Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-27588 December 31, 1927 THE ROM N C THOL!C "!SHOP O# NUE$ SEGO$! , %& re're&e()%)*+e o, )-e Rom%( C%)-o.*c 'o&)o.*c C-/rc-, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PRO$!NC! L "O RD O# !LOCOS NORTE, ET L., defendants-appellants. Vicente Llanes and Proceso Coloma for plaintiff-appellant. Provincial Fiscal Santos for defendant-appellants. $ NCE0 , J.: The plaintiff, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, represented b the Bishop of Nueva !e"ovia, possesses and is the o#ner of a parcel of land in the municipalit of !an Nicolas, $locos Norte, all four sides of #hich face on public streets. %n the south side is a part of the church ard, the convent and an ad&acent lot used for a ve"etable "arden, containin" an area off ',()* s+uare meters, in #hich there is a stable and a #ell for the use of the convent. $n the center is the remainder of the church ard and the church. %n the north is an old cemeter #ith t#o of its #alls still standin", and a portion #here formerl stood a to#er, the base of #hich still be seen, containin" a total area of ,,-.. s+uare meters. As re+uired b the defendants, on /ul 0, '-). the plaintiff paid, under protest, the land ta1 on the lot ad&oinin" the convent and the lot #hich formerl #as the cemeter #ith the portion #here the to#er stood. The plaintiff filed this action for the recover of the sum paid b to the defendants b #a of land ta1, alle"in" that the collection of this ta1 is ille"al. The lo#er court absolved the defendants from the complaint in re"ard to the lot ad&oinin" convent and declared that the ta1 collected on the lot, #hich formerl #as the cemeter and on the portion #here the lo#er stood, #as ille"al. Both parties appealed from this &ud"ment. The e1emption in favor of the convent in the pa ment of the land ta1 2sec. 0** 3c4 Administrative Code5 refers to the home of the parties #ho presides over the church and #ho has to ta6e care of himself in order to dischar"e his duties. $n therefore must, in the sense, include not onl the land actuall occupied b the church, but also the ad&acent "round destined to the ordinar incidental uses of man. E1cept in lar"e cities #here the densit of the population and the development of commerce re+uire the use of lar"er tracts of land for buildin"s, a ve"etable "arden belon"s to a house and, in the case of a convent, it use is limited to the necessities of the priest, #hich comes under the e1emption.la#phi'.net $n re"ard to the lot #hich formerl #as the cemeter , #hile it is no lon"er used as such, neither is it used for commercial purposes and, accordin" to the evidence, is no# bein" used as a lod"in" house b the people #ho participate in reli"ious festivities, #hich constitutes an incidental use in reli"ious functions, #hich also comes #ithin the e1emption.

The &ud"ment appealed from is reversed in all it parts and it is held that both lots are e1empt from land ta1 and the defendants are ordered to refund to plaintiff #hatever #as paid as such ta1, #ithout an special pronouncement as to costs. !o ordered. Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Se'%r%)e O'*(*o(& M LCOLM, J., dissentin"7 The Assessment 8a# e1empts from ta1ation 9Cemeteries or burial "rounds . . . and all lands, buildin"s, and improvements use e1clusivel for reli"ious . . . purposes, but this e1emption shall not e1tend to propert held for investment, or #hich produces income, even thou"h the income be devoted to some one or more of the purposes above specified.9 2Administrative Code, sec. 0**: Act No. );*-, sec. '.5 That is the applicable la#. The facts ma be ta6en as found b the &ud"e of <irst $nstance, #ho made his findin"s more certain b an ocular inspection of the propert under consideration. The testimon and the inspection disclosed that the lot =no#n as 9huerta9 #as not devoted to reli"ious purposes, and that the old cemeter had lon" since leased to be used as such and had been planted to corn. Those are the facts. The test to be applied to the combined la# and facts must be the actual use of the propert . The propert le"all e1empt from the pa ment of ta1es must be devoted to some purpose specified in the la#. A 9huerta9 not needed or used e1clusivel for reli"ious purposes is not thus e1empt. A cemeter or burial "round no lon"er a cemeter or a burial "round is not thus e1empt. Accordin"l , $ prefer to vote for the affirmance of /ud"e Mariano>s decision.