Sale of Real Property classified as Capital Asset

Republic of the Philippines v. Arlene Soriano

G.R. No. 211666
February 25, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH), filed a Complaint for expropriation against respondent Arlene R.
Soriano, the registered owner of a parcel of land. Petitioner averred that pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) No. 8974, otherwise known as "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way,
Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for other Purposes," the
property sought to be expropriated shall be used in implementing the construction of the North
Luzon Expressway.
Petitioner duly deposited to the Acting Branch Clerk of Court the amount of
₱420,000.00 representing 100% of the zonal value of the subject property. The RTC ordered the
issuance of a Writ of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation for failure of respondent, or any of
her representatives.
The RTC considered respondent to have waived her right to adduce evidence and to
object to the evidence submitted by petitioner for her continued absence despite being given
several notices to do so.
Petitioner now claims that contrary to the RTC’s instruction, transfer taxes, in the nature
of Capital Gains Tax and Documentary Stamp Tax, necessary for the transfer of the subject
property from the name of the respondent to that of the petitioner are liabilities of respondent
and not petitioner.

ISSUE:
Who has the obligation to pay the transfer taxes?

RULING:
With respect to the capital gains tax, pursuant to Sections 24(D) and 56(A)(3) of the
1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), capital gains tax due on the sale of real property is
a liability for the account of the seller. It has been held that since capital gains is a tax on
passive income, it is the seller, not the buyer, who generally would shoulder the tax. The capital
gains tax remains a liability of the seller since it is a tax on the seller's gain from the sale of the
real estate.

As to the documentary stamp tax, all the parties to a transaction are primarily liable for
the documentary stamp tax, as provided by Section 2 of BIR Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000.
As a general rule, therefore, any of the parties to a transaction shall be liable for the full
amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they agree among themselves on who shall
be liable for the same.

In this case, there is no agreement as to the party liable for the documentary stamp tax
due on the sale of the land to be expropriated. The Court must took note of petitioner’s
Citizen’s Charter, which functions as a guide for the procedure to be taken by the DPWH in
acquiring real property through expropriation under RA 8974. The Citizen’s Charter, issued by
petitioner DPWH, explicitly provides that the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and
registration fee due on the transfer of the title of land in the name of the Republic shall be
shouldered by the implementing agency of the DPWH, while the capital gains tax shall be paid
by the affected property owner. Thus, while there is no specific agreement between petitioner
and respondent, petitioner's issuance of the Citizen's Charter serves as its notice to the public
as to the procedure it shall generally take in cases of expropriation under RA 8974.

Therefore, respondent Arlene R. Soriano is ordered to pay for the capital gains tax due
on the transfer of the expropriated property, while the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax,
and registration fee shall be for the account of petitioner.