BENGUET CORP. vs. CBAAGR No. 106041. January 29, 1993. 218 SCRA 271

 A dam is an immovable property by nature and by incorporation. Hence, it is subject to realty tax.Issue: Should tailings dams be classified as real property?

FACTS

BENGUET CORP. owned a mine and a dam.√ The Provincial Assessor of   Zambales classified the dam as a taxable improvement of the mine. On appeal by BENGUET CORP. to the CENTRALBOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS (CBAA), the latter declared that the tailings dam and the land submerged under it are subject to realty tax.√ BENGUET CORP. then filed a petition to the SC via certiorari asking the court set aside the resolution of CBAA.√ It contended that the dam should not be subject to tax because it was not an assessable improvement of the mine but rather an integral part of the mine’s operation.√   T h e   S o l .   G e n   a r g u e d   h o w e v e r   t h a t   t h e   d a m   w a s   an   a s s e s s a b l e improvement because it enhanced the value and utility of the mine like holding waste from the mine and impounding water for recycling.

ISSUE

Whether or not the dam was an assessable improvement of themine and thus subject to realty tax.

RULING

Yes, the dam was an assessable improvement of the mine and subject to realty tax.√ The mine can operate without the dam because the primary function of the dam is merely to receive and retain the wastes and water coming from the mine.√ There was no allegation that it was the only source of water as to make the dam an integral part of the mine.√ The Real Property Code did not define what is  real property that the definition in Art. 415 of the Civil Code shall apply.√ The dam was an immovable under pars. 1 and 3 of Art. 415 hence it was taxable realty. √ Under par. 1, the dam was an immovable property since it was a construction adhered to the soil.√ Under par. 3, it was an immovable since it was fixed in a manner that it cannot be separated from the land without breaking or deteriorating.