Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Local Gov't Tax
Local Gov't Tax
Atty. Mendoza
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
RULING
The validity of the Ordinance must be upheld pursuant
to the broad authority conferred upon municipalities by
Commonwealth Act No. 472, which was the prevailing law
when the Ordinance was enacted. Section 1 thereof reads:
Section 1. A municipal council or municipal district council
shall have the authority to impose municipal license
taxes upon persons engaged in any occupation or
business, or exercising privileges in the municipality
or municipal district, by requiring them to secure
licenses at rates fixed by the municipal council, or
municipal district council, and to collect fees and charges
for services renderedxx
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
FACTS
On September 30, 1946 the municipal board of Iloilo City
enacted Ordinance 86, imposing license tax fees on
tenement house.This Court, in City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian
Villanueva and Eusebio Villanueva declared the ordinance
ultra vires, "it not appearing that the power to tax owners of
tenement houses is one among those clearly and expressly
granted to the City of Iloilo by its Charter." On January 15,
1960 the municipal board of Iloilo City, believing, obviously,
that with the passage of RA 2264,Local Autonomy Act, it had
acquired the authority or power to enact an ordinance similar
to that previously declared by this Court as ultra vires,
enacted Ordinance 11 (AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
MUNICIPAL LICENSE TAX ON PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
levied is "for public purposes, just and uniform," and does not
transgress any constitutional provision or is not repugnant to
a controlling statute.Thus, when a tax, levied under the
authority of a city or municipal ordinance, is not within the
exceptions and limitations aforementioned, the same comes
within the ambit of the general rule, pursuant to the rules of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and exceptio firmat
regulum in casibus non excepti.
The appellees strongly maintain that it is a "property tax" or
"real estate tax," and not a "tax on persons engaged in any
occupation or business or exercising privileges," or a license
tax, or a privilege tax, or an excise tax. It is our view,
contrary to the appellees' contention, that the tax in question
is not a real estate tax. The tax imposed by the ordinance in
question does not possess the attributes of a real estate tax.
It is not a tax on the land on which the tenement houses are
erected, although both land and tenement houses may
belong to the same owner. The tax is not a fixed proportion of
the assessed value of the tenement houses, and does not
require the intervention of assessors or appraisers. It is not
payable at a designated time or date, and is not enforceable
against the tenement houses either by sale or distraint.
Clearly, therefore, the tax in question is not a real estate tax.
On the contrary, it is plain from the context of the ordinance
that the intention is to impose a license tax on the operation
of tenement houses, which is a form of business or calling.
The ordinance, in both its title and body, particularly sections
1 and 3 thereof, designates the tax imposed as a "municipal
license tax" which, by itself, means an "imposition or
exaction on the right to use or dispose of property, to pursue
a business, occupation, or calling, or to exercise a privilege.
In City of Iloilo vs. Remedios Sian Villanueva, et al., tenement
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
FACTS
Caltex (Philippines) Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in
the business of importing, distributing and selling gasoline,
kerosene and other petroleum products. For the purpose of
storing its imported petroleum products it has an
establishment called 'Caltex Opon Terminal' located in the
Municipality of Opon, Cebu. In addition, the said 'Caltex Opon
Terminal' has a tin can factory whereby plaintiff-appellant
manufactures 5-gallon tin cans for its use in the sale and
distribution of its petroleum products.
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
FACTS
RULING
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
ISSUE
FACTS
RULING
YES. Section 187 of the Local Govt Code requires that an
appeal of a tax ordinance or revenue measure should
be made to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30)
days from effectivity of the ordinance and even during
its pendency, the effectivity of the assailed ordinance
shall not be suspended. In the case at bar, Municipal
Ordinance No. 28 took effect in October 1996. Petitioner filed
its appeal only in December 1997, more than a year after the
effectivity of the ordinance in 1996. Clearly, the Secretary of
Justice correctly dismissed it for being time-barred. At this
point, it is apropos to state that the timeframe fixed by law
for parties to avail of their legal remedies before competent
courts is not a mere technicality that can be easily brushed
aside. The periods stated in Section 187 of the Local
Government Code are mandatory. Ordinance No. 28 is a
revenue measure adopted by the municipality of Hagonoy to
fix and collect public market stall rentals. Being its lifeblood,
collection of revenues by the government is of paramount
importance. The funds for the operation of its agencies and
provision of basic services to its inhabitants are largely
derived from its revenues and collections.
Thus, it is
essential that the validity of revenue measures is not left
uncertain for a considerable length of time. Hence, the law
provided a time limit for an aggrieved party to assail the
legality of revenue measures and tax ordinances.
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
TAX II
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
ISSUES
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
The City Treasurer also contends that the fact that the
Corporation is engaged in business is evinced by the Articles
of Incorporation, which specifically empowers the Corporation
to acquire, own, hold, enjoy, lease, operate and maintain,
and to convey, sell, transfer mortgage or otherwise dispose of
real or personal property. What the City Treasurer fails to
add is that every corporation organized under the Corporation
Code is so specifically empowered. Section 36(7) of the
Corporation Code states that every corporation incorporated
under the Code has the power and capacity to purchase,
receive, take or grant, hold, convey, sell, lease, pledge,
mortgage and otherwise deal with such real and personal
property . . . as the transaction of the lawful business of the
corporation
may
reasonably
and
necessarily
require . . . . Without this power, corporations, as juridical
persons, would be deprived of the capacity to engage in most
meaningful legal relations.
Again, whatever capacity the Corporation may have pursuant
to its power to exercise acts of ownership over personal and
real property is limited by its stated corporate purposes,
which are by themselves further limited by the Condominium
Act. A condominium corporation, while enjoying such powers
of ownership, is prohibited by law from transacting its
properties for the purpose of gainful profit.
Accordingly, and with a significant degree of comfort, we hold
that condominium corporations are generally exempt from
local business taxation under the Local Government Code,
irrespective of any local ordinance that seeks to declare
otherwise.
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II
1B in 3B DIGEST GROUP
Ad Deum Per Excellentia
A.M.+D.G.
TAX II