BASCO VS PAGCOR (MAY 1991 before enactment of LGC 1991)

BAsco contends that PD 1869(law creating PAGCOR) constitutes a waiver of the right
of the City of Manila to impose taxes and legal fees; that PD 1869 which exempts the franchise
holder from paying any tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or
levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local autonomy principle.

HELD: It is not violative of the principle of local autonomy for the power of the LGUs to create its
own source of revenue and to levy taxes fees and other charges is subject to subject to such
guidelines and limitation as the congress may provide.
IF the congress can grant the city of Manila the power to tax certain matters, it can also
provide for the exemptions or even take back the power.

PHILIPPINE PETROLEUM CORP VS. MUNICIPALITY OF PILILIA

PPC argues that the MUncipality of Pililia cannot subject them to pay local taxes such as
business tax, storage permit fees, mayors permit ad sanitary on the basis of the circulars
issued by the Sec. of Finance which orders the Provincial, City and Municipal treasurers to
refrain from collecting any local tax from businesses which manufactures petroleum products
subject to specific tax under the NIRC.

HELD: The PPC is liable to pay local taxes. A tax on business is distinct from a tax on the article
itself. Thus, if the imposition of tax on business of manufacturers etc. in petroleum products
contravene a declared national policy, it should have been expressly granted in PD 436.

FLORO CEMENT CORPORATION VS GOROSPE

Cement is not a mineral product but rather a manufactured product. Therefore Floro
Cement Corp. cannot use SEC.52 of PD 463 and Sec 5 of PD 231 to excuse itself from paying
manufacturers and exporters taxes to the municipality.
The exceptions mentioned in Sec. 52 of PD 463 only refers to machineries, equipment,
tools for production, etc as provided in Sec. 53 of the same decree. The manufacture and the

export of cement does not fall under the said provision for it is not a mineral product. It is not
cement that is mined, only the mineral products composing the finished product.

SECRETARY OF FINANCE VS ILARDE

Sec. of Finance argues that it there was no excess on the delinquent taxes collected
from Cipriano CAbaluna for according to him, EO 73 had accorded the Ministry of Finance the
authority to alter, increase or modify the tax structure.

HELD: EO 73 has merely designated the minister of finance to promulgate the rules and
regulations towars the implementation of EO 73.

PROPER RATE OF PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT REAL PROPERTY TAXES:

2% on the amount of the delinquent tax for each month of delinquency or fraction thereof
but in no case shall the total pending exceed 24% of the delinquent tax.

BENGUEST CORPORATION VS CBAA

Benguet Corp is questioning the act of CBAA in collecting realty taxes against them. It
contends that LGU are without any authority to levy realty taxes on mines pursuant to Sec. 52 of
PD 463.
HELD: The act of CBAA in collecting realty tax is valid for while LGUs are charged with fixing
the rate of real property taxes, it does not necessarily follow from that authority the
determination of whether or not to impose the tax. In fact, local governments have no alternative
but to collect taxes as mandated in Sec 38 of the real property tax code.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. VS CEBU CITY

NDC is asking a full refund for the past assessment and collection made by cebu city on
their land and warehouse thereon. According to them, the land and warehouse belong to the
republic and therefore exempt from taxation.

HELD: NDC is not exempted from paying real estate taxes. NDC is an entity different from the
government and an agency performing purely corporate, proprietary or business functions.
The tax exemptions of property owned by the Republic of the Phil. Refers to the
properties owned by the government and by its agencies which do not have separate and
distinct personalities.

But the property (land subject of controversy) is exempt from payment of real estate taxes. As
the title remains with the Republic, the reserved land is clearly covered by the tax exemption
provision. The exemption of public property from taxation does not extend to improvements on
the public lands made by pre-emptioners, homesteaders, and other claimants, or occupants at
their own expense, and these are taxable by the state. Consequently, the warehouse
constructed on the reserved land by NWC, indeed, should properly be assessed real estate tax
as such improvement does not appear to belong to the republic.

PROVINCE OF TARLAC VS ALCANTARA

TArlac Enterprises refused to pay real property taxes for it is exempt from paying said
tax being a grantee of a franchise to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light.

HELD: Only taxes on earnings, receipts, income and privilege of generation, distribution
and sale shall not be collected in view of the imposition of the franchise tax. The enumerated
items have no relation and entirely different from real properties subject to tax.
Hence, they are liable to pay real property tax despite being a grantee of a franchise.