Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 851
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