You are on page 1of 2

SAN JUAN vs CASTRO G.R. No.

174617 December 27, 2007

FACTS: Petitioner, registered owners of real properties in Marikina City, with consent of his wife, conveyed by
deed of assignment, the properties to the Saints and Angels Realty Corp. (SARC), by virtue of incorporations, in
exchange for shares of stock therein with a par value of P2,000,000.0, placed in San Juan’s name and the
remaining par value in the name of his wife. Respondents’ representatives went to the City Treasurer’s Office of
Marikina to pay the transfer tax based on the consideration stated in the deed of assignment. City Treasurer
Castro informed him however that the tax due is based on the fair market value of the property.

Petitioner protested the basis of the tax due. To which, the respondent replied stating that in cases of transfer or
real property not involving monetary consideration, it is certain that the fair market value or the zonal value of
the property is the basis of the tax rate.

Petitioner filed before the RTC of Marikina a petition for mandamus and damages against respondent in his
capacity as City Treasurer, among others, praying that respondent be compelled to “perform a ministerial duty to
accept payment of transfer tax based on the actual consideration” of the transfer and assignment”, citing Section
135 of the LGC.

ISSUE: When can a protest of assessment be availed of?

RULING: Under Section 195 of the Local Government Code, a taxpayer who disagrees with a tax assessment
made by a local treasurer may file a written protest thereof:

SECTION 195. Protest of Assessment. – When the local treasurer or his duly authorized representative finds that
the correct taxes, fees, or charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment stating the nature of
the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty (60) days
from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer
contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall become final and executory. The local treasurer shall
decide the protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local treasurer finds the protest to be
wholly or partly meritorious, he shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment. However, if the
local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with
notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the protest or
from the lapse of the sixty-day (60) period prescribed herein within which to appeal with the court of competent
jurisdiction, otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable.

That petitioner protested in writing against the assessment of tax due and the basis thereof is on record as in fact
it was on that account that respondent sent him the above-quoted July 15, 2005 letter which operated as a denial
of petitioner’s written protest.

Petitioner should thus have, following the earlier above-quoted Section 195 of the Local Government Code,
either appealed the assessment before the court of competent jurisdiction[15] or paid the tax and then sought a
refund.

Petitioner did not observe any of these remedies available to him, however. He instead opted to file a petition
for mandamus to compel respondent to accept payment of transfer tax as computed by him.

george*ღ

AQUINO VS QUEZON CITY G. george*ღ . who mortgaged the property to Spouses Uy who then sold it to DNX Corp for failure to pay the mortgaged debt. a public auction was held and the lot was sold to Veronica Baluyot.R. It is incorrect for the respondents to claim that notice of delinquency has limited application only to distraint of personal property. Torrado paid taxes on the improvements on Lot 8 but not on the lot itself because the Treasurer's Office could not locate the index card for that property. and damages against the respondents. in so doing. 2006 FACTS: This case involves two petitions for review on certiorari involving the decisions declaring valid the auction sales of two real properties by the Quezon City Local Gov’t for failure to pay real property taxes. there is no more logical way to construe the whole chapter on 'Collection of Real Property Tax (Sections 56 to 85) than to stress that while three methods are provided to enforce collection on real property taxes. a notice of delinquency is a requirement regardless of the method or methods chosen. the City Treasurer sent a Notice of Intent to Sell to Torrado to his address indicated in the tax register. No. 137534 March 3. They fixed as action for annulment of title. the property was sold by the Quezon City local government. reconveyance. respondents still prevail because the Court is satisfied that the two-notice requirement has been complied with by the Treasurer's Office. restricted its application from the other tax remedies. the highest bidder. The seconds case deals with a property located In Cubao. Thereafter. through the Treasurer's Office. Next sent was a Notice of Sale of Delinquent Property. As a result of the nonpayment. Petitioners are correct in insisting that two notices must be sent to the taxpayer concerned. Quezon City in the name of Solomon Torrado. Petitioners withheld payment of the real property taxes as a form of protest for the gov’t of then President Marcos. a Notice of Sold Property was subsequently sent to Torrado which was returned unclaimed. Also. They mistakenly lumped Section 65 exclusively with Sections 68 to 72 and. The notice was returned by reason of 'Insufficient Address. Petitioners claimed that they learned of the sale about 2 years later. at public auction to private respondent Aida Linao. ISSUE: Was there a failure on the part of the Quezon City Local Gov’t to satisfy the notice requirements before selling the property for tax delinquency? RULING: Definitely. Section 65 is to be construed together with Sections 66 and 78 and all three operate in reference to tax methods in general. According to petitioner heirs. which simply states as 'ButuanCity. The first case deals with a lot formerly owned by petitioners Aquino. This was sent to the same address and similarly returned unclaimed. Nevertheless. For failure to pay real property taxes from 1976 to 1982.