Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
The new loan of 170M would be secured by the same 5 REM and
additional real and personal properties which covered the
machineries and equipment of Paper City.
There was the event of an Economic Crises which made it diff for
Paper City to meet the terms of its Obligations leading to defaults.
Hence, RCBC filed a petition for EJ Foreclosure against the REM of 8
parcels of land including all improvements thereon including all the
Supplemental Indentures.
Paper City; filed a complaint against the banks alleging that the EJ sale
of the prop and plants was void due to lack of prior notice and
attendance of gross and evident bad faith on the part of the creditor
banks.
Paper City filed with the trial court a Manifestation with Motion to
Remove and/or Dispose Machinery, reasoning that the
machineries located inside the foreclosed land and building were
deteriorating. It posited that since the machineries were not included
in the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, it is appropriate that it
be removed from the building and sold to a third party.
Acting on the said motion, the trial court issued an Order denying the
prayer and ruled that the machineries and equipment were included
in the annexes and form part of the MTI.
Paper City filed its MR which was favorably granted by the trial
court with justification that the disputed machineries and equipment
are chattels by agreement of the parties through their inclusion in the
four Deeds of Chattel Mortgage and the deed of cancellation executed
by RCBC was not valid because it was done unilaterally and without
the consent of Paper City.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The real estate mortgage over the machineries and equipment is even
in full accord with the classification of such properties by the Civil
Code of the Philippines as immovable property. Thus:
FACTS:
January 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy
over MW diesel engine power barges in Batangas for a period of 5
years. Subsequently, Polar assigned its rights under the agreement to
FELS. NPC initially opposed.
Moreover, Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that “docks
and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature
and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast” are
considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized
as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of
machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an
industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece
of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or
work.
We affirm the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that the owner of the
taxable properties is petitioner FELS, which in fine, is the entity being
taxed by the local government. As stipulated under Section 2.11,
Article 2 of the Agreement:
It follows then that FELS cannot escape liability from the payment of
realty taxes by invoking its exemption in Section 234 (c) of R.A. No.
7160.
Indeed, the law states that the machinery must be actually, directly
and exclusively used by the government owned or controlled
corporation; nevertheless, petitioner FELS still cannot find solace.
FACTS:
LRT paid its real property taxes on all its real property holdings,
except the carriageways and passenger terminal stations including
the land where it is constructed on the ground that the same are not
real properties under the Real Property Tax Code, and if the same are
real properties, these x x x are for public use/purpose, therefore,
exempt from realty taxation
Respondent City Assessor filed an appeal with the LBAA (Local Board
Of Assessment Appeals) which denied LRT’s appeal, and declared
that carriageways and passenger terminal stations are
improvements, therefore, are real properties.
CA: True, the government owned the real property upon which the
carriageways and terminal stations were built. However, they were
still taxable, because beneficial use had been transferred to
petitioner, a taxable entity.
Main Issue:
May Real Property Taxes be Assessed and Collected?
Petitioner does not dispute that its subject carriageways and stations
may be considered real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code.