FILM DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

COLON HERITAGE REALTY

CORPORATION
GR 203754 / June 16, 2015
 
FACTS:
Petitions for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking
reversal of the Decision dated RTC
declaring Sections 13 and 14 of Republic Act (RA)
9167 invalid and unconstitutional.
 
City of Cebu, imposed amusement taxes (Ordinance 69, assailed are Sec 42 & 42) by virtue of Sec 140 LGC
and Local autonomy (Constitution). Said ordinance
require proprietors, lessees or operators of
theatres, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, boxing stadia, and other places of amusement, to pay an amusement
tax 30% of
the gross receipts of admission fees to City of Cebu through withholding taxes.
 
A decade later Film development Council of the PH was create by virtue of RA 9167. Said law granted under
Sec 13 and 14 thereof,
13 - Graded "A" or "B" film entitle incentive equivalent to the amusement tax
imposed and collected on the graded films by cities 100% and 65% respectively.
14 - The revenue from the amusement tax which should have been granted to the city shall be withheld, passed
to the city (30 days from the termination of exhibition of such film) and the latter shall reward the amusement
tax to the producers within 15 days from recceipt thereof.
 
PT sent a deman letter through Solgen for the unpaid amusement taxes to 8 cinema properietors and operators in
Cebu, including private respondent but all fell on deaf ears.
 
Due to persistent demands of PT, Cinema operator's refusal to pay and City's assertion of its claim. City of Cebu
filed for a declaraotry relief seeking to declare the tax privileges granted under Sec 13 and 14 of RA 9167.
While Colon Heritage filed another case before RTC seeking to declare Sec 14 of same law as unconstitutional.
 
RTC Ruling: City of Cebu case, 13 and 14 is unconstitutional violating Sec5, Article 5 of the PC. The Colon
Heritage was also decided in the same tenure ordering the refund of payments made, extinguishing the order to
remit.
 
ISSUE: whether RTC (Branches 5 and 14) gravely erred in declaring Secs. 13 and 14 of RA 9167 invalid for
being
Unconstitutional.
 
PT's Defense: RA 9167 was enacted for a public purpose, that is, the promotion and support of the
"development
and growth of the local film industry as a medium for the upliftment of
aesthetic, cultural, and social values for the better understanding and
appreciation of the Filipino identity" as well as the "encouragement of the
production of quality films that will promote the growth and development of
the local film industry." Anchoring its defense under
Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz: "mere fact that the tax will be
directly enjoyed by a private individual does not make it invalid so long as
some link to the public welfare is established.
As for Sec 14 - LGU only possess, delegated (not inherent) powers of taxation and
Such primarily vested in the Congress. Thus the congress has the power to limit the delegated power to impose
amusement tax. Further that the LGC is a mere statute which the congress can amend. That the tax privilege is
an overriding intent to remove its delegated power to tax amusement by virtue of Secs. 140 and 151 of the LGC
 
RATIO:
 
- Court agrees to the findings of RTC.

- Local fiscal autonomy and the constitutionally-delegated power to tax

o The power of taxation, being an essential and inherent attribute of sovereignty, belongs, as a matter of
right, to every independent government, and needs no express conferment by the people before it can be
exercised. It is purely legislative and, thus, cannot be delegated to the executive and judicial branches of
government without running afoul to the theory of separation of powers.
 XPN: delegated to municipal corporations, consistent with the principle that legislative powers
may be delegated to local governments in respect of matters of local concern.
 To create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, therefore, is not inherent and may be
exercised only to the extent that such power might be delegated to them either by the basic law or by
statute.
 Otherwise as observed in 1935 consitution, absence of constitutional grant of power to
tax by LGU, this arrested its growth and efficient operations, paving the way for the adoption of a
more decentralized system which granted LGUs local autonomy, both administrative and fiscal
autonomy
 LOCAL FISCAL AUTONOMY - power of LGU to create their own sources of revenue in
addition to their equitable share in the national taxes, as well as the power to allocate their resources in
accordance with their own priorities.
 In 1987 Consti, Power to Taxt by LGU is deemed to exist where there is neither a grant nor a
prohibition by statute, although Congress may provide statutory limitations and guidelines.
 Purpose: strengthening of LGUs and the safeguarding of their viability and self-
sufficiency through a direct grant of general and broad tax powers.
 Still, the Court alluded in Pelizloy case the fundamental principles governing the taxing powers
of LGUs as laid out in Section 130 of the LGC, to wit:
1. Taxation shall be uniform in each LGU.
2. Taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall:
a. be equitable and based as far as practicable on the taxpayer's ability to pay;
b. be levied and collected only for public purposes;
c. not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory;
d. not be contrary to law, public policy, national economic policy, or in the restraint
of trade.
3. The collection of local taxes, fees, charges and other impositions shall in no case be let to any
private person.
4. The revenue collected pursuant to the provisions of the LGC shall inure solely to the benefit
of, and be subject to the disposition by, the LGU levying the tax, fee, charge or other
imposition unless otherwise specifically provided by the LGC.
5. Each LGU shall, as far as practicable, evolve a progressive system of taxation
2) fourth rule upon which the present controversy grew.
- RA 9167 violates local fiscal autonomy
o Said law did not remove the power to impose amusement taxes (as compared to Sec 133 of LGC where it
was expressly enumerated and stated the phrase “shall not extend to the levy of the following.” However
9165 merely states that deprivation of the income (collected amusement taxes) which they will otherwise be
receiving. Therefore, it is apparent that what Congress was not to exclude the authority to levy
amusement taxes from the taxing power of the LGUs, but to earmark, if not altogether confiscate, the
income to be received by the LGU from the taxpayers in favor of and for transmittal to FDCP, instead of
the taxing authority.
 o This however, clear contravention of the constitutional command that taxes levied by LGUs shall accrue
exclusively to said LGU and is repugnant to the power of LGUs to apportion their resources in line with
their priorities.
o Broad as maybe the inherent legislative powers of the congress, it still must be exercised within the four
corners of the constitution. Whenever congress amends, enact and repeal laws, it should not go beyond
the parameters of the organic law. In this cases, congress clearly overstepped its plenary legislative power,
violative of the constitution’s grant of Local autonomy as reflected also in Sec 130 of LGC: (D) revenue
collected pursuant to the provisions of this Code shall inure solely to the benefit of, and be subject to the
disposition (power of LGUs to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities, Pimentel
Case) by, the local government unit levying the tax, fee, charge or other imposition unless otherwise.
 The congress by depriving them of their income, as though it was under their legal control under
the guise of limitation on LGU’s taxing power, amounts to an usurpation of the latter's exclusive
prerogative to apportion their funds—an intrusion to the constitutionally protected Power to Tax
putting the guaranty of Fiscal autonomy into nothing.
- Tax Reward under Sec 13 is a Tax Incentive not tax exemption
o Tax exemption is exempting a person or entity from tax to relieve or to from the burden of the imposition.
It cannot be said that an exemption from amusement taxes was granted by Congress to the producers of
graded films. Take note that the burden of paying the amusement tax in question is on the proprietors,
lessors, and operators of the theaters and cinemas that showed the graded films. The transfer of the
amount to the film producers is actually a monetary reward, taken by the national government from the
coffers of the covered LGUs
- RA 9167 is only invalid as to Sec 13 and 14, not the entire law.
o RTC decided that the RA 9167 is invalid and unconstitutional in its entirety. Here, the constitutionality of
the rest of the provisions of RA 9167 was never put in question. Also, nowhere in the assailed judgment of
the RTC was it explicated why the entire law was being declared as unconstitutional.
o courts cannot go beyond the issues in a case. In view of the elementary rule that every statute is
presumed valid, the declaration by the RTC is improper.
- Refund cannot be given to the previous amounts paid prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality in view of the
Operative Act doctrine.
o all amusement taxes remitted to FDCP prior to the date of the finality of this decision shall remain legal
and valid under the operative fact doctrine. However those unremitted amount shall be remitted to
petitioner within thirty (30) days from date of finality. Thereafter, amusement taxes previously covered by
RA 9167 shall be remitted to the local governments.
o The general Rule provides that unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. In
application, any remitted amount should be ordered return.
 An exception to this rule is Operative act doctrine which applies as a matter of equity and fair play.
This doctrine nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law or an executive act by recognizing that
the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and
may have consequences that cannot always be ignored. It applies even if it imposes an undue
burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
o Otherwise, to order the return by FDCP an producers would impose a heavy, and possibly crippling,
financial burden upon them who merely, and presumably in good faith, complied with the legislative
grant. FDCP should not be penalized for having to complied with the legislative command and the
producers who have received tax cut prior to the unconstitutionality.

DISPOSITION: Partially granted. Unconstitutionality of Sec 13 and 14 of RA 9167 is affirmed.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AVON PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING, INC
GR 201398-99. October 3, 2018

FACTS:
NURSERY CARE CORPORATION; SHOEMART, INC.; STAR APPLIANCE CENTER, INC.; H&B, INC.; SUPPLIES STATION, INC.;
and HARDWARE WORKSHOP, INC v ANTHONY ACEVEDO as THE TREASURER OF MANILA; and THE CITY OF MANILA
GR 180651 / July 30, 2014

FACTS:
- Petition for review of CA decision denying their appeal for lack of JD and their MR for lack of merit.
- PTs were wholesalers/distributors/Retailers/Dealers. RP assessed and collected taxes for their businesses pursuant
to Section 15 (Taxon Wholesalers, u, or Dealers) and Section 17 (Taxon Retailers), other than that a collection for
renewal of business license fee is imposed under Sec 21 (Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or
Percentage Taxes under the NIRC) of same code.
- PTs complied and paid under protest. They later requested for a formal refund but RP Acevedo denied their
request. Acevedo was later on succeeded by Toledo in the office.
- PT filed a petitions for certiorari before RTC questioning mainly WON Sec 21 constitutes Double taxation and if the
failure of the petitioners to avail of the statutorily provided remedy for their tax protest on the ground of
unconstitutionality, illegality and oppressiveness under Section 187 of the Local Government Code renders the
present action dismissible for non-exhaustion of administrative remedy.
- PT filed a petitions for certiorari before RTC questioning mainly WON Sec 21 constitutes Double taxation and if the
failure of the petitioners to avail of the statutorily provided remedy for their tax protest on the ground of
unconstitutionality, illegality and oppressiveness under Section 187 of the Local Government Code renders the
present action dismissible for non-exhaustion of administrative remedy.
- RTC: Court did not agree that it constitutes double taxation. taxes imposed under Sections 15 and 17 is a tax on
the business of wholesalers, distributors, dealers and retailers. On the other hand, the tax imposed in Section 21 is
not a tax against the business of the petitioners (as wholesalers, etc.) but a tax against consumers or end-users of
the articles sold by petitioners. Therefore, both are levied against different tax objects or subject matter.
o The petitioners only act as the collection or withholding agent of the City while the ones actually paying
the tax are the consumers or end-users of the articles being sold by petitioners.
- On the second issue, PT asked the court for cease and desist order in the implementation of Sec 21. Court cannot
do so, as the ordinance carries a presumption of validity and Sec 187 of LGC provides that an appeal questioning
the constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the
ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee or charge levied therein.
- CA: Dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction as the issue involved a question of law (WON Sec 21 constitutes Double
Taxation) as both party already agreed that facts remained undisputed, such issue is not reviewable by the court.

ISSUE: (1) whether or not the CA properly denied due course to the appeal for raising pure questions of law; and
(2) whether or not the petitioners were entitled to the tax credit or tax refund for the taxes paid under Sec 21

DECISION:
- Sec 21 constituted Double Taxation and PT’s are entitled to a refund. The issue of Double taxation on Sec 21 had
already been dealt with in the case of City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. which has been
reiterated in Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila
o Double taxation means taxing the same property twice when it should be taxed only once; that is, "taxing
the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing." It is obnoxious when the taxpayer is
taxed twice, when it should be but once. Otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation," the two
taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority,
within the same jurisdiction, during the same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or
character
o As applied in this case: indeed double taxation as respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections
14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance 7794, since these are being imposed:
(1) on the same subject matter — the privilege of doing business in the City of Manila;
(2) for the same purpose — to make persons conducting business within the City of Manila contribute to
city revenues;
(3) by the same taxing authority — petitioner City of Manila;
 (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction — within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila;
(5) for the same taxing periods — per calendar year;
(6) of the same kind or character — a local business tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the
business.

o Upon their findings Sec 14 is based on Sec 143(a) of LGC while Sec 21 is on Sec 143(h). The latter section
provides that LGC sanngunian may tax businesses not otherwise specified in preceding paragraphs
(Includes sec 143.A—which already includes taxing manufacturers/wholesalers/distributors/dealers etc.,)
therefore, municipality cannot tax the same businesses as they are already classified under Sec 143.A and
at the same time consider them as falling under “other business” as they are already are specified in the
preceding paragraph before Sec 143(h) of the same tax ordinance. Such may be imposed only on
businesses that are subject to excise tax, VAT, or percentage tax under the NIRC, and that are "not
otherwise specified in preceding paragraphs."
o Petitioner is indeed liable to pay business taxes to the City of Manila; nevertheless, considering that it has
already paid these taxes under Section 14 of the Manila Revenue Code, it is exempt from the same
payments under Sec 21 of the same code. Hence, payments made under Sec 21 must be refunded.
- On the same note, the court now holds that all the elements of double taxation on the first half of 1999
assessment under Sec 21 constituted Double taxation
o Firstly, because Section 21 imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services in the course of trade
or business based on a certain percentage of his gross sales or receipts in the preceding calendar year,
 while Section 15 and Section 17 likewise imposed the tax on a person who sold goods and services
in the course of trade or business but only identified such person with particularity, namely, the
wholesaler, distributor or dealer (15), and the retailer (17), all the taxes — being imposed on the
privilege of doing business in the City of Manila in order to make the taxpayers contribute to the
city's revenues — were imposed on the same subject matter and for the same purpose
o Secondly, the taxes were imposed by the same taxing authority (the City of Manila) and within the same
jurisdiction in the same taxing period ( i.e. , per calendar year).
o Thirdly, the taxes were all in the nature of local business taxes.
- Court notes that the 2 earlier decided cases dealt with Sec 14 (Tax on Manufacturers, Assemblers and Other
Processors) vis-à-vis Sec 21 (Tax on Business Subject to the Excise, Value-Added or Percentage Taxes under the
NIRC). Nevertheless, the legal principles enunciated therein should similarly apply because 15 (Tax on
Wholesalers, Distributors, or Dealers) and 17 ( Taxon Retailers) imposed the same nature of tax as that imposed
under 14, i.e. , local business tax, albeit on a different subject matter or group of taxpayers.

RATIO: Petition granted and set aside CA decision, Order to refund collected for the 1 st quarter of 1999 pursuant to Sec
21.
Commission of Internal Revenue v. De La Salle University
GR 196596 / November 9, 2016

FACTS:
- consolidated petitions for review on certiorari with two other cases.
o GR 196596, 198841 and 198941 all originated from CTA Special First Division (CTA Division) Case 7303.
o GR 196596 stemmed from CTA En Banc Case 622 filed by the CIR Commissioner to challenge CTA Case
7303.
o GR 198841 and 198941 both stemmed from CTA En Banc Case 671 filed by DLSU to also challenge CTA
Case 7303.
BIR by virtue of LOA issued a preliminary assessments on RP’s books of accounts and other accounting
records for all internal revenue taxes period of 2003 and unverified prior years. Amounting to
P17,303,001.12 with surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. Demanded
the deficiency taxes:
(1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the
campus;

(2) VAT on business income; and

(3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts.

- DLSU protested and filed a petition for review before CTA Division. Anchoring its exemption on Article XIV, Section
4(3) of the Constitution, which reads:
(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and
exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. . .

- CTA: Partially granted and discarded the payment of loan transaction but ordered to pay the remaining deficiency
income tax, VAT and DST on its lease contracts with surcharges for the 3 consecutive years. Furthermore included
a 20% delinquency interest.
- Both parties applied for reconsideration and only DLSU’s motion was granted. It submitted supplemental
evidences showing that its rental income was used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes. This
resulted to the reduction of payment from 18M to 5M but penalties to Deficiency and Delinquency interest were
still included. Meanwhile, CIR filed for a review before En Banc for Divisions decision of reduction.
- Still dissatisfied with the reduction of CTA Division, DLSU filed for a separate petition for review before CTA En
Banc.
- CTA En Banc: Dismissed PFR of CIR and upheld CTA Dv’s findings. Reduced the amount to 2.5M
o Relying on the findings of the court-commissioned Independent CPA, it found that DLSU was able to prove
that a portion of the assessed rental income was used actually, directly and exclusively for educational
purposes; hence, exempt from tax. However, its unsubstantiated claim for exemption, i.e. , the part of its
income that was not shown by supporting documents to have been actually, directly and exclusively used
for educational purposes, must be subjected to income tax and VAT.
o On the issue on admissibility of the supplemental pieces of documentary evidence, they were admissible
even if DLSU formally offered them only during reconsideration and after the Division’s original decision.
Since, proceedings before CTA as provided by law shall not be governed strictly by the technical rules of
evidence.
o That the LOA assessment for VAT, Income and deficiency should be limited to the 2003 fiscal year, 2001 &
2002 should be void.
o Ateneo case cannot serve as precedent, because it involved different parties, factual settings, bases of
assessments, sets of evidence, and defenses.

- Both Parties filed petition before SC

 o CIR: a tax-exempt organization is exempt only from property tax but not from income tax on the rentals
earned from property. Thus, DLSU's income from the leases of its real properties is not exempt from
taxation even if the income would be used for educational purposes.
 Article XIV, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution must be harmonized with Section 30 (H) of the Tax
Code, which states among others, that the income of whatever kind and character of a non-stock
and non-profit educational institution from its properties, real or personal, or from its activities
conducted for profit regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax
imposed by this Code.
o DLSU: the Const’al exemtion is clear that all assets and revenues of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes are exempt from taxes and
duties and Sec 30(H) of the 1997 Tax Code cannot amend the 1987 Constitution. Invoking constitutional
supremacy.
 Further retraced the recognition of 1986 constitutional commission that the tax exemption was
granted to incentivize private educational institutions to share with the State the responsibility of
educating the youth.
 Citing the YMCA case, exemption to be granted under A14, Sec 4(3), Constitution, the taxpayer
must prove that: (1) it falls under the classification non-stock, non-profit educational institution;
and (2) the income it seeks to be exempted from taxation is used actually, directly and exclusively
for educational purposes.

RELEVANT ISSUE: WON DLSU's income and revenues proved to have been used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes are exempt from duties and taxes.

DECISION: Granted DLSU’s petition. Exempt from payment of tax.

- The revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions proved to have been used actually,
directly, and exclusively for educational purposes are exempt from duties and taxes.
o By Virtue of A14, Sec 4(3), Constitution, which reads:
(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly,
and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the
dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be
disposed of in the manner provided by law

o Both parties agreed that DLSU is a NS/NP Educ Inst, exemption of which is conditioned only on the ADE
use of their revenues and assets for educational purposes. On the other hand a proprietary educational
institution may also subject to tax exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law, including
restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. (Sec 27)
o Sec 30 of 1997 Tax Code does not qualify (limit) the constitutional tax exemption.
 Rather it held that the last paragraph of said section is without force and effect to NS/NP
educational institutions, provided, that the non-stock, non-profit educational institutions prove
that its assets and revenues are used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes.
 Therefore the constitutional provision is not subject to limitations by law.
- The tax exemption granted by the Constitution to to NS/NP educational institutions is conditioned only on the
actual, direct and exclusive use of their assets, revenues and income for educational purposes.
o Art 6, Sect 28(3) of the Constitution (pertaining to charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or
convents, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries), which exempts from tax only the assets , (all lands,
buildings, and improvements) ADE used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes . . .,"
 Exemption on Assets (Real properties) whie A14 is broader as it includes all revenues.
o PC provides that A14, S4(3) categorically states that "All revenues and assets . . . used actually, directly,
and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.”
 “Revenues” as included, as discerned from the records of 1986 constitutional commission, provide
broader tax privilege to NS/NP educational institutions as recognition of their role in assisting the
State provide a public good.
  The exemption was seen as beneficial to students who may otherwise be charged unreasonable
tuition fees if not for the exemption extended to all revenues and assets of NS/NP educational
institutions.
 Further, The phrase all revenues is unqualified by any reference to the source of revenues. Thus,
so long as the revenues and income are used actually, directly and exclusively for educational
purposes, then said revenues and income shall be exempt from taxes and duties.
o Discussion on Taxation on Revenues and Assets
 Revenues - consist of the amounts earned by a person or entity from the conduct of business
operations. It may refer to the sale of goods, rendition of services, or the return of an investment.
Revenue is a component of the tax base in income tax, VAT, and local business tax.
 Factually Prove
 Assets - tangible and intangible properties owned by a person or entity. It may refer to real estate,
cash deposit in a bank, investment in the stocks of a corporation, inventory of goods, or any
property from which the person or entity may derive income or use to generate the same. In
Philippine taxation, the fair market value of real property is a component of the tax base in real
property tax. Also, the landed cost of imported goods is a component of the tax base in VAT on
importation and tariff duties.
 As applied in Taxation:
 Revenues are exempt from taxation (VAT/Income Tax/LBT) if educational institution are
able to prove that they are used in ADE for educational purposes.
 When it also shows that it uses its assets in the form of real property for ADE educational
purposes, it shall be exempted from RPT.
 Example, if the canteen of the school is rented by commercial businesses, the canteen
building cannot be exempt from RPT. However, if the revenues from such rents are ADE
used for Educational purposes then such revenues are exempt from VAT, LBT, and income
taxation.
 Therefore the proper inquiries are:
o What is the use of Revenues?
o What is the use of Assets?
o These two are to be treated differently and both must fall to ADE use for Educ
purp, to grant the two exemptions.
o Supremacy of the Constitution
 Last paragraph of Sec 30 of the Tax Code is without force and effect for being contrary to the
Constitution insofar as it subjects to tax the income and revenues of to NS/NP educational
institutions used ADE for educational purpose. We make this declaration in the exercise of and
consistent with our duty to uphold the primacy of the Constitution.

RATIO: Affirm CTA En Banc Decision except for the total amount of deficiency. DLSU is exempted from paying taxes on
its earned revenue.

NOTES: Differentiate Non stock and stock corpporation on tax rates and its law. Review!

CREATE law increased the from 10 to 25% tax rate on stock corporation. House bill 9913, amendment of NIRC to define
tax rate of proprietary educational institution.

Requisites for pei may avail 10%:

(1) the proprietary educational institution is non-profit and
(2) its gross income from unrelated trade, business or activity does not exceed 50% of its total gross income.

Read La salle case (Possible BAR Case)

G.R. No. 202792, February 27, 2019
LA SALLIAN EDUCATIONAL INNOVATORS FOUNDATION (DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-COLLEGE OF ST. BENILDE) INC.,
PETITIONER, v. COMMISIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT."

Recent UP Case regarding its property 2020 case