RPT Case Digests
RPT Case Digests
RPT Case Digests
FACTS:
ISSUE (s):
HELD:
Under the 1937 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No 7160,
in order to be entitled to the exemption, petitioner LC is burdened to
prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that it is a charitable institution
and its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY
used for charitable purposes. Exclusive is defined as possessed and
enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or
enjoyment; and exclusively is defined, in a manner to exclude; as
enjoying a privilege exclusively.
Facts
Issues:
Ruling:
Finally, Benevolas charge of rentals for the offices and clinics its
accredited physicians occupy cannot be equated to a commercial
venture, which is mainly for profit.
Ruling:
The general rule, as laid down in Section 133 of the LGC is that
the taxing powers of LGUs cannot extend to the levy of, inter alia,
taxes, fees and charges of any kind on the National Government, its
agencies, and instrumentalities, and LGUs. However, pursuant to
Section 232, provinces, cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila
Area may impose real property taxes except on inter alia, real
property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its
political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been
granted for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person (Sec.
234a).
Facts:
The Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Paraaque City
under Executive Order No. 903 (MIAA Charter), as amended. As such
operator, it administers the land, improvements and equipment within
the NAIA Complex. In March 1997, the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 061 to the effect that
the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) withdrew the exemption
from real estate tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of its Charter.
Thus, MIAA paid some of the real estate tax already due. In June
2001, it received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from
the City of Paraaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. The City
Treasurer subsequently issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on
the airport lands and buildings.
Real Property Taxation Cases
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE AIRPORT LANDS AND BUILDINGS
OF MIAA ARE EXEMPT FROM REAL ESTATE TAX?
Held:
The airport lands and buildings of MIAA are exempt from real
estate tax imposed by local governments. Sec. 243(a) of the LGC
exempts from real estate tax any real property owned by the Republic
of the Philippines. This exemption should be read in relation with Sec.
133(o) of the LGC, which provides that the exercise of the taxing
powers of local governments shall not extend to the levy of taxes, fees
or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities.
The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear
language in the law imposing the tax. This rule applies with greater
force when local governments seek to tax national government
Real Property Taxation Cases
FACTS:
Respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. (Bayantel) is a
legislative franchise holder under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3259 (1961)
to establish and operate radio stations for domestic
telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting and telecasting.
Section 14 (a) of R.A. No. 3259 states: The grantee shall be liable to
pay the same taxes on its real estate, buildings and personal property,
exclusive of the franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or
hereafter may be required by law to pay.
In 1992, R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991 (LGC) took effect. Section 232 of the Code
grants local government units within the Metro Manila Area the
power to levy tax on real properties. Barely few months after the LGC
took effect, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7633, amending Bayantels
original franchise. The Section 11 of the amendatory contained the
following tax provision: The grantee, its successors or assigns shall
be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and
personal property, exclusive of this franchise, xxx. In 1993, the
government of Quezon City enacted an ordinance otherwise known as
the Quezon City Revenue Code withdrawing tax exemption privileges.
Real Property Taxation Cases
FACTS:
TCT No. 39110 was also divided into two lots, becoming TCT
Nos. 92869 and 92870. The lot covered by TCT No. 38457 was not
Real Property Taxation Cases
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
ceded, transferred or
conveyed for remuneratory
consideration is null and
void as it is an invalid
classification of real
properties which are
transferred, ceded or
conveyed and those which
are not, the latter remaining
to be valued and assessed in
accordance with the general
revisions of assessments of
real properties under the
first sentence of Section 3.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the proviso fixing the appraised value of property
at the stated
HELD:
The proviso directing that the real property tax be based on the
actual amount reflected in the deed of conveyance or the prevailing
BIR zonal value is invalid not only because it mandates an exclusive
rule in determining the fair market value but more so because it
departs from the established procedures stated in the Local
Assessment Regulations No. 1-92 and unduly interferes with the
duties statutorily placed upon the local assessor by completely
dispensing with his analysis and discretion which the Code and the
regulations require to be exercised.
Real Property Taxation Cases
FACTS:
where her house is standing and that the land was given or awarded to her
by the Municipal Government of San Mateo, Isabela. She added that she has
been occupying the land since February 1946 and no one molested her in
her actual possession and use thereof except the claims of petitioners which
she came to know only on 04 July 1987 when she received the summons.
ISSUE:
RULING:
No.
Respondent is not the registered owner of the lot she is
occupying and she has failed to adduce evidence showing that the
property has been conveyed to her by the petitioners or by the
original owner thereof. Respondent has no evidence of her ownership
over the lot where her house is erected. Her allegation that the lot
was awarded or given through a resolution by the Municipal
Government of San Mateo, Isabela, cannot be given credence.
The Court has ruled that unless there are intervening rights of
third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision
directing the return of the lot to petitioners, the equitable defense of
laches will not apply as against the registered owners. [57] In the case
at bar, there being no intervening third persons whose rights will be
affected or prejudiced if possession of the subject lot is restored to the
petitioners, the return of the same is in order.
FACTS:
Real Property Taxation Cases
On the other hand, Mariano Santiago contended that Lot No. 2344
was subdivided into three portions: Lot 2344-A, Lot 2344-B, and Lot
2344-C. Simplicio and his heirs owned only Lot 2344-B, and Lots
2344-A and 2344-C were fraudulently included in the free patent and
certificate of title issued to Simplicio Santiago. Mariano testified that
he and his sister bought Lot 2344-A from Simplicio Santiago for the
price of Php 5,000.00, as evidenced by a deed of sale dated Sept. 15,
1972. Immediately after sale, they constructed a house on the lot.
The trial court ruled in favor of Simplicio's heirs and held that
Mariano's claim over the controverted lot lacks basis and that his
defense constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of a Torrens title
which was barred by prescription for having been raised more than
one year after the entry of the decree of registration.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and
ruled that the Free Patent and the Original Certificate of Title issued
in favor of Simplicio Santiago are void, because Lot 2344 is a private
land which cannot be the subject of a Free Patent.
ISSUES:
CONTENTIONS:
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
NO.
However, it is worthy to note that although Lot 2344-C was within the
property declared for taxation by the late Simplicio Santiago, he did
not disturb the possession of Marta and Mariano. Also, considering
the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the land by respondents and their predecessors in
interests, they are deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a
right to a government grant without the necessity of a certificate of
title being issued. Hence, the free patent covering Lot 2344, a private
land, and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, are void.
FACTS:
On May 22, 1989, respondent spouses Amadeo Apacionado and
Herminia Sta. Ana filed a complaint against petitioner Renato Cenido
for Declaration of Ownership, Nullity, with Damages, alleging that
Real Property Taxation Cases
Under the Civil Code, natural children and illegitimate children other
than natural are entitled to support and successional rights only when
recognized or acknowledged by the putative parent. Unless
recognized, they have no rights whatsoever against their alleged
parent or his estate. The filiation of illegitimate children may be
proved by any of the forms of recognition of natural children. This
recognition may be made (1) voluntarily, which must be express such
as that in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record, or in any authentic writing; (2) legally, i.e., when a natural
child is recognized, such recognition extends to his or her brothers
and sisters of the full blood; and (3) judicially or compulsorily, which
may be demanded by the illegitimate child of his parents. The action
for compulsory recognition of the illegitimate child must be brought
during the lifetime of the presumed parents.
In the case at bar, petitioner Cenido did not present any record of
birth, will or any authentic writing to show he was voluntarily
recognized by Bonifacio as his illegitimate son. In fact, petitioner
admitted on the witness stand that he had no document to prove
Bonifacio's recognition, much less his filiation. The voluntary
recognition of petitioner's filiation by Bonifacio's brother before the
MTC does not qualify as a "statement in a court of record." Under the
law, this statement must be made personally by the parent himself or
herself, not by any brother, sister or relative; after all, the concept of
recognition speaks of a voluntary declaration by the parent, or if the
parent refuses, by judicial authority, to establish the paternity or
maternity of children born outside wedlock.
The Real Property Tax Code provides that real property tax be
assessed in the name of the person "owning or administering" the
property on which the tax is levied. Since petitioner Cenido has not
proven any successional or administrative rights to Bonifacio's estate,
the tax declaration in Cenido's name must be declared null and void.
FACTS
The Madrid brothers were the registered owners of Lot No.
7036-A situated in Isabela. Said lot was subdivided into several lots.
On 15 August 1957, Rizal Madrid sold part of his share identified as
Lot No. 7036-A-7, to Aleja Gamiao (hereafter Gamiao) and Felisa
Dayag (hereafter, Dayag) by virtue of a Deed of Sale, to which his
brothers offered no objection as evidenced by their Joint Affidavit. The
deed of sale was not registered with the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Isabela. However, Gamiao and Dayag declared the property
for taxation purposes in their names on March 1964 under Tax
Declaration.
Gamiao and Dayag sold the southern half of Lot No. 7036-A-7 to
Teodoro dela Cruz, and the northern half to Restituto Hernandez.
Thereupon, Teodoro dela Cruz and Restituto Hernandez took
possession of and cultivated the portions of the property respectively
sold to them. Later, Restituto Hernandez donated the northern half to
his daughter, Evangeline Hernandez-del Rosario. The children of
Teodoro dela Cruz continued possession of the southern half after
their fathers death.
In a Deed of Sale dated 15 June 1976, the Madrid brothers
conveyed all their rights and interests over Lot No. 7036-A-7 to
Pacifico Marquez, which the former confirmed. The deed of sale was
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Isabela on 2
March 1982. Subsequently, Marquez subdivided Lot No. 7036-A-7 into
eight (8) lots. On the same date, Marquez and his spouse, Mercedita
Mariana, mortgaged Lots Nos. 7036-A-7-A to 7036-A-7-D to the
Consolidated Rural Bank, Inc. of Cagayan Valley to secure a loan of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). These deeds of real
estate mortgage were registered with the Office of the Register of
Deeds. Marquez mortgaged Lot No. 7036-A-7-E likewise to the Rural
Bank of Cauayan (RBC) to secure a loan.
As Marquez defaulted in the payment of his loan, CRB caused
the foreclosure of the mortgages in its favor and the lots were sold to
it as the highest bidder.
Claiming to be null and void the issuance of TCT Nos. T-149375
to T-149382; the foreclosure sale of Lot Nos. 7036-A-7-A to 7036-A-7-
D; the mortgage to RBC; and the sale to Calixto, the Heirs-now
respondents herein-represented by Edronel dela Cruz, filed a case for
reconveyance and damages the southern portion of Lot No. 7036-A
(hereafter, the subject property) against Marquez, Calixto, RBC and
CRB.
Real Property Taxation Cases
ISSUE:
Whether or not Art. 1544 of the Civil Code (double sale) applicable in
this case?
RULING:
Real Property Taxation Cases
In the instant case, the actions of Marquez have not satisfied the
requirement of good faith from the time of the purchase of the subject
property to the time of registration. Found by the Court of Appeals,
Marquez knew at the time of the sale that the subject property was
being claimed or taken by the Heirs.
Real Property Taxation Cases
Heirs of Tajonera v CA
G.R. No. L-26677 March 27, 1981
Dr. Aurelio Reyes, sold the said lots for P4,250-00 to Juanita
David . Juanita David sold the same lots to Mariano Tajonera Tajonera
eventually sold a small portion of the lot to the City of Manila for the
widening of a street. Consequently Transfer Certificate of Title No.
72862 was cancelled and replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
43845.
RTC affirmed.
Facts:
This case arose after the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the trial court and declared null and void the public auction sale in
1941 conducted by the City Treasurer of Manila of the two subject
parcels of land as well as the subsequent sales of the same of Juanita
David and Mariano Tajonera, successively (in 1943 and 1944), and
ordered the latter to execute a deed of conveyance of said properties
in favor of herein private respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the sale of the subject property made by
the City Treasurer due to delinquent taxes was null and void?
Held:
NO. The fact that the power to sell at public auction real estate
delinquent in, the payment of taxes devolved upon the City Assessor
and not upon the Treasurer of the City of Manila according to the
ruling in Velayo vs. Ordoveza, et al., 102 Phil. 395, may no longer be
invoked to recover the property from petitioners. To grant the relief
prayed for that is the annulment of the sale and reconveyance of
the property to re respondents would be to impair public
confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with
property would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the
title has been regularly or irregularly issued by the court and this is
contrary to the evident purpose of the law. This is particularly true
where the treasurer's deed of sale was accorded full credit and
validity by the land registration court and the Register of Deeds who
Real Property Taxation Cases
It is on this score that the cited case of Velasco vs. Ordonez, et al., 8
cited by the Court of Appeals, differs from, and losses its applicability
to, the case at bar insofar as it would cancel petitioners' title. In said
case, the annulment of the auction sale conducted by the City
Treasurer of Manila and the confirmation of the rights of the original
registered owner therein came at a time when the property sold at
public auction for tax delinquency had not yet passed to the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value, unlike in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Whether or not the tax sale was void since the spouses
Unico did not receive the notice of tax sale and advertisement.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the sale to the Spouses Hu was
valid.
With regard to determining to whom the notice of sale should
have been sent, settled is the rule that, for purposes of real property
taxation, the registered owner of the property is deemed the taxpayer.
Thus, in identifying the real delinquent taxpayer, a local treasurer
cannot rely solely on the tax declaration but must verify with the
Register of Deeds who the registered owner of the particular property
is.
Respondents not only neglected to register the transfer of the
property but also failed to declare the property in their names as
required by Section 6 of PD 464. TCT No. 236631 issued to the
spouses de los Santos was never cancelled and respondents never
Real Property Taxation Cases
paid realty tax on the property since they acquired it. Thus, the
spouses de los Santos remained the registered owners of the property
in the Torrens title and tax declaration. Since the transfer of the
property to respondents was never registered, the City Treasurer
correctly sent notice of the tax sale and advertisement to the spouses
de los Santos and the tax sale conducted in connection therewith was
valid.
Real Property Taxation Cases
De Knecht v CA
G.R. No. 108015. May 20, 1998
FACTS:
the trial court dismissed the case for "apparent lack of interest of
plaintiffsconsidering that the case had been pending for an
unreasonable length of time.
The Knechts moved to set aside the order of dismissal. The motion
was denied for late filing and failure to furnish a copy to the other
parties. The Knechts questioned the order of dismissal before the
Court of Appeals. The appellate court sustained the trial court. The
petition was denied for late payment of filing fees and for failure to
sufficiently show any reversible error. The petition was denied with
finality and entry of judgment was made.
Three (3) months later, through the order of the court, seven of the
eight houses of the Knechts were demolished and the government
took possession of the portion of land on which the houses stood.
Meanwhile, Salem conveyed some of the subject property to
respondent spouses Mariano and Anacoreta Nocom and was issued in
their names. Salem remained the owner of 2,490.69 square meters of
which the Knechts had their residence.
Since the Knechts refused to vacate their one remaining house,
Salem instituted against them Civil Case for unlawful detainer before
the MTC. As defense, the Knechts claimed ownership of the land and
building. The Municipal Trial Court, however, granted the complaint
and ordered the Knechts' ejectment. Pursuant to a writ of execution,
the last house of the Knechts was demolished.
The Knechts instituted a case for recovery of ownership and
possession of the property. The trial court on the ground of res
judicata dismissed the case. The Knechts challenged the order of
dismissal in CA. The Knechts' "Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Certiorari" was denied also and the entry of judgment was
made.
Meanwhile, the trial court issued an order fixing the compensation
of all the lands sought to be expropriated by the government of which
the Knecht challenged but was denied. And appealed to CA. The Court
of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the Knechts' intervention
after finding that the Knechts had no legal interest on the subject
property.
The Knechts instituted also before the Court of Appeals an original
action for annulment of judgment of the trial courts. Therein, the
Knechts challenged the validity of the orders of the land registration
courts in the two petitions of the Sangalangs and Babieras for
registration of their names, the reconveyance caseand the just
compensation proceedings. The Knechts questioned the validity of the
titles of the Babieras and Sangalangs, and those of Salem and the
Nocoms, and prayed for the issuance of new titles in their
names. They also sought to restrain further releases of payment of
just compensation to Salem and the Nocoms.
Real Property Taxation Cases
RULLING:
Petitioners claim that is not res judicata. They contend that there
was no judgment on the merits one rendered after a consideration of
the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the
case. They stress that Case was dismissed upon petitioners' failure to
appear at several hearings and was based on "lack of interest".
The SC was not impressed by petitioners' contention. "Lack of
interest" is analogous to "failure to prosecute." Section 3 of Rule 17 of
the Revised Rules of Court provides:
It appears that counsel for the plaintiff has been duly notified but
despite notice failed to appear and considering that this case has been
pending for quite a considerable length of time, on motion of counsel
Real Property Taxation Cases
Estate of Jacob v CA
G.R. Nos. 120435.
December 22, 1997
transferred in her name. Thus she paid the real estate taxes from
1964 to 1978 in the name of its previous owner Alberto Sta. Maria.
On 4 February 1987 the court granted their petition and TCT No.
357727 was issued in the name of the spouses Romeo and Verna
Chua.
The registered owner need not be entirely blamed for her failure
to transfer the tax declaration in her name. Section 7 of PD No. 464
Real Property Taxation Cases
directs the assessor, in case the owner fails to make a return, to list
the real estate for taxation and charge the tax against the true owner
if known, and if unknown, then as against the unknown owner. In this
way, a change of ownership may be ascertained.
Facts:
(a) failure of the City Tresurer to exert further steps to send the
warrant at the address where the property was located
(b) the failure to serve the copied of the warrant onj the occupant of
the property as mandated by Section 258 of the LGC
(c) failure to serve the copies of the warrant of levy upon Register of
Deeds and the City Assessor of Makati prior to the auction sale
Real Property Taxation Cases
(d) failure to annotate the notice of the levy on the title of the
property to conduct of the auction sale
Issues:
Ruling:
2.No, the notice of tax delinquency was not proven to have been
posted at the Makati City Hall and in Brgy. Dasmarinas, Makati City,
where the property is located. It was no proven either that the
required advertisements were effected in accodance with law.
Real Property Taxation Cases
FACTS:
Not satisfied, petitioners on March 29, 1994 filed with the Regional
Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 163,
presided over by respondent Judge, a Petition for Prohibition with
prayer for a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to
declare null and void the new tax assessments and to enjoin the
collection of real estate taxes based on said assessments.
ISSUE:
CONTENTIONS:
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
RULING:
NO.
PD 921 is still a good law and the schedule of values prepared solely
by the municipal assessor is illegal & void. It was held that if the
intention of the legislature was to abrogate PD 921, it would have
included it in such repealing clause. An implied repeal will not be
allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated
that the two laws are clearly repugnant & inconsistent that they
cannot co-exist. While RA 7160 covers almost governmental functions
delegated to local governments units, PD 921 embraces only the
Metropolitan Manila Area and is limited especially to the assessment
and collection of real estate (& some other taxes). Therefore, it is
obvious that harmony in these provisions is not only possible, but in
fact desirable, necessary and consistent with the legislative intent &
policy. By this harmonization, the preamble of both statutes shall be
fulfilled.
Real Property Taxation Cases
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
No. Under the Real Property Tax Code, the duty to declare the
true value of real property for taxation purposes is imposed upon the
owner, or administrator, or their duly authorized representatives. They
are thus the taxpayers. When these persons fail or refuse to make a
declaration of the true value of their real property within the
prescribed period, the provincial or city assessor shall declare the
property in the name of the defaulting owner and assess the property
for taxation. In this wise, the taxpayer assumes the character of a
defaulting owner, or defaulting administrator, or defaulting authorized
representative, liable to pay back taxes.
The fact that NAPOCOR is the present owner of the Sucat power
plant machineries and equipment does not constitute a legal barrier
to the collection of delinquent taxes from the previous owner,
MERALCO, who has defaulted in its payment.
Facts:
Among the obligations undertaken by the NPC under the ECA was the
payment of all taxes that the government may impose on Mirant. In a
Real Property Taxation Cases
NPC was not the proper party to Claims that it has legal interest
protest the real property tax because of its beneficial ownership
assessment, as it does not have the of the power plant and its
requisite legal interest.
Machineries, and Mirant holds is
merely a naked title.
Issue:
Ruling:
Real Property Taxation Cases
a. No. Section 226 of the LGC lists down the two entities vested
with the personality to contest an assessment: the owner and
the person with legal interest in the property. The liability for
taxes generally rests on the owner of the real property at the
time the tax accrues. This is a necessary consequence that
proceeds from the fact of ownership. However, personal liability
for realty taxes may also expressly rest on the entity with the
beneficial use of the real property, such as the tax on property
owned by the government but leased to private persons or
entities, or when the tax assessment is made on the basis of the
actual use of the property.
Nor will NPC find solace in its claim that it utilizes all the power
plants generated electricity in supplying the power needs of its
customers. Based on the clear wording of the law, it is the
machineries that are exempted from the payment of real property
tax, not the water or electricity that these machineries generate
and distribute.
FACTS:
Petitioner GSIS owns or used to own two (2) parcels of land,
located at Katigbak and Concepcion cor. Arroceros, Manila. Title to
the Concepcion-Arroceros property was transferred to this Court in
2005 pursuant to Proclamation No. 835. Both the GSIS and the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila occupy the Concepcion-
Arroceros property, while the Katigbak property was under lease.
The City Treasurer of Manila addressed a letter dated
September 13, 2002 to GSIS President and General Manager Winston
F. Garcia informing him of the unpaid real property taxes due on the
aforementioned properties for years 1992 to 2002. The letter warned
of the inclusion of the subject properties in the scheduled October 30,
2002 public auction of all delinquent properties in Manila should the
unpaid taxes remain unsettled before that date. Then, the City
Treasurer of Manila issued separate Notices of Realty Tax
Delinquency[ for the subject properties, with the usual warning of
seizure and/or sale. GSIS, wrote back emphasizing the GSIS
exemption from all kinds of taxes, including realty taxes, under
Republic Act No. (RA) 8291.
Two days after, GSIS filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for a restraining and injunctive relief before
the Manila RTC. In it, GSIS prayed for the nullification of the
assessments thus made and that respondents City of Manila officials
be permanently enjoined from proceedings against GSIS property.
GSIS posture that both its old Respondents counter that GSIS
Real Property Taxation Cases
ISSUES:
RULING:
1 YES. Court finds that GSIS enjoys under its charter full tax
exemption.
Facts:
Lucena Fishing Port Complex is a fishery infrastructure project
of the National Government financed through a loan from the
Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan.
Later on, pursuant to the enactment of PD 977, the PFDA took
over the management and operation of the LFPC in February 1992.
On October 26, 1999, the City Government of Lucena sent to
PFDA a demand letter for payment of realty taxes of LFPC property
for the taxable years 1993-1999.
A year after, another demand letter was sent by the City
Government covering the period from 1993 to 2000. This prompted to
file an appeal before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of
Lucena but was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner moves for its
reconsideration but this was denied by LBAA. PFDA then appealed to
CBA but the latter likewise dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
dominion intended
for public use and
falls within the
term ports.
Hence, as
property of public
dominion, LFPC is
owned by the
Republic of the
Philippines and
thus exempt from
real estate tax,
except those
which are leased
to private persons
or entities.
FACTS:
suspended the implementation of the said EO until June 30, 1987 for
cooperatives. Effective July 1, 1987, FIRB No. 24-87 restored the tax
and duty exemption oriveleges of electric cooperatives under PD No.
269.
On appeal the CA set aside the ruling of the RTC, it held that
Davao Oriental Cooperative is liable to pay property taxes plus
penalties and surcharges.
Issue:
Ruling:
Yes, FIRB Resolution No. 24-87 is clear in stating that the tax
and duty exemption privileges of electric cooperatives granted under
the terms and conditions of PD NO. 269 are restored effective July 1,
1987.
for the prupose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such
affidavit or documents submitted in support of the appeal.
FACTS:
The RTC upheld the validity of the tax sale and dismissed the
complaints. It reasoned that because petitioners were not the
registered owners of the property, they were not real parties-in-
interest who could assail the validity of the said sale. Petitioners
moved for reconsideration, which was granted, noting that no notice
of sale was sent to petitioners who were the legitimate owners of the
property.
The CA reversed and set aside the assailed resolutions of the RTC. It
reasoned that Section 83 of PD 464 was inapplicable since the
complaints did not protest the assessment made by the local
government unit. Thus, such failure did not deprive the RTC of
jurisdiction. However, the CA upheld the validity of the tax sale.
Under the law, only registered owners are entitled to a notice of tax
sale. Inasmuch as the property remained registered in the names of
the Hodges spouses in TCT No. T-7373, said spouses were the only
ones entitled to such notice.
HELD:
YES. Section 83 of PD 464 states that the RTC shall not entertain any
complaint assailing the validity of a tax sale of real property unless
the complainant deposits with the court the amount for which the said
property was sold plus interest equivalent to 20% per annum from the
date of sale until the institution of the complaint. This provision was
adopted in Section 267 of the Local Government Code, albeit the
increase in the prescribed rate of interest to 2% per month. In this
regard, National Housing Authority v. Iloilo City holds that the deposit
required under Section 267 of the Local Government Code is a
jurisdictional requirement, the nonpayment of which warrants the
dismissal of the action. Because petitioners in this case did not make
such deposit, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the complaints.
Consequently, inasmuch as the tax sale was never validly challenged,
it remains legally binding.
TTDC incurred real estate tax liabilities on the said properties for the
tax years 1976 to 1983.
For failure of the corporation to settle its delinquent real estate tax
obligations, the City of Tagaytay offered the properties for sale at
public auction. Being the only bidder, a certificate of sale was
executed in favour of the City of Tagaytay and was correspondingly
inscribed on the titles of the properties. The City of Tagaytay filed an
unnumbered petition for entry of new certificates of title in its favour
before RTC Cavite. RTC granted the petition. TTDC appealed to the
CA. The subject properties were later purchased by Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera and Emiliana Melencio-Fernando for the amount
equivalent to the taxes and penalties due to the same. Meanwhile,
during the pendency of the case before the CA, TTDC filed a petition
for nullification of the public auction involving the disputed
properties.
CITY
GOVERMENT OF TTDCS SC RULING
TAGAYTAYS CONTENTION
CONTENTION
-YES.
The properties, The properties
based on its involved were not -It is very basic that
charter, were within the before the City of
within its jurisdiction of the Tagaytay may levy a
territorial City of Tagaytay certain property for sale
jurisdiction. and, therefore, due to tax delinquency,
beyond its taxing the subject property
authority. should be under its
jurisdiction. Nonetheless,
the failure of the city
officials in this case to
verify if the property is
within its jurisdiction
before levying taxes on
the same constitutes
gross negligence.
Facts:
On January 18, 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar
Energy, Inc. over 3x30 MW diesel engine power barges moored at
Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract, denominated as an
Energy Conversion Agreement (Agreement), was for a period of five
years wherein, NPC shall be responsible for the payment of:
Real Property Taxation Cases
(a) All taxes, import duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by
the National Government.
(b) All real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in
respect of the Power Barges.
NPC
Real Property Taxation Cases
Power Barges are non-taxable Power Barges are real property for
items. the purposes of taxation and
therefore subject to tax.
Issue:
Ruling:
b. No. Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that "docks
and structures which, though floating, are intended by their
nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or
coast" are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges
Real Property Taxation Cases
c. No. The court affirms the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that
the owner of the taxable properties is petitioner FELS, which in
fine, is the entity being taxed by the local government. As
stipulated under Section 2.11, Article 2 of the Agreement:
Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is
the rule and exemption is the exception. The law does not look
with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to
be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be
mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. Thus,
applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax
exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor
of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a
taxable entity.
FACTS:
However, for loan restructuring purposes, Capwire claims that "it was
required to register the value of its right," hence, it engaged an appraiser to
"assess the market value of the international submarine cable system and
the cost to Capwire."
ISSUE:
HELD:
Petition DENIED.