2/8/2017 G.R.No.

L27588

TodayisWednesday,February08,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L27588December31,1927

THEROMANCATHOLICBISHOPOFNUEVASEGOVIA,asrepresentativeoftheRomanCatholicApostolic
Church,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
THEPROVINCIALBOARDOFILOCOSNORTE,ETAL.,defendantsappellants.

VicenteLlanesandProcesoColomaforplaintiffappellant.
ProvincialFiscalSantosfordefendantappellants.

AVANCEA,J.:

Theplaintiff,theRomanCatholicApostolicChurch,representedbytheBishopofNuevaSegovia,possessesand
is the owner of a parcel of land in the municipality of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, all four sides of which face on
publicstreets.Onthesouthsideisapartofthechurchyard,theconventandanadjacentlotusedforavegetable
garden, containing an area off 1,624 square meters, in which there is a stable and a well for the use of the
convent.Inthecenteristheremainderofthechurchyardandthechurch.Onthenorthisanoldcemeterywith
two of its walls still standing, and a portion where formerly stood a tower, the base of which still be seen,
containingatotalareaof8,955squaremeters.

Asrequiredbythedefendants,onJuly3,1925theplaintiffpaid,underprotest,thelandtaxonthelotadjoining
theconventandthelotwhichformerlywasthecemeterywiththeportionwherethetowerstood.

Theplaintifffiledthisactionfortherecoveryofthesumpaidbytothedefendantsbywayoflandtax,allegingthat
thecollectionofthistaxisillegal.Thelowercourtabsolvedthedefendantsfromthecomplaintinregardtothelot
adjoining convent and declared that the tax collected on the lot, which formerly was the cemetery and on the
portionwherethelowerstood,wasillegal.Bothpartiesappealedfromthisjudgment.

Theexemptioninfavoroftheconventinthepaymentofthelandtax(sec.344[c]AdministrativeCode)refersto
thehomeofthepartieswhopresidesoverthechurchandwhohastotakecareofhimselfinordertodischarge
hisduties.Inthereforemust,inthesense,includenotonlythelandactuallyoccupiedbythechurch,butalsothe
adjacentgrounddestinedtotheordinaryincidentalusesofman.Exceptinlargecitieswherethedensityofthe
population and the development of commerce require the use of larger tracts of land for buildings, a vegetable
gardenbelongstoahouseand,inthecaseofaconvent,ituseislimitedtothenecessitiesofthepriest,which
comesundertheexemption. la w p h i1 .n e t

In regard to the lot which formerly was the cemetery, while it is no longer used as such, neither is it used for
commercialpurposesand,accordingtotheevidence,isnowbeingusedasalodginghousebythepeoplewho
participateinreligiousfestivities,whichconstitutesanincidentaluseinreligiousfunctions,whichalsocomeswithin
theexemption.

Thejudgmentappealedfromisreversedinallitpartsanditisheldthatbothlotsareexemptfromlandtaxand
the defendants are ordered to refund to plaintiff whatever was paid as such tax, without any special
pronouncementastocosts.Soordered.

Johnson,Street,Villamor,Ostrand,JohnsandVillaReal,JJ.,concur.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1927/dec1927/gr_l27588_1927.html 1/2
2/8/2017 G.R.No.L27588

SeparateOpinions

MALCOLM,J.,dissenting:

The Assessment Law exempts from taxation "Cemeteries or burial grounds . . . and all lands, buildings, and
improvementsuseexclusivelyforreligious...purposes,butthisexemptionshallnotextendtopropertyheldfor
investment,orwhichproducesincome,eventhoughtheincomebedevotedtosomeoneormoreofthepurposes
abovespecified."(AdministrativeCode,sec.344ActNo.2749,sec.1.)Thatistheapplicablelaw.Thefactsmay
betakenasfoundbythejudgeofFirstInstance,whomadehisfindingsmorecertainbyanocularinspectionof
thepropertyunderconsideration.ThetestimonyandtheinspectiondisclosedthatthelotKnownas"huerta"was
notdevotedtoreligiouspurposes,andthattheoldcemeteryhadlongsinceleasedtobeusedassuchandhad
been planted to corn. Those are the facts. The test to be applied to the combined law and facts must be the
actual use of the property. The property legally exempt from the payment of taxes must be devoted to some
purposespecifiedinthelaw.A"huerta"notneededorusedexclusivelyforreligiouspurposesisnotthusexempt.
Acemeteryorburialgroundnolongeracemeteryoraburialgroundisnotthusexempt.Accordingly,Ipreferto
votefortheaffirmanceofJudgeMariano'sdecision.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1927/dec1927/gr_l27588_1927.html 2/2