been judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the legislature as having a certain meaning prior to a particular statute, in which they are used, the words used in such statute should be construed according to the sense in which they have been previously used.6 In fact, this Court used the Civil Code definition of "personal property" in interpreting the theft provision of the penal code in United States v. Carlos. Cognizant of the definition given by jurisprudence and the Civil Code of Spain to the term "personal property" at the time the old Penal Code was being revised, still the legislature did not limit or qualify the definition of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code. Neither did it provide a restrictive definition or an exclusive enumeration of "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code, thereby showing its intent to retain for the term an extensive and unqualified interpretation. Consequently, any property which is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the Revised Penal Code.
1avvphi1.zw+

The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is defined as "carrying away."7 Jurisprudence is settled that to "take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away.8 To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing.9 The word "take" in the Revised Penal Code includes any act intended to transfer possession which, as held in the assailed Decision, may be committed through the use of the offenders own hands, as well as any mechanical device, such as an access device or card as in the instant case. This includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering, as held in Natividad v. Court of Appeals,10 use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, as held in United States v. Tambunting, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity, as held in the cases of United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Menagas.11 As illustrated in the above cases, 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, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature. In the instant case, petitioner was charged with engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined. As early as 1910, the Court declared in Genato that ownership over electricity (which an international long distance call consists of), as well as telephone service, is protected by the

provisions on theft of the Penal Code. The pertinent provision of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which was involved in the said case, reads as follows: Injury to electric apparatus; Tapping current; Evidence. No person shall destroy, mutilate, deface, or otherwise injure or tamper with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service, nor tap or otherwise wrongfully deflect or take any electric current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus. No person shall, for any purpose whatsoever, use or enjoy the benefits of any device by means of which he may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service; and the existence in any building premises of any such device shall, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, be deemed sufficient evidence of such use by the persons benefiting thereby. It was further ruled that even without the above ordinance the acts of subtraction punished therein are covered by the provisions on theft of the Penal Code then in force, thus: Even without them (ordinance), the right of the ownership of electric current is secured by articles 517 and 518 of the Penal Code; the application of these articles in cases of subtraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some respects resembling electricity, is confirmed by the rule laid down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of January 20, 1887, and April 1, 1897, construing and enforcing the provisions of articles 530 and 531 of the Penal Code of that country, articles 517 and 518 of the code in force in these islands. The acts of "subtraction" include: (a) tampering with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone service; (b) tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c) using or enjoying the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service. In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. The business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal property which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence, could be object of theft: Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of a stock of goods, wares, merchandise, provisions, or materials otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and the regular prosecution of the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, or any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of all, or substantially all, of the business or trade theretofore conducted by the vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor, or all, or substantially all, of the fixtures and equipment used in and about the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, shall be deemed to be a sale and transfer in bulk, in contemplation of the Act. x x x. In Strochecker v. Ramirez,12 this Court stated:

With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged which is one-half interest in the business above described, such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties in article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the subject of mortgage. Interest in business was not specifically enumerated as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the time the above decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal property since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties. Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, business should also be classified as personal property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property.13 As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions, petitioners acts constitute theft of respondent PLDTs business and service, committed by means of the unlawful use of the latters facilities. In this regard, the Amended Information inaccurately describes the offense by making it appear that what petitioner took were the international long distance telephone calls, rather than respondent PLDTs business. A perusal of the records of this case readily reveals that petitioner and respondent PLDT extensively discussed the issue of ownership of telephone calls. The prosecution has taken the position that said telephone calls belong to respondent PLDT. This is evident from its Comment where it defined the issue of this case as whether or not "the unauthorized use or appropriation of PLDT international telephone calls, service and facilities, for the purpose of generating personal profit or gain that should have otherwise belonged to PLDT, constitutes theft."14 In discussing the issue of ownership, petitioner and respondent PLDT gave their respective explanations on how a telephone call is generated.15 For its part, respondent PLDT explains the process of generating a telephone call as follows: 38. The role of telecommunication companies is not limited to merely providing the medium (i.e. the electric current) through which the human voice/voice signal of the caller is transmitted. Before the human voice/voice signal can be so transmitted, a telecommunication company, using its facilities, must first break down or decode the human voice/voice signal into electronic impulses and subject the same to further augmentation and enhancements. Only after such process of conversion will the resulting electronic impulses be transmitted by a telecommunication company, again, through the use of its facilities. Upon reaching the destination of the call, the telecommunication company will again break down or decode the electronic impulses back to human voice/voice signal before the called party receives the same. In other words, a telecommunication company both converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium for transmitting the same. 39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call, once the electronic impulses originating from a foreign telecommunication company country (i.e. Japan) reaches the Philippines through a local telecommunication company (i.e. private respondent PLDT), it is the latter which decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call. Thus, it is not true that the foreign telecommunication company

provides (1) the electric current which transmits the human voice/voice signal of the caller and (2) the electric current for the called party to receive said human voice/voice signal. 40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurels assertion, once the electronic impulses or electric current originating from a foreign telecommunication company (i.e. Japan) reaches private respondent PLDTs network, it is private respondent PLDT which decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call. Without private respondent PLDTs network, the human voice/voice signal of the calling party will never reach the called party.16 In the assailed Decision, it was conceded that in making the international phone calls, the human voice is converted into electrical impulses or electric current which are transmitted to the party called. A telephone call, therefore, is electrical energy. It was also held in the assailed Decision that intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates "forces of nature which are brought under control by science."17 Indeed, while it may be conceded that "international long distance calls," the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business. Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article. However, the Amended Information describes the thing taken as, "international long distance calls," and only later mentions "stealing the business from PLDT" as the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order to correct this inaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution directed to amend the Amended Information, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this amendment is not necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper offense, which would have called for the dismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be sure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thus guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution. ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 27, 2006 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68841 affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended Information to show that the property subject of the theft were services and business of the private offended party.

SO ORDERED. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987 PRUDENTIAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City; FERNANDO MAGCALE & TEODULA BALUYUT-MAGCALE, respondents.

PARAS, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the November 13, 1978 Decision * of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 2443-0 entitled "Spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut-Magcale vs. Hon. Ramon Y. Pardo and Prudential Bank" declaring that the deeds of real estate mortgage executed by respondent spouses in favor of petitioner bank are null and void. The undisputed facts of this case by stipulation of the parties are as follows: ... on November 19, 1971, plaintiffs-spouses Fernando A. Magcale and Teodula Baluyut Magcale secured a loan in the sum of P70,000.00 from the defendant Prudential Bank. To secure payment of this loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of defendant on the aforesaid date a deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the following described properties: l. A 2-STOREY, SEMI-CONCRETE, residential building with warehouse spaces containing a total floor area of 263 sq. meters, more or less, generally constructed of mixed hard wood and concrete materials, under a roofing of cor. g. i. sheets; declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Declaration No. 21109, issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P35,290.00. This building is the only improvement of the lot. 2. THE PROPERTY hereby conveyed by way of MORTGAGE includes the right of occupancy on the lot where the above property is erected, and more particularly described and bounded, as follows: A first class residential land Identffied as Lot No. 720, (Ts308, Olongapo Townsite Subdivision) Ardoin Street, East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City, containing an area of 465 sq. m. more or less, declared and assessed in the name of FERNANDO MAGCALE under Tax Duration No. 19595 issued by the Assessor of Olongapo City with an assessed value of P1,860.00; bounded on the

NORTH: By No. 6, Ardoin Street SOUTH: By No. 2, Ardoin Street EAST: By 37 Canda Street, and WEST: By Ardoin Street. All corners of the lot marked by conc. cylindrical monuments of the Bureau of Lands as visible limits. ( Exhibit "A, " also Exhibit "1" for defendant). Apart from the stipulations in the printed portion of the aforestated deed of mortgage, there appears a rider typed at the bottom of the reverse side of the document under the lists of the properties mortgaged which reads, as follows: AND IT IS FURTHER AGREED that in the event the Sales Patent on the lot applied for by the Mortgagors as herein stated is released or issued by the Bureau of Lands, the Mortgagors hereby authorize the Register of Deeds to hold the Registration of same until this Mortgage is cancelled, or to annotate this encumbrance on the Title upon authority from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which title with annotation, shall be released in favor of the herein Mortgage. From the aforequoted stipulation, it is obvious that the mortgagee (defendant Prudential Bank) was at the outset aware of the fact that the mortgagors (plaintiffs) have already filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot, possessory rights over which, were mortgaged to it. Exhibit "A" (Real Estate Mortgage) was registered under the Provisions of Act 3344 with the Registry of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971. On May 2, 1973, plaintiffs secured an additional loan from defendant Prudential Bank in the sum of P20,000.00. To secure payment of this additional loan, plaintiffs executed in favor of the said defendant another deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the same properties previously mortgaged in Exhibit "A." (Exhibit "B;" also Exhibit "2" for defendant). This second deed of Real Estate Mortgage was likewise registered with the Registry of Deeds, this time in Olongapo City, on May 2,1973.

On April 24, 1973, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 over the parcel of land, possessory rights over which were mortgaged to defendant Prudential Bank, in favor of plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid Patent, and upon its transcription in the Registration Book of the Province of Zambales, Original Certificate of Title No. P-2554 was issued in the name of Plaintiff Fernando Magcale, by the Ex-Oficio Register of Deeds of Zambales, on May 15, 1972. For failure of plaintiffs to pay their obligation to defendant Bank after it became due, and upon application of said defendant, the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibits "A" and "B") were extrajudicially foreclosed. Consequent to the foreclosure was the sale of the properties therein mortgaged to defendant as the highest bidder in a public auction sale conducted by the defendant City Sheriff on April 12, 1978 (Exhibit "E"). The auction sale aforesaid was held despite written request from plaintiffs through counsel dated March 29, 1978, for the defendant City Sheriff to desist from going with the scheduled public auction sale (Exhibit "D")." (Decision, Civil Case No. 2443-0, Rollo, pp. 29-31). Respondent Court, in a Decision dated November 3, 1978 declared the deeds of Real Estate Mortgage as null and void (Ibid., p. 35). On December 14, 1978, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid., pp. 41-53), opposed by private respondents on January 5, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 54-62), and in an Order dated January 10, 1979 (Ibid., p. 63), the Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition (Ibid., pp. 5-28). The first Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated March 9, 1979, resolved to require the respondents to comment (Ibid., p. 65), which order was complied with the Resolution dated May 18,1979, (Ibid., p. 100), petitioner filed its Reply on June 2,1979 (Ibid., pp. 101-112). Thereafter, in the Resolution dated June 13, 1979, the petition was given due course and the parties were required to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda. (Ibid., p. 114). On July 18, 1979, petitioner filed its Memorandum (Ibid., pp. 116-144), while private respondents filed their Memorandum on August 1, 1979 (Ibid., pp. 146-155). In a Resolution dated August 10, 1979, this case was considered submitted for decision (Ibid., P. 158). In its Memorandum, petitioner raised the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ARE VALID; AND 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPERVENING ISSUANCE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT NO. 4776 ON APRIL 24, 1972 UNDER ACT NO. 730 AND THE COVERING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P2554 ON MAY 15,1972 HAVE THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING THE DEEDS OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE. (Memorandum for Petitioner, Rollo, p. 122). This petition is impressed with merit.

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another. The answer is in the affirmative. In the enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, this Court ruled that, "it is obvious that the inclusion of "building" separate and distinct from the land, in said provision of law can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable property." (Lopez vs. Orosa, Jr., et al., L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958; Associated Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. vs. Iya, et al., L-10837-38, May 30,1958). Thus, while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land (Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644). In the same manner, this Court has also established that possessory rights over said properties before title is vested on the grantee, may be validly transferred or conveyed as in a deed of mortgage (Vda. de Bautista vs. Marcos, 3 SCRA 438 [1961]). Coming back to the case at bar, the records show, as aforestated that the original mortgage deed on the 2-storey semi-concrete residential building with warehouse and on the right of occupancy on the lot where the building was erected, was executed on November 19, 1971 and registered under the provisions of Act 3344 with the Register of Deeds of Zambales on November 23, 1971. Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 4776 on the land was issued on April 24, 1972, on the basis of which OCT No. 2554 was issued in the name of private respondent Fernando Magcale on May 15, 1972. It is therefore without question that the original mortgage was executed before the issuance of the final patent and before the government was divested of its title to the land, an event which takes effect only on the issuance of the sales patent and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds (Visayan Realty Inc. vs. Meer, 96 Phil. 515; Director of Lands vs. De Leon, 110 Phil. 28; Director of Lands vs. Jurado, L-14702, May 23, 1961; Pena "Law on Natural Resources", p. 49). Under the foregoing considerations, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own building which was erected on the land belonging to the government is to all intents and purposes a valid mortgage. As to restrictions expressly mentioned on the face of respondents' OCT No. P-2554, it will be noted that Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act, refer to land already acquired under the Public Land Act, or any improvement thereon and therefore have no application to the assailed mortgage in the case at bar which was executed before such eventuality. Likewise, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 730, also a restriction appearing on the face of private respondent's title has likewise no application in the instant case, despite its reference to encumbrance or alienation before the patent is issued because it refers specifically to encumbrance or alienation on the land itself and does not mention anything regarding the improvements existing thereon. But it is a different matter, as regards the second mortgage executed over the same properties on May 2, 1973 for an additional loan of P20,000.00 which was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Olongapo City on the same date. Relative thereto, it is evident that such mortgage executed after the issuance of the sales patent and of the Original Certificate of Title, falls squarely under the prohibitions stated in Sections 121, 122 and 124 of the Public Land Act and Section 2 of Republic Act 730, and is therefore null and void.

Petitioner points out that private respondents, after physically possessing the title for five years, voluntarily surrendered the same to the bank in 1977 in order that the mortgaged may be annotated, without requiring the bank to get the prior approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources beforehand, thereby implicitly authorizing Prudential Bank to cause the annotation of said mortgage on their title. However, the Court, in recently ruling on violations of Section 124 which refers to Sections 118, 120, 122 and 123 of Commonwealth Act 141, has held: ... Nonetheless, we apply our earlier rulings because we believe that as in pari delicto may not be invoked to defeat the policy of the State neither may the doctrine of estoppel give a validating effect to a void contract. Indeed, it is generally considered that as between parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy (19 Am. Jur. 802). It is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law was to preserve (Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. De los Amas and Alino supra). ... (Arsenal vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 54 [1986]). This pronouncement covers only the previous transaction already alluded to and does not pass upon any new contract between the parties (Ibid), as in the case at bar. It should not preclude new contracts that may be entered into between petitioner bank and private respondents that are in accordance with the requirements of the law. After all, private respondents themselves declare that they are not denying the legitimacy of their debts and appear to be open to new negotiations under the law (Comment; Rollo, pp. 95-96). Any new transaction, however, would be subject to whatever steps the Government may take for the reversion of the land in its favor. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City is hereby MODIFIED, declaring that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for P70,000.00 is valid but ruling that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for an additional loan of P20,000.00 is null and void, without prejudice to any appropriate action the Government may take against private respondents. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

Footnotes * Penned by Judge Domingo D. Panis.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 137705 August 22, 2000

SERG'S PRODUCTS, INC., and SERGIO T. GOQUIOLAY, petitioners, vs. PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: After agreeing to a contract stipulating that a real or immovable property be considered as personal or movable, a party is estopped from subsequently claiming otherwise. Hence, such property is a proper subject of a writ of replevin obtained by the other contracting party. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 6, 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)2 in CA-GR SP No. 47332 and its February 26, 1999 Resolution3 denying reconsideration. The decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order dated February 18, 1998 and Resolution dated March 31, 1998 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33500 are hereby AFFIRMED. The writ of preliminary injunction issued on June 15, 1998 is hereby LIFTED."4 In its February 18, 1998 Order,5 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 218)6 issued a Writ of Seizure.7 The March 18, 1998 Resolution8 denied petitioners Motion for Special Protective Order, praying that the deputy sheriff be enjoined "from seizing immobilized or other real properties in (petitioners) factory in Cainta, Rizal and to return to their original place whatever immobilized machineries or equipments he may have removed."9 The Facts The undisputed facts are summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:10 "On February 13, 1998, respondent PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. ("PCI Leasing" for short) filed with the RTC-QC a complaint for [a] sum of money (Annex E), with an application for a writ of replevin docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-33500. "On March 6, 1998, upon an ex-parte application of PCI Leasing, respondent judge issued a writ of replevin (Annex B) directing its sheriff to seize and deliver the machineries and equipment to PCI Leasing after 5 days and upon the payment of the necessary expenses.

"On March 24, 1998, in implementation of said writ, the sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory, seized one machinery with [the] word that he [would] return for the other machineries. "On March 25, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for special protective order (Annex C), 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 the writ of replevin. "This motion was opposed by PCI Leasing (Annex F), on the ground that the properties [were] still personal and therefore still subject to seizure and a writ of replevin. "In their Reply, petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seized [were] immovable as defined in Article 415 of the Civil Code, the parties agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be prejudicial to innocent third parties. They further stated that PCI Leasing [was] estopped from treating these machineries as personal because the contracts in which the alleged agreement [were] embodied [were] totally sham and farcical. "On April 6, 1998, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seizure and take possession of the remaining properties. He was able to take two more, but was prevented by the workers from taking the rest. "On April 7, 1998, they went to [the CA] via an original action for certiorari." Ruling of the Court of Appeals Citing the Agreement of the parties, the appellate court held that the subject machines were personal property, and that they had only been leased, not owned, by petitioners. It also ruled that the "words of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the true intention of the contracting parties." Observing that Petitioner Goquiolay was an experienced businessman who was "not unfamiliar with the ways of the trade," it ruled that he "should have realized the import of the document he signed." The CA further held: "Furthermore, to accord merit to this petition would be to preempt the trial court in ruling upon the case below, since the merits of the whole matter are laid down before us via a petition whose sole purpose is to inquire upon the existence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the [RTC] in issuing the assailed Order and Resolution. The issues raised herein are proper subjects of a full-blown trial, necessitating presentation of evidence by both parties. The contract is being enforced by one, and [its] validity is attacked by the other a matter x x x which respondent court is in the best position to determine." Hence, this Petition.11 The Issues In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our consideration: "A. Whether or not the machineries purchased and imported by SERGS became real property by virtue of immobilization. B. Whether or not the contract between the parties is a loan or a lease."12

In the main, the Court will resolve whether the said machines are personal, not immovable, property which may be a proper subject of a writ of replevin. As a preliminary matter, the Court will also address briefly the procedural points raised by respondent. The Courts Ruling The Petition is not meritorious. Preliminary Matter:Procedural Questions Respondent contends that the Petition failed to indicate expressly whether it was being filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It further alleges that the Petition erroneously impleaded Judge Hilario Laqui as respondent. There is no question that the present recourse is under Rule 45. This conclusion finds support in the very title of the Petition, which is "Petition for Review on Certiorari."13 While Judge Laqui should not have been impleaded as a respondent,14 substantial justice requires that such lapse by itself should not warrant the dismissal of the present Petition. In this light, the Court deems it proper to remove, motu proprio, the name of Judge Laqui from the caption of the present case. Main Issue: Nature of the Subject Machinery Petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary characterization. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property only.15 Section 3 thereof reads: "SEC. 3. Order. -- Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property alleged to be wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff forthwith to take such property into his custody." On the other hand, Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates immovable or real property as follows: "ART. 415. The following are immovable property: xxx xxx xxx

(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; xxx xxx x x x"

In the present case, the machines 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."16 In that sense, petitioners are correct in arguing that the said machines are real, not personal, property pursuant to Article 415 (5) of the Civil Code.17 Be that as it may, we disagree with the submission of the petitioners that the said machines are not proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal.18After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein. Hence, in Tumalad v. Vicencio,19 the Court upheld the intention of the parties to treat a house as a personal property because it had been made the subject of a chattel mortgage. The Court ruled: "x x x. Although there is no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property by way of chattel mortgage defendants-appellants could only have meant to convey the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise." Applying Tumalad, the Court in Makati Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Wearever Textile Mills20 also held that the machinery used in a factory and essential to the industry, as in the present case, was a proper subject of a writ of replevin because it was treated as personal property in a contract. Pertinent portions of the Courts ruling are reproduced hereunder: "x x x. If a house of strong materials, like what was involved in the above Tumalad case, may be considered as personal property for purposes of executing a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the parties to the contract so agree and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is absolutely no reason why a machinery, which is movable in its nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage." In the present case, the Lease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in question are to be considered as personal property. Specifically, Section 12.1 of the Agreement reads as follows:21 "12.1 The PROPERTY is, and shall at all times be and remain, personal property notwithstanding that the PROPERTY or any part thereof may now be, or hereafter become, in any manner affixed or attached to or embedded in, or permanently resting upon, real property or any building thereon, or attached in any manner to what is permanent." Clearly then, petitioners are estopped from denying the characterization of the subject machines as personal property. Under the circumstances, they are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. It should be stressed, however, that our holding -- that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting

parties are concerned.22 Hence, while the parties are bound by the Agreement, third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characterizing the subject machinery as personal.23 In any event, there is no showing that any specific third party would be adversely affected. Validity of the Lease Agreement In their Memorandum, petitioners contend that the Agreement is a loan and not a lease.24 Submitting documents supposedly showing that they own the subject machines, petitioners also argue in their Petition that the Agreement suffers from "intrinsic ambiguity which places in serious doubt the intention of the parties and the validity of the lease agreement itself."25 In their Reply to respondents Comment, they further allege that the Agreement is invalid.26 These arguments are unconvincing. The validity and the nature of the contract are the lis mota of the civil action pending before the RTC. A resolution of these questions, therefore, is effectively a resolution of the merits of the case. Hence, they should be threshed out in the trial, not in the proceedings involving the issuance of the Writ of Seizure. Indeed, in La Tondea Distillers v. CA,27 the Court explained that the policy under Rule 60 was that questions involving title to the subject property questions which petitioners are now raising -- should be determined in the trial. In that case, the Court noted that the remedy of defendants under Rule 60 was either to post a counter-bond or to question the sufficiency of the plaintiffs bond. They were not allowed, however, to invoke the title to the subject property. The Court ruled: "In other words, the law does not allow the defendant to file a motion to dissolve or discharge the writ of seizure (or delivery) on ground of insufficiency of the complaint or of the grounds relied upon therefor, as in proceedings on preliminary attachment or injunction, and thereby put at issue the matter of the title or right of possession over the specific chattel being replevied, the policy apparently being that said matter should be ventilated and determined only at the trial on the merits."28 Besides, these questions require a determination of facts and a presentation of evidence, both of which have no place in a petition for certiorari in the CA under Rule 65 or in a petition for review in this Court under Rule 45.29 Reliance on the Lease Agreement It should be pointed out that the Court in this case may rely on the Lease Agreement, for nothing on record shows that it has been nullified or annulled. In fact, petitioners assailed it first only in the RTC proceedings, which had ironically been instituted by respondent. Accordingly, it must be presumed valid and binding as the law between the parties. Makati Leasing and Finance Corporation30 is also instructive on this point. In that case, the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, which characterized the subject machinery as personal property, was also assailed because respondent had allegedly been required "to sign a printed form of chattel mortgage which was in a blank form at the time of signing." The Court rejected the argument and relied on the Deed, ruling as follows: "x x x. Moreover, even granting that the charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can only be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or

annullable pursuant to Article 1390 of the new Civil Code, by a proper action in court. There is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled. Neither is it disclosed that steps were taken to nullify the same. x x x" Alleged Injustice Committed on the Part of Petitioners Petitioners contend that "if the Court allows these machineries to be seized, then its workers would be out of work and thrown into the streets."31 They also allege that the seizure would nullify all efforts to rehabilitate the corporation. Petitioners arguments do not preclude the implementation of the Writ. As earlier discussed, law and jurisprudence support its propriety. Verily, the above-mentioned consequences, if they come true, should not be blamed on this Court, but on the petitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remedy under Section 5 of Rule 60, which allows the filing of a counterbond. The provision states:
1wphi1

"SEC. 5. Return of property. -- If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicants bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicants affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a copy bond on the applicant." WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001

RUBY L. TSAI, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents. x---------------------------------------------------------x [G.R. No. 120109. October 2, 2001.] PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EVER TEXTILE MILLS and MAMERTO R VILLALUZ, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: These consolidated cases assail the decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986, affirming the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 89-48265. Also assailed is respondent court's resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. On November 26, 1975, respondent Ever Textile Mills, Inc. (EVERTEX) obtained a three million peso (P3,000,000.00) loan from petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). As security for the loan, EVERTEX executed in favor of PBCom, a deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage over the lot under TCT No. 372097, where its factory stands, and the chattels located therein as enumerated in a schedule attached to the mortgage contract. The pertinent portions of the Real and Chattel Mortgage are quoted below: MORTGAGE (REAL AND CHATTEL) xxx xxx xxx

The MORTGAGOR(S) hereby transfer(s) and convey(s), by way of First Mortgage, to the MORTGAGEE, . . . certain parcel(s) of land, together with all the buildings and improvements now existing or which may hereafter exist thereon, situated in . . . "Annex A" (Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by Ever Textile Mills in favor of PBCommunications continued)

LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT A. Forty Eight (48) units of Vayrow Knitting Machines-Tompkins made in Hongkong: Serial Numbers Size of Machines xxx xxx xxx

B. Sixteen (16) sets of Vayrow Knitting Machines made in Taiwan. xxx xxx xxx

C. Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines made in West Germany. xxx xxx xxx

D. Four (4) Winding Machines. xxx xxx xxx SCHEDULE "A" I. TCT # 372097 - RIZAL xxx xxx xxx

II. Any and all buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter to exist on the above-mentioned lot. III. MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT situated, located and/or installed on the abovementioned lot located at . . . (a) Forty eight sets (48) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . . (b) Sixteen sets (16) Vayrow Knitting Machines . . . (c) Two (2) Circular Knitting Machines . . . (d) Two (2) Winding Machines . . . (e) Two (2) Winding Machines . . . IV. Any and all replacements, substitutions, additions, increases and accretions to above properties. xxx xxx xxx3

On April 23, 1979, PBCom granted a second loan of P3,356,000.00 to EVERTEX. The loan was secured by a Chattel Mortgage over personal properties enumerated in a list attached

thereto. These listed properties were similar to those listed in Annex A of the first mortgage deed. After April 23, 1979, the date of the execution of the second mortgage mentioned above, EVERTEX purchased various machines and equipments. On November 19, 1982, due to business reverses, EVERTEX filed insolvency proceedings docketed as SP Proc. No. LP-3091-P before the defunct Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXVIII. The CFI issued an order on November 24, 1982 declaring the corporation insolvent. All its assets were taken into the custody of the Insolvency Court, including the collateral, real and personal, securing the two mortgages as abovementioned. In the meantime, upon EVERTEX's failure to meet its obligation to PBCom, the latter commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against EVERTEX under Act 3135, otherwise known as "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages" and Act 1506 or "The Chattel Mortgage Law". A Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued on December 1, 1982. On December 15, 1982, the first public auction was held where petitioner PBCom emerged as the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date. On December 23, 1982, another public auction was held and again, PBCom was the highest bidder. The sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale on the same day. On March 7, 1984, PBCom consolidated its ownership over the lot and all the properties in it. In November 1986, it leased the entire factory premises to petitioner Ruby L. Tsai for P50,000.00 a month. On May 3, 1988, PBCom sold the factory, lock, stock and barrel to Tsai for P9,000,000.00, including the contested machineries. On March 16, 1989, EVERTEX filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages with the Regional Trial Court against PBCom, alleging inter alia that the extrajudicial foreclosure of subject mortgage was in violation of the Insolvency Law. EVERTEX claimed that no rights having been transmitted to PBCom over the assets of insolvent EVERTEX, therefore Tsai acquired no rights over such assets sold to her, and should reconvey the assets. Further, EVERTEX averred that PBCom, without any legal or factual basis, appropriated the contested properties, which were not included in the Real and Chattel Mortgage of November 26, 1975 nor in the Chattel Mortgage of April 23, 1979, and neither were those properties included in the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated December 1, 1982 and Certificate of Sale . . . dated December 15, 1982. The disputed properties, which were valued at P4,000,000.00, are: 14 Interlock Circular Knitting Machines, 1 Jet Drying Equipment, 1 Dryer Equipment, 1 Raisin Equipment and 1 Heatset Equipment. The RTC found that the lease and sale of said personal properties were irregular and illegal because they were not duly foreclosed nor sold at the December 15, 1982 auction sale since these were not included in the schedules attached to the mortgage contracts. The trial court decreed: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff corporation and against the defendants:

1. Ordering the annulment of the sale executed by defendant Philippine Bank of Communications in favor of defendant Ruby L. Tsai on May 3, 1988 insofar as it affects the personal properties listed in par. 9 of the complaint, and their return to the plaintiff corporation through its assignee, plaintiff Mamerto R. Villaluz, for disposition by the Insolvency Court, to be done within ten (10) days from finality of this decision; 2. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P5,200,000.00 as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 1986 to February 1991 and P100,000.00 every month thereafter, with interest thereon at the legal rate per annum until full payment; 3. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; 4. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff corporation the sum of P200,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; 5. Ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim of the defendants; and 6. Ordering the defendants to proportionately pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.4 Dissatisfied, both PBCom and Tsai appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its decision dated August 31, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, except for the deletion therefrom of the award; for exemplary damages, and reduction of the actual damages, from P100,000.00 to P20,000.00 per month, from November 1986 until subject personal properties are restored to appellees, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.5 Motion for reconsideration of the above decision having been denied in the resolution of April 28, 1995, PBCom and Tsai filed their separate petitions for review with this Court. In G.R No. 120098, petitioner Tsai ascribed the following errors to the respondent court: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN EFFECT MAKING A CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES BY TREATING THE 1981 ACQUIRED MACHINERIES AS CHATTELS INSTEAD OF REAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THEIR EARLIER 1975 DEED OF REAL AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE OR 1979 DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISPUTED 1981 MACHINERIES ARE NOT REAL PROPERTIES DEEMED PART OF THE MORTGAGE DESPITE THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND APPLICABLE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN DEEMING PETITIONER A PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH. IV THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN ASSESSING PETITIONER ACTUAL DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION FOR WANT OF VALID FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS. V THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND DIVISION) ERRED IN HOLDING AGAINST PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS ON PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.6 In G.R. No. 120098, PBCom raised the following issues: I. DID THE COURT OF APPEALS VALIDLY DECREE THE MACHINERIES LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE COMPLAINT BELOW AS PERSONAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE 1975 DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AND EXCLUDED THEM FROM THE REAL PROPERTY EXTRAJUDICIALLY FORECLOSED BY PBCOM DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE 1975 DEED THAT ALL AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE MORTGAGE SHALL FORM PART THEREOF, AND DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SAID MACHINERIES ARE BIG AND HEAVY, BOLTED OR CEMENTED ON THE REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY EVER TEXTILE MILLS TO PBCOM, AND WERE ASSESSED FOR REAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES? II CAN PBCOM, WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE MACHINERIES IN QUESTION IN GOOD FAITH, EXTENDED CREDIT FACILITIES TO EVER TEXTILE MILLS WHICH AS OF 1982 TOTALLED P9,547,095.28, WHO HAD SPENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY ON THE DISPUTED MACHINERIES AND HAD TO PAY ALL THE BACK TAXES OF EVER TEXTILE MILLS BE LEGALLY COMPELLED TO RETURN TO EVER THE SAID MACHINERIES OR IN LIEU THEREOF BE ASSESSED DAMAGES. IS THAT SITUATION TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT?7 The principal issue, in our view, is whether or not the inclusion of the questioned properties in the foreclosed properties is proper. The secondary issue is whether or not the sale of these properties to petitioner Ruby Tsai is valid. For her part, Tsai avers that the Court of Appeals in effect made a contract for the parties by treating the 1981 acquired units of machinery as chattels instead of real properties within their earlier 1975 deed of Real and Chattel Mortgage or 1979 deed of Chattel Mortgage.8 Additionally, Tsai argues that respondent court erred in holding that the disputed 1981 machineries are not real properties.9 Finally, she contends that the Court of Appeals

erred in holding against petitioner's arguments on prescription and laches10 and in assessing petitioner actual damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, for want of valid factual and legal basis.11 Essentially, PBCom contends that respondent court erred in affirming the lower court's judgment decreeing that the pieces of machinery in dispute were not duly foreclosed and could not be legally leased nor sold to Ruby Tsai. It further argued that the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that the pieces of machinery in question were personal properties have no factual and legal basis. Finally, it asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in assessing damages and attorney's fees against PBCom. In opposition, private respondents argue that the controverted units of machinery are not "real properties" but chattels, and, therefore, they were not part of the foreclosed real properties, rendering the lease and the subsequent sale thereof to Tsai a nullity.12 Considering the assigned errors and the arguments of the parties, we find the petitions devoid of merit and ought to be denied. Well settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.13 This rule is applied more stringently when the findings of fact of the RTC is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.14 The following are the facts as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals that are decisive of the issues: (1) the "controverted machineries" are not covered by, or included in, either of the two mortgages, the Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage, and the pure Chattel Mortgage; (2) the said machineries were not included in the list of properties appended to the Notice of Sale, and neither were they included in the Sheriff's Notice of Sale of the foreclosed properties.15 Petitioners contend that the nature of the disputed machineries, i.e., that they were heavy, bolted or cemented on the real property mortgaged by EVERTEX to PBCom, make them ipso facto immovable under Article 415 (3) and (5) of the New Civil Code. This assertion, however, does not settle the issue. Mere nuts and bolts do not foreclose the controversy. We have to look at the parties' intent. While it is true that the controverted properties appear to be immobile, a perusal of the contract of Real and Chattel Mortgage executed by the parties herein gives us a contrary indication. In the case at bar, both the trial and the appellate courts reached the same finding that the true intention of PBCOM and the owner, EVERTEX, is to treat machinery and equipment as chattels. The pertinent portion of respondent appellate court's ruling is quoted below: As stressed upon by appellees, appellant bank treated the machineries as chattels; never as real properties. Indeed, the 1975 mortgage contract, which was actually real and chattel mortgage, militates against appellants' posture. It should be noted that the printed form used by appellant bank was mainly for real estate mortgages. But reflective of the true intention of appellant PBCOM and appellee EVERTEX was the typing in capital letters, immediately following the printed caption of mortgage, of the phrase "real and chattel." So also, the "machineries and equipment" in the printed

form of the bank had to be inserted in the blank space of the printed contract and connected with the word "building" by typewritten slash marks. Now, then, if the machineries in question were contemplated to be included in the real estate mortgage, there would have been no necessity to ink a chattel mortgage specifically mentioning as part III of Schedule A a listing of the machineries covered thereby. It would have sufficed to list them as immovables in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage of the land and building involved. As regards the 1979 contract, the intention of the parties is clear and beyond question. It refers solely tochattels. The inventory list of the mortgaged properties is an itemization of sixty-three (63) individually described machineries while the schedule listed only machines and 2,996,880.50 worth of finished cotton fabrics and natural cotton fabrics.16 In the absence of any showing that this conclusion is baseless, erroneous or uncorroborated by the evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to depart therefrom. Too, assuming arguendo that the properties in question are immovable by nature, nothing detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation under the principle of estoppel. As far back as Navarro v. Pineda, 9 SCRA 631 (1963), an immovable may be considered a personal property if there is a stipulation as when it is used as security in the payment of an obligation where a chattel mortgage is executed over it, as in the case at bar. In the instant case, the parties herein: (1) executed a contract styled as "Real Estate Mortgage and Chattel Mortgage," instead of just "Real Estate Mortgage" if indeed their intention is to treat all properties included therein as immovable, and (2) attached to the said contract a separate "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT". These facts, taken together, evince the conclusion that the parties' intention is to treat these units of machinery as chattels. A fortiori, the contested after-acquired properties, which are of the same description as the units enumerated under the title "LIST OF MACHINERIES & EQUIPMENT," must also be treated as chattels. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the respondent appellate court's ruling that inasmuch as the subject mortgages were intended by the parties to involve chattels, insofar as equipment and machinery were concerned, the Chattel Mortgage Law applies, which provides in Section 7 thereof that: "a chattel mortgage shall be deemed to cover only the property described therein and not like or substituted property thereafter acquired by the mortgagor and placed in the same depository as the property originally mortgaged, anything in the mortgage to the contrary notwithstanding." And, since the disputed machineries were acquired in 1981 and could not have been involved in the 1975 or 1979 chattel mortgages, it was consequently an error on the part of the Sheriff to include subject machineries with the properties enumerated in said chattel mortgages. As the auction sale of the subject properties to PBCom is void, no valid title passed in its favor. Consequently, the sale thereof to Tsai is also a nullity under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet, one cannot give what one does not have.17 Petitioner Tsai also argued that assuming that PBCom's title over the contested properties is a nullity, she is nevertheless a purchaser in good faith and for value who now has a better right than EVERTEX.

To the contrary, however, are the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court that she is not a purchaser in good faith. Well-settled is the rule that the person who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value has the burden of proving such assertion.18 Petitioner Tsai failed to discharge this burden persuasively. Moreover, a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.19Records reveal, however, that when Tsai purchased the controverted properties, she knew of respondent's claim thereon. As borne out by the records, she received the letter of respondent's counsel, apprising her of respondent's claim, dated February 27, 1987.20 She replied thereto on March 9, 1987.21 Despite her knowledge of respondent's claim, she proceeded to buy the contested units of machinery on May 3, 1988. Thus, the RTC did not err in finding that she was not a purchaser in good faith. Petitioner Tsai's defense of indefeasibility of Torrens Title of the lot where the disputed properties are located is equally unavailing. This defense refers to sale of lands and not to sale of properties situated therein. Likewise, the mere fact that the lot where the factory and the disputed properties stand is in PBCom's name does not automatically make PBCom the owner of everything found therein, especially in view of EVERTEX's letter to Tsai enunciating its claim. Finally, petitioners' defense of prescription and laches is less than convincing. We find no cogent reason to disturb the consistent findings of both courts below that the case for the reconveyance of the disputed properties was filed within the reglementary period. Here, in our view, the doctrine of laches does not apply. Note that upon petitioners' adamant refusal to heed EVERTEX's claim, respondent company immediately filed an action to recover possession and ownership of the disputed properties. There is no evidence showing any failure or neglect on its part, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The doctrine of stale demands would apply only where by reason of the lapse of time, it would be inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights. Moreover, except for very strong reasons, this Court is not disposed to apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or defeat the rights of an owner.22 As to the award of damages, the contested damages are the actual compensation, representing rentals for the contested units of machinery, the exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. As regards said actual compensation, the RTC awarded P100,000.00 corresponding to the unpaid rentals of the contested properties based on the testimony of John Chua, who testified that the P100,000.00 was based on the accepted practice in banking and finance, business and investments that the rental price must take into account the cost of money used to buy them. The Court of Appeals did not give full credence to Chua's projection and reduced the award to P20,000.00. Basic is the rule that to recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be capable of proof but must actually be proven with reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable of the actual amount thereof.23 However, the allegations of respondent company as to the amount of unrealized rentals due them as actual damages remain mere assertions unsupported by documents and other competent

evidence. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.24 However, we are not prepared to disregard the following dispositions of the respondent appellate court: . . . In the award of actual damages under scrutiny, there is nothing on record warranting the said award of P5,200,000.00, representing monthly rental income of P100,000.00 from November 1986 to February 1991, and the additional award of P100,000.00 per month thereafter. As pointed out by appellants, the testimonial evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Jonh (sic) Chua and Mamerto Villaluz, is shy of what is necessary to substantiate the actual damages allegedly sustained by appellees, by way of unrealized rental income of subject machineries and equipments. The testimony of John Cua (sic) is nothing but an opinion or projection based on what is claimed to be a practice in business and industry. But such a testimony cannot serve as the sole basis for assessing the actual damages complained of. What is more, there is no showing that had appellant Tsai not taken possession of the machineries and equipments in question, somebody was willing and ready to rent the same for P100,000.00 a month. xxx xxx xxx

Then, too, even assuming arguendo that the said machineries and equipments could have generated a rental income of P30,000.00 a month, as projected by witness Mamerto Villaluz, the same would have been a gross income. Therefrom should be deducted or removed, expenses for maintenance and repairs . . . Therefore, in the determination of the actual damages or unrealized rental income sued upon, there is a good basis to calculate that at least four months in a year, the machineries in dispute would have been idle due to absence of a lessee or while being repaired. In the light of the foregoing rationalization and computation, We believe that a net unrealized rental income of P20,000.00 a month, since November 1986, is more realistic and fair.25 As to exemplary damages, the RTC awarded P200,000.00 to EVERTEX which the Court of Appeals deleted. But according to the CA, there was no clear showing that petitioners acted malevolently, wantonly and oppressively. The evidence, however, shows otherwise.It is a requisite to award exemplary damages that the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith,26 and the guilty acted in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, reckless or malevolent manner.27 As previously stressed, petitioner Tsai's act of purchasing the controverted properties despite her knowledge of EVERTEX's claim was oppressive and subjected the already insolvent respondent to gross disadvantage. Petitioner PBCom also received the same letters of Atty. Villaluz, responding thereto on March 24, 1987.28 Thus, PBCom's act of taking all the properties found in the factory of the financially handicapped respondent, including those properties not covered by or included in the mortgages, is equally oppressive and tainted with bad faith. Thus, we are in agreement with the RTC that an award of exemplary damages is proper. The amount of P200,000.00 for exemplary damages is, however, excessive. Article 2216 of the Civil Code provides that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for the adjudication of exemplary damages, their assessment being left to the discretion of the court in accordance

with the circumstances of each case.29 While the imposition of exemplary damages is justified in this case, equity calls for its reduction. In Inhelder Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-52358, 122 SCRA 576, 585, (May 30, 1983), we laid down the rule that judicial discretion granted to the courts in the assessment of damages must always be exercised with balanced restraint and measured objectivity. Thus, here the award of exemplary damages by way of example for the public good should be reduced to P100,000.00. By the same token, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded.30 In our view, RTC's award of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is reasonable, given the circumstances in these cases. WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 32986 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioners Philippine Bank of Communications and Ruby L. Tsai are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally Ever Textile Mills, Inc. the following: (1) P20,000.00 per month, as compensation for the use and possession of the properties in question from November 198631 until subject personal properties are restored to respondent corporation; (2) P100,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, and (3) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 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 forpurposes 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. Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr. and Abad Santos, JJ., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-47943 May 31, 1982 MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS and PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, respondents.

AQUINO, J.: This case is about the imposition of the realty tax on two oil storage tanks installed in 1969 by Manila Electric Company on a lot in San Pascual, Batangas which it leased in 1968 from Caltex (Phil.), Inc. The tanks are within the Caltex refinery compound. They have a total capacity of 566,000 barrels. They are used for storing fuel oil for Meralco's power plants. According to Meralco, the storage tanks are made of steel plates welded and assembled on the spot. Their bottoms rest on a foundation consisting of compacted earth as the outermost layer, a sand pad as the intermediate layer and a two-inch thick bituminous asphalt stratum as the top layer. The bottom of each tank is in contact with the asphalt layer, The steel sides of the tank are directly supported underneath by a circular wall made of concrete, eighteen inches thick, to prevent the tank from sliding. Hence, according to Meralco, the tank is not attached to its foundation. It is not anchored or welded to the concrete circular wall. Its bottom plate is not attached to any part of the foundation by bolts, screws or similar devices. The tank merely sits on its foundation. Each empty tank can be floated by flooding its dike-inclosed location with water four feet deep. (pp. 29-30, Rollo.) On the other hand, according to the hearing commissioners of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, the area where the two tanks are located is enclosed with earthen dikes with electric steel poles on top thereof and is divided into two parts as the site of each tank. The foundation of the tanks is elevated from the remaining area. On both sides of the earthen dikes are two separate concrete steps leading to the foundation of each tank. Tank No. 2 is supported by a concrete foundation with an asphalt lining about an inch thick. Pipelines were installed on the sides of each tank and are connected to the pipelines of the Manila Enterprises Industrial Corporation whose buildings and pumping station are near Tank No. 2. The Board concludes that while the tanks rest or sit on their foundation, the foundation itself and the walls, dikes and steps, which are integral parts of the tanks, are affixed to the land while the pipelines are attached to the tanks. (pp. 60-61, Rollo.) In 1970, the municipal treasurer of Bauan, Batangas, on the basis of an assessment made by the provincial assessor, required Meralco to pay realty taxes on the two tanks. For the five-year period from 1970 to 1974, the tax and penalties amounted to P431,703.96 (p. 27, Rollo). The Board

required Meralco to pay the tax and penalties as a condition for entertaining its appeal from the adverse decision of the Batangas board of assessment appeals. The Central Board of Assessment Appeals (composed of Acting Secretary of Finance Pedro M. Almanzor as chairman and Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos and Secretary of Local Government and Community Development Jose Roo as members) in its decision dated November 5, 1976 ruled that the tanks together with the foundation, walls, dikes, steps, pipelines and other appurtenances constitute taxable improvements. Meralco received a copy of that decision on February 28, 1977. On the fifteenth day, it filed a motion for reconsideration which the Board denied in its resolution of November 25, 1977, a copy of which was received by Meralco on February 28, 1978. On March 15, 1978, Meralco filed this special civil action of certiorari to annul the Board's decision and resolution. It contends that the Board acted without jurisdiction and committed a grave error of law in holding that its storage tanks are taxable real property. Meralco contends that the said oil storage tanks do not fall within any of the kinds of real property enumerated in article 415 of the Civil Code and, therefore, they cannot be categorized as realty by nature, by incorporation, by destination nor by analogy. Stress is laid on the fact that the tanks are not attached to the land and that they were placed on leased land, not on the land owned by Meralco. This is one of those highly controversial, borderline or penumbral cases on the classification of property where strong divergent opinions are inevitable. The issue raised by Meralco has to be resolved in the light of the provisions of the Assessment Law, Commonwealth Act No. 470, and the Real Property Tax Code, Presidential Decree No. 464 which took effect on June 1, 1974. 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. They 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 definition 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. We hold that while the two storage tanks are not embedded in the land, they may, nevertheless, be considered as improvements on the land, enhancing its utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry. It is undeniable that the two tanks have been installed with some degree of permanence as receptacles for the considerable quantities of oil needed by Meralco for its operations.

Oil storage tanks were held to be taxable realty in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. Atlantic City, 15 Atl. 2nd 271. For purposes of taxation, the term "real property" may include things which should generally be regarded as personal property(84 C.J.S. 171, Note 8). 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). The case of Board of Assessment Appeals vs. Manila Electric Company, 119 Phil. 328, wherein Meralco's steel towers were held not to be subject to realty tax, is not in point because in that case the steel towers were regarded as poles and under its franchise Meralco's poles are exempt from taxation. Moreover, the steel towers were not attached to any land or building. They were removable from their metal frames. Nor is there any parallelism between this case and Mindanao Bus Co. vs. City Assessor, 116 Phil. 501, where the tools and equipment in the repair, carpentry and blacksmith shops of a transportation company were held not subject to realty tax because they were personal property. WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The Board's questioned decision and resolution are affirmed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Barredo (Chairman), Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave. Justice Abad Santos, J., took no part.