G.R. No. L-15334             January 31, 1964 materials.

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CITY The second tower inspected was located in
ASSESSOR and CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON Kamuning Road, K-F, Quezon City, on land owned
CITY, petitioners, by the petitioner approximate more than one
vs. kilometer from the first tower. As in the first tower,
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent. the ground around one of the four legs was excavate
from seven to eight (8) feet deep and one and a half
Assistant City Attorney Jaime R. Agloro for petitioners. (1-½) meters wide. There being very little water at
Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for respondent. the bottom, it was seen that there was no concrete
foundation, but there soft adobe beneath. The leg was
PAREDES, J.: likewise provided with two parallel steel bars bolted
to a square metal frame also bolted to each corner.
Like the first one, the second tower is made up of
From the stipulation of facts and evidence adduced during the metal rods joined together by means of bolts, so that
hearing, the following appear: by unscrewing the bolts, the tower could be
dismantled and reassembled.
On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act
No. 484 which authorized the Municipal Board of Manila to The third tower examined is located along Kamias
grant a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric Road, Quezon City. As in the first two towers given
street railway and electric light, heat and power system in the above, the ground around the two legs of the third
City of Manila and its suburbs to the person or persons tower was excavated to a depth about two or three
making the most favorable bid. Charles M. Swift was awarded inches beyond the outside level of the steel bar
the said franchise on March 1903, the terms and conditions of foundation. It was found that there was no concrete
which were embodied in Ordinance No. 44 approved on foundation. Like the two previous ones, the bottom
March 24, 1903. Respondent Manila Electric Co. (Meralco for arrangement of the legs thereof were found to be
short), became the transferee and owner of the franchise. resting on soft adobe, which, probably due to high
humidity, looks like mud or clay. It was also found
Meralco's electric power is generated by its hydro-electric that the square metal frame supporting the legs were
plant located at Botocan Falls, Laguna and is transmitted to not attached to any material or foundation.
the City of Manila by means of electric transmission wires,
running from the province of Laguna to the said City. These On November 15, 1955, petitioner City Assessor of Quezon
electric transmission wires which carry high voltage current, City declared the aforesaid steel towers for real property tax
are fastened to insulators attached on steel towers constructed under Tax declaration Nos. 31992 and 15549. After denying
by respondent at intervals, from its hydro-electric plant in the respondent's petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal
province of Laguna to the City of Manila. The respondent was taken by respondent to the Board of Assessment Appeals
Meralco has constructed 40 of these steel towers within of Quezon City, which required respondent to pay the amount
Quezon City, on land belonging to it. A photograph of one of of P11,651.86 as real property tax on the said steel towers for
these steel towers is attached to the petition for review, the years 1952 to 1956. Respondent paid the amount under
marked Annex A. Three steel towers were inspected by the protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax
lower court and parties and the following were the Appeals (CTA for short) which rendered a decision on
descriptions given there of by said court: December 29, 1958, ordering the cancellation of the said tax
declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City
The first steel tower is located in South Tatalon, to refund to the respondent the sum of P11,651.86. The
España Extension, Quezon City. The findings were motion for reconsideration having been denied, on April 22,
as follows: the ground around one of the four posts 1959, the instant petition for review was filed.
was excavated to a depth of about eight (8) feet, with
an opening of about one (1) meter in diameter, In upholding the cause of respondents, the CTA held that: (1)
decreased to about a quarter of a meter as it we the steel towers come within the term "poles" which are
deeper until it reached the bottom of the post; at the declared exempt from taxes under part II paragraph 9 of
bottom of the post were two parallel steel bars respondent's franchise; (2) the steel towers are personal
attached to the leg means of bolts; the tower proper properties and are not subject to real property tax; and (3) the
was attached to the leg three bolts; with two cross City Treasurer of Quezon City is held responsible for the
metals to prevent mobility; there was no concrete refund of the amount paid. These are assigned as errors by the
foundation but there was adobe stone underneath; as petitioner in the brief.
the bottom of the excavation was covered with water
about three inches high, it could not be determined
with certainty to whether said adobe stone was The tax exemption privilege of the petitioner is quoted
placed purposely or not, as the place abounds with hereunder:
this kind of stone; and the tower carried five high
voltage wires without cover or any insulating PAR 9. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same
 taxes upon its real estate, buildings, plant (not The term "poles" was also used to denominate the steel
including poles, wires, transformers, and insulators), supports or towers used by an association used to convey its
machinery and personal property as other persons are electric power furnished to subscribers and members,
or may be hereafter required by law to pay ... Said constructed for the purpose of fastening high voltage and
percentage shall be due and payable at the time stated dangerous electric wires alongside public highways. The steel
in paragraph nineteen of Part One hereof, ... and supports or towers were made of iron or other metals
shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of consisting of two pieces running from the ground up some
whatsoever nature and by whatsoever authority upon thirty feet high, being wider at the bottom than at the top, the
the privileges, earnings, income, franchise, and said two metal pieces being connected with criss-cross iron
poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the running from the bottom to the top, constructed like ladders
grantee from which taxes and assessments the and loaded with high voltage electricity. In form and structure,
grantee is hereby expressly exempted. (Par. 9, Part they are like the steel towers in question. (Salt River Valley
Two, Act No. 484 Respondent's Franchise; emphasis Users' Ass'n v. Compton, 8 P. 2nd, 249-250.)
supplied.)
The term "poles" was used to denote the steel towers of an
The word "pole" means "a long, comparatively slender usually electric company engaged in the generation of hydro-electric
cylindrical piece of wood or timber, as typically the stem of a power generated from its plant to the Tower of Oxford and
small tree stripped of its branches; also by extension, a similar City of Waterbury. These steel towers are about 15 feet square
typically cylindrical piece or object of metal or the like". The at the base and extended to a height of about 35 feet to a point,
term also refers to "an upright standard to the top of which and are embedded in the cement foundations sunk in the earth,
something is affixed or by which something is supported; as a the top of which extends above the surface of the soil in the
dovecote set on a pole; telegraph poles; a tent pole; tower of Oxford, and to the towers are attached insulators,
sometimes, specifically a vessel's master (Webster's New arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the
International Dictionary 2nd Ed., p. 1907.) Along the streets, transmission of electric power (Connecticut Light and Power
in the City of Manila, may be seen cylindrical metal poles, Co. v. Oxford, 101 Conn. 383, 126 Atl. p. 1).
cubical concrete poles, and poles of the PLDT Co. which are
made of two steel bars joined together by an interlacing metal In a case, the defendant admitted that the structure on which a
rod. They are called "poles" notwithstanding the fact that they certain person met his death was built for the purpose of
are no made of wood. It must be noted from paragraph 9, supporting a transmission wire used for carrying high-tension
above quoted, that the concept of the "poles" for which electric power, but claimed that the steel towers on which it is
exemption is granted, is not determined by their place or carried were so large that their wire took their structure out of
location, nor by the character of the electric current it carries, the definition of a pole line. It was held that in defining the
nor the material or form of which it is made, but the use to word pole, one should not be governed by the wire or material
which they are dedicated. In accordance with the definitions, of the support used, but was considering the danger from any
pole is not restricted to a long cylindrical piece of wood or elevated wire carrying electric current, and that regardless of
metal, but includes "upright standards to the top of which the size or material wire of its individual members, any
something is affixed or by which something is supported. As continuous series of structures intended and used solely or
heretofore described, respondent's steel supports consists of a primarily for the purpose of supporting wires carrying electric
framework of four steel bars or strips which are bound by currents is a pole line (Inspiration Consolidation Cooper Co.
steel cross-arms atop of which are cross-arms supporting five v. Bryan 252 P. 1016).
high voltage transmission wires (See Annex A) and their sole
function is to support or carry such wires. It is evident, therefore, that the word "poles", as used in Act
No. 484 and incorporated in the petitioner's franchise, should
The conclusion of the CTA that the steel supports in question not be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, as to
are embraced in the term "poles" is not a novelty. Several defeat the very object for which the franchise was granted.
courts of last resort in the United States have called these steel The poles as contemplated thereon, should be understood and
supports "steel towers", and they denominated these supports taken as a part of the electric power system of the respondent
or towers, as electric poles. In their decisions the words Meralco, for the conveyance of electric current from the
"towers" and "poles" were used interchangeably, and it is well source thereof to its consumers. If the respondent would be
understood in that jurisdiction that a transmission tower or required to employ "wooden poles", or "rounded poles" as it
pole means the same thing. used to do fifty years back, then one should admit that the
Philippines is one century behind the age of space. It should
In a proceeding to condemn land for the use of electric power also be conceded by now that steel towers, like the ones in
wires, in which the law provided that wires shall be question, for obvious reasons, can better effectuate the
constructed upon suitable poles, this term was construed to purpose for which the respondent's franchise was granted.
mean either wood or metal poles and in view of the land being
subject to overflow, and the necessary carrying of numerous Granting for the purpose of argument that the steel supports or
wires and the distance between poles, the statute was towers in question are not embraced within the term poles, the
interpreted to include towers or poles. (Stemmons and Dallas logical question posited is whether they
Light Co. (Tex) 212 S.W. 222, 224; 32-A Words and Phrases, constitute real properties, so that they can be subject to a real
p. 365.) property tax. The tax law does not provide for a definition of
real property; but Article 415 of the Civil Code does, by know what to do, under the circumstances.
stating the following are immovable property:
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby
(1) Land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.
kinds adhered to the soil;
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
xxx     xxx     xxx Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Regala, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed Dizon, J., took no part.
manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated
therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object;

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 in a
building or on a piece of land, and which tends
directly to meet the needs of the said industry or
works;

xxx     xxx     xxx

The steel towers or supports in question, do not come within

the objects mentioned in paragraph 1, because they do not
constitute buildings or constructions adhered to the soil. They
are not construction analogous to buildings nor adhering to the
soil. As per description, given by the lower court, they are
removable and merely attached to a square metal frame by
means of bolts, which when unscrewed could easily be
dismantled and moved from place to place. They can not be
included under paragraph 3, as they are not attached to an
immovable in a fixed manner, and they can be separated
without breaking the material or causing deterioration upon
the object to which they are attached. Each of these steel
towers or supports consists of steel bars or metal strips, joined
together by means of bolts, which can be disassembled by
unscrewing the bolts and reassembled by screwing the same.
These steel towers or supports do not also fall under
paragraph 5, for they are not machineries, receptacles,
instruments or implements, and even if they were, they are not
intended for industry or works on the land. Petitioner is not
engaged in an industry or works in the land in which the steel
supports or towers are constructed.

It is finally contended that the CTA erred in ordering the City

Treasurer of Quezon City to refund the sum of P11,651.86,
despite the fact that Quezon City is not a party to the case. It is
argued that as the City Treasurer is not the real party in
interest, but Quezon City, which was not a party to the suit,
notwithstanding its capacity to sue and be sued, he should not
be ordered to effect the refund. This question has not been
raised in the court below, and, therefore, it cannot be properly
raised for the first time on appeal. The herein petitioner is
indulging in legal technicalities and niceties which do not help
him any; for factually, it was he (City Treasurer) whom had
insisted that respondent herein pay the real estate taxes, which
respondent paid under protest. Having acted in his official
capacity as City Treasurer of Quezon City, he would surely