Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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, namely☹ a) 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
Distinguish Taxation from Police Power and Eminent Domain
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)
According to burden or incidence (Direct or indirect)
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
18) Tan v Mun of Pagbilao GR 14264, 30 Apr 1963 7 SCRA 887
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
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.
37) 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]
38) 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?
43) 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
44) CIR v. Rufino, GR L-33665-68, 27 Feb 1987, 148 SCRA 42, [tax exempt merger of two
corporations]
45) Delpher Trades Corp v IAC, 157 SCRA 349 [tax exempt transfer of property to a
corporation resulting to control]
46) CIR v. Benigno Toda, 438 SCRA 290 (2004) – meaning of fraud; tax avoidance /
evasion
47) 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.
Capital Gains Tax is a tax imposed on the gains presumed to have been
realized by the seller from the sale, exchange or other disposition of capital
assets located in the Philippines, including pacto de retro sales and other
forms of conditional sale.
Income Tax is a tax on all yearly profits arising from property, profession,
trades or offices or as a tax on a person’s income, emoluments, profits and
the like.
Value-Added Tax is a business tax imposed and collected from the seller
in the course of trade or business on every sale of properties (real or
personal) lese of goods or properties (real or personal) or vendors of
services. It is an indirect tax, thus it can be passed on to the buyer.
!8
Exclusive and original power of the CIR to interpret tax laws, subject
to review by the Secretary of Finance
Assess and Collect
50) CIR v. Pascor Realty & Dev Corp, 309 SCRA 402 (1999), Meaning of Assessment; is
assessment prejudicial to filing a tax evasion case?
51) 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
52) 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
53) 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)
54) 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)
55) Bache & Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (requirement for a search warrant)
56) 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)
57) CIR v. CA, CTA and Fortune Tobacco Corp, GR No. 119761, 29 Aug 1996, 261
SCRA 236 (Extent of BIR Interpretative rule)
58) CIR v. Burroughs Ltd, GR No. 66653, 19 Jun 1986, 142 SCRA 324 (Effect of
revocation of ruling)
59) PBC v. CIR, GR No. 112024, 29 Jan 1999 (wrong interpretation will not prejudice the
government)
60) ABS-CBN v. CTA & CIR, GR No. 52306, 12 Oct 1981 (circulars or rulings,
prospective)
61) CIR v. Benguet Corporation, 463 SCRA 28 (2005) – Non-retroactivity of ruling; while
government is not bound by the error of its agents issuing ruling, in the interest of justice
and fair play, it may be not given retroactive effect (same holding in Sy Po v. CTA, GR
No. 81446, 18 Aug 1988;
62) CIR v. Burmeisters & Wain Scandinavian, GR No. 153205, Jan 2007 – Non-
retroactivity of BIR ruling; 0% VAT on export of services
C. Income Tax –
TAX 2
!9
D. Transfer Taxes - (Secs. 84 to 104 of the NIRC as amended by RA 10963)
!10
ii. Unpaid obligation from purchase of goods
iii. Court Settlement
Dizon vs. CTA (GR No. 140944 dated April 30, 2008)
c. Claims against insolvent persons
d. Unpaid Mortgages, Taxes and Casualty Losses
i. Rules
e. Property Previously Taxed (Vanishing Deductions)
i. Requisites for deductibility
ii. Rationale for grant
f. Transfers for Public Use
g. Family Home – P10,000,000
h. Amount Received by Heirs Under Republic Act No. 4917
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)
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])
!11
2. Non-resident alien
a. Rule on Reciprocity
b. Rules on Intangible Personal Property
3. Corporations
4. Valuation of Gifts made in property (Sec. 102)
5. Exemption of Certain Gifts (Sec. 101[A])
a. Residents and Citizens
b. Non-resident aliens
c. Corporations
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
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]
!12
(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)
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)
!13
CIR vs. Burmeister and Wain GR No. 153205 dated Jaunary22, 2007
CIR vs. Acesite GR No. GR No. 147295 dated February 16, 2007
d. Automatic zero-rate vs. Effectively zero-rate
CIR vs. Seagate Technology (Phils) GR No. 153866 February 11, 2005
CIR vs. Toshiba Information Equipment GR No. 150154 dated August 9,
2005
e. Destination principle and cross border doctrine
CIR vs. American Express GR No. 152609 dated June 29, 2005
CIR vs. Toshiba Information Equipment GR No. 150154 dated August 9,
2005
f. Zero Rated Sales vs. Exempt Sales
CIR vs. Cebu Toyo Corp. GR No. 149073 dated February 16, 2005
g. Enumeration of Exempt Transactions (Sec. 109)
Sec. 4.109-1 (B) of RR No. 16-05
h. Exempt Persons vs. Exempt Transactions
CIR vs. Seagate Technology (Phils) GR No. 153866 February 11, 2005
i. Amendments under Rep. Act No. 10378
j. Amendments of Section 106 on Enumerated Export Sales under Rep. Act
No. 10963 (TRAIN) & the Vetoed Provisions
k. Amendments of Section 108 on Enumerated Zero-Rated Services under
Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN) & the Vetoed Provisions
l. Amendments of Section 109 on Enumerated VAT-exempt Transactions
under Rep. Act No. 10963 (TRAIN)
!14
(5) Power of the Commissioner to Suspend Business Operations (Sec.5)
[Sec. 4.115-1 of RR No. 16-05]
I. Legal Provisions
a. Rep. Act No. 9238
b. Rev. Regs. No. 9-2004
c. Sections 116-128, NIRC
G. Remedies
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/)
!15
a. Functions of the Tariff Commission (Section 1603, CMTA)
b. Chief Officials of the TC (Section 1600, CMTA)
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
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
I. 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
!17
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
!18
1. Correlate with Sec. 458 (3)(vi) of the LGV and Art. 99(a)(3)(vi) of
the IRR of the LGC
(19) LTO vs. City of Butuan – GR No. 131512, January 20, 2000
xiii. Taxes, Fees, or Charges on Philippine Products Actually Exported;
1. Correlate with Sec. 143 (c)
xiv. TFC on CBBEs under RA No. 6810 and RA 6983
xv. TFC on the National Government, its agencies and
instrumentalities and LGUs
(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.
!19
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. 18, 1978
(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)
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)
!20
i. Tax Period and Manner of Payment (Sec. 165)
ii. Accrual of Tax (Sec. 166)
iii. Time of Payment (Sec. 167)
iv. Surcharges and Penalties (Sec. 168)
(47) NPC vs. City of Cabanatuan, GR No. 177332 dated October 1, 2014
v. Interests on Other Unpaid Revenues (Sec. 169)
vi. Collection of Local Revenues by Treasurer (Sec. 170)
vii. Examination of Books of Accounts and Pertinent Records (Sec. 171)
c. Taxpayer’s Remedies
i. 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.
ii. Publication (Sec. 188)
(51) Coca-Cola Bottlers vs. City of Manila - GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006
iii. Periods of Assessment and Collection (Sec. 194)
iv. 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)
v. Appeal to the CTA
vi. 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)
!21
(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.
!22
h. Condonation of RPT
i. Condonation and Reduction of RPT (Sec. 276)
ii. Condonation or Reduction of RPT by President (Sec. 277)
IV. REMEDIES
a. Local Government Unit’s Remedies
i. Date of Accrual of Tax (Sec. 246)
!23
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)
(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)
!24
2. Criminal cases
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases
3. Criminal cases
a. Institution and prosecution of criminal actions
1) Institution on civil action in criminal action
b. Appeal and period to appeal
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
!25