Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    BOA v. Meralco

    Uploaded by

    MarrielDeTorres
    1) Meralco was granted a franchise in 1903 to operate an electric utility system in Manila which included constructing steel towers to transmit electricity. 2) In 1955, Quezon City declared Meralco's steel towers as real property subject to real property tax. Meralco appealed arguing the towers were personal property. 3) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in Meralco's favor, canceling the tax declarations. On further appeal, the Supreme Court also found the steel towers to be personal property as they were not permanently attached to land and could be easily removed without damage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BOA v. Meralco

    Uploaded by

    MarrielDeTorres
    85 views2 pages
    1) Meralco was granted a franchise in 1903 to operate an electric utility system in Manila which included constructing steel towers to transmit electricity. 2) In 1955, Quezon City declared Meralco's steel towers as real property subject to real property tax. Meralco appealed arguing the towers were personal property. 3) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in Meralco's favor, canceling the tax declarations. On further appeal, the Supreme Court also found the steel towers to be personal property as they were not permanently attached to land and could be easily removed without damage.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Meralco was granted a franchise in 1903 to operate an electric utility system in Manila which included constructing steel towers to transmit electricity. 2) In 1955, Quezon City declared Meralco's steel towers as real property subject to real property tax. Meralco appealed arguing the towers were personal property. 3) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in Meralco's favor, canceling the tax declarations. On further appeal, the Supreme Court also found the steel towers to be personal property as they were not permanently attached to land and could be easily removed without damage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    BOA v. Meralco

    Uploaded by

    MarrielDeTorres
    1) Meralco was granted a franchise in 1903 to operate an electric utility system in Manila which included constructing steel towers to transmit electricity. 2) In 1955, Quezon City declared Meralco's steel towers as real property subject to real property tax. Meralco appealed arguing the towers were personal property. 3) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled in Meralco's favor, canceling the tax declarations. On further appeal, the Supreme Court also found the steel towers to be personal property as they were not permanently attached to land and could be easily removed without damage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.) Board of Assessment Appeals v.

    Meralco
    [GR No. L-15334, January 31, 1964]
    [Paredes, J.]
    FACTS:
    On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission granted the Municipal Board of Manila
    to authorize a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric street railway and electric
    light, heat and power systems in Manila. Charles M. Swift was awarded the franchise on March
    1903 and the terms and conditions of which were embodied in Ordinance No. 44. Later on
    Meralco became the transferee and owner of the aforementioned franchise. Meralco, to transmit
    the electricity produced in their plants to Manila they constructed steel towers which were ideally
    placed in intervals.
    On November 15, 1955, the City Assessor of Quezon City declared the Meralco's steel
    towers for real property tax. The City Assessor denied Meralcos petition to cancel the
    declaration. Such denial led to an appeal to the QC Board of Assessment Appeals, which
    required respondent to pay P11, 651.86 as real property tax on the said steel towers for the
    years 1952 to 1956.
    Meralco paid the amount under protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax
    Appeals which rendered a decision on December 29, 1958 ordering the cancellation of the said
    tax declarations and the refunding by the City Treasurer to MERALCO the amount of P11,
    651.86.
    ISSUE:
    Are the steel towers or poles of the Meralco considered real or personal properties?
    HELD:
    Pole long, comparatively slender, usually cylindrical piece of wood, timber, object of
    metal or the like; an upright standard to the top of which something is affixed or by which
    something is supported.
    Meralco's steel supports consists of a framework of 4 steel bars/strips which are bound
    by steel cross-arms atop of which are cross-arms supporting 5 high-voltage transmission wires,
    and their sole function is to support/carry such wires. The exemption granted to poles as quoted
    from Part II, Par.9 of respondent's franchise is determined by the use to which such poles are
    dedicated.
    It is evident that the word poles, as used in Act No. 484 and incorporated in the
    petitioner's franchise, should not be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to defeat
    the very object for which the franchise was granted. The poles should be taken and understood
    as part of Meralco's electric power system for the conveyance of electric current to its
    consumers.

    Art. 415 of the NCC classifies the following as immovable property:


    (1) Lands, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
    xxx
    (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it
    cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of
    the object;
    xxx
    (5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner pf
    the tenement for an industry ot 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;
    Following these classifications, MERALCO's steel towers should be considered personal
    property. It should be noted that the steel towers:
    (a) are neither buildings or constructions adhered to the soil;
    (b) are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner they can be separated
    without breaking the material or deterioration of the object; are not machineries,
    receptacles or instruments, and even if they are, they are not intended for an
    industry to be carried on in the premises.

    You might also like