Skip to decision

Court of Tax Appeals

0

CTA Case No. 851

CTA Case No. 851 July 20, 1961


COURT OF | AX APPEALS

MMaNILasA


MUNICIPAL SOAMD, in Repre-

sentation of the City of Cebu, i

Petitioner, §

\ C.T.A.

C.I.A. - vemus - ! CASE NO. 851


BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS,

aad stin Jereza, for and in

behalf of the University of

Southern Philippines Foundation,

Respendente.


DEGISTION


This is an appeal by the Municipal Soard, in

representation of the City of Cebu, from the deci-

sion ef the Board of Assesement Appesis of the City

of Gebu declaring six parcels ef land leased to the

University of Southern Philippines Foundation exempt

from real property taxation as lands exclusively

used for educational purposes.


On February 11, 1960, Agustin Jereza, for and

in behalf of the University of southern Philippines

Foundation, applied to the City Assessor of Cebu City

for exemption from payment of realty taxes of the

fellowing parcels of land situated in Cebu City, . said

parceis of land being used exclusively for educational


purposes:


495-4 & 495-8 73244


339 66203


30 41158


317 21754


313 13261

169


DGCISION -

GTA. CASE NO, 85]


~Q«


493 65827

460<A 106973

460-B 108972

342 95266

34] 95 265


(B.A.A. rec.‘ p. 26.)


The City Assessor granted the application for

exemption, except as to lets numbered 340, 317, 313,

460-8, 342 and 341.


Agustin Jereza appealed to the Soard of Assess-

ment Appeals ef Cebu City the decision of the City

Assessor with respect only to thet portion denying

exemption to lots numbered MO, 317, 313, 460-5, HK?

and 341 (B.A.A. rec. pp. led), In a decision dated

May BO, 1960, the Board of Assessment Appeals reversed

the decision of the City Assessor and declared lots

numbered 313, 460¢B3, 340, 342 and Hl exempt from taxa-

tion (8.A.A. rec. pp. 44-50). However, for reasons not

@ppesering on the face of the decision, no declapat ion

er pronouncement was made as to let No. 317.


Peeling itself aggrieved by the decision of the

Soard of Assessment Appeals, the Municipal Soard of

the City of Cebu, in representetion of the same city,

filed a petition for review before this Court on June

3, 1960.


The parties submitted the case for decision en

&@ stipulation ef facts, without presentation ef fur-

ther evidence. [he stipuletion of fects reads:


tienal purposes by the University ef Southern

Philippines Foundation and not by the owers


170

ed


DECISION «

G.T.A. CASE NO, 851


~~.


2. That Let Ne. HO (Tax Declaration |


He. 82444), with an area of 189 are me-

ters, assessed at #4,730.00, by

ae Jereza is leased to the University


Seuthern Philippines Foundetion for

monthly rental of 250.00; that Lot No. 313

(Tax Declaration No. 106576), with an area

of 377 square meters, assessed at #15,080,

owned by Agustin Jereza, is leased to the

Foundation for #40.00 per month; that Lot

No. 341 (Tax Declaration No, 95265), with

an area of 232 square meters, 4scessed at

-PT7,060 and Lot No. 342 (Tax Declaretion No.

95264), with an ares of 309 square meters,

assessed at §7,736, both by the heirs

of Filomena Duterte, ape both leased to the

Foundation for #65.00 per month; and Let No.

460-8 (Tex Declaretion No. 108972), with an

area 350 square meters, assessed at

#12,250 and owned by Soledad D. Vda. de

Sanson, is leased to the Foundstion for

the amount of #50,00 per months


3. That the realty taxes due on the

lets above-mentioned have been paid by the

above-mentioned owners up to the year 19595


4. That only the lots herein above-

mentioned are the subject of this appeal;


5. That Lots Nos. 3, 495 A 6 B,

339 and 493 have veen exempted the City

Assessor from the payment of realty taxes

for the peried beginning 1960, except the

following:


(a) Lot No. 343 was exempted

since 1948,


(o>) Lot No, 460-4 was exempted

in 1952, being a part of the Colon

Street widening;


6. That Lot Wo. 749 in the vicinity of

the lots in question (See Sketch marked


Exhibit 8) eriginally bel to Filemon

Setto and contain an ares 214 square

meters was sold to io V. Madarang et


¥45.0O per square meter or the amount of

#9,630.00 as per Deed of Absolute Sale dated

April 27, 1959, certified true copy of which

Deed of Sale is hereto attached and marked

as Annex “A* in this stipulation of facts;


eo


DECISIGN «

G.T.A. CASE NO, 881


a


7. That Let No. 390-5 situated at the

Cerner of Mabini and Colon Streets in the

vicinity of the lots in question is pre-

sently ieased by the owners to the Stan-

derd Vacuum Oi] Company at #0. 23 per square

meter per month;


8. That the respondent Agustin Jereze

is the President of the University of Southern

Philippines Foundation,


9. That the University of Southern

Philippines Foundation is & non-stock, non-

profit corporetion, as shown a Certifi-

cate of Incorporetion No. 15418, iseued by

the Securities and Exchange Commission on

May 23, 1959;


10. That the heirs of Filomena Duterte,

owner of Lote Nos. 341 and 3442, are Seatriz

de Jereza and Soledad D, Vda, de Sanson;


claration No. 106577), sssessed at #108,800,

with an area of 2,500 square meters; Lot No.

493 (Tax Veclaretion No. 106579, with an

ares of 627 squere meters, sesessed at

#25,080, and Lot No. 339 (Tax Declaration

NO. 106578), with an area of 930 square

meters, assessed at #37,200, all owned by

Agustin Jereza, are leased to the Univer-

sity of Southern Philippines Foundation for

nominel rents ranging from F1.00 te *5.00

per months


12. That some of the incorporators of

the said University of Southern Philippines

Foundation are Agustin Jereza, Geatriz de

Jereza and Soledad D, Sanson.


x x x x


The main iseves involved in this case are:


l. Whether or not the Municipel Soard, in repre-

sentation of the City of Cebu, can appeal an adverse

decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals te this

Gourt pursuant to Section ll of Republic Act No. 1125;


DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO, 851 ste 2 Whether or not the Board of Assessment Ap- peals of the City of Cebu has the power to declare real properties exempt from the payment of realty taxy

3. Whether or not the University of Southern Philippines Foundation can ask a0 exemption from real property tax of properties owned by private individuals, but used by the said institution; and

4. Whether or not lots numbered HO, 317, 313, 460-8, 342 and Ml, which are leased for a consi- deration by their owners to the University of Southern Philippines Foundation and used by the latter exelu- sively for educetional purposes, are exempt from the peyment of realty tex.

As regard the first issue, the pertinent provi- sion of law is Section 11 of Republic Act Ne. 11%, which statess “Sec. ll. se-maxappeals siiaci eb appeal. Any person, association or corp- — oration adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Soard of Assessment Ap- peals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeele within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling."

P uv x ra According te the above-quoted prevision, any person, association or corporation adversely effected by a decision er ruling of the doard of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in this Court within days after the receipt ef such decision or ruling. ‘ The right to

DECISIGCN «

GoTA. CASE NO, B51 e 6 @ appeal to this Court is limited to persons, assectiaq- tions or cerporations contemplated In Section 11.

And, the City ef Gebu, although a duly const {tuted publis corporation, auch more the Municipal soard, does not fall within the meaning of the word "“corpore- tion". (The Province of #etaan and the Municipality of Limay, Sataan vs, Standard Vacuum Hefining Corpora- tion {Philippines/ and Goard of Assessment Appeals, Bataan, C.T.A. Case No. 848, Hesolution October 3, 1960, ) Furthermore, the City of Cebu is but 4 govern- - mentel agency. If the Government, itself, cannot ap- peal te this Court (Collector of Customs vs. [he Court of Tax Appeale et 41., G A. No. i-BB8ll, October 31, 1957), it follows that its agency or instrumentelity cannot do likewise, for 4n agent or instrument cannot Claim more powers than its principel.

In fine, if the City of Cebu eennet appeal to this Court for the reasons stated above, there is no plausible reason why the Municipe] soeard, one of its governmental branches, can do otherwise.

Finally, if we were to allow the Municipal Soard to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, we would be de- Giding conflicts ef opinion between agencies of the government contrary to the purpose for which this Court wae created (see Ursal vs. Court of [ax Appeale, et al., G A, Mo. L-1023 and Ureal ve. Court of [ax Appeals, et al., G. A. No. Lol0366, April 26, 1957).

DECISION «

C.TF.A. CASE NO, 851 oTe We, therefore, conclude that the Municipal deoard ef Cebu, in representation of the City ef Cebu, cannet appeal the adverse decision of the Soard of Assessment Appeals of Ceou City to this Court.

Having reselved the first issue adversely to the Municipal Hoard, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon | the other Lesues. | IN VIEW OF [HE POREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Petition for Review fie, a8 it is hereby, dismissed. Without oromouncement as to costs.

SO GRORHED, Manila, July 2, 196i.

_— CSEEE

Presiding Juage

I concur in the result.

*% ae a

Agsotiate Judge

Contents