Facts: Laurel was charged with engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of

international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly
to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined.

PLDT alleges that the international phone calls which are electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through
a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver, are ersonal properties which may be the subject
of theft. Art. 416(3) deems forces of nature (which includes electricity which are brought under the control by science, are
personal property.

Laurel claims that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a communication carried out using the telephone. It is
not synonymous to electric currents or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as personal property susceptible of
appropriation. Laurel claims that the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not
produce or generate telephone calls. It only rovides the facilities or services for the transmission and switching of the calls.
He also insists that business is not personal property. It is not the business that is protected but the right to carry a
business. This right is what is considered as property. Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as property, the
same may not be the subject of theft.

Issue: Is Laurel guilty of theft of personal property?

Held: YES. The act of conducting ISR operations by illegally

Laurel vs. Judge Abrogar

G.R. No. 155076
January 13, 2009

Facts: Laurel was charged with engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of
international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly
to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined.

PLDT alleges that the international phone calls which are electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through
a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver, are ersonal properties which may be the subject
of theft. Art. 416(3) deems forces of nature (which includes electricity which are brought under the control by science, are
personal property.

Laurel claims that a telephone call is a conversation on the phone or a communication carried out using the telephone. It is
not synonymous to electric currents or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as personal property susceptible of
appropriation. Laurel claims that the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not
produce or generate telephone calls. It only rovides the facilities or services for the transmission and switching of the calls.
He also insists that business is not personal property. It is not the business that is protected but the right to carry a
business. This right is what is considered as property. Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as property, the
same may not be the subject of theft.

Issue: Is Laurel guilty of theft of personal property?

Held: YES. The act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to PLDTs telephone
system, through which Laurel is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using PLDTs facilities constitutes
acts of subtraction.

The business of roviding telecommunication is likewise ersonal property which cann be the object of theft.

Interest in business was not specifically enumerated as personal property in the Civil Code in force at the time the above
decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal property since it is capable of appropriation and
not included in the enumeration of real roperties. Art. 414 provides that all things which are or may be the object of
appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal
property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated. Business should also be classified
as ersonal property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Art. 415. It is therefore
personal roperty.
In making the international phone calls, the human voice is converted into electrical impulses or electric current which are
transmitted to the arty called. A telephone call, therefore, is electrical energy. Intagnible property such as electrical energy is
capable of appropriation because it may be taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property under art. 416(3) which
enumerates forces of natur which are brought under control by science.

It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is th e
unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.

Therfore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service is personal property.

1. Valino vs. Adriano, 723 SCRA 1

2. People vs. Jumawan, 722 SCRA 108
3. Strocker vs. Ramirez, 44 Phils 933, 1922
Involuntary Insolvency of Strochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933
DOCTRINE: All personal properties may be mortgaged. Interest in business is personal property capable
of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties under Article 335 of the Civil
Code. Thus, interest in business may be subject of mortgage.

FACTS: Three mortgages seek preference in the lower court: one in favor of Fidelity and Surety Co.,
another in favor of Ramirez, and the last one in favor of Ayala. Ayalas claim was rejected by trial court
from which she didnt appeal.

As to the time of the mortgages, the one in favor of Fidelity and Surety Co. is preferred because it was
executed and registered in the registry of property prior to that of Ramirezs. However, Ramirez claimed
that the mortgage in favor of Fidelity and Surety Co. is invalid because the property, the half interest in
the drug business, is incapable of being mortgaged. Trial court ruled that the mortgage in favor of Fidelity
and Surety Co. is entitled to preference.

ISSUE: Whether or not one-half interest in the business is capable of being mortgaged. -- YES

HELD: YES. All personal properties may be mortgaged. Interest in business is personal property capable
of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties under Article 335 of the Civil
Code. Thus, interest in business may be subject of mortgage.

In this case, the mortgaged property of one-half interest in the drug business in favor of Fidelity and Surety
Co. is a valid subject of mortgage.

4. Tufexis v. Olaguera and Municipal Council of Guinobatan 32 Phils 654, 1915

DOCTRINE: Special concession of the right to usufruct in a public market cannot be attached like any ordinary
right

Facts: During the Spanish regime, Pardo Cabaas was allowed by the Spanish government to have the usufruct of
the public market for 40 years. Pardo Cabaas died, and the usufruct was inherited by Ricardo Pujol, his son. When
Ricardo Pujol, became indebted, his properties were sold in an auction sale, and the usufruct was bought by Vergo
Tufexis. The a fire destroyed the market. The Council granted b the right to reconstruct the building and continue the
usufruct. Vergo Tufexis complained on the ground that he bought at the auction sale Ricardo Pujols usufruct.

Issue: Whether or not Vergo Tufexis can be given the usufruct and administration of the market.

Ruling: Vergo Tufexis cannot be given the right because the right is public character and could not be bought at an
auction sale. What he should have done before the building was burned was to attach the income already received by
Ricardo Pujol. For Vergo Tufexis now to take Ricardo Pujols place is contrary to law, for this would be allowing a
stranger who had not been selected by the government, to take over a public function. On the hand, the transfer of A
to B is personal, and is transferrable only by inheritance. C not being an heir, cannot therefore exercise the right.

Where the public market had been levied upon by virtue of the execution arising from the debt
of the municipality of Guinobatan, that even though a creditor is unquestionably entitled to recover out
of his debtor's property, yet when among such property there is included the special right granted by the
Government of usufruct in a building intended for a public service, and when this privilege is closely
related to a service of a public character, such right of the creditor to the collection of a debt owed him
by the debtor who enjoys the said special privilege of usufruct in a public market is not absolute and may
be exercised only through the action of a court of justice with respect to the profits or revenue obtained
under the special right of usufruct enjoyed by debtor.

The special concession of the right to usufruct in a public market cannot be attached like any
ordinary right, because that would be to permit a person who has contracted with the state or with the
administrative officials thereof to conduct and manage a service of a public character, to be substituted,
without the knowledge and consent of the administrative authorities, by one who took no part in the
contract, thus giving rise to the possibility of the regular course of a public service being disturbed by the
more or less legal action of a grantee, to the prejudice of the state and the public interests. The privilege
or franchise granted to a private person to enjoy the usufruct of a public market cannot lawfully be
attached and sold, and a creditor of such person can recover his debt only out of the income or revenue
obtained by the debtor from the enjoyment or usufruct of the said privilege, in the same manner that the
rights of the creditors of a railroad company can be exercised and their creditors collected only out of the
gross receipts remaining after deduction has been made therefrom of the operating expenses of the road.