G.R. No.

L-15334             January 31, 1964 prevent mobility; there was no concrete foundation but there was adobe
stone underneath; as the bottom of the excavation was covered with
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CITY ASSESSOR and CITY TREASURER OF water about three inches high, it could not be determined with certainty to
QUEZON CITY, petitioners, whether said adobe stone was placed purposely or not, as the place
vs. abounds with this kind of stone; and the tower carried five high voltage
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent. wires without cover or any insulating materials.

Assistant City Attorney Jaime R. Agloro for petitioners. The second tower inspected was located in Kamuning Road, K-F, Quezon
Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for respondent. City, on land owned by the petitioner approximate more than one
kilometer from the first tower. As in the first tower, the ground around one
PAREDES, J.: of the four legs was excavate from seven to eight (8) feet deep and one
and a half (1-½) meters wide. There being very little water at the bottom, it
was seen that there was no concrete foundation, but there soft adobe
From the stipulation of facts and evidence adduced during the hearing, the
beneath. The leg was likewise provided with two parallel steel bars bolted
following appear:
to a square metal frame also bolted to each corner. Like the first one, the
second tower is made up of metal rods joined together by means of bolts,
On October 20, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 484 which so that by unscrewing the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and
authorized the Municipal Board of Manila to grant a franchise to construct, reassembled.
maintain and operate an electric street railway and electric light, heat and power
system in the City of Manila and its suburbs to the person or persons making the
The third tower examined is located along Kamias Road, Quezon City. As in
most favorable bid. Charles M. Swift was awarded the said franchise on March
the first two towers given above, the ground around the two legs of the
1903, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in Ordinance No. 44
third tower was excavated to a depth about two or three inches beyond
approved on March 24, 1903. Respondent Manila Electric Co. (Meralco for short),
the outside level of the steel bar foundation. It was found that there was
became the transferee and owner of the franchise.
no concrete foundation. Like the two previous ones, the bottom
arrangement of the legs thereof were found to be resting on soft adobe,
Meralco's electric power is generated by its hydro-electric plant located at Botocan which, probably due to high humidity, looks like mud or clay. It was also
Falls, Laguna and is transmitted to the City of Manila by means of electric found that the square metal frame supporting the legs were not attached
transmission wires, running from the province of Laguna to the said City. These to any material or foundation.
electric transmission wires which carry high voltage current, are fastened to
insulators attached on steel towers constructed by respondent at intervals, from its
On November 15, 1955, petitioner City Assessor of Quezon City declared the
hydro-electric plant in the province of Laguna to the City of Manila. The respondent
aforesaid steel towers for real property tax under Tax declaration Nos. 31992 and
Meralco has constructed 40 of these steel towers within Quezon City, on land
15549. After denying respondent's petition to cancel these declarations, an appeal
belonging to it. A photograph of one of these steel towers is attached to the
was taken by respondent to the Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, which
petition for review, marked Annex A. Three steel towers were inspected by the
required respondent to pay the amount of P11,651.86 as real property tax on the
lower court and parties and the following were the descriptions given there of by
said steel towers for the years 1952 to 1956. Respondent paid the amount under
said court:
protest, and filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA for short)
which rendered a decision on December 29, 1958, ordering the cancellation of the
The first steel tower is located in South Tatalon, España Extension, Quezon said tax declarations and the petitioner City Treasurer of Quezon City to refund to
City. The findings were as follows: the ground around one of the four posts
the respondent the sum of P11,651.86. The motion for reconsideration having been
was excavated to a depth of about eight (8) feet, with an opening of about denied, on April 22, 1959, the instant petition for review was filed.
one (1) meter in diameter, decreased to about a quarter of a meter as it
we deeper until it reached the bottom of the post; at the bottom of the
In upholding the cause of respondents, the CTA held that: (1) the steel towers come
post were two parallel steel bars attached to the leg means of bolts; the
within the term "poles" which are declared exempt from taxes under part II
tower proper was attached to the leg three bolts; with two cross metals to
paragraph 9 of respondent's franchise; (2) the steel towers are personal properties towers, as electric poles. In their decisions the words "towers" and "poles" were
and are not subject to real property tax; and (3) the City Treasurer of Quezon City is used interchangeably, and it is well understood in that jurisdiction that a
held responsible for the refund of the amount paid. These are assigned as errors by transmission tower or pole means the same thing.
the petitioner in the brief.
In a proceeding to condemn land for the use of electric power wires, in which the
The tax exemption privilege of the petitioner is quoted hereunder: law provided that wires shall be constructed upon suitable  poles, this term was
construed to mean either wood or metal poles and in view of the land being subject
PAR 9. The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes upon its real to overflow, and the necessary carrying of numerous wires and the distance
estate, buildings, plant (not including poles, wires, transformers, and between poles, the statute was interpreted to include towers or  poles. (Stemmons
insulators), machinery and personal property as other persons are or may and Dallas Light Co. (Tex) 212 S.W. 222, 224; 32-A Words and Phrases, p. 365.)
be hereafter required by law to pay ... Said percentage shall be due and
payable at the time stated in paragraph nineteen of Part One The term "poles" was also used to denominate the steel supports or towers used by
hereof, ... and shall be in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatsoever an association used to convey its electric power furnished to subscribers and
nature and by whatsoever authority upon the privileges, earnings, income, members, constructed for the purpose of fastening high voltage and dangerous
franchise, and poles, wires, transformers, and insulators of the grantee electric wires alongside public highways. The steel supports or towers were made of
from which taxes and assessments the grantee is hereby expressly iron or other metals consisting of two pieces running from the ground up some
exempted. (Par. 9, Part Two, Act No. 484 Respondent's Franchise; thirty feet high, being wider at the bottom than at the top, the said two metal
emphasis supplied.) pieces being connected with criss-cross iron running from the bottom to the top,
constructed like ladders and loaded with high voltage electricity. In form and
The word "pole" means "a long, comparatively slender usually cylindrical piece of structure, they are like the steel towers in question. (Salt River Valley Users' Ass'n v.
wood or timber, as typically the stem of a small tree stripped of its branches; also Compton, 8 P. 2nd, 249-250.)
by extension, a similar typically cylindrical piece or object of metal or the like". The
term also refers to "an upright standard to the top of which something is affixed or The term "poles" was used to denote the steel towers of an electric company
by which something is supported; as a dovecote set on a pole; telegraph poles; a engaged in the generation of hydro-electric power generated from its plant to the
tent pole; sometimes, specifically a vessel's master (Webster's New International Tower of Oxford and City of Waterbury. These steel towers are about 15 feet
Dictionary 2nd Ed., p. 1907.) Along the streets, in the City of Manila, may be seen square at the base and extended to a height of about 35 feet to a point, and are
cylindrical metal poles, cubical concrete poles, and poles of the PLDT Co. which are embedded in the cement foundations sunk in the earth, the top of which extends
made of two steel bars joined together by an interlacing metal rod. They are called above the surface of the soil in the tower of Oxford, and to the towers are attached
"poles" notwithstanding the fact that they are no made of wood. It must be noted insulators, arms, and other equipment capable of carrying wires for the
from paragraph 9, above quoted, that the concept of the "poles" for which transmission of electric power (Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Oxford, 101
exemption is granted, is not determined by their place or location, nor by the Conn. 383, 126 Atl. p. 1).
character of the electric current it carries, nor the material or form of which it is
made, but the use to which they are dedicated. In accordance with the definitions, In a case, the defendant admitted that the structure on which a certain person met
pole is not restricted to a long cylindrical piece of wood or metal, but includes his death was built for the purpose of supporting a transmission wire used for
"upright standards to the top of which something is affixed or by which something carrying high-tension electric power, but claimed that the steel towers on which it is
is supported. As heretofore described, respondent's steel supports consists of a carried were so large that their wire took their structure out of the definition of a
framework of four steel bars or strips which are bound by steel cross-arms atop of pole line. It was held that in defining the word pole, one should not be governed by
which are cross-arms supporting five high voltage transmission wires (See Annex A) the wire or material of the support used, but was considering the danger from any
and their sole function is to support or carry such wires. elevated wire carrying electric current, and that regardless of the size or material
wire of its individual members, any continuous series of structures intended and
The conclusion of the CTA that the steel supports in question are embraced in the used solely or primarily for the purpose of supporting wires carrying electric
term "poles" is not a novelty. Several courts of last resort in the United States have currents is a pole line (Inspiration Consolidation Cooper Co. v. Bryan 252 P. 1016).
called these steel supports "steel towers", and they denominated these supports or
It is evident, therefore, that the word "poles", as used in Act No. 484 and upon the object to which they are attached. Each of these steel towers or supports
incorporated in the petitioner's franchise, should not be given a restrictive and consists of steel bars or metal strips, joined together by means of bolts, which can
narrow interpretation, as to defeat the very object for which the franchise was be disassembled by unscrewing the bolts and reassembled by screwing the same.
granted. The poles as contemplated thereon, should be understood and taken as a These steel towers or supports do not also fall under paragraph 5, for they are not
part of the electric power system of the respondent Meralco, for the conveyance of machineries, receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if they were, they
electric current from the source thereof to its consumers. If the respondent would are not intended for industry or works on the land. Petitioner is not engaged in an
be required to employ "wooden poles", or "rounded poles" as it used to do fifty industry or works in the land in which the steel supports or towers are constructed.
years back, then one should admit that the Philippines is one century behind the
age of space. It should also be conceded by now that steel towers, like the ones in It is finally contended that the CTA erred in ordering the City Treasurer of Quezon
question, for obvious reasons, can better effectuate the purpose for which the City to refund the sum of P11,651.86, despite the fact that Quezon City is not a
respondent's franchise was granted. 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
Granting for the purpose of argument that the steel supports or towers in question capacity to sue and be sued, he should not be ordered to effect the refund. This
are not embraced within the term  poles, the logical question posited is whether question has not been raised in the court below, and, therefore, it cannot be
they constitute real  properties, so that they can be subject to a real property tax. properly raised for the first time on appeal. The herein petitioner is indulging in
The tax law does not provide for a definition of real property; but Article 415 of the legal technicalities and niceties which do not help him any; for factually, it was he
Civil Code does, by stating the following are immovable property: (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
(1) Land, buildings, roads, and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; City Treasurer of Quezon City, he would surely know what to do, under the
circumstances.
xxx     xxx     xxx
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way the petitioners.
that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object; Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera
and Regala, JJ., concur.
xxx     xxx     xxx Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Dizon, J., took no part.
(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