Laurel vs Abrogar

Facts of the case:

Petitioner was charged with Theft in favor of PLDT, the latter assailing that the former stole
and use their International Long Distance calls by conducting International Simple Resale, a
method in completing international long distance calls which connects to the local or domestic
exchange, therefore using the facilities of PLDT without their knowledge.

Personal property is defined as one that is capable of appropriation, to which the

lawful owner of the thing can be deprived of, it need not be capable of asportation which
is defined as carrying away. Article 415 of the Civil Code is an exclusive list which defines real
properties, therefore, those not included therein are conclusive to be of personal properties. More
so, it was understood in this case that the human voice is converted into electrical impulses or
electric current which falls under the purview of Art. 416(3) of “forces of nature which are brought
under control by science” which is capable of appropriation.

It is the contention of PLDT that the voice signals that passes through their facilities, when
transformed into electric currents or impulses creates that distinct ownership which they firmly
believe has been deprived by the Petitioners because of International Simple Resale method.

Issue: Are human voices subjected to transformation to electrical currencies of such facilities
offered by PLDT create ownership?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the Respondents herein (PLDT) could not have acquired
ownership over such calls, PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits
said calls using its complex communication infrastructure and facilities. Having not being the
owner of said telephone calls, they could not validly claim that such calls where taken without
consent. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the use of there communication facilities
without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of
the telephone service and business. This case was remanded back to trial court and had the
Respondents correct their Amended Information to the effect that the issues therein is theft on
the context that it was their business interest, which is a personal property, that was prejudiced
by the actual taking of the Petitioner of their services without their consent.
Manila International Authority (MIAA) v City of Pasay (CP)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner MIAA is being charged by Respondent CP which issued notices of levy and
warrants of levy for the NAIA properties which MIAA is administering. CP through its Mayor
threatened the former to sell the said properties through public auction if their real property taxes
remain unpaid.

This forced Petitioner to file a prohibition and injunction which enjoins CP from levying and
selling NAIA properties in a public auction.

Issue: Are NAIA Pasay properties supervised and administered by MIAA exempt from real
property taxes?

Ruling:

MIAA is an instrumentality of the government, which is not subject to any kind of tax by
local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The Airport Lands and
Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion
(Art.420, Civil Code). MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to
perform efficiently like other any governmental instrumentality, its difference only is that it is vested
with corporate powers.

However, if MIAA leases its real property to a taxable person, the specific property is
subjected real property tax which is governed by the Local Government Code.

The Supreme Court granted the petition and declare the NAIA Pasay Properties exempt
from real property Taxes imposed by CP.
Davao Saw Mill Co. Inc (DSMC) vs Castillo

Facts of the case:

DSMC entered into an agreement with a LESSOR, on which they agreed that the former can
operate a sawmill and upon expiration of period or abandonment, buildings erected and
improvements thereon shall transfer ownership to the LESSOR, improvements as stipulated did
not include machineries introduced

On a separate action, Davao Light Power (DVL) secured a judgment against DSMC which issued
a writ of execution on the latters now questioned properties. Such properties were not intended
by DSMC to be included in the buildings and improvements, it maintained a characteristic of a
chattel mortgage which it had leased to third parties and is therefore a movable.

Upon consummation of sale with no third party claim, Lessor claims ownership of the subject
machineries.

Issue: are the subject properties considered as real properties?

Ruling:
Such machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immovable 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.
Therefore, the subject properties can be levied on.
Chavez vs Public Estates Authority

Facts of the case:

PEA obligated itself to convey titleand possession over the subject property, consisting of
1,578,441 sq. m. for a total consideration of Php 1,894,129,200 which after two senate
investigation, the actual total market value was pried at 146 Billion