G.R. No. 27588 , December 31, 1927
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA, as representative of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, represented by the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, owns a parcel of land in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. The property consists of three parts: (1) a churchyard, convent, and an adjacent lot used as a vegetable garden (with a stable and well) totaling 1,624 square meters; (2) the main church and remaining churchyard; and (3) an old cemetery (no longer used for burials) and a portion where a tower once stood, totaling 8,955 square meters. The plaintiff paid the land tax on the vegetable garden lot and the old cemetery lot under protest and subsequently filed an action to recover the amount paid, claiming the tax collection was illegal. The trial court ruled that the tax on the vegetable garden lot was valid but the tax on the old cemetery lot was illegal. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the vegetable garden lot adjacent to the convent and the old cemetery lot are exempt from land tax under the provisions of the Administrative Code.

RULING

Yes, both lots are exempt from land tax. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision.

1. On the Vegetable Garden Lot: The exemption for a convent under Section 344(c) of the Administrative Code includes not only the building itself but also adjacent land destined for the ordinary incidental uses of its occupant. A vegetable garden, which supplies the necessities of the priest residing in the convent, falls under this exemption as an incidental use supporting the religious functionary in discharging his duties.

2. On the Old Cemetery Lot: Although the lot is no longer used as a burial ground, it is not used for commercial purposes. The evidence shows it is used as a lodging house for people participating in religious festivities. This use constitutes an incidental function related to religious activities and thus falls within the exemption for property used exclusively for religious purposes.

The Court ordered the defendants to refund the taxes collected on both lots.

DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Malcolm):
Justice Malcolm dissented, arguing that the exemption under the law (Sec. 344 of the Administrative Code) applies only to property actually and exclusively used for the specified purposes (e.g., religious purposes, cemeteries). The facts, as found by the trial judge who conducted an ocular inspection, showed that the vegetable garden (“huerta”) was not devoted to religious purposes, and the old cemetery had long ceased to be used as such and was planted with corn. The test should be the actual use of the property. Since these lots were not used exclusively for religious purposes or as a cemetery, they should not be exempt. He would have affirmed the trial court’s decision.