9. Exxonmobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc., (Phil.
Br.) v. CI, !"#$C% '(%%)I*(+ Petitioner Exxon is a foreign
corporation duly organized and existingunder the laws of the State
of Delaware, United States of America. It is authorized todo
usiness in the Philippines through its Philippine !ranch. Exxon is
engaged in theusiness of selling petroleum products to domestic and
international carriers. "hus,Exxon purchased from#altex
Philippines, Inc. $#altex% and Petron #orporation$Petron% &et
A'( fuel and other petroleum products, the excise taxes on which
werepaid for and remitted y oth #altex and Petron. Said taxes,
howe)er, were passedon to Exxon which ultimately shouldered the
excise taxes on the fuel and petroleumproducts.
*rom+o)emer,--(to&une,--,, Exxonsoldatotal of,.,/01,.2(litersof
&et A'(fuel tointernational carriers, freeof
excisetaxesamountingtoPhp(-1,-30,10/.24.5n )arious dates, it 6led
administrati)e claims for refund withthe !ureau of Internal 7e)enue
$!I7% amounting to Php(-1,-30,10/.24. ,*-E(.E()/$ %,0.E()+ Exxon is
not a proper party to see8 a refund taxesecause excise taxes are
indirect taxes, the liaility for payment of which falls onone
person, ut the urden of payment may e shifted to another. 9ere, the
sellersof the petroleum products or &et A'( fuel su:ect to
excise tax are Petron and #altex,while Exxon was the uyer to whom
the urden of paying excise tax was shifted.;hile the impact or
urden of taxation falls on Exxon, as the tax is shifted to it
aspart of the purchase price, the persons statutorily liale to pay
the tax are Petronand #altex. As Exxon is not the taxpayer
primarily liale to pay, and not exemptedfrom paying, excise tax, it
is not the proper party to claim for the refund of excisetaxes
paid. )%1 P%2E/$ %,0.E()+ Exxon argues that ha)ing paid the excise
taxes on thepetroleumproductssoldtointernational carriers,
itisareal partyininterest. Itreasons out that the su:ect of the
exemption in Section (01 of thte +I7# is neitherthe seller nor the
uyer of the petroleum products, ut the products themsel)es, solong
as they are sold to international carriers for use in international
ect,these taxes are imposed when two conditions concur? 6rst, that
the articles su:ectto tax elong to any of the categories of goods
enumerated in "itle =I of the +I7#@and second, that said articles
are for domestic sale or consumption, excluding thosethat are
actually exported. "here are, howe)er, certain exemptions to the
co)erageof excisetaxes, suchas petroleumproducts
soldtointernational carriers andexemptentitiesoragencies.
"heconfusionherestemsfromthefactthatexcisetaxes are of the nature
of indirect taxes, the liaility for payment of which may fallon a
person other than he who actually ears the urden of the tax.
Accordingly,the party liale for the tax can shift the urden to
another, as part of the purchaseprice of the goods or ser)ices.
Although the manufacturerAseller is the one who
isstatutorilylialeforthetax,
itistheuyerwhoactuallyshouldersorearstheurden of the tax, aleit not
in the nature of a tax, ut part of the purchase price orthecost of
thegoods or ser)ices sold. "herefore, as Exxon is not the
partystatutorilylialefor payment of excisetaxesunder Section(0-,
inrelationtoSection (,3 of the +I7#, it is not the proper party to
claim a refund of any taxeserroneously paid. 44. Cit5 o6 Pasig v.
e7ublic, !8! $C% &94(%%)I*(+ Bid'Pasig Cand De)elopment
#orporation $BPCD#% owned two parcelsof land in Pasig #ity under
its name. Portions of the properties are leased to
di>erentusiness estalishments. In (3./, the registered owner of
BPCD#, &ose D. #ampos$#ampos%,
)oluntarilysurrenderedBPCD#tothe7epulicof thePhilippines.
5nSeptemer 0-, ,--,, the Pasig #ity Assessors 5Ece sent BPCD# two
notices of taxdelinFuency for its failure to pay real property tax
on the properties for the period(343to,--(totalingP,1/,.1.,111../.
. Inaletter dated,35ctoer ,--,,Independent 7ealty #orporation $I7#%
informed the Pasig #ity "reasurer that the taxfor the period (343
to (3./ had een paid, and that the properties were
exemptfromtaxeginning(3.4.
Inlettersdated(-&uly,--0and.&anuary,--2, thePasig #ity
"reasurer informed BPCD# and I7# that the properties were not
exemptfrom tax. 9owe)er, BPCD# and I7# againt informed them that
the properties wereexempt from tax. *inally, on 5ctoer ,-, ,--1,
the Pasig #ity Assessors 5Ece sentBPCD# a notice of 6nal demand for
payment of a tax for the period (3.4 to ,--1totaling
P0.3,-,4,.(2.2.. 5n the same day, BPCD# paid P,,---,---
partialpayment under protest.5n 3 +o)emer ,--1, BPCD# recei)ed two
warrants of le)yontheproperties. 5n(Decemer,--1,
respondent7epulicof thePhilippines,through the Presidential
#ommission on Good Go)ernment$P#GG%,6ledwiththe7"#apetition
forprohiition with prayer forissuanceof a temporaryrestrainingorder
or writ of preliminary in:unction to en:oin petitioner Pasig #ity
from auctioningthe properties and fromcollecting real property tax.
9owe)er, the Pasig #ity"reasurer o>ered the properties for sale
at pulic auction and ought the
propertiesandwasissuedcerti6catesofsale. "hus,
P#GG6ledwiththe7"#anamendedpetition for certiorari, prohiition and
mandamus against Pasig #ity. ,*-E(.E()/$%,0.E()+Pasig#ity"reasurer
arguedthat theundisputedproperty is not exempted to real property
tax)%1 P%2E/$ %,0.E()+ "hat they are exempted from real property
tax ecausethe property is owned y the State.
I$$0E+whetherthelowercourtserredingrantingP#GGspetitionforcertiorari,prohiitionandmandamusandinorderingPasig#itytoassessandcollectrealproperty
tax from the lessees of the properties.03I(,+ !y )irtue of P#GGHs
Bay ,., (3./ resolution, , &ose #ampos, &r. was gi)enfull
immunityfromothci)il andcriminal prosecutionsinexchangefor
thefullcooperationof Br. &oseD. #ampostothes#ommissionfor
thesurrender of theundisputedproperty. So, inthemeantime,
the7epulicof thePhilippinesisthepresumpti)e owner of the properties
for taxation purposes. Section ,02$a% of7epulic Act +o. 4(/- states
that properties owned y the 7epulic of thePhilippines areexempt
fromreal property taxexcept whentheene6cial usethereof has een
granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxale person. In
thepresent case, the parcels of land are not properties of pulic
dominion ecause theyare not intended for pulic use. +either they
are intended for some pulic ser)ice orfor the de)elopment of the
national wealth. BPCD# leases portions of the propertiesto
di>erent usiness estalishments. "hus, the portions of the
properties leased totaxaleentitiesarenotonlysu:ecttoreal estatetax,
theycanalsoesoldatpulic auction to satisfy the tax delinFuency.In
sum, only those portions of the properties leased to taxale
entities are su:ect torealestate tax for the period of such
leases.Pasig #ity must, therefore, issue torespondent newreal
property tax assessments co)ering the portions of theproperties
leased to taxale entities. If the 7epulic of the Philippines fails
to paythe realproperty tax on the portions of the properties leased
to taxale entities,then such portions may e sold at pulic auction
to satisfy the tax delinFuency.PE7S5+AC +5"E?4#. :ia; v. $ecretar5
o6 %?% I(-E$).E()$ C*P. -. CI*A#"S? Sometime in (332, petitioner
sought to in)est in &AMA EFuities#orporation $&E#%, which
was then planning to underta8e an initialpulic o>ering$IP5% and
listing of its shares of stoc8 with the Philippine Stoc8 Exchange.
Petitionerproposed Suscription Agreement and Deed of Assignment of
Property in Paymentof Suscription. Under this Agreement, as payment
for its suscription, petitionerwill assign and transfer to &E#
se)eral shares of stoc8."he intended IP5 and listing ofshares of
&E# did not materialize ut &E# still decided to proceed.
"hus, petitionerand &E# executed the Amended Suscription
Agreement wherein se)eral shares ofstoc8 were transferred to
&E#. Petitioner paid P(,--0,.31./1 for asic documentarystamptax
inclusi)eof the,1Isurchargefor latepayment on
theAmendedSuscriptionAgreement.Inlieuof the*E!"#shares, howe)er,
theamount of$P04-,4//,---.--% was paid for in cash y petitioner to
&E#.Petitioner, after seeing the 7D5s certi6cations, the total
amount of which was lessthan the actualamount it had paid as
documentary stamp tax, concluded that ithad o)erpaid. Petitioner
suseFuently sought a refund for the alleged excessdocumentary stamp
tax and surcharges in the amount of *our 9undred "en"housand "hree
9undred Sixty'Se)en Pesos $P2(-,0/4.--%, the di>erence etweenthe
amount of documentary stamp tax it had paid and the amount of
documentarystamp tax certi6ed to y the 7D5. "hus, petitioner 6led a
petition for refund eforethe #"A. ,*-E(.E()/$ %,0.E()+ 7espondent
maintains that the documentary stamptax imposed in this case is on
the original issue of certi6cates of stoc8 of &E# on
thesuscription y the petitioner of the P1-.,.-/,,--.-- shares out
of the increase inthe authorized capital stoc8 of the former
pursuant to Section (41 of the +I7#.. "hedocumentary stamp tax was
not imposed on the shares of stoc8 owned ypetitioner in 7G9#, PG#I,
and U#P!, which merely form part of the partial paymentof the
suscried shares in &E#.)%1 P%2E/$ %,0.E()+Petitioner argued
that the tax ase for thedocumentary stamp tax should ha)e een only
the shares of stoc8 in 7G#9, PG#I,and U#P! that petitioner had
transferred to &E# as payment for its suscription tothe &E#
shares and should ha)e not included the cash portion of its payment
asedon Section (4/ of the +I7# of (344, as amended. It 7espondent
argues that thedocumentary stamp tax attaches upon acceptance y the
corporation of thestoc8holders suscription in the capital stoc8 of
the corporation, and that the termoriginal issue of the certi6cate
of stoc8 means the point at which the stoc8holderacFuires and may
exercise attriutes of ownership o)er the stoc8s.I$$0E+ whether
petitioner is entitled to a partial refund of the documentary
stamptax and surcharges it paid on the execution of the Amended
SuscriptionAgreementHE3:+Petitioner failed to show that it is
entitled to refund. "he rights andoligations etweenpetitioner
&AMAIn)estments #orporationand&AMAEFuities#orporation are
estalished and enforceale at the time the Amended
SuscriptionAgreement and Deed of Assignment of Property in Payment
of Suscription weresignedythepartiesandtheir witness, soistheright
of thestatetotaxtheaforestateddocumente)idencingthetransaction.
DS"isataxonthedocumentitself andthereforetherateof
taxmustedeterminedontheasisof whatiswritten or indicated on the
instrument itself independent of any ad:ustment whichthe parties
may agree on in the future. "he DS" upon the taxale document
shouldepaidat thetimethecontract isexecutedor at
thetimethetransactionisaccomplished. "he o)erriding purpose of the
law is the collection of taxes. So thatwhen it paid in cash the
amount of P04-,4//,---.-- in sustitution for, orreplacement of the
(,0(0,(4/ *E!"# shares, its payment of P(,--0,.01./1documentary
stamps tax pursuant to Section (41 of +I7# is in order. DS" is
imposedon the original issue of shares of stoc8. "he DS", as an
excise tax, is le)ied upon thepri)ilege, the opportunity and the
facility of issuing shares of stoc8.48. CH%.BE *< E%3 E$)%)E %(:
B0I3:E@$ %$$*C I(C.-. *.03*
