IN TAXATION
As of January 19, 2018
TAX 1
1) Cebu Portland Cement v. CTA, L-29059, 15 Dec 1987, 156 SCRA 535 (Lifeblood
of the Government)
2) Mun. of Makati v. CA, et al, L-89898, 01 Oct 1990, 190 SCRA 206 (Exempt from
execution)
3) CIR v. Algue, Inc. et al, L-28896, 17 Feb 1988, 158 SCRA 9 (Lifeblood Theory;
Rationale is Symbiotic Relationship; timeliness of assessment / collection;
effect of warrant of distraint & levy; deductibility of promotional expense) 3
4) BPI Family Savings Bank v. CA et al, 330 SCRA 507, 12 Apr 2000 (Mutual
Observance of fairness & honesty; claim for refund due to losses, how to prove
entitlement)4
b. Principles of a Sound Tax System
1. Fiscal Adequacy
2. Theoretical Justice
3. Administrative Feasibility
4. Will the non-observance of these principles invalidate the tax law?
No, unless other inherent and constitutional limitations are infringed.
c. Scope of Taxation
1
What is the concept of taxation? It can be viewed in two ways, namelya) as a power to
tax and (b) as the act or process by which taxing power is exercised.
2
What is the theory or underlying basis of taxation? It is a necessity without which no
government could exist; revenues collected are intended to finance government and its
activities. It can reach what traditionally are within police power measures to attain:
i. Social justice
ii. Equitable distribution of wealth
iii. Economic progress
iv. Protection of local industries, public welfare and the like
3
The substantive issue here is the deductibility of P75,000 promotional fees paid by Algue
to certain individuals who were also its stockholders and who rendered services so that
Algue would earn commission fees. The procedural issue whether or not Allgue seasonably
filed its appeal to the CTA from receipt of Warrant of Distraint and Levy. Due to a special
circumstance, this case presents an excepted to the rule that a Warrant of Distraint and Levy
is “proof of the finality of the assessment” and “renders hopeless a request for
reconsideration,” being “tantamount to an outright denial thereof and makes the said request
deemed rejected.”
4
This is a claim for tax refund due to losses, which was denied by the CTA allegedly for
failure to present the Annual Income Tax Return of the following year, which would show
whether the overpaid taxes had not been credited in that year’s tax liability.
1
1. No attribute of sovereignty is more pervading,
unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and supreme
2. Wide spectrum of the power to tax reaches every
trade or occupation, every object of industry, use or enjoyment, every
species of possession
3. Imposes burden, if not followed could result to
seizure and penalty
4. Pervasive affecting constantly and consistently all
relations of life
5. It also involves the power to destroy per Justice
Marshall [but Justice Holmes said no while the US SC sits]
5) CIR v Tokyo Shipping Co, 244 SCRA 332, 26 May 1995 [Claim for Refund of tax on
GPB from charter of vessel; claim for refund construed strictississimi juris finding of
fact by CTA that vessel left without sugar laden; 15 years lapsed without refund
though at one point lawyer of BIR said it was approved; kill the goose that lay the
golden eggs]
d. Limitation of Taxation
1. Inherent Limitations
a. Public Purpose
b. Legislative in Nature
c. Territorial
d. International Comity
6) CIR v Mitsubishi Metal Corp, 181 SCRA 214, 22 Jan 1990 [Exemption of Japanese
govt owned bank does not extend to Jap corp, who in turn lent the loan to a local
company; exemption construed strictississimi]
2. Constitutional Limitations
Directly affecting taxation
a. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax
b. Rule of taxation should be uniform and equitable;
progressive system of taxation to evolve; authorized
President to fix limits by Congress
c. Exempt charitable and religious institution from property
tax
d. Exempting law must be passed by majority of all members
of Congress
e. Special purpose tax should be used for said purpose and
excess to revert to general fund
f. Veto power of the President
g. Review power of the SC
h. Grant of power to local government
i. Exemption of non-stock, non-profit educational
institution, etc from taxes
2
Indirectly affecting taxation
a. Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
b. Police Power and Eminent Domain higher, can override
constitutional rights, subject to limitations
1) Due Process
1) Separation of Church and State
1) Non-impairment clause of contracts
1) Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
7) Phil Bank of Communications v. CIR, et al, 302 SCRA 241, 28 Jan 1999
[Summary collection does not infringe due process
8) Sison v. Ancheta, GR 59431, 25 Jul 1984 [Uniformity, Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses not violated when BP 135 adopted gross income taxation)
[when the tax “operates with the same force and effect in every place where the
subject may be found”. It was held to comply with uniformity requirement; “Equality
and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the
same class shall be taxed at the same rate.]
9) Reyes v. Almanzor, 196 SCRA 322 (Arbitrary valuation violated Due Process
10) Nitafan et al v. CIR, GR 78780, 23 Jul 1987 (Salaries of justices & Judges are not
exempt from income tax)
11) PAL v. Sec of Finance, GR 115852, 25 Aug 1994 (Withdrawal of PAL’s exemption
from VAT without being mentioned in title not violative of bill embracing one
subject)
12) Tolentino v Sec of Finance & CIR, GR 11545, 64 SCAD 352, 235 SCRA 630 (Does
VAT law violate the “progressivity rule of taxation” given that VAT is
regressive?; equality & uniformity rule?)
13) ABAKADA Guro v. Exec Secretary, 469 SCRA 1, etc 1 Sep 2005 & 18 Oct 2005
e. Aspects of Taxation
Levy
f. Classification of Taxes
According to subject matter (Capitation Tax, Property Tax, Excise
Tax)
5
Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (1994) – This is a challenge to the validity of Simplified
Net Income Taxation applied to general professional partnerships; uniformity of taxation
merely requires that all subjects or objects of taxation similarly are to be treated alike both in
privileges and liabilities.
3
According to burden or incidence (Direct or indirect)
19) PAL v. Romeo Edu, GR 41383, 15 Aug 1998 164 SCRA 320 (exempt from taxes)
20) ESSO Std Eastern v CIR GR 28508-9, 7 Jul 1989 175 SCRA 149 (Margin Fee a
license – police power, not taxing)
21) Lozano v. Energy Regulatory Board, GR 95119-21, 18 Dec 1990 192 SCRA 363
(OPSF not a tax)
23) Procter & Gamble v. Mun of Jagna, 94 SCRA 894, (nature and amount of license)
24) Golden Ribbon Lumber v City of Butuan, 12 SCRA 611 (non payment is illegal)
Toll
27) Victoria Millling v Phil Ports Authority, GR 73705 27 Aug 1987, 153 SCRA 317
(share of govt from earnings of arrastre and stevedoring from contractual
compensation not tax)
28) CIR v Prieto 109 PHIL 592
4
a. Rules of Statutory Construction are applied, legislative
intent is primordial
b. In case of doubt, construed in favor of taxpayer
c. But for exemptions, construed against taxpayer
i. Except when it applies to government
ii. Special class of subjects under special conditions
iii. When the law says so
29) CIR v CA, Central Vegetable Mfg Co & CTA, GR 107135, 23 Feb 1999
30) Luzon Stevedoring v CTA, GR 30232, 29 Jul 1988, 163 SCRA 647
31) CIR v. Gotamco & Sons, GR 31092, 27 Feb 1987, 148 SCRA 36
32) CIR v. CA, CTA and Ateneo de Manila, GR 115349, 18 Apr 1997, 271 SCRA 605
How are the rules applied? Apply first the doctrine that imposition
is a burden thus construed strictly vs. govt, then if applicable, the
burden shifts to taxpayer to prove he is exempt.
i. Classifications of Exemptions
Express
i. Section 30 of NIRC
ii. Section 105 of Tariffs and Customs Code
iii. Special Laws, like the Omnibus Investment Code
Implied or by Omission
33) Prov of Mizamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric, GR 45355, 12 Jan 1990, 181 SCRA
38
34) CIR v. CA, ROH Auto Products Phils & CTA, GR 108358, 20 Jan 1995, 240 SCRA
368
5
How may tax laws be applied? General rule, prospective, but the
law can provide that it has retro effect and it is still valid, except if
too harsh and oppressive as to violate due process clause of the
constitution.
36) Hydro Resources v CA, GR L-80276 21 Dec 1990, 192 SCRA 604 [ad valorem tax
imposed by law passed after transfer of ownership not applicable; contract of sale
subject to suspensive condition; LC issued prior to law is not subject to ad valorem;
no retro effect unless stated by law]
37) Central Azucarera de Don Pedro v. CTA, 20 SCRA 344 [interest on deficiency tax
was imposed by a law passed after the deficiency was incurred is not a retroactive
application]
May taxes prescribe? No, but the law can provide for its
prescription, such as NIRC, Customs and LGC
Double Taxation
What is double taxation? Is it valid or constitutional?
42) CIR v. SC Johnson & Sons, 309 SCRA 87 (1999), [Most favored nation clause;
double taxation; claim for refund in the nature of exemption; construction of RP-US
tax Treaty – tax rate on royalty US v Germany, international juridical double taxation
defined]
i. Treaty
6
ii. Reciprocity
iii. Tax Credit
43) CIR v. Rufino, GR L-33665-68, 27 Feb 1987, 148 SCRA 42, [tax exempt merger of
two corporations]
44) Delpher Trades Corp v IAC, 157 SCRA 349 [tax exempt transfer of property to a
corporation resulting to control]
45) CIR v. Benigno Toda, 438 SCRA 290 (2004) – meaning of fraud; tax avoidance /
evasion
46) Collector v. UST, 104 PHIL 1062 – (rejected this common law doctrine)
Are compromises allowed? Yes by the BIR under NIRC and by Customs
under TCCP. NO similar provisions under the LGC, thus Civil Code applies
suppletorily
Are tax laws political in nature? No, it applies to territory and not by
reason of occupying forces.
7
Donor’s Tax is a tax on a donation or gift, and is imposed on the
gratuitous transfer of property between two or more persons who are
living at the time of the transfer.
8
Powers and duties of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
Exclusive and original power of the CIR to interpret tax laws,
subject to review by the Secretary of Finance
Assess and Collect
49) CIR v. Pascor Realty & Dev Corp, 309 SCRA 402 (1999), Meaning of Assessment;
is assessment prejudicial to filing a tax evasion case?
50) Marcos II v. CA, 270 SCRA 47(1997) Burden of Proof on taxpayer to prove
erroneous assessment; inapplicability of the statute on non-claims under the Rules
of Court to taxes
51) Meralco Securities Corp v. Savellano, 117 SCRA 804 (BIR cannot be compelled by
Mandamus to issue assessment)
Enforce forfeitures, penalties & fines, execute decision of CTA & ordinary
courts
52) Republic v CA 366 SCRA 489(2001); Aznar v CIR 58 SCRA 519(1974); CIR v.
Benigno Toda 438 SCRA 290 (2004) (meaning of fraud)
53) Sy Po v CTA, GR No. 81446, 18 Aug 1988 (best evidence to support assessment);
CIR v. Hantex Trading GR L-136975, 31 Mar 2005; Aurelio P. Reyes v. Coll of
Internal Revenue, CTA No. 42, 26 Jul 1956 and William Li Yao v. Coll, CTA No. 30,
30 Jul 1956 (use of net worth method)
54) Bache & Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (requirement for a search warrant)
55) CIR v. CA, ROH Auto Products Phil Inc and CTA, GR No. 108358, 20 Jan 1995,
240 SCRA 368 (Nature of administrative rules and regulations)
56) CIR v. CA, CTA and Fortune Tobacco Corp, GR No. 119761, 29 Aug 1996, 261
SCRA 236 (Extent of BIR Interpretative rule)
57) CIR v. Burroughs Ltd, GR No. 66653, 19 Jun 1986, 142 SCRA 324 (Effect of
revocation of ruling)
58) PBC v. CIR, GR No. 112024, 29 Jan 1999 (wrong interpretation will not prejudice
the government)
59) ABS-CBN v. CTA & CIR, GR No. 52306, 12 Oct 1981 (circulars or rulings,
prospective)
61) CIR v. Burmeisters & Wain Scandinavian, GR No. 153205, Jan 2007 – Non-
retroactivity of BIR ruling; 0% VAT on export of services
9
C. Income Tax – c/o Atty Tristan Lopez
TAX 2
D. Transfer Taxes - (Secs. 84 to 104 of the NIRC as amended by RA
10963)
10
(E). Proceeds of Life Insurance
(F). Prior Interest
(G) Transfers for Insufficient Consideration
(H).Capital of Surviving Spouse
F. Other Matters
1. Who is liable to pay? [Sec. 91 (D)]
Estate of Vda. De Gabriel vs. CIR (GR No. 155541 dated January 27,
2004)
a. Discharge of Executor or Administrator from Personal Liability
(Sec. 92)
b. Liability of Heirs
CIR vs. Pineda (21 SCRA 105)
2. Payment Before Delivery by Executor Sec. 94
Marcos II vs. CA 273 SCRA 47
3. Duties of Certain Officers (Sec. 95)
4. Restitution of Tax Upon Satisfaction of Outstanding Obligations (Sec.
96)
11
5. Payment of Tax Antecedent to the Transfer of Shares, Bonds or Rights
(Sec. 97)
PNB vs. Santos, GR No. 208295 dated December 10, 2014
1. Definition
2. Composition of Gross Gift (Secs. 98 and 104)
3. Tax Rate (Sec. 99[A]) – 6% of total gifts in excess of P250,000 exempt
gift made during the calendar year
4. Contributions to a candidate, political party or coalition of parties for
campaign purposes governed by Election Code (Sec. 99[B])
C. Other Matters
1. Rule on Political Contributions [Sec. 99B]
Secs. 13 and 14 RA No. 7166
RR No. 7-2011 dated February 16, 2011
RMC 30-2016 dated March 14, 2016
Abello vs. CIR, GR No. 120721 dated February 23, 2005
2. Transfer for Less than adequate and full consideration (Sec. 100)
– where property, other than real property, is transferred for
less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s
worth,….deemed a gift subject to donor’s tax; exception: if made
in the ordinary course of trade or business …. will be
considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in
money or money’s worth.
(RR No. 6-2008 on shares of stock as amended by RR 6-2013)
Philamlife vs. SOF, GR No. 210987 dated November 24, 2014
4. Tax Credit for Donor’s Taxes paid to a Foreign Country [Sec. 101
(C)]
5. The Law that governs the imposition of Donor’s Tax
(Sec. 11 RR No. 2-03)
6. Renunciation of share in the conjugal partnership or absolute
community; and, hereditary estate (Sec. 11 RR No. 2-03)
7. Capacity to Buy
Sps. Evono CTA EB Case No. 705 dated June 4, 2012
12
D. Filing and Payment of Returns (Sec. 103) / (Sec. 13 RR No. 2-03)
1. Requirements
2. Time and Place of Filing
3. Notice of Donation – Exemption from Donor’s Tax (Sec 13 [C], RR
No. 2-03)
I. VAT In General
a. Nature and characteristic of VAT in general
Sec. 4.105.-2 of RR No. 16-05
CIR vs. Magsaysay Lines GR No. 146984, July 28, 2006
CIR vs. Seagate Technology (Phils) GR No. 153866 February 11, 2005
b. VAT as an indirect tax
Contex vs. CIR GR No. 151135 dated July 2, 2004
c. Persons Liable (Sec. 105)
(1) Persons liable in general
CIR vs. CA & CMS GR No. 125355, March 30, 2000
(2) Who are required to register for VAT
Sec. 236(G), [Sec. 9.236-1 of RR No. 16-05]
(3) Optional VAT Registration (Sec. 236 H) [Sec. 9.236-1 of RR No. 16-05]
d. Meaning of the phrase “in the course of trade of business” (Sec. 105)
Sec. 4.105-3 of RR No. 16-05
CIR vs. Magsaysay Lines GR No. 146984 dated July 28, 2006
e. Exceptions to the Rule of Regularity
f. Output Tax vs. Input Taxes
(1) Sources of Input Tax (Sec. 110 A)
(2) Excess Output or Input Tax (Sec. 111 B)
(3) Rule on Input Tax on Capital Goods (Sec. 4.110-3 of RR No. 16-05)
(4) Substantiation of Input Tax Credits (Sec. 4.110-8 of RR No. 16-05)
13
f. Rules for Certain Services
(1) Common Carriers
Sec. 4.108-2 Nos. 11 and 12 of RR No. 16-05
Sec. 4.108-3 of RR No. 16-05
(2) Lease of Properties
Sec. 4.108-3 of RR No. 16-05
Lease of Residential Units - [Sec. 4.109-1 (B)(q) of RR No. 16-05]
Amendments of Section 109 on Enumerated VAT-exempt
Transactions under Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN) on Threshold of
Lease of Residential Units exempt from VAT.
(3) Professional Services
(4) Medical Services
Sec. 4.109-1 (B)(g) of RR No. 16-05
Philippine Healthcare Providers vs. CIR GR No. 168129 April 24,
2007
2. VAT on Importations
a. VAT Imposition on Importation (Sec. 107)
a. Exempt Importations under Sec. 109
b. Transfer of Goods by Tax-exempt Persons (Sec. 107 B)
c. Amendments of Section 109 on Enumerated VAT-exempt
Transactions under Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN)
14
V. VAT Claim for Refund
a. Compare with Sec. 204 and 229
b. Grounds
c. Periods
Contex vs. CIR GR No. 151135 dated July 2, 2004
Atlas Consolidated Mining vs. CIR GR Nos. 141104 and 148763 June 8,
2007
CIR vs. Mirant Pagbilao Corp. GR No. 172129 dated September 12, 2008
Northern Mini Hydro vs. CIR CTA Case No. 7257 dated May 28, 2009
d. Amendments of Section 112 under Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN) on
Change of Period from 120 to 90 days and No Inaction Provisions and
Penalties for BIR Inaction.
I. Legal Provisions
a. Rep. Act No. 9238
b. Rev. Regs. No. 9-2004
c. Sections 116-128, NIRC
15
d. Banks and Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries Performing Quasi-Banking
Functions
(1) Section121
(2) RMC 69-2003
(3) China Banking Corporation vs. CA, CTA and CIR, G.R. No. 146749 and
G.R.147938 dated June 10, 2003
e. Other Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries Section122
f. Tax on Life Insurance Premiums Section123
g. Tax on Agents of Foreign Insurance Companies Section124
h. Amusement Taxes Section125
i. Tax on Winnings Section126
j. Stock Transaction Tax Section 127
(1) Stock Transaction Tax
(2) Amendments of Section 127 under Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN) on
Increase in rate from ½ of 1% to 6/10 of 1%
(3) Tax on IPOs
I. Bureau of Customs
a. Functions of the BOC (Section 202, CMTA)
b. Powers & Functions of the BOC Commissioner (Section 201, CMTA)
c. Functions of Deputy Commissioners (http://customs.gov.ph/offices/)
III. Importation
a. Importation (Section 102(z), CMTA)
b. Exportation (Section 102(s), CMTA)
c. Article subject to Duty (Section 204, CMTA)
d. Liability for Duties & Taxes (Section 405, CMTA)
e. Importation Documents
(1) Single Administrative Document
(2) Bill of Lading/Airway Bill
(3) Supplemental Declaration on Valuation
(4) Discharge Port Survey
(5) Tax Credit Certificate
(6) Tax Debit Memo
(7) Certificate of Origin
(8) Other Documents Required by BOC
16
d. Restricted Importation (Section 119, CMTA)
VIII. ATRIG
a. Section 131, NIRC
b. Section 172, NIRC
c. Section 268(C), NIRC
d. Revenue Regs. No. 2-2016
e. RMC 48-2002
17
(5) Customs Jurisdiction & Doctrine of Hot Pursuit (Section 300, CMTA)
(6) Customs Control (Section 302-202, CMTA)
(7) Forfeiture (Section 1115, CMTA)
(8) Seizure or Release of Goods (Section 1116, CMTA)
H. LOCAL AND REAL PROPERTY TAXATION Republic Act No. 7160, Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, as amended Implementing Rules
and Regulations of the LGC
LOCAL TAXATION
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
iv. Procedure for Approval of and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances (Sec. 187)
(8) Hagonoy Market vs. Mun. Of Hagonoy GR No. 137621, Feb. 6, 2002
v. Publication (Sec. 188)
18
i. Residual Powers of LGUs -Power to Levy Other Taxes, Fees or Charges
(Sec. 186)
ii. Doctrine of Pre-emption or Exclusionary Rule
II. Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. Municipality of Victorias – L-21183, September 27, 1968
19
(20) Philippine Fisheries Dev’t Authority vs. CA GR No. 169836, GR No.
July 31, 2007
(21) Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos – GR No.
120082, Sept. 11, 1996
(22) MIAA vs. CA – GR No. 155650, July 20, 2006
(23) MIAA vs. City of Pasay – GR No. 163072, April 2, 2009
(24) City of DavaoCity vs. RTC – GR No. 127383, August 18, 2005
(To be discussed together with Secs.232 and 234 on Real Property Tax)
b. Municipalities
i. Business Taxes (Sec. 143)
(33) Ericsson Telecommunication vs. City of Pasig GR No. 176667,
November 22. 2007
(34)Yamane vs. BA Lepanto – GR No 154992, October 25, 2005
(35) City of Manila vs. Coca Cola Bottlers, GR No. 181845, August 4, 2009
(36) Alabang Supermarket Corporation vs. City of Muntinlupa, CTA EB
Case No. 386 February 12, 2009 (read also case decided by the CTA
Division)
(37)Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., vs. City of Cagayan de
Oro, GR No. 191761, November 14, 2012.
20
4. Payment of Business Taxes (Sec. 146)
5. Situs of Tax (Sec. 150) – Where to pay business tax?
(39) Shell Co vs. Mun. Of Sipocot – 105 Phil. 1263
(40) Phil. Match vs. City of Cebu – L-30745 – Jan. 1888, 197778
(41) Iloilo bottlers vs. City of Iloilo GR No. 52019 – Aug. 18, 1988
(compare with current LGC provisions and IRR provisions on
rolling stores)
d. Barangay
(i) Tax on retailers (Sec.
152 a)
(ii) Service Fees or
Charges (Sec. 152 b)
(iii) Barangay Clearance
(Sec. 152 c)
(iv) Other Fees (Sec. 152 b)
f. Other Matters
i. Public Hearings Necessary? (Art. 324 IRR of the LGC vs. Sec. 187)
(42) Figuerres vs. CA, GR No. 119172, March 25, 1999
ii. Authority to Adjust Tax Rates (Sec. 191)
(43) Alabang Supermarket Corporation vs. City of Muntinlupa, CTA EB
Case No. 386 February 12, 2009 (read also case decided by the CTA
Division)
(44) Mindanao Shopping Destination Corporation vs. Duterte, GR No.
211093 dated June 6, 2017
iii. Authority to Grant Tax Exemptions (Sec. 192)
iv. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges (Sec. 193)
(45) PLDT vs. City of Davao GR No. 143867, August 22, 2001
(46) NPC vs. City of Cabanatuan GR No. 149110, April 9, 2003
v. Community Tax
1. Who may impose(Sec. 156)
2. Individuals Liable to pay (Sec. 157)
3. Juridical Persons Liable to Community Tax (Sec. 158)
4. Exemptions (Sec. 159)
21
5. Place of Payment (Sec. 160)
6. Time of Payment (Sec. 161)
7. Community Tax Certificate (Sec. 162)
8. Presentation of CTC on certain occasions (Sec. 163)
c. Taxpayer’s Remedies
Question Constitutionality of Ordinance (Sec. 187)
(48) Drilon vs. Lim GR No. 111249, August 4, 1994
(49) Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., vs. City of Cagayan de
Oro, GR No. 191761, November 14, 2012.
(50) Smart Communications, Inc. vs. Municipality of Malvar, GR No.
204429, GR No. 204429 dated February 18, 2014.
Publication (Sec. 188)
(51) Coca-Cola Bottlers vs. City of Manila - GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006
Periods of Assessment and Collection (Sec. 194)
Protest of Assessment (Sec. 195)
(52) San Juan vs. Castro – GR No. 174617, December 27, 2007
(53) PLDT vs. City of Balanga, CTA EB Case No. 413, June 3, 2009
(54)China Banking vs. City Treasurer of Manila, GR No. 204117 dated
July 1, 2015 – (jurisdiction issue)
Appeal to the CTA
22
Claim for Refund (Sec. 196)
(55)Alabang Supermarket Corporation vs. City of Muntinlupa, CTA EB
Case No. 386 February 12, 2009 (read also case decided by the CTA
Division)
(56)Mindanao Shopping Destination Corp. Vs. Davao City, CTA AC No. 6,
May 31, 2011
vii. Is injunction available?
(57)Angeles City vs. Angeles Electric Corporation, GR No. 166134 dated
June 29, 2010.
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
a. Definition of Real Property Tax
(1) Villanueva vs. City of Iloilo, L-26521, December 28, 1968
b. Who should pay the real property tax?
(2) Baguio vs. Busuego, GR No. 29772, September 18, 1980
(3) NPC vs. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, July 15, 2009
(4)NPC vs. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, January 25, 2010
(Resolution)
(5)GSIS vs. City Treasurer and Assessor of Manila, GR No. 186242,
December 23, 2009
c. Fundamental Principles (Sec. 198)
d. Important Definitions (Sec. 199)
i. Real Property for RPT Purposes (415 NCC)
ii. Machineries
(6) Mindanao Bus vs. City Assessor and Treasurer L-17870, Sept. 29,
1962
(7) Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. CBAA – GR No. 50466, May 31, 1982
(8) Manila Electric Co. vs. CBAA L-47943, May 31, 1982
(9) Manila Electric Company vs. The City of Assessor and City Treasurer
of Lucena City, GR No. 166102 dated August 5, 2015.
(10) Provincial Assessor of Agusan del Sur vs. Filipinas Palm Oil,
GR No. 183416 dated October 5, 2016.
(11) Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas,
GR No. 180110 dated May 30, 2016.
23
iii. Special Classes of Real Property (Sec. 216)
(15) City Assessor of CebuCity vs. Association de Benevola de Cebu – GR
No. 152904, June 8, 2007
iv. Actual Use as Basis for Assessment (Sec. 217)
(16) Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs. City of Manila – GR No. 90639,
February 21, 1990)
(17) Patalinghug vs. CA, GR No. 104786, January 27, 1994 LRTA vs. CBAA
– GR No. 127316, October 12, 2000
(18) Allied Banking Corporation vs. Quezon City Government – GR No.
154126, October 11, 2005
v. Assessment Levels (Sec. 218)
vi. General Revision of Assessments and Property Classification (Sec. 219)
vii. Valuation of Real Property (Sec. 220)
(19) Allied Bank vs. Quezon City Government – GR No. 154126, October
11, 2005
viii. Date of Effectivity of Assessment or Reassessment (Sec. 221)
ix. Assessment of Property Subject to Back Taxes (Sec. 222)
Sesbreno v. CBAA, 270 SCRA 263
x. Notification of New or Revised Assessment (Sec. 223)
(20) Manila Electric Company vs. The City of Assessor and City Treasurer
of Lucena City, GR No. 166102 dated August 5, 2015.
xi. Appraisal and Assessment of Machinery (Sec. 224)
xii. Depreciation Allowance for Machinery (Sec. 225)
h. Condonation of RPT
i. Condonation and Reduction of RPT (Sec. 276)
ii. Condonation or Reduction of RPT by President (Sec. 277)
24
(33) City of Pasig vs. Republic, GR No. 185023 dated August 24, 2011
(34) Republic vs. City of Paranaque, GR No. 191109 dated July 28, 2012
(35) Angeles University Foundation vs. City of Angeles, GR No. 189999
June 27, 2012
(36) City of Lapu-Lapu vs. PEZA, GR No. 184203 dated November 26, 2014
(37) Provincial Assessor of Agusan del Sur vs. Filipinas Palm Oil, GR No.
183416 dated October 5, 2016.
IV. REMEDIES
a. Local Government Unit’s Remedies
i. Date of Accrual of Tax (Sec. 246)
ii. LGU’s Lien (Sec. 257)
iii. Interest on Unpaid RPT (Sec. 255)
iv. Period to Collect (Sec. 270)
1. Suspension of Period to Collect
v. Levy on Real Property (Sec. 258)
1. Advertisement and Sale (Sec. 260)
(38) Puzon vs. Abelera 169 SCRA 789
(39) Spouses Tan vs. Bantequi GR No. 154027 October 24, 2005
vi. Redemption of Property Sold (Sec. 261)
vii. Purchase of Property by the Local Government Units for Want of Bidder
(Sec. 263)
viii. Court Action for Collection (Sec. 266)
b. `Taxpayer’s Remedies
i. Action Assailing Validity of Tax Sale (Sec. 267)
ii. Action Involving Ownership (Sec. 268)
iii. Payment under Protest (Sec. 252)
(40) Manila Electric Company vs. The City of Assessor and City Treasurer
of Lucena City, GR No. 166102 dated August 5, 2015.
(41) Ramie Textile vs. Mathay - 89 SCRA 586 Ty vs. Trampe – GR No.
117577, December 1, 1995
(42) Olivarez vs. Marquez - 438 SCRA 679
(43) NPC vs. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, July 15, 2009
(44) NPC vs. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, January 25, 2010
(Resolution)
(45) Camp John Hay Development Corp. vs. CBAA, GR No. 169234, October
2, 2013. (include concurring opinion of Justice Carpio)
25
(46) NPC vs. Municipal Government of Navotas, GR No. 192300 dated
November 24, 2014
(47) City of Lapu-Lapu vs. PEZA, GR No. 184203 dated November 26, 2014
(48) CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. vs. The Province of
Nueva Ecija, GR No. 196278 dated June 17, 2015.
(49) NPC vs. Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, GR No. 209303 dated
November 14, 2016.
iv. Refunds (Sec. 253)
(50) Allied Banking vs. Quezon City Government – GR No. 154126,
September 15, 2006 – Motion for Clarification of Decision
v. Assessment Appeals
1. Appeal with the LBAA (Sec. 226)
(51) City Government of Quezon City vs. Bayan Telecommunications – GR
No. 162015, March 6, 2006
(52) Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan vs. Local Government of
Caloocan, GR No. 146382. August 7, 2003
(53) Fels Energy, Inc. vs. Province of Batangas GR No. 168557, February
16, 2007
2. Action by the LBAA (Sec. 229)
3. Appeal to the CBAA (Sec. 229)
4. Appeal to the CTA En Banc
5. Effect of Appeal on Payment of RPT (Sec. 231)
3. Criminal cases
a. Institution and prosecution of criminal actions
1) Institution on civil action in criminal action
b. Appeal and period to appeal
26
1) Solicitor General as counsel for the People and government
officials sued in their official capacity
c. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
III. Taxpayer’s suit impugning the validity of tax measures or acts of taxing
authorities
1. Taxpayer’s suit, defined
2. Distinguished from citizen’s suit
3. Requisites for challenging the constitutionality of a tax measure or act of
taxing authority
a. Concept of locus standi as applied in taxation
b. Doctrine of transcendental importance
c. Ripeness for judicial determination
27