Taking

Three Inherent Powers of the GovernmentEminent Domain. The power of the state or whom the power has been delegated to take private property for public use upon paying to the owner a just compensation.Police Power. The power of the state to enact of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.Taxation. The power by which the sovereign, thru its legislature, raises revenue to support expenditures of the government.TakingImports a physical dispossession of the owner thus deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of his propertyIncludes:-trespass without actual eviction of the owner-material impairment of the value of the property-prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended

Punzalan v. Manila Board, 95 Phil. 46. Double taxation.

Facts:Municipal board of the City of Manila imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes non-payment of the tax

Enacted pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 18 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, which empowers the Municipal Board of said city to impose a municipal occupation tax, not to exceed P50per annum, on persons engaged in the various professions above referred to.

Plaintiff in behalf of other professionals practicing in the City of Manila filed a suit for the annulment of Ordinance No. 3398 and for the refund of taxes collected under the ordinance but paid under protest.

As to plaintiffs' appeal, the ordinance and the law authorizing it constitute class legislation, unjust and oppressive, and authorize what amounts to double taxation.

Plaintiffs brand the ordinance unjust and oppressive because they say that it creates discrimination within a class in that while professionals with offices in Manila have to pay the tax, outsiders who have no offices in the city but practice their profession therein are not subject to the tax.

Having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code, plaintiffs, upon being required to pay the additional tax prescribed in the ordinance, are being subject to double taxation

Issue: Whether professionals in Manila are being subjected to double taxation, in light of the municipal occupation tax imposed against them by the City of Manila.

Held: The Legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupations shall be taxed, and in the exercise of that discretion it may tax all, or it may select for taxation certain classes and leave the others untaxed.

The ordinance imposes the tax upon every person "exercising" or "pursuing" any one of the occupations named, but does not say that such person must have his office in Manila.

The argument against double taxation may not be invoked where one tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city, it being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license fees or taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the political subdivisions thereof.

Planters Products v. Fertiphil, GR No. 166006, March 14, 2008. Tax levy on sale of fertilizers.

Facts:Petitioner PPI and private respondent Fertiphil are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws.They are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals.

OnJune 3, 1985, then President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465 which provided for the imposition of a capital recovery component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in thePhilippines.

The LOI provides:This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate capital is raised to make PPI viable.

Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paidP10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) which is remitted to the depositary bank of PPI.

After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of theP10 levy.Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465, but PPI refused to accede to the demand.

Fertiphilfiled a complaint for collection and damagesagainst FPA and PPI with the RTC questioning the constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 alleging that the LOI solely favored PPI, a privately owned corporation, which used the proceeds to maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer industry.

Issue: Whether or not LOI 1465 CONSTITUTES A VALID LEGISLATION PURSUANT TO THE EXERCISE OF TAXATIONANDPOLICE POWER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.

Held: While it is true that the power of taxation can be used as an implement of police power,the primary purpose of the levy is revenue generation.If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax.

An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose.They cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose.

When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of public purpose.