The Apostolic Prefect of the Mountain Province vs.

El Tesorero De La Ciudad De Baguio

G.R. No. L-47252; April 18, 1941

Facts:
The Apostolic Prefect is a corporation sole, of religious character, organized under the Philippine laws,
and with residence in Baguio. The City imposed a special assessment against properties within its
territorial jurisdiction, including those of the Apostolic Prefect, which benefits from its drainage and
sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free from tax.

Issue:
Whether or not APMP is exempt from taxes.

Held:
No. In the first place, the ordinance was in the nature of an assessment and not a taxation.

The test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the
Constitution. Based on Justice Cooley’s words:

While the word "tax" in its broad meaning, includes both general taxes and special assessments, and in
a general sense a tax is an assessment, and an assessment is a tax, yet there is a recognized distinction
between them in that assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of
the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with reference to special benefits
to the property assessed. The differences between a special assessment and a tax are that (1) a
special assessment can be levied only on land; (2) a special assessment cannot (at least in most
states) be made a personal liability of the person assessed; (3) a special assessment is based
wholly on benefits; and (4) a special assessment is exceptional both as to time and locality. The
imposition of a charge on all property, real and personal, in a prescribed area, is a tax and not an
assessment, although the purpose is to make a local improvement on a street or highway. A charge
imposed only on property owners benefited is a special assessment rather than a tax notwithstanding
the statute calls it a tax.

In the case at bar, the Prefect cannot claim exemption because the assessment is not taxation per se
but rather a system for the benefits of the inhabitants of the city.

Furthermore, arguendo that exemption may encompass such assessment, the Apostolic Prefect cannot
claim exemption as it has not proven the property in question is used exclusively for religious
purposes; but that it appears that the same is being used to other non-religious purposes.

Thus, the Apostolic Prefect is required to pay the special assessment.