G.R. No. 144104             June 29, 2004

LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. QUEZON CITY and CONSTANTINO P. ROSAS, in his capacity as City Assessor of Quezon City,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, of the Decision1 dated July 17, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57014 which affirmed the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals holding that the lot owned by the petitioner and its hospital building constructed thereon are subject to assessment for purposes of real property tax.

The Antecedents

The petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established on January 16, 1981 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1823.2 It is the registered owner of a parcel of land, particularly described as Lot No. RP-3-B-3A-1-B-1, SWO-04-000495, located at Quezon Avenue corner Elliptical Road, Central District, Quezon City. The lot has an area of 121,463 square meters and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 261320 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. Erected in the middle of the aforesaid lot is a hospital known as the Lung Center of the Philippines. A big space at the ground floor is being leased to private parties, for canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same as their private clinics for their patients whom they charge for their professional services. Almost one-half of the entire area on the left side of the building along Quezon Avenue is vacant and idle, while a big portion on the right side, at the corner of Quezon Avenue and Elliptical Road, is being leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center.

The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical services to out-patients, both paying and non-paying. Aside from its income from paying patients, the petitioner receives annual subsidies from the government.

On June 7, 1993, both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real property taxes in the amount of P4,554,860 by the City Assessor of Quezon City.3 Accordingly, Tax Declaration Nos. C-021-01226 (16-2518) and C-021-01231 (15-2518-A) were issued for the land and the hospital building, respectively.4 On August 25, 1993, the petitioner filed a Claim for Exemption5 from real property taxes with the City Assessor, predicated on its claim that it is a charitable institution. The petitioner’s request was denied, and a petition was, thereafter, filed before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA, for brevity) for the reversal of the resolution of the City Assessor. The petitioner alleged that under Section 28, paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the property is exempt from real property taxes. It averred that a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds are exclusively used for charity patients and that the major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. The petitioner contends that it is a charitable institution and, as such, is exempt from real property taxes. The QC-LBAA rendered judgment dismissing the petition and holding the petitioner liable for real property taxes.6

The QC-LBAA’s decision was, likewise, affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (CBAA, for brevity)7 which ruled that the petitioner was not a charitable institution and that its real properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes; hence, it was not entitled to real property tax exemption under the constitution and the law. The petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which rendered judgment affirming the decision of the CBAA.8

Undaunted, the petitioner filed its petition in this Court contending that:

A. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING PETITIONER AS NOT ENTITLED TO REALTY TAX EXEMPTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ITS LAND, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT OF ASSESSMENT, ARE NOT ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

B. WHILE PETITIONER IS NOT DECLARED AS REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT UNDER ITS CHARTER, PD 1823, SAID EXEMPTION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE EXTENDED UPON PROPER APPLICATION.

The petitioner avers that it is a charitable institution within the context of Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. It asserts that its character as a charitable institution is not altered by the fact that it admits paying patients and renders medical services to them, leases portions of the land to private parties, and rents out portions of the hospital to private medical practitioners from which it derives income to be used for operational expenses. The petitioner points out that for the years 1995 to 1999, 100% of its out-patients were charity patients and of the hospital’s 282-bed capacity, 60% thereof, or 170 beds, is allotted to charity patients. It asserts that the fact that it receives subsidies from the government attests to its character as a charitable institution. It contends that the "exclusivity" required in the Constitution does not necessarily mean "solely." Hence, even if a portion of its real estate is leased out to private individuals from whom it derives income, it does not lose its character as a charitable institution, and its exemption from the payment of real estate taxes on its real property. The petitioner cited our ruling in Herrera v. QC-BAA9 to bolster its pose. The petitioner further contends that even if P.D. No. 1823 does not exempt it from the payment of real estate taxes, it is not precluded from seeking tax exemption under the 1987 Constitution.

In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioner is not a charitable entity. The petitioner’s real property is not exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under P.D. No. 1823 and even under the 1987 Constitution because it failed to prove that it is a charitable institution and that the said property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. The respondents noted that in a newspaper report, it appears that graft charges were filed with the Sandiganbayan against the director of the petitioner, its administrative officer, and Zenaida Rivera, the proprietress of the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center, for entering into a lease contract over 7,663.13 square meters of the property in 1990 for only P20,000 a month, when the monthly rental should be P357,000 a month as determined by the Commission on Audit; and that instead of complying with the directive of the COA for the cancellation of the contract for being grossly prejudicial to the government, the petitioner renewed the same on March 13, 1995 for a monthly rental of only P24,000. They assert that the petitioner uses the subsidies granted by the government for charity patients and uses the rest of its income from the property for the benefit of paying patients, among other purposes. They aver that the petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence that 100% of its out-patients and 170 beds in the hospital are reserved for indigent patients. The respondents further assert, thus:

13. That the claims/allegations of the Petitioner LCP do not speak well of its record of service. That before a patient is admitted for treatment in the Center, first impression is that it is pay-patient and required to pay a certain amount as deposit. That even if a patient is living below the poverty line, he is charged with high hospital bills. And, without these bills being first settled, the poor patient cannot be allowed to leave the hospital or be discharged without first paying the hospital bills or issue a promissory note guaranteed and indorsed by an influential agency or person known only to the Center; that even the remains of deceased poor patients suffered the same fate. Moreover, before a patient is admitted for treatment as free or charity patient, one must undergo a series of interviews and must submit all the requirements needed by the Center, usually accompanied by endorsement by an influential agency or person known only to the Center. These facts were heard and admitted by the Petitioner LCP during the hearings before the Honorable QC-BAA and Honorable CBAA. These are the reasons of indigent patients, instead of seeking treatment with the Center, they prefer to be treated at the Quezon Institute. Can such practice by the Center be called charitable?10

The Issues

The issues for resolution are the following: (a) whether the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of Presidential Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160; and (b) whether the real properties of the petitioner are exempt from real property taxes.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is partially granted.

On the first issue, we hold that the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of

1

administration, the nature of the actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties.11

In the legal sense, a charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden of government.12 It may be applied to almost anything that tend to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man. It embraces the improvement and promotion of the happiness of man.13 The word "charitable" is not restricted to relief of the poor or sick.14 The test of a charity and a charitable organization are in law the same. The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose reorganized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit, or private advantage.

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is a non-profit and non-stock corporation which, subject to the provisions of the decree, is to be administered by the Office of the President of the Philippines with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human Settlements. It was organized for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people principally to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines. The raison d’etre for the creation of the petitioner is stated in the decree, viz:

Whereas, for decades, respiratory diseases have been a priority concern, having been the leading cause of illness and death in the Philippines, comprising more than 45% of the total annual deaths from all causes, thus, exacting a tremendous toll on human resources, which ailments are likely to increase and degenerate into serious lung diseases on account of unabated pollution, industrialization and unchecked cigarette smoking in the country;lavvph!l.net

Whereas, the more common lung diseases are, to a great extent, preventable, and curable with early and adequate medical care, immunization and through prompt and intensive prevention and health education programs;

Whereas, there is an urgent need to consolidate and reinforce existing programs, strategies and efforts at preventing, treating and rehabilitating people affected by lung diseases, and to undertake research and training on the cure and prevention of lung diseases, through a Lung Center which will house and nurture the above and related activities and provide tertiary-level care for more difficult and problematical cases;

Whereas, to achieve this purpose, the Government intends to provide material and financial support towards the establishment and maintenance of a Lung Center for the welfare and benefit of the Filipino people.15

The purposes for which the petitioner was created are spelled out in its Articles of Incorporation, thus:

SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is formed are as follows:

1. To construct, establish, equip, maintain, administer and conduct an integrated medical institution which shall specialize in the treatment, care, rehabilitation and/or relief of lung and allied diseases in line with the concern of the government to assist and provide material and financial support in the establishment and maintenance of a lung center primarily to benefit the people of the Philippines and in pursuance of the policy of the State to secure the well-being of the people by providing them specialized health and medical services and by minimizing the incidence of lung diseases in the country and elsewhere.

2. To promote the noble undertaking of scientific research related to the prevention of lung or pulmonary ailments and the care of lung patients, including the holding of a series of relevant congresses, conventions, seminars and conferences;

3. To stimulate and, whenever possible, underwrite scientific researches on the biological, demographic, social, economic, eugenic and physiological aspects of lung or pulmonary diseases and their control; and to collect and publish the findings of such research for public consumption;

4. To facilitate the dissemination of ideas and public acceptance of information on lung consciousness or awareness, and the development of fact-finding, information and reporting facilities for and in aid of the general purposes or objects aforesaid, especially

in human lung requirements, general health and physical fitness, and other relevant or related fields;

5. To encourage the training of physicians, nurses, health officers, social workers and medical and technical personnel in the practical and scientific implementation of services to lung patients;

6. To assist universities and research institutions in their studies about lung diseases, to encourage advanced training in matters of the lung and related fields and to support educational programs of value to general health;

7. To encourage the formation of other organizations on the national, provincial and/or city and local levels; and to coordinate their various efforts and activities for the purpose of achieving a more effective programmatic approach on the common problems relative to the objectives enumerated herein;

8. To seek and obtain assistance in any form from both international and local foundations and organizations; and to administer grants and funds that may be given to the organization;

9. To extend, whenever possible and expedient, medical services to the public and, in general, to promote and protect the health of the masses of our people, which has long been recognized as an economic asset and a social blessing;

10. To help prevent, relieve and alleviate the lung or pulmonary afflictions and maladies of the people in any and all walks of life, including those who are poor and needy, all without regard to or discrimination, because of race, creed, color or political belief of the persons helped; and to enable them to obtain treatment when such disorders occur;

11. To participate, as circumstances may warrant, in any activity designed and carried on to promote the general health of the community;

12. To acquire and/or borrow funds and to own all funds or equipment, educational materials and supplies by purchase, donation, or otherwise and to dispose of and distribute the same in such manner, and, on such basis as the Center shall, from time to time, deem proper and best, under the particular circumstances, to serve its general and non-profit purposes and objectives;lavvphil.net

13. To buy, purchase, acquire, own, lease, hold, sell, exchange, transfer and dispose of properties, whether real or personal, for purposes herein mentioned; and

14. To do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the accomplishment of any of the powers herein set forth and to do every other act and thing incidental thereto or connected therewith.16

Hence, the medical services of the petitioner are to be rendered to the public in general in any and all walks of life including those who are poor and the needy without discrimination. After all, any person, the rich as well as the poor, may fall sick or be injured or wounded and become a subject of charity.17

As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether out-patient, or confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.18 In Congregational Sunday School, etc. v. Board of Review,19 the State Supreme Court of Illinois held, thus:

… [A]n institution does not lose its charitable character, and consequent exemption from taxation, by reason of the fact that those recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, where no profit is made by the institution and the amounts so received are applied in furthering its charitable purposes, and those benefits are refused to none on account of inability to pay therefor. The fundamental ground upon which all exemptions in favor of charitable institutions are based is the benefit conferred upon the public by them, and a consequent relief, to some extent, of the burden upon the state to care for and advance the interests of its citizens.20

As aptly stated by the State Supreme Court of South Dakota in Lutheran Hospital Association of South Dakota v. Baker:21

2

… [T]he fact that paying patients are taken, the profits derived from attendance upon these patients being exclusively devoted to the maintenance of the charity, seems rather to enhance the usefulness of the institution to the poor; for it is a matter of common observation amongst those who have gone about at all amongst the suffering classes, that the deserving poor can with difficulty be persuaded to enter an asylum of any kind confined to the reception of objects of charity; and that their honest pride is much less wounded by being placed in an institution in which paying patients are also received. The fact of receiving money from some of the patients does not, we think, at all impair the character of the charity, so long as the money thus received is devoted altogether to the charitable object which the institution is intended to further.22

The money received by the petitioner becomes a part of the trust fund and must be devoted to public trust purposes and cannot be diverted to private profit or benefit.23

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is entitled to receive donations. The petitioner does not lose its character as a charitable institution simply because the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies granted by the government. As held by the State Supreme Court of Utah in Yorgason v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County:24

Second, the … government subsidy payments are provided to the project. Thus, those payments are like a gift or donation of any other kind except they come from the government. In both Intermountain Health Care and the present case, the crux is the presence or absence of material reciprocity. It is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that the government, rather than a private benefactor, chose to make up the deficit resulting from the exchange between St. Mark’s Tower and the tenants by making a contribution to the landlord, just as it would have been irrelevant in Intermountain Health Care if the patients’ income supplements had come from private individuals rather than the government.

Therefore, the fact that subsidization of part of the cost of furnishing such housing is by the government rather than private charitable contributions does not dictate the denial of a charitable exemption if the facts otherwise support such an exemption, as they do here.25

In this case, the petitioner adduced substantial evidence that it spent its income, including the subsidies from the government for 1991 and 1992 for its patients and for the operation of the hospital. It even incurred a net loss in 1991 and 1992 from its operations.

Even as we find that the petitioner is a charitable institution, we hold, anent the second issue, that those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes.

The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power. Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an exemption is equivalent to an appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.26 As held in Salvation Army v. Hoehn:27

An intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of the state will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used, for it is a well settled principle that, when a special privilege or exemption is claimed under a statute, charter or act of incorporation, it is to be construed strictly against the property owner and in favor of the public. This principle applies with peculiar force to a claim of exemption from taxation . …28

Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1823, relied upon by the petitioner, specifically provides that the petitioner shall enjoy the tax exemptions and privileges:

SEC. 2. TAX EXEMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGES. Being a non-profit, non-stock corporation organized primarily to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in the Philippines, all donations, contributions, endowments and equipment and supplies to be imported by authorized entities or persons and by the Board of Trustees of the Lung Center of the Philippines, Inc., for the actual use and benefit of the Lung Center, shall be exempt from income and gift taxes, the same further deductible in full for the purpose of

determining the maximum deductible amount under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

The Lung Center of the Philippines shall be exempt from the payment of taxes, charges and fees imposed by the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof with respect to equipment purchases made by, or for the Lung Center.29

It is plain as day that under the decree, the petitioner does not enjoy any property tax exemption privileges for its real properties as well as the building constructed thereon. If the intentions were otherwise, the same should have been among the enumeration of tax exempt privileges under Section 2:

It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.

...

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human mind. They are predicated upon one’s own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.30

The exemption must not be so enlarged by construction since the reasonable presumption is that the State has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that unless the privilege is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be intended beyond what was meant.31

Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, thus:

(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.32

The tax exemption under this constitutional provision covers property taxes only.33 As Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, explained: ". . . what is exempted is not the institution itself . . .; those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes."34

Consequently, the constitutional provision is implemented by Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) as follows:

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

...

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, andexclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.35

We note that under the 1935 Constitution, "... all lands, buildings, and improvements used ‘exclusively’ for … charitable … purposes shall be exempt from taxation."36 However, under the 1973 and the present Constitutions, for "lands, buildings, and improvements" of the charitable institution to be considered exempt, the same should not only be "exclusively" used for charitable purposes; it is required that such property be used "actually" and "directly" for such purposes.37

In light of the foregoing substantial changes in the Constitution, the petitioner cannot rely on our ruling in Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals which was promulgated on

3

September 30, 1961 before the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions took effect.38 As this Court held in Province of Abra v. Hernando:39

… Under the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." The present Constitution added "charitable institutions, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries" and required that for the exemption of "lands, buildings, and improvements," they should not only be "exclusively" but also "actually" and "directly" used for religious or charitable purposes. The Constitution is worded differently. The change should not be ignored. It must be duly taken into consideration. Reliance on past decisions would have sufficed were the words "actually" as well as "directly" not added. There must be proof therefore of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings, and improvements for religious or charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation. …

Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a charitable institution; and (b) its real properties are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege exclusively."40 If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.41 The words "dominant use" or "principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law.42 Solely is synonymous with exclusively.43

What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.44

The petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the entirety of its real property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. While portions of the hospital are used for the treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased to private individuals for their clinics and a canteen. Further, a portion of the land is being leased to a private individual for her business enterprise under the business name "Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center." Indeed, the petitioner’s evidence shows that it collected P1,136,483.45 as rentals in 1991 and P1,679,999.28 for 1992 from the said lessees.

Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes.45 On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The respondent Quezon City Assessor is hereby DIRECTED to determine, after due hearing, the precise portions of the land and the area thereof which are leased to private persons, and to compute the real property taxes due thereon as provided for by law.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 120082 September 11, 1996

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. FERDINAND J. MARCOS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 20, Cebu City, THE CITY OF CEBU, represented by its Mayor HON. TOMAS R. OSMEÑA, and EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

For review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on a pure question of law are the decision of 22 March 1995 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20, dismissing the petition for declaratory relief in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 entitled "Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. City of Cebu", and its order of 4, May 1995 2 denying the motion to reconsider the decision.

We resolved to give due course to this petition for its raises issues dwelling on the scope of the taxing power of local government-owned and controlled corporations.

The uncontradicted factual antecedents are summarized in the instant petition as follows:

Petitioner Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 6958, mandated to "principally undertake the economical, efficient and effective control, management and supervision of the Mactan International Airport in the Province of Cebu and the Lahug Airport in Cebu City, . . . and such other Airports as may be established in the Province of Cebu . . . (Sec. 3, RA 6958). It is also mandated to:

a) encourage, promote and develop international and domestic air traffic in the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as a means of making the regions centers of international trade and tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country; and

b) upgrade the services and facilities of the airports and to formulate internationally acceptable standards of airport accommodation and service.

Since the time of its creation, petitioner MCIAA enjoyed the privilege of exemption from payment of realty taxes in accordance with Section 14 of its Charter.

Sec. 14. Tax Exemptions. — The authority shall be exempt from realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities . . .

On October 11, 1994, however, Mr. Eustaquio B. Cesa, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Treasurer of the City of Cebu, demanded payment for realty taxes on several parcels of land belonging to the petitioner (Lot Nos. 913-G, 743, 88 SWO, 948-A, 989-A, 474, 109(931), I-M, 918, 919, 913-F, 941, 942, 947, 77 Psd., 746 and 991-A), located at Barrio Apas and Barrio Kasambagan, Lahug, Cebu City, in the total amount of P2,229,078.79.

Petitioner objected to such demand for payment as baseless and unjustified, claiming in its favor the aforecited Section 14 of RA 6958 which exempt it from payment of realty taxes. It was also asserted that it is an instrumentality of the government performing governmental functions, citing section 133 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which puts limitations on the taxing powers of local government units:

Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. — Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangay shall not extend to the levy of the following:

a) . . .

xxx xxx xxx

o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent City refused to cancel and set aside petitioner's realty tax account, insisting that the MCIAA is a government-controlled corporation whose tax exemption privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Governmental Code that took effect on January 1, 1992:

Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privilege. — Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons whether natural or juridical,including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA No. 6938, non-stock, and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions,are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property taxes. — . . .

(a) . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(c) . . .

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or

4

juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

As the City of Cebu was about to issue a warrant of levy against the properties of petitioner, the latter was compelled to pay its tax account "under protest" and thereafter filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, on December 29, 1994. MCIAA basically contended that the taxing powers of local government units do not extend to the levy of taxes or fees of any kind on an instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government. Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a government-owned corporation, it nonetheless stands on the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government by the very nature of its powers and functions.

Respondent City, however, asserted that MACIAA is not an instrumentality of the government but merely a government-owned corporation performing proprietary functions As such, all exemptions previously granted to it were deemed withdrawn by operation of law, as provided under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code when it took effect on January 1, 1992. 3

The petition for declaratory relief was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16900.

In its decision of 22 March 1995, 4 the trial court dismissed the petition in light of its findings, to wit:

A close reading of the New Local Government Code of 1991 or RA 7160 provides the express cancellation and withdrawal of exemption of taxes by government owned and controlled corporation per Sections after the effectivity of said Code on January 1, 1992, to wit: [proceeds to quote Sections 193 and 234]

Petitioners claimed that its real properties assessed by respondent City Government of Cebu are exempted from paying realty taxes in view of the exemption granted under RA 6958 to pay the same (citing Section 14 of RA 6958).

However, RA 7160 expressly provides that "All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decress [sic], executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." ([f], Section 534, RA 7160).

With that repealing clause in RA 7160, it is safe to infer and state that the tax exemption provided for in RA 6958 creating petitioner had been expressly repealed by the provisions of the New Local Government Code of 1991.

So that petitioner in this case has to pay the assessed realty tax of its properties effective after January 1, 1992 until the present.

This Court's ruling finds expression to give impetus and meaning to the overall objectives of the New Local Government Code of 1991, RA 7160. "It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Towards this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units. . . . 5

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the trial court in its 4 May 1995 order, the petitioner filed the instant petition based on the following assignment of errors:

I

RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE PETITIONER IS VESTED WITH GOVERNMENT POWERS AND FUNCTIONS WHICH PLACE IT IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS

AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

II

RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES TO THE CITY OF CEBU.

Anent the first assigned error, the petitioner asserts that although it is a government-owned or controlled corporation it is mandated to perform functions in the same category as an instrumentality of Government. An instrumentality of Government is one created to perform governmental functions primarily to promote certain aspects of the economic life of the people. 6 Considering its task "not merely to efficiently operate and manage the Mactan-Cebu International Airport, but more importantly, to carry out the Government policies of promoting and developing the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as centers of international trade and tourism, and accelerating the development of the means of transportation and communication in the country," 7 and that it is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), 8 the petitioner "may stand in [sic] the same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the national government." Hence, its tax exemption privilege under Section 14 of its Charter "cannot be considered withdrawn with the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 (hereinafter LGC) because Section 133 thereof specifically states that the taxing powers of local government units shall not extend to the levy of taxes of fees or charges of any kind on the national government its agencies and instrumentalities."

As to the second assigned error, the petitioner contends that being an instrumentality of the National Government, respondent City of Cebu has no power nor authority to impose realty taxes upon it in accordance with the aforesaid Section 133 of the LGC, as explained in Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation; 9

Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the National Government. PAGCOR is a government owned or controlled corporation with an original character, PD 1869. All its shares of stock are owned by the National Government. . . .

PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and regulate gambling casinos. The latter joke is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government. Being an instrumentality of the Government, PAGCOR should be and actually is exempt from local taxes. Otherwise, its operation might be burdened, impeded or subjected to control by a mere Local government.

The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579).

This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local government.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, make references to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them. (Antieau Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140)

Otherwise mere creature of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a toll for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42). The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (McCulloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. (Emphasis supplied)

It then concludes that the respondent Judge "cannot therefore correctly say that the questioned provisions of the Code do not contain any distinction between a governmental function as against one performing merely proprietary ones such that the exemption privilege withdrawn under the said Code would apply to allgovernment corporations." For it is clear from Section 133, in relation to Section 234, of the LGC that the legislature meant to exclude instrumentalities of the national government from the taxing power of the local government units.

In its comment respondent City of Cebu alleges that as local a government unit and a political subdivision, it has the power to impose, levy, assess, and collect taxes within its jurisdiction. Such power is guaranteed by the Constitution 10 and enhanced further by the LGC. While it may be true that under its Charter the petitioner was exempt from the payment

5

of realty taxes, 11 this exemption was withdrawn by Section 234 of the LGC. In response to the petitioner's claim that such exemption was not repealed because being an instrumentality of the National Government, Section 133 of the LGC prohibits local government units from imposing taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on it, respondent City of Cebu points out that the petitioner is likewise a government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned corporation, and Section 234 thereof does not distinguish between government-owned or controlled corporations performing governmental and purely proprietary functions. Respondent city of Cebu urges this the Manila International Airport Authority is a governmental-owned corporation, 12 and to reject the application of Basco because it was "promulgated . . . before the enactment and the singing into law of R.A. No. 7160," and was not, therefore, decided "in the light of the spirit and intention of the framers of the said law.

As a general rule, the power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay it. Nevertheless, effective limitations thereon may be imposed by the people through their Constitutions. 13 Our Constitution, for instance, provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.14 So potent indeed is the power that it was once opined that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 15Verily, taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property for the support of the government. Accordingly, tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. 16 But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society, 17 or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayers and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. 18 A claim of exemption from tax payment must be clearly shown and based on language in the law too plain to be mistaken. 19 Elsewise stated, taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. 20 However, if the grantee of the exemption is a political subdivision or instrumentality, the rigid rule of construction does not apply because the practical effect of the exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by the government in the course of its operations. 21

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. 22 Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.

There can be no question that under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6958 the petitioner is exempt from the payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. Nevertheless, since taxation is the rule and exemption therefrom the exception, the exemption may thus be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. 23

The LGC, enacted pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the constitution provides for the exercise by local government units of their power to tax, the scope thereof or its limitations, and the exemption from taxation.

Section 133 of the LGC prescribes the common limitations on the taxing powers of local government units as follows:

Sec. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Power of Local Government Units. — Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

(a) Income tax, except when levied on banks and other financial institutions;

(b) Documentary stamp tax;

(c) Taxes on estates, "inheritance, gifts, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa, except as otherwise provided herein

(d) Customs duties, registration fees of vessels and wharfage on wharves, tonnage dues, and all other kinds of customs fees charges and dues except wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government unit concerned:

(e) Taxes, fees and charges and other imposition upon goods carried into or out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise or charges for wharfages, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise;

(f) Taxes fees or charges on agricultural and aquatic products when sold by marginal farmers or fishermen;

(g) Taxes on business enterprise certified to be the Board of Investment as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four (4) years, respectively from the date of registration;

(h) Excise taxes on articles enumerated under the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and taxes, fees or charges on petroleum products;

(i) Percentage or value added tax (VAT) on sales, barters or exchanges or similar transactions on goods or services except as otherwise provided herein;

(j) Taxes on the gross receipts of transportation contractor and person engage in the transportation of passengers of freight by hire and common carriers by air, land, or water, except as provided in this code;

(k) Taxes on premiums paid by ways reinsurance or retrocession;

(l) Taxes, fees, or charges for the registration of motor vehicles and for the issuance of all kinds of licenses or permits for the driving of thereof, except, tricycles;

(m) Taxes, fees, or other charges on Philippine product actually exported, except as otherwise provided herein;

(n) Taxes, fees, or charges, on Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprise and Cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6810 and Republic Act Numbered Sixty nine hundred thirty-eight (R.A. No. 6938) otherwise known as the "Cooperative Code of the Philippines; and

(o) TAXES, FEES, OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS. (emphasis supplied)

Needless to say the last item (item o) is pertinent in this case. The "taxes, fees or charges" referred to are "of any kind", hence they include all of these, unless otherwise provided by the LGC. The term "taxes" is well understood so as to need no further elaboration, especially in the light of the above enumeration. The term "fees" means charges fixed by law or Ordinance for the regulation or inspection of business activity, 24while "charges" are pecuniary liabilities such as rents or fees against person or property. 25

Among the "taxes" enumerated in the LGC is real property tax, which is governed by Section 232. It reads as follows:

Sec. 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. — A province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy on an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery and other improvements not hereafter specifically exempted.

Section 234 of LGC provides for the exemptions from payment of real property taxes and withdraws previous exemptions therefrom granted to natural and juridical persons, including government owned and controlled corporations, except as provided therein. It provides:

Sec. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. — The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted, for reconsideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenants thereto, mosques nonprofits or religious cemeteries and all lands, building and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes;

6

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;

(d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and;

(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.

Except as provided herein, any exemptions from payment of real property tax previously granted to or presently enjoyed by, all persons whether natural or juridical, including all government owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of his Code.

These exemptions are based on the ownership, character, and use of the property. Thus;

(a) Ownership Exemptions. Exemptions from real property taxes on the basis of ownership are real properties owned by: (i) the Republic, (ii) a province, (iii) a city, (iv) a municipality, (v) a barangay, and (vi) registered cooperatives.

(b) Character Exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of their character are: (i) charitable institutions, (ii) houses and temples of prayer like churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and (iii) non profit or religious cemeteries.

(c) Usage exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the basis of the actual, direct and exclusive use to which they are devoted are: (i) all lands buildings and improvements which are actually, directed and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purpose; (ii) all machineries and equipment actually, directly and exclusively used or by local water districts or by government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; and (iii) all machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.

To help provide a healthy environment in the midst of the modernization of the country, all machinery and equipment for pollution control and environmental protection may not be taxed by local governments.

2. Other Exemptions Withdrawn. All other exemptions previously granted to natural or juridical persons including government-owned or controlled corporations are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code. 26

Section 193 of the LGC is the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges. It provides:

Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. — Unless otherwise provided in this code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned, or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non stock and non profit hospitals and educational constitutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

On the other hand, the LGC authorizes local government units to grant tax exemption privileges. Thus, Section 192 thereof provides:

Sec. 192. Authority to Grant Tax Exemption Privileges. — Local government units may, through ordinances duly approved, grant tax exemptions, incentives or reliefs under such terms and conditions as they may deem necessary.

The foregoing sections of the LGC speaks of: (a) the limitations on the taxing powers of local government units and the exceptions to such limitations; and (b) the rule on tax exemptions and the exceptions thereto. The use of exceptions of provisos in these section, as shown by the following clauses:

(1) "unless otherwise provided herein" in the opening paragraph of Section 133;

(2) "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" in section 193;

(3) "not hereafter specifically exempted" in Section 232; and

(4) "Except as provided herein" in the last paragraph of Section 234

initially hampers a ready understanding of the sections. Note, too, that the aforementioned clause in section 133 seems to be inaccurately worded. Instead of the clause "unless otherwise provided herein," with the "herein" to mean, of course, the section, it should have used the clause "unless otherwise provided in this Code." The former results in absurdity since the section itself enumerates what are beyond the taxing powers of local government units and, where exceptions were intended, the exceptions were explicitly indicated in the text. For instance, in item (a) which excepts the income taxes "when livied on banks and other financial institutions", item (d) which excepts "wharfage on wharves constructed and maintained by the local government until concerned"; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees, and charges for the registration and issuance of license or permits for the driving of "tricycles". It may also be observed that within the body itself of the section, there are exceptions which can be found only in other parts of the LGC, but the section interchangeably uses therein the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the clause "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c) and (i), or the clause "excepts as provided in this Code" in item (j). These clauses would be obviously unnecessary or mere surplus-ages if the opening clause of the section were" "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" instead of "Unless otherwise provided herein". In any event, even if the latter is used, since under Section 232 local government units have the power to levy real property tax, except those exempted therefrom under Section 234, then Section 232 must be deemed to qualify Section 133.

Thus, reading together Section 133, 232 and 234 of the LGC, we conclude that as a general rule, as laid down in Section 133 the taxing powers of local government units cannot extend to the levy of inter alia, "taxes, fees, and charges of any kind of the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalties, and local government units"; however, pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila Area may impose the real property tax except on, inter alia, "real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial used thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person", as provided in item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234.

As to tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or juridical persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC prescribes the general rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC, except upon the effectivity of the LGC, except those granted to local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and unless otherwise provided in the LGC. The latter proviso could refer to Section 234, which enumerates the properties exempt from real property tax. But the last paragraph of Section 234 further qualifies the retention of the exemption in so far as the real property taxes are concerned by limiting the retention only to those enumerated there-in; all others not included in the enumeration lost the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC. Moreover, even as the real property is owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions covered by item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234, the exemption is withdrawn if the beneficial use of such property has been granted to taxable person for consideration or otherwise.

Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the LGC, exemptions from real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said section, and the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a government-owned corporation, it necessarily follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its charter, R.A. No. 6958, has been withdrawn. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek refuge under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234, but not under Section 133, as it now asserts, since, as shown above, the said section is qualified by Section 232 and 234.

In short, the petitioner can no longer invoke the general rule in Section 133 that the taxing powers of the local government units cannot extend to the levy of:

(o) taxes, fees, or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies, or instrumentalities, and local government units.

I must show that the parcels of land in question, which are real property, are any one of those enumerated in Section 234, either by virtue of ownership, character, or use of the property. Most likely, it could only be the first, but not under any explicit provision of the said section, for one exists. In light of the petitioner's theory that it is an "instrumentality of the

7

Government", it could only be within be first item of the first paragraph of the section by expanding the scope of the terms Republic of the Philippines" to embrace . . . . . . "instrumentalities" and "agencies" or expediency we quote:

(a) real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of the Philippines, or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.

This view does not persuade us. In the first place, the petitioner's claim that it is an instrumentality of the Government is based on Section 133(o), which expressly mentions the word "instrumentalities"; and in the second place it fails to consider the fact that the legislature used the phrase "National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities" "in Section 133(o),but only the phrase "Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivision "in Section 234(a).

The terms "Republic of the Philippines" and "National Government" are not interchangeable. The former is boarder and synonymous with "Government of the Republic of the Philippines" which the Administrative Code of the 1987 defines as the "corporate governmental entity though which the functions of the government are exercised through at the Philippines, including, saves as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous reason, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivision or other forms of local government." 27 These autonomous regions, provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions" are the political subdivision. 28

On the other hand, "National Government" refers "to the entire machinery of the central government, as distinguished from the different forms of local Governments." 29 The National Government then is composed of the three great departments the executive, the legislative and the judicial. 30

An "agency" of the Government refers to "any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein;" 31 while an "instrumentality" refers to "any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy; usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned and controlled corporations". 32

If Section 234(a) intended to extend the exception therein to the withdrawal of the exemption from payment of real property taxes under the last sentence of the said section to the agencies and instrumentalities of the National Government mentioned in Section 133(o), then it should have restated the wording of the latter. Yet, it did not Moreover, that Congress did not wish to expand the scope of the exemption in Section 234(a) to include real property owned by other instrumentalities or agencies of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations is further borne out by the fact that the source of this exemption is Section 40(a) of P.D. No. 646, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code, which reads:

Sec 40. Exemption from Real Property Tax. — The exemption shall be as follows:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned or controlled corporations so exempt by is charter: Provided, however, that this exemption shall not apply to real property of the above mentioned entities the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.

Note that as a reproduced in Section 234(a), the phrase "and any government-owned or controlled corporation so exempt by its charter" was excluded. The justification for this restricted exemption in Section 234(a) seems obvious: to limit further tax exemption privileges, specially in light of the general provision on withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property taxes in the last paragraph of property taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy considerations are consistent with the State policy to ensure autonomy to local governments 33 and the objective of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. 34 The power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise needed revenues to finance and

support myriad activities of local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. It may also be relevant to recall that the original reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted to government-owned and controlled corporations and all other units of government were that such privilege resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there was a need for this entities to share in the requirements of the development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes and other charges due from them. 35

The crucial issues then to be addressed are: (a) whether the parcels of land in question belong to the Republic of the Philippines whose beneficial use has been granted to the petitioner, and (b) whether the petitioner is a "taxable person".

Section 15 of the petitioner's Charter provides:

Sec. 15. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. — All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other properties, movable or immovable, belonging to or presently administered by the airports, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges relating on airport works, or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operations of air navigation, acrodrome control towers, crash, fire, and rescue facilities are hereby transferred to the Authority: Provided however, that the operations control of all equipment necessary for the operation of radio aids to air navigation, airways communication, the approach control office, and the area control center shall be retained by the Air Transportation Office. No equipment, however, shall be removed by the Air Transportation Office from Mactan without the concurrence of the authority. The authority may assist in the maintenance of the Air Transportation Office equipment.

The "airports" referred to are the "Lahug Air Port" in Cebu City and the "Mactan International AirPort in the Province of Cebu", 36 which belonged to the Republic of the Philippines, then under the Air Transportation Office (ATO). 37

It may be reasonable to assume that the term "lands" refer to "lands" in Cebu City then administered by the Lahug Air Port and includes the parcels of land the respondent City of Cebu seeks to levy on for real property taxes. This section involves a "transfer" of the "lands" among other things, to the petitioner and not just the transfer of the beneficial use thereof, with the ownership being retained by the Republic of the Philippines.

This "transfer" is actually an absolute conveyance of the ownership thereof because the petitioner's authorized capital stock consists of, inter alia "the value of such real estate owned and/or administered by the airports." 38 Hence, the petitioner is now the owner of the land in question and the exception in Section 234(c) of the LGC is inapplicable.

Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim that it was never a "taxable person" under its Charter. It was only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. The grant of the privilege only in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the legislative intent to make it a taxable person subject to all taxes, except real property tax.

Finally, even if the petitioner was originally not a taxable person for purposes of real property tax, in light of the forgoing disquisitions, it had already become even if it be conceded to be an "agency" or "instrumentality" of the Government, a taxable person for such purpose in view of the withdrawal in the last paragraph of Section 234 of exemptions from the payment of real property taxes, which, as earlier adverted to, applies to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the position taken by the petitioner is untenable. Reliance on Basco vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation 39 is unavailing since it was decided before the effectivity of the LGC. Besides, nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even instrumentalities or agencies of the government performing governmental functions may be subject to tax. Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate and national policy, no one can doubt its wisdom.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The challenged decision and order of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. CEB-16900 are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8

G.R. No. 155650             July 20, 2006

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF PARAÑAQUE, CITY MAYOR OF PARAÑAQUE, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD

NG PARAÑAQUE, CITY ASSESSOR OF PARAÑAQUE, and CITY TREASURER OF PARAÑAQUE, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Antecedents

Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex in Parañaque City under Executive Order No. 903, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority ("MIAA Charter"). Executive Order No. 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Subsequently, Executive Order Nos. 9091 and 2982 amended the MIAA Charter.

As operator of the international airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land,3 including the runways and buildings ("Airport Lands and Buildings") then under the Bureau of Air Transportation.4 The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.5

On 21 March 1997, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) issued Opinion No. 061. The OGCC opined that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption from real estate tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA Charter. Thus, MIAA negotiated with respondent City of Parañaque to pay the real estate tax imposed by the City. MIAA then paid some of the real estate tax already due.

On 28 June 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of Parañaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA's real estate tax delinquency is broken down as follows:

TAX DECLARATION

TAXABLE YEAR TAX DUE PENALTY TOTAL

E-016-01370 1992-2001 19,558,160.00 11,201,083.20 30,789,243.20

E-016-01374 1992-2001 111,689,424.90 68,149,479.59 179,838,904.49

E-016-01375 1992-2001 20,276,058.00 12,371,832.00 32,647,890.00

E-016-01376 1992-2001 58,144,028.00 35,477,712.00 93,621,740.00

E-016-01377 1992-2001 18,134,614.65 11,065,188.59 29,199,803.24

E-016-01378 1992-2001 111,107,950.40 67,794,681.59 178,902,631.99

E-016-01379 1992-2001 4,322,340.00 2,637,360.00 6,959,700.00

E-016-01380 1992-2001 7,776,436.00 4,744,944.00 12,521,380.00

*E-016-013-85 1998-2001 6,444,810.00 2,900,164.50 9,344,974.50

*E-016-01387 1998-2001 34,876,800.00 5,694,560.00 50,571,360.00

*E-016-01396 1998-2001 75,240.00 33,858.00 109,098.00

GRAND TOTAL P392,435,861.95 P232,070,863.47 P 624,506,725.42

1992-1997 RPT was paid on Dec. 24, 1997 as per O.R.#9476102 for P4,207,028.75

#9476101 for P28,676,480.00

#9476103 for P49,115.006

On 17 July 2001, the City of Parañaque, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Parañaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA thus sought a clarification of OGCC Opinion No. 061.

On 9 August 2001, the OGCC issued Opinion No. 147 clarifying OGCC Opinion No. 061. The OGCC pointed out that Section 206 of the Local Government Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax.

On 1 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66878.

On 5 October 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because MIAA filed it beyond the 60-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals also denied on 27 September 2002 MIAA's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. Hence, MIAA filed on 5 December 2002 the present petition for review.7

Meanwhile, in January 2003, the City of Parañaque posted notices of auction sale at the Barangay Halls of Barangays Vitalez, Sto. Niño, and Tambo, Parañaque City; in the public market of Barangay La Huerta; and in the main lobby of the Parañaque City Hall. The City of Parañaque published the notices in the 3 and 10 January 2003 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The notices announced the public auction sale of the Airport Lands and Buildings to the highest bidder on 7 February 2003, 10:00 a.m., at the Legislative Session Hall Building of Parañaque City.

A day before the public auction, or on 6 February 2003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA filed before this Court an Urgent Ex-Parte and Reiteratory Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. The motion sought to restrain respondents — the City of Parañaque, City Mayor of Parañaque, Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Parañaque, City Treasurer of Parañaque, and the City Assessor of Parañaque ("respondents") — from auctioning the Airport Lands and Buildings.

On 7 February 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately. The Court ordered respondents to cease and desist from selling at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings. Respondents received the TRO on the same day that the Court issued it. However, respondents received the TRO only at 1:25 p.m. or three hours after the conclusion of the public auction.

On 10 February 2003, this Court issued a Resolution confirming nunc pro tunc the TRO.

On 29 March 2005, the Court heard the parties in oral arguments. In compliance with the directive issued during the hearing, MIAA, respondent City of Parañaque, and the Solicitor General subsequently submitted their respective Memoranda.

MIAA admits that the MIAA Charter has placed the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in the name of MIAA. However, MIAA points out that it cannot claim ownership over these properties since the real owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings is the Republic of the Philippines. The MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to devote the Airport Lands and Buildings for the benefit of the general public. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use and public service, the ownership of these properties remains with the State. The Airport Lands and Buildings are thus inalienable and are not subject to real estate tax by local governments.

MIAA also points out that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter specifically exempts MIAA from the payment of real estate tax. MIAA insists that it is also exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code because the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic. To justify the exemption, MIAA invokes the principle that the government cannot tax itself. MIAA points out that the reason for tax exemption of public property is that its taxation would not inure to any public advantage, since in such a case the tax debtor is also the tax creditor.

Respondents invoke Section 193 of the Local Government Code, which expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of "government-owned and-controlled corporations" upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Respondents also argue that a basic rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one person, thing, or act excludes all others. An international airport is not among the exceptions mentioned in Section 193 of the Local Government Code. Thus, respondents assert that MIAA cannot claim that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax.

Respondents also cite the ruling of this Court in Mactan International Airport v. Marcos8 where we held that the Local Government Code has withdrawn the exemption from real estate tax granted to international airports. Respondents further argue that since MIAA has already paid some of the real estate tax assessments, it is now estopped from claiming that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax.

9

The Issue

This petition raises the threshold issue of whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing laws. If so exempt, then the real estate tax assessments issued by the City of Parañaque, and all proceedings taken pursuant to such assessments, are void. In such event, the other issues raised in this petition become moot.

The Court's Ruling

We rule that MIAA's Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax imposed by local governments.

First, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation. Second, the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax.

1. MIAA is Not a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation

Respondents argue that MIAA, being a government-owned or controlled corporation, is not exempt from real estate tax. Respondents claim that the deletion of the phrase "any government-owned or controlled so exempt by its charter" in Section 234(e) of the Local Government Code withdrew the real estate tax exemption of government-owned or controlled corporations. The deleted phrase appeared in Section 40(a) of the 1974 Real Property Tax Code enumerating the entities exempt from real estate tax.

There is no dispute that a government-owned or controlled corporation is not exempt from real estate tax. However, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. – x x x x

(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Section 10 of the MIAA Charter9provides:

SECTION 10. Capital. — The capital of the Authority to be contributed by the National Government shall be increased from Two and One-half Billion (P2,500,000,000.00) Pesos to Ten Billion (P10,000,000,000.00) Pesos to consist of:

(a) The value of fixed assets including airport facilities, runways and equipment and such other properties, movable and immovable[,] which may be contributed by the National Government or transferred by it from any of its agencies, the valuation of which shall be determined jointly with the Department of Budget and Management and the Commission on Audit on the date of such contribution or transfer after making due allowances for depreciation and other deductions taking into account the loans and other liabilities of the Authority at the time of the takeover of the assets and other properties;

(b) That the amount of P605 million as of December 31, 1986 representing about seventy percentum (70%) of the unremitted share of the National Government from 1983 to 1986 to be remitted to the National Treasury as provided for in Section 11 of E. O. No. 903 as amended, shall be converted into the equity of the National Government in the Authority. Thereafter, the Government contribution to the capital of the Authority shall be provided in the General Appropriations Act.

Clearly, under its Charter, MIAA does not have capital stock that is divided into shares.

Section 3 of the Corporation Code10 defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation.

MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury.11 This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation.

Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary, scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use.

Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government?

MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code defines a government "instrumentality" as follows:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. –– x x x x

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,12 police authority13 and the levying of fees and charges.14 At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."15

Likewise, when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not integrated with the department framework. The MIAA Charter expressly states that transforming MIAA into a "separate and autonomous body"16 will make its operation more "financially viable."17

Many government instrumentalities are vested with corporate powers but they do not become stock or non-stock corporations, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Examples are the Mactan International Airport Authority, the Philippine Ports Authority, the University of the Philippines and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. All these government instrumentalities exercise corporate powers but they are not organized as stock or non-stock corporations as required by Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. These government instrumentalities are sometimes loosely called government corporate entities. However, they are not government-owned or controlled corporations in the strict sense as understood under the Administrative Code, which is the governing law defining the legal relationship and status of government entities.

A government instrumentality like MIAA falls under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which states:

SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. – Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

x x x x

10

(o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and local government units.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Section 133(o) recognizes the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. While the 1987 Constitution now includes taxation as one of the powers of local governments, local governments may only exercise such power "subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide."18

When local governments invoke the power to tax on national government instrumentalities, such power is construed strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the tax. Any doubt whether a person, article or activity is taxable is resolved against taxation. This rule applies with greater force when local governments seek to tax national government instrumentalities.

Another rule is that a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming the exemption. However, when Congress grants an exemption to a national government instrumentality from local taxation, such exemption is construed liberally in favor of the national government instrumentality. As this Court declared in Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr.:

The reason for the rule does not apply in the case of exemptions running to the benefit of the government itself or its agencies. In such case the practical effect of an exemption is merely to reduce the amount of money that has to be handled by government in the course of its operations. For these reasons, provisions granting exemptions to government agencies may be construed liberally, in favor of non tax-liability of such agencies.19

There is, moreover, no point in national and local governments taxing each other, unless a sound and compelling policy requires such transfer of public funds from one government pocket to another.

There is also no reason for local governments to tax national government instrumentalities for rendering essential public services to inhabitants of local governments. The only exception is when the legislature clearly intended to tax government instrumentalities for the delivery of essential public services for sound and compelling policy considerations. There must be express language in the law empowering local governments to tax national government instrumentalities. Any doubt whether such power exists is resolved against local governments.

Thus, Section 133 of the Local Government Code states that "unless otherwise provided" in the Code, local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. As this Court held in Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation:

The states have no power by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operation of constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the federal government. (MC Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed. 579)

This doctrine emanates from the "supremacy" of the National Government over local governments.

"Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court, made reference to the entire absence of power on the part of the States to touch, in that way (taxation) at least, the instrumentalities of the United States (Johnson v. Maryland, 254 US 51) and it can be agreed that no state or political subdivision can regulate a federal instrumentality in such a way as to prevent it from consummating its federal responsibilities, or even to seriously burden it in the accomplishment of them." (Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, p. 140, emphasis supplied)

Otherwise, mere creatures of the State can defeat National policies thru extermination of what local authorities may perceive to be undesirable activities or enterprise using the power to tax as "a tool for regulation" (U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 US 42).

The power to tax which was called by Justice Marshall as the "power to destroy" (Mc Culloch v. Maryland, supra) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it. 20

2. Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are Owned by the Republic

a. Airport Lands and Buildings are of Public Dominion

The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.

ARTICLE 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads.

The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one "intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road.

The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed user's tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility. A user's tax is more equitable — a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987 Constitution.21

The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, which its Charter calls the "principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic,"22 are properties of public dominion because they are intended for public use. As properties of public dominion, they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

b. Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man

The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are outside the commerce of man. The Court has ruled repeatedly that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man. As early as 1915, this Court already ruled in Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas that properties devoted to public use are outside the commerce of man, thus:

According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and

11

public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces."

The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do.

The Civil Code, article 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 1895, which says: "Communal things that cannot be sold because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc." (Emphasis supplied) 23

Again in Espiritu v. Municipal Council, the Court declared that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man:

xxx Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals, as was done and as was tolerated by the Municipality of Pozorrubio, when the emergency has ceased, said temporary occupation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town plazas should ever be kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions.24 (Emphasis supplied)

The Court has also ruled that property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be the subject of an auction sale.25

Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the City of Parañaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real estate tax.

Before MIAA can encumber26 the Airport Lands and Buildings, the President must first withdraw from public use the Airport Lands and Buildings. Sections 83 and 88 of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which "remains to this day the existing general law governing the classification and disposition of lands of the public domain other than timber and mineral lands,"27 provide:

SECTION 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purposes, or for quasi-public uses or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or lequas communales, public parks, public quarries, public fishponds, working men's village and other improvements for the public benefit.

SECTION 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of Section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Thus, unless the President issues a proclamation withdrawing the Airport Lands and Buildings from public use, these properties remain properties of public dominion and are inalienable. Since the Airport Lands and Buildings are inalienable in their present status as properties of public dominion, they are not subject to levy on execution or foreclosure sale. As long as the

Airport Lands and Buildings are reserved for public use, their ownership remains with the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The authority of the President to reserve lands of the public domain for public use, and to withdraw such public use, is reiterated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which states:

SEC. 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. — (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation;

x x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

There is no question, therefore, that unless the Airport Lands and Buildings are withdrawn by law or presidential proclamation from public use, they are properties of public dominion, owned by the Republic and outside the commerce of man.

c. MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic

MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic, thus:

SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. — Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following:

(1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer.

(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied)

In MIAA's case, its status as a mere trustee of the Airport Lands and Buildings is clearer because even its executive head cannot sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the Republic. Only the President of the Republic can sign such deed of conveyance.28

d. Transfer to MIAA was Meant to Implement a Reorganization

The MIAA Charter, which is a law, transferred to MIAA the title to the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation of the Department of Transportation and Communications. The MIAA Charter provides:

SECTION 3. Creation of the Manila International Airport Authority. — x x x x

The land where the Airport is presently located as well as the surrounding land area of approximately six hundred hectares, are hereby transferred, conveyed and assigned to the ownership and administration of the Authority, subject to existing rights, if any. The Bureau of Lands and other appropriate government agencies shall undertake an actual survey of the area transferred within one year from the promulgation of this Executive Order and the corresponding title to be issued in the name of the Authority. Any portion thereof shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

SECTION 22. Transfer of Existing Facilities and Intangible Assets. — All existing public airport facilities, runways, lands, buildings and other property, movable or immovable, belonging to the Airport, and all assets, powers, rights, interests and privileges belonging to the Bureau of Air Transportation relating to airport works or air operations, including all equipment which are necessary for the operation of crash fire and rescue facilities, are hereby transferred to the Authority. (Emphasis supplied)

SECTION 25. Abolition of the Manila International Airport as a Division in the Bureau of Air Transportation and Transitory Provisions. — The Manila International Airport including the Manila Domestic Airport as a division under the Bureau of Air Transportation is hereby abolished.

12

x x x x.

The MIAA Charter transferred the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA without the Republic receiving cash, promissory notes or even stock since MIAA is not a stock corporation.

The whereas clauses of the MIAA Charter explain the rationale for the transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings to MIAA, thus:

WHEREAS, the Manila International Airport as the principal airport of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic, is required to provide standards of airport accommodation and service comparable with the best airports in the world;

WHEREAS, domestic and other terminals, general aviation and other facilities, have to be upgraded to meet the current and future air traffic and other demands of aviation in Metro Manila;

WHEREAS, a management and organization study has indicated that the objectives of providing high standards of accommodation and service within the context of a financially viable operation, will best be achieved by a separate and autonomous body; and

WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, the President of the Philippines is given continuing authority to reorganize the National Government, which authority includes the creation of new entities, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government[.] (Emphasis supplied)

The transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation to MIAA was not meant to transfer beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to MIAA. The purpose was merely to reorganize a division in the Bureau of Air Transportation into a separate and autonomous body. The Republic remains the beneficial owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings. MIAA itself is owned solely by the Republic. No party claims any ownership rights over MIAA's assets adverse to the Republic.

The MIAA Charter expressly provides that the Airport Lands and Buildings "shall not be disposed through sale or through any other mode unless specifically approved by the President of the Philippines." This only means that the Republic retained the beneficial ownership of the Airport Lands and Buildings because under Article 428 of the Civil Code, only the "owner has the right to x x x dispose of a thing." Since MIAA cannot dispose of the Airport Lands and Buildings, MIAA does not own the Airport Lands and Buildings.

At any time, the President can transfer back to the Republic title to the Airport Lands and Buildings without the Republic paying MIAA any consideration. Under Section 3 of the MIAA Charter, the President is the only one who can authorize the sale or disposition of the Airport Lands and Buildings. This only confirms that the Airport Lands and Buildings belong to the Republic.

e. Real Property Owned by the Republic is Not Taxable

Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code exempts from real estate tax any "[r]eal property owned by the Republic of the Philippines." Section 234(a) provides:

SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. — The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person;

x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

This exemption should be read in relation with Section 133(o) of the same Code, which prohibits local governments from imposing "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies andinstrumentalities x x x." The real properties owned by the Republic are titled either in the name of the Republic itself or in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the National Government. The Administrative Code allows real property owned by the Republic to be titled in the name of agencies or instrumentalities of the national government. Such real properties remain owned by the Republic and continue to be exempt from real estate tax.

The Republic may grant the beneficial use of its real property to an agency or instrumentality of the national government. This happens when title of the real property is transferred to an agency or instrumentality even as the Republic remains the owner of the real property. Such

arrangement does not result in the loss of the tax exemption. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code states that real property owned by the Republic loses its tax exemption only if the "beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." MIAA, as a government instrumentality, is not a taxable person under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Thus, even if we assume that the Republic has granted to MIAA the beneficial use of the Airport Lands and Buildings, such fact does not make these real properties subject to real estate tax.

However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. For example, the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax. In such a case, MIAA has granted the beneficial use of such land area for a consideration to ataxable person and therefore such land area is subject to real estate tax. In Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, the Court ruled:

Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes. On the other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.29

3. Refutation of Arguments of Minority

The minority asserts that the MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax because Section 193 of the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the tax exemption of "all persons, whether natural or juridical" upon the effectivity of the Code. Section 193 provides:

SEC. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges – Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions are hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

The minority states that MIAA is indisputably a juridical person. The minority argues that since the Local Government Code withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons, then MIAA is not exempt from real estate tax. Thus, the minority declares:

It is evident from the quoted provisions of the Local Government Code that the withdrawn exemptions from realty tax cover not just GOCCs, but all persons. To repeat, the provisions lay down the explicit proposition that the withdrawal of realty tax exemption applies to all persons. The reference to or the inclusion of GOCCs is only clarificatory or illustrative of the explicit provision.

The term "All persons" encompasses the two classes of persons recognized under our laws, natural and juridical persons. Obviously, MIAA is not a natural person. Thus, the determinative test is not just whether MIAA is a GOCC, but whether MIAA is a juridical person at all. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

The minority posits that the "determinative test" whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is its status — whether MIAA is a juridical person or not. The minority also insists that "Sections 193 and 234 may be examined in isolation from Section 133(o) to ascertain MIAA's claim of exemption."

The argument of the minority is fatally flawed. Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption of all juridical persons "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." Now, Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code expressly provides otherwise, specifically prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) states:

SEC. 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. – Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

x x x x

(o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kinds on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

13

By express mandate of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot impose any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities like the MIAA. Local governments are devoid of power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. The taxing powers of local governments do not extend to the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code" as stated in the saving clause of Section 133. The saving clause refers to Section 234(a) on the exception to the exemption from real estate tax of real property owned by the Republic.

The minority, however, theorizes that unless exempted in Section 193 itself, all juridical persons are subject to tax by local governments. The minority insists that the juridical persons exempt from local taxation are limited to the three classes of entities specifically enumerated as exempt in Section 193. Thus, the minority states:

x x x Under Section 193, the exemption is limited to (a) local water districts; (b) cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938; and (c) non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. It would be belaboring the obvious why the MIAA does not fall within any of the exempt entities under Section 193. (Emphasis supplied)

The minority's theory directly contradicts and completely negates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. This theory will result in gross absurdities. It will make the national government, which itself is a juridical person, subject to tax by local governments since the national government is not included in the enumeration of exempt entities in Section 193. Under this theory, local governments can impose any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax, on the national government.

Under the minority's theory, many national government instrumentalities with juridical personalities will also be subject to any kind of local tax, and not only real estate tax. Some of the national government instrumentalities vested by law with juridical personalities are: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,30 Philippine Rice Research Institute,31Laguna Lake

Development Authority,32 Fisheries Development Authority,33 Bases Conversion Development Authority,34Philippine Ports Authority,35 Cagayan de Oro Port Authority,36 San Fernando Port Authority,37 Cebu Port Authority,38 and Philippine National Railways.39

The minority's theory violates Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code which expressly prohibits local governments from imposing any kind of tax on national government instrumentalities. Section 133(o) does not distinguish between national government instrumentalities with or without juridical personalities. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Thus, Section 133(o) applies to all national government instrumentalities, with or without juridical personalities. The determinative test whether MIAA is exempt from local taxation is not whether MIAA is a juridical person, but whether it is a national government instrumentality under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. Section 133(o) is the specific provision of law prohibiting local governments from imposing any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities.

Section 133 of the Local Government Code starts with the saving clause "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This means that unless the Local Government Code grants an express authorization, local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. Clearly, the rule is local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. As an exception to this rule, local governments may tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities only if the Local Government Code expressly so provides.

The saving clause in Section 133 refers to the exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) of the Code, which makes the national government subject to real estate tax when it gives the beneficial use of its real properties to a taxable entity. Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code provides:

SEC. 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.

x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Under Section 234(a), real property owned by the Republic is exempt from real estate tax. The exception to this exemption is when the government gives the beneficial use of the real property to a taxable entity.

The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) is the only instance when the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities are subject to any kind of tax by local governments. The exception to the exemption applies only to real estate tax and not to any other tax. The justification for the exception to the exemption is that the real property, although owned by the Republic, is not devoted to public use or public service but devoted to the private gain of a taxable person.

The minority also argues that since Section 133 precedes Section 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, the later provisions prevail over Section 133. Thus, the minority asserts:

x x x Moreover, sequentially Section 133 antecedes Section 193 and 234. Following an accepted rule of construction, in case of conflict the subsequent provisions should prevail. Therefore, MIAA, as a juridical person, is subject to real property taxes, the general exemptions attaching to instrumentalities under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code being qualified by Sections 193 and 234 of the same law. (Emphasis supplied)

The minority assumes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between Section 133 on one hand, and Sections 193 and 234 on the other. No one has urged that there is such a conflict, much less has any one presenteda persuasive argument that there is such a conflict. The minority's assumption of an irreconcilable conflict in the statutory provisions is an egregious error for two reasons.

First, there is no conflict whatsoever between Sections 133 and 193 because Section 193 expressly admits its subordination to other provisions of the Code when Section 193 states "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." By its own words, Section 193 admits the superiority of other provisions of the Local Government Code that limit the exercise of the taxing power in Section 193. When a provision of law grants a power but withholds such power on certain matters, there is no conflict between the grant of power and the withholding of power. The grantee of the power simply cannot exercise the power on matters withheld from its power.

Second, Section 133 is entitled "Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units." Section 133 limits the grant to local governments of the power to tax, and not merely the exercise of a delegated power to tax. Section 133 states that the taxing powers of local governments "shall not extend to the levy" of any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities. There is no clearer limitation on the taxing power than this.

Since Section 133 prescribes the "common limitations" on the taxing powers of local governments, Section 133 logically prevails over Section 193 which grants local governments such taxing powers. By their very meaning and purpose, the "common limitations" on the taxing power prevail over the grant or exercise of the taxing power. If the taxing power of local governments in Section 193 prevails over the limitations on such taxing power in Section 133, then local governments can impose any kind of tax on the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities — a gross absurdity.

Local governments have no power to tax the national government, its agencies and instrumentalities, except as otherwise provided in the Local Government Code pursuant to the saving clause in Section 133 stating "[u]nless otherwise provided in this Code." This exception — which is an exception to the exemption of the Republic from real estate tax imposed by local governments — refers to Section 234(a) of the Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) subjects real property owned by the Republic, whether titled in the name of the national government, its agencies or instrumentalities, to real estate tax if the beneficial use of such property is given to a taxable entity.

The minority also claims that the definition in the Administrative Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" is not controlling. The minority points out that Section 2 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code admits that its definitions are not controlling when it provides:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. — Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, shall require a different meaning:

14

x x x x

The minority then concludes that reliance on the Administrative Code definition is "flawed."

The minority's argument is a non sequitur. True, Section 2 of the Administrative Code recognizes that a statute may require a different meaning than that defined in the Administrative Code. However, this does not automatically mean that the definition in the Administrative Code does not apply to the Local Government Code. Section 2 of the Administrative Code clearly states that "unless the specific words x x x of a particular statute shall require a different meaning," the definition in Section 2 of the Administrative Code shall apply. Thus, unless there is specific language in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code, the definition in the Administrative Code prevails.

The minority does not point to any provision in the Local Government Code defining the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" differently from the definition in the Administrative Code. Indeed, there is none. The Local Government Code is silent on the definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The Administrative Code, however, expressly defines the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation." The inescapable conclusion is that the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" applies to the Local Government Code.

The third whereas clause of the Administrative Code states that the Code "incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles and rules of governance." Thus, the Administrative Code is the governing law defining the status and relationship of government departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities. Unless a statute expressly provides for a different status and relationship for a specific government unit or entity, the provisions of the Administrative Code prevail.

The minority also contends that the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" should apply only to corporations organized under the Corporation Code, the general incorporation law, and not to corporations created by special charters. The minority sees no reason why government corporations with special charters should have a capital stock. Thus, the minority declares:

I submit that the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" under the Administrative Code refer to those corporations owned by the government or its instrumentalities which are created not by legislative enactment, but formed and organized under the Corporation Code through registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In short, these are GOCCs without original charters.

x x x x

It might as well be worth pointing out that there is no point in requiring a capital structure for GOCCs whose full ownership is limited by its charter to the State or Republic. Such GOCCs are not empowered to declare dividends or alienate their capital shares.

The contention of the minority is seriously flawed. It is not in accord with the Constitution and existing legislations. It will also result in gross absurdities.

First, the Administrative Code definition of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" does not distinguish between one incorporated under the Corporation Code or under a special charter. Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish.

Second, Congress has created through special charters several government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations. Prime examples are the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. The special charter40 of the Land Bank of the Philippines provides:

SECTION 81. Capital. — The authorized capital stock of the Bank shall be nine billion pesos, divided into seven hundred and eighty million common shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be fully subscribed by the Government, and one hundred and twenty million preferred shares with a par value of ten pesos each, which shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-seven and eighty-three of this Code. (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise, the special charter41 of the Development Bank of the Philippines provides:

SECTION 7. Authorized Capital Stock – Par value. — The capital stock of the Bank shall be Five Billion Pesos to be divided into Fifty Million common shares with par value of P100 per share. These shares are available for subscription by the National Government. Upon the effectivity of this Charter, the National Government shall subscribe to Twenty-Five Million common shares of stock worth Two Billion Five Hundred Million which shall be deemed paid for by the Government with the net asset values of the Bank remaining after the transfer of assets and liabilities as provided in Section 30 hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Other government-owned corporations organized as stock corporations under their special charters are the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation,42 Philippine International Trading Corporation,43 and the Philippine National Bank44 before it was reorganized as a stock corporation under the Corporation Code. All these government-owned corporations organized under special charters as stock corporations are subject to real estate tax on real properties owned by them. To rule that they are not government-owned or controlled corporations because they are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission would remove them from the reach of Section 234 of the Local Government Code, thus exempting them from real estate tax.

Third, the government-owned or controlled corporations created through special charters are those that meet the two conditions prescribed in Section 16, Article XII of the Constitution. The first condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must be established for the common good. The second condition is that the government-owned or controlled corporation must meet the test of economic viability. Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SEC. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may be created or established by special charters in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Constitution expressly authorizes the legislature to create "government-owned or controlled corporations" through special charters only if these entities are required to meet the twin conditions of common good and economic viability. In other words, Congress has no power to create government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters unless they are made to comply with the two conditions of common good and economic viability. The test of economic viability applies only to government-owned or controlled corporations that perform economic or commercial activities and need to compete in the market place. Being essentially economic vehicles of the State for the common good — meaning for economic development purposes — these government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters are usually organized as stock corporations just like ordinary private corporations.

In contrast, government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and performing governmental or public functions need not meet the test of economic viability. These instrumentalities perform essential public services for the common good, services that every modern State must provide its citizens. These instrumentalities need not be economically viable since the government may even subsidize their entire operations. These instrumentalities are not the "government-owned or controlled corporations" referred to in Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

Thus, the Constitution imposes no limitation when the legislature creates government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers but performing essential governmental or public functions. Congress has plenary authority to create government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers provided these instrumentalities perform essential government functions or public services. However, when the legislature creates through special charters corporations that perform economic or commercial activities, such entities — known as "government-owned or controlled corporations" — must meet the test of economic viability because they compete in the market place.

This is the situation of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines and similar government-owned or controlled corporations, which derive their income to meet operating expenses solely from commercial transactions in competition with the private sector. The intent of the Constitution is to prevent the creation of government-

15

owned or controlled corporations that cannot survive on their own in the market place and thus merely drain the public coffers.

Commissioner Blas F. Ople, proponent of the test of economic viability, explained to the Constitutional Commission the purpose of this test, as follows:

MR. OPLE: Madam President, the reason for this concern is really that when the government creates a corporation, there is a sense in which this corporation becomes exempt from the test of economic performance. We know what happened in the past. If a government corporation loses, then it makes its claim upon the taxpayers' money through new equity infusions from the government and what is always invoked is the common good. That is the reason why this year, out of a budget of P115 billion for the entire government, about P28 billion of this will go into equity infusions to support a few government financial institutions. And this is all taxpayers' money which could have been relocated to agrarian reform, to social services like health and education, to augment the salaries of grossly underpaid public employees. And yet this is all going down the drain.

Therefore, when we insert the phrase "ECONOMIC VIABILITY" together with the "common good," this becomes a restraint on future enthusiasts for state capitalism to excuse themselves from the responsibility of meeting the market test so that they become viable. And so, Madam President, I reiterate, for the committee's consideration and I am glad that I am joined in this proposal by Commissioner Foz, the insertion of the standard of "ECONOMIC VIABILITY OR THE ECONOMIC TEST," together with the common good.45

Father Joaquin G. Bernas, a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, explains in his textbook The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary:

The second sentence was added by the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The significant addition, however, is the phrase "in the interest of the common good and subject to the test of economic viability." The addition includes the ideas that they must show capacity to function efficiently in business and that they should not go into activities which the private sector can do better. Moreover, economic viability is more than financial viability but also includes capability to make profit and generate benefits not quantifiable in financial terms.46 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the test of economic viability does not apply to government entities vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services. The State is obligated to render essential public services regardless of the economic viability of providing such service. The non-economic viability of rendering such essential public service does not excuse the State from withholding such essential services from the public.

However, government-owned or controlled corporations with special charters, organized essentially for economic or commercial objectives, must meet the test of economic viability. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations that are usually organized under their special charters as stock corporations, like the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines. These are the government-owned or controlled corporations, along with government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code, that fall under the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporations" in Section 2(10) of the Administrative Code.

The MIAA need not meet the test of economic viability because the legislature did not create MIAA to compete in the market place. MIAA does not compete in the market place because there is no competing international airport operated by the private sector. MIAA performs an essential public service as the primary domestic and international airport of the Philippines. The operation of an international airport requires the presence of personnel from the following government agencies:

1. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, to document the arrival and departure of passengers, screening out those without visas or travel documents, or those with hold departure orders;

2. The Bureau of Customs, to collect import duties or enforce the ban on prohibited importations;

3. The quarantine office of the Department of Health, to enforce health measures against the spread of infectious diseases into the country;

4. The Department of Agriculture, to enforce measures against the spread of plant and animal diseases into the country;

5. The Aviation Security Command of the Philippine National Police, to prevent the entry of terrorists and the escape of criminals, as well as to secure the airport premises from terrorist attack or seizure;

6. The Air Traffic Office of the Department of Transportation and Communications, to authorize aircraft to enter or leave Philippine airspace, as well as to land on, or take off from, the airport; and

7. The MIAA, to provide the proper premises — such as runway and buildings — for the government personnel, passengers, and airlines, and to manage the airport operations.

All these agencies of government perform government functions essential to the operation of an international airport.

MIAA performs an essential public service that every modern State must provide its citizens. MIAA derives its revenues principally from the mandatory fees and charges MIAA imposes on passengers and airlines. The terminal fees that MIAA charges every passenger are regulatory or administrative fees47 and not income from commercial transactions.

MIAA falls under the definition of a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which provides:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. – x x x x

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

The fact alone that MIAA is endowed with corporate powers does not make MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation. Without a change in its capital structure, MIAA remains a government instrumentality under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. More importantly, as long as MIAA renders essential public services, it need not comply with the test of economic viability. Thus, MIAA is outside the scope of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporations" under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

The minority belittles the use in the Local Government Code of the phrase "government-owned or controlled corporation" as merely "clarificatory or illustrative." This is fatal. The 1987 Constitution prescribes explicit conditions for the creation of "government-owned or controlled corporations." The Administrative Code defines what constitutes a "government-owned or controlled corporation." To belittle this phrase as "clarificatory or illustrative" is grave error.

To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity.

Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

16

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied)

The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code.

4. Conclusion

Under Section 2(10) and (13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code, which governs the legal relation and status of government units, agencies and offices within the entire government machinery, MIAA is a government instrumentality and not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, MIAA as a government instrumentality is not a taxable person because it is not subject to "[t]axes, fees or charges of any kind" by local governments. The only exception is when MIAA leases its real property to a "taxable person" as provided in Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, in which case the specific real property leased becomes subject to real estate tax. Thus, only portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real estate tax by the City of Parañaque.

Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, being devoted to public use, are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. Article 420 specifically mentions "ports x x x constructed by the State," which includes public airports and seaports, as properties of public dominion and owned by the Republic. As properties of public dominion owned by the Republic, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Airport Lands and Buildings are expressly exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. This Court has also repeatedly ruled that properties of public dominion are not subject to execution or foreclosure sale.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals of 5 October 2001 and 27 September 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66878. We DECLARE the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from the real estate tax imposed by the City of Parañaque. We declare VOID all the real estate tax assessments, including the final notices of real estate tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Parañaque on the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties. We also declare VOID the assailed auction sale, and all its effects, of the Airport Lands and Buildings of the Manila International Airport Authority.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 163072               April 2, 2009

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF PASAY, SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD NG PASAY, CITY MAYOR OF PASAY, CITY

TREASURER OF PASAY, and CITY ASSESSOR OF PASAY, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 of the Decision2 dated 30 October 2002 and the Resolution dated 19 March 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67416.

The Facts

Petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates and administers the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Complex under Executive Order No. 903 (EO 903),3 otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the Manila International Airport Authority. EO 903 was issued on 21 July 1983 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Under Sections 34 and 225 of EO 903, approximately 600 hectares of land, including the runways, the airport tower, and other airport buildings, were transferred to MIAA. The NAIA Complex is located along the border between Pasay City and Parañaque City.

On 28 August 2001, MIAA received Final Notices of Real Property Tax Delinquency from the City of Pasay for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA’s real property tax delinquency for its real properties located in NAIA Complex, Ninoy Aquino Avenue, Pasay City (NAIA Pasay properties) is tabulated as follows:

TAX DECLA-RATION TAXABLE YEAR

TAX DUE PENALTY TOTAL

A7-183-08346 1997-2001 243,522,855.00 123,351,728.18 366,874,583.18

A7-183-05224 1992-2001 113,582,466.00 71,159,414.98 184,741,880.98

A7-191-00843 1992-2001 54,454,800.00 34,115,932.20 88,570,732.20

A7-191-00140 1992-2001 1,632,960.00 1,023,049.44 2,656,009.44

A7-191-00139 1992-2001 6,068,448.00 3,801,882.85 9,870,330.85

A7-183-05409 1992-2001 59,129,520.00 37,044,644.28 96,174,164.28

A7-183-05410 1992-2001 20,619,720.00 12,918,254.58 33,537,974.58

A7-183-05413 1992-2001 7,908,240.00 4,954,512.36 12,862,752.36

A7-183-05412 1992-2001 18,441,981.20 11,553,901.13 29,995,882.33

A7-183-05411 1992-2001 109,946,736.00 68,881,630.13 178,828,366.13

A7-183-05245 1992-2001 7,440,000.00 4,661,160.00 12,101,160.00

GRAND TOTAL P642,747,726.20

P373,466,110.13

P1,016,213,836.33

On 24 August 2001, the City of Pasay, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy for the NAIA Pasay properties. MIAA received the notices and warrants of levy on 28 August 2001. Thereafter, the City Mayor of Pasay threatened to sell at public auction the NAIA Pasay properties if the delinquent real property taxes remain unpaid.

On 29 October 2001, MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to enjoin the City of Pasay from imposing real property taxes on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the NAIA Pasay properties.

On 30 October 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the power of the City of Pasay to impose and collect realty taxes on the NAIA Pasay properties. MIAA filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied. Hence, this petition.

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that Sections 193 and 234 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code, which took effect on 1 January 1992, withdrew the exemption from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under Republic Act No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions. Since MIAA is a government-owned corporation, it follows that its tax exemption under Section 21 of EO 903 has been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code.

The Issue

The issue raised in this petition is whether the NAIA Pasay properties of MIAA are exempt from real property tax.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

In ruling that MIAA is not exempt from paying real property tax, the Court of Appeals cited Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code which read:

SECTION 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. – Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local

17

water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise to a taxable person;

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes;

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;

(d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and

(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environment protection.

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

The Court of Appeals held that as a government-owned corporation, MIAA’s tax exemption under Section 21 of EO 903 has already been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code in 1992.

In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals6 (2006 MIAA case), this Court already resolved the issue of whether the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are exempt from tax under existing laws. The 2006 MIAA case originated from a petition for prohibition and injunction which MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals, seeking to restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real property tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the airport lands and buildings located in Parañaque City. The only difference between the 2006 MIAA case and this case is that the 2006 MIAA case involved airport lands and buildings located in Parañaque City while this case involved airport lands and buildings located in Pasay City. The 2006 MIAA case and this case raised the same threshold issue: whether the local government can impose real property tax on the airport lands, consisting mostly of the runways, as well as the airport buildings, of MIAA. In the 2006 MIAA case, this Court held:

To summarize, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code because it is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. Neither is MIAA a government-owned or controlled corporation under Section 16, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because MIAA is not required to meet the test of economic viability. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers and performing essential public services pursuant to Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code. As a government instrumentality, MIAA is not subject to any kind of tax by local governments under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. The exception to the exemption in Section 234(a) does not apply to MIAA because MIAA is not a taxable entity under the Local Government Code. Such exception applies only if the beneficial use of real property owned by the Republic is given to a taxable entity.

Finally, the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are properties devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridgesconstructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

The term "ports x x x constructed by the State" includes airports and seaports. The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are intended for public use, and at the very least intended for public service. Whether intended for public use or public service, the Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic and thus exempt from real estate tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code.7 (Emphasis in the original)

The definition of "instrumentality" under Section 2(10) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 uses the phrase "includes x x x government-owned or controlled corporations" which means that a government "instrumentality" may or may not be a "government-owned or controlled corporation." Obviously, the term government "instrumentality" is broader than the term "government-owned or controlled corporation." Section 2(10) provides:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined.– x x x

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the national Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations.

The term "government-owned or controlled corporation" has a separate definition under Section 2(13)8 of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987:

SEC. 2. General Terms Defined.– x x x

(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may further be categorized by the department of Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for the purpose of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations.

The fact that two terms have separate definitions means that while a government "instrumentality" may include a "government-owned or controlled corporation," there may be a government "instrumentality" that will not qualify as a "government-owned or controlled corporation."

A close scrutiny of the definition of "government-owned or controlled corporation" in Section 2(13) will show that MIAA would not fall under such definition. MIAA is a government "instrumentality" that does not qualify as a "government-owned or controlled corporation." As explained in the 2006 MIAA case:

A government-owned or controlled corporation must be "organized as a stock or non-stock corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. x x x

Section 3 of the Corporation Code defines a stock corporation as one whose "capital stock is divided into shares and x x x authorized to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends x x x." MIAA has capital but it is not divided into shares of stock. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares. Hence, MIAA is not a stock corporation.

x x x

MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. Section 87 of the Corporation Code defines a non-stock corporation as "one where no part of its income is distributable as dividends to its members, trustees or officers." A non-stock corporation must have members. Even if we assume that the Government is considered as the sole member of MIAA, this will not make MIAA a non-stock corporation. Non-stock corporations cannot distribute any part of their income to their members. Section 11 of the MIAA Charter mandates MIAA to remit 20% of its annual gross operating income to the National Treasury. This prevents MIAA from qualifying as a non-stock corporation.

Section 88 of the Corporation Code provides that non-stock corporations are "organized for charitable, religious, educational, professional, cultural, recreational, fraternal, literary,

18

scientific, social, civil service, or similar purposes, like trade, industry, agriculture and like chambers." MIAA is not organized for any of these purposes. MIAA, a public utility, is organized to operate an international and domestic airport for public use.

Since MIAA is neither a stock nor a non-stock corporation, MIAA does not qualify as a government-owned or controlled corporation. What then is the legal status of MIAA within the National Government?

MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. x x x

When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."9

Thus, MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but a government instrumentality which is exempt from any kind of tax from the local governments. Indeed, the exercise of the taxing power of local government units is subject to the limitations enumerated in Section 133 of the Local Government Code.10 Under Section 133(o)11 of the Local Government Code, local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the MIAA. Hence, MIAA is not liable to pay real property tax for the NAIA Pasay properties.

Furthermore, the airport lands and buildings of MIAA are properties of public dominion intended for public use, and as such are exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code. However, under the same provision, if MIAA leases its real property to a taxable person, the specific property leased becomes subject to real property tax.12 In this case, only those portions of the NAIA Pasay properties which are leased to taxable persons like private parties are subject to real property tax by the City of Pasay.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 30 October 2002 and the Resolution dated 19 March 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67416. We DECLARE the NAIA Pasay properties of the Manila International Airport Authority EXEMPT from real property tax imposed by the City of Pasay. We declare VOID all the real property tax assessments, including the final notices of real property tax delinquencies, issued by the City of Pasay on the NAIA Pasay properties of the Manila International Airport Authority, except for the portions that the Manila International Airport Authority has leased to private parties.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 162015             March 6, 2006

THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, Petitioners, vs. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA,J.:

Before the Court, on pure questions of law, is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 227, in its Civil Case No. Q-02-47292, to wit:

1) Decision1 dated June 6, 2003, declaring respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. exempt from real estate taxation on its real properties located in Quezon City; and

2) Order2 dated December 30, 2003, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

The facts:

Respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc.3 (Bayantel) is a legislative franchise holder under Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 32594 to establish and operate radio stations for domestic telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting and telecasting.

Of relevance to this controversy is the tax provision of Rep. Act No. 3259, embodied in Section 14 thereof, which reads:

SECTION 14. (a) The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on its real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of the franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. (b) The grantee shall further pay to the Treasurer of the Philippines each year, within ten days after the audit and approval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act, one and one-half per centum of all gross receipts from the business transacted under this franchise by the said grantee (Emphasis supplied).

On January 1, 1992, Rep. Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991" (LGC), took effect. Section 232 of the Code grants local government units within the Metro Manila Area the power to levy tax on real properties, thus:

SEC. 232. – Power to Levy Real Property Tax. – A province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery and other improvements not hereinafter specifically exempted.

Complementing the aforequoted provision is the second paragraph of Section 234 of the same Code which withdrew any exemption from realty tax heretofore granted to or enjoyed by all persons, natural or juridical, to wit:

SEC. 234 - Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

xxx xxx xxx

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned-or-controlled corporations is hereby withdrawn upon effectivity of this Code (Emphasis supplied).

On July 20, 1992, barely few months after the LGC took effect, Congress enacted Rep. Act No. 7633, amending Bayantel’s original franchise. The amendatory law (Rep. Act No. 7633) contained the following tax provision:

SEC. 11. The grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. In addition thereto, the grantee, its successors or assigns shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the telephone or other telecommunications businesses transacted under this franchise by the grantee, its successors or assigns and the said percentage shall be in lieu of all taxes on this franchise or earnings thereof. Provided, That the grantee, its successors or assigns shall continue to be liable for income taxes payable under Title II of the National Internal Revenue Code …. xxx. [Emphasis supplied]

It is undisputed that within the territorial boundary of Quezon City, Bayantel owned several real properties on which it maintained various telecommunications facilities. These real properties, as hereunder described, are covered by the following tax declarations:

(a) Tax Declaration Nos. D-096-04071, D-096-04074, D-096-04072 and D-096-04073 pertaining to Bayantel’s Head Office and Operations Center in Roosevelt St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City allegedly the nerve center of petitioner’s telecommunications franchise operations, said Operation Center housing mainly petitioner’s Network Operations Group and switching, transmission and related equipment;

(b) Tax Declaration Nos. D-124-01013, D-124-00939, D-124-00920 and D-124-00941 covering Bayantel’s land, building and equipment in Maginhawa St., Barangay East Teacher’s Village, Quezon City which houses telecommunications facilities; and

(c) Tax Declaration Nos. D-011-10809, D-011-10810, D-011-10811, and D-011-11540 referring to Bayantel’s Exchange Center located in Proj. 8, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Tandang Sora, Quezon City which houses the Network Operations Group and cover switching, transmission and other related equipment.

19

In 1993, the government of Quezon City, pursuant to the taxing power vested on local government units by Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, infra, in relation to Section 232 of the LGC, supra, enacted City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93, otherwise known as the Quezon City Revenue Code (QCRC),5 imposing, under Section 5 thereof, a real property tax on all real properties in Quezon City, and, reiterating in its Section 6, the withdrawal of exemption from real property tax under Section 234 of the LGC, supra. Furthermore, much like the LGC, the QCRC, under its Section 230, withdrew tax exemption privileges in general, as follows:

SEC. 230. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. – Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, business enterprises certified by the Board of Investments (BOI) as pioneer or non-pioneer for a period of six (6) and four (4) years, respectively, … are hereby withdrawn effective upon approval of this Code (Emphasis supplied).

Conformably with the City’s Revenue Code, new tax declarations for Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City were issued by the City Assessor and were received by Bayantel on August 13, 1998, except one (Tax Declaration No. 124-01013) which was received on July 14, 1999.

Meanwhile, on March 16, 1995, Rep. Act No. 7925,6 otherwise known as the "Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines," envisaged to level the playing field among telecommunications companies, took effect. Section 23 of the Act provides:

SEC. 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. – Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of service authorized by the franchise.

On January 7, 1999, Bayantel wrote the office of the City Assessor seeking the exclusion of its real properties in the city from the roll of taxable real properties. With its request having been denied, Bayantel interposed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA). And, evidently on its firm belief of its exempt status, Bayantel did not pay the real property taxes assessed against it by the Quezon City government.

On account thereof, the Quezon City Treasurer sent out notices of delinquency for the total amount ofP43,878,208.18, followed by the issuance of several warrants of levy against Bayantel’s properties preparatory to their sale at a public auction set on July 30, 2002.

Threatened with the imminent loss of its properties, Bayantel immediately withdrew its appeal with the LBAA and instead filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for prohibition with an urgent application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. Q-02-47292, which was raffled to Branch 227 of the court.

On July 29, 2002, or in the eve of the public auction scheduled the following day, the lower court issued a TRO, followed, after due hearing, by a writ of preliminary injunction via its order of August 20, 2002.

And, having heard the parties on the merits, the same court came out with its challenged Decision of June 6, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to the enabling franchise under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7633, the real estate properties and buildings of petitioner [now, respondent Bayantel] which have been admitted to be used in the operation of petitioner’s franchise described in the following tax declarations are hereby DECLARED exempt from real estate taxation:

(1) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04071 –

(2) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04074 –

(3) Tax Declaration No. D-124-01013 –

(4) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10810 –

(5) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10811 –

(6) Tax Declaration No. D-011-10809 –

(7) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00941 –

(8) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00940 –

(9) Tax Declaration No. D-124-00939 –

(10) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04072 –

(11) Tax Declaration No. D-096-04073 –

(12) Tax Declaration No. D-011-11540 –

The preliminary prohibitory injunction issued in the August 20, 2002 Order of this Court is hereby made permanent. Since this is a resolution of a purely legal issue, there is no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the court in its Order dated December 30, 2003, petitioners elevated the case directly to this Court on pure questions of law, ascribing to the lower court the following errors:

I. [I]n declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the fact that the tax exemption granted to Bayantel in its original franchise had been withdrawn by the [LGC] and that the said exemption was not restored by the enactment of RA 7633.

II. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the enactment of the [QCRC] which withdrew the tax exemption which may have been granted by RA 7633.

III. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the vague and ambiguous grant of tax exemption provided under Section 11 of RA 7633.

IV. [In] declaring the real properties of respondent exempt from real property taxes notwithstanding the fact that [it] had failed to exhaust administrative remedies in its claim for real property tax exemption. (Words in bracket added.)

As we see it, the errors assigned may ultimately be reduced to two (2) basic issues, namely:

1. Whether or not Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City are exempt from real property taxes under its legislative franchise; and

2. Whether or not Bayantel is required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief with the trial court.

We shall first address the second issue, the same being procedural in nature.

Petitioners argue that Bayantel had failed to avail itself of the administrative remedies provided for under the LGC, adding that the trial court erred in giving due course to Bayantel’s petition for prohibition. To petitioners, the appeal mechanics under the LGC constitute Bayantel’s plain and speedy remedy in this case.

The Court does not agree.

Petitions for prohibition are governed by the following provision of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, … are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise, granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

With the reality that Bayantel’s real properties were already levied upon on account of its nonpayment of real estate taxes thereon, the Court agrees with Bayantel that an appeal to the LBAA is not a speedy and adequate remedy within the context of the aforequoted Section 2 of Rule 65. This is not to mention of the auction sale of said properties already scheduled on July 30, 2002.

20

Moreover, one of the recognized exceptions to the exhaustion- of-administrative remedies rule is when, as here, only legal issues are to be resolved. In fact, the Court, cognizant of the nature of the questions presently involved, gave due course to the instant petition. As the Court has said in Ty vs. Trampe:7

xxx. Although as a rule, administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort to judicial action can prosper, there is a well-settled exception in cases where the controversy does not involve questions of fact but only of law. xxx.

Lest it be overlooked, an appeal to the LBAA, to be properly considered, required prior payment under protest of the amount of P43,878,208.18, a figure which, in the light of the then prevailing Asian financial crisis, may have been difficult to raise up. Given this reality, an appeal to the LBAA may not be considered as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It is thus understandable why Bayantel opted to withdraw its earlier appeal with the LBAA and, instead, filed its petition for prohibition with urgent application for injunctive relief in Civil Case No. Q-02-47292. The remedy availed of by Bayantel under Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be upheld.

This brings the Court to the more weighty question of whether or not Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City are, under its franchise, exempt from real property tax.

The lower court resolved the issue in the affirmative, basically owing to the phrase "exclusive of this franchise" found in Section 11 of Bayantel’s amended franchise, Rep. Act No. 7633. To petitioners, however, the language of Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633 is neither clear nor unequivocal. The elaborate and extensive discussion devoted by the trial court on the meaning and import of said phrase, they add, suggests as much. It is petitioners’ thesis that Bayantel was in no time given any express exemption from the payment of real property tax under its amendatory franchise.

There seems to be no issue as to Bayantel’s exemption from real estate taxes by virtue of the term "exclusive of the franchise" qualifying the phrase "same taxes on its real estate, buildings and personal property," found in Section 14, supra, of its franchise, Rep. Act No. 3259, as originally granted.

The legislative intent expressed in the phrase "exclusive of this franchise" cannot be construed other than distinguishing between two (2) sets of properties, be they real or personal, owned by the franchisee, namely, (a) those actually, directly and exclusively used in its radio or telecommunications business, and (b) those properties which are not so used. It is worthy to note that the properties subject of the present controversy are only those which are admittedly falling under the first category.

To the mind of the Court, Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 effectively works to grant or delegate to local governments of Congress’ inherent power to tax the franchisee’s properties belonging to the second group of properties indicated above, that is, all properties which, "exclusive of this franchise," are not actually and directly used in the pursuit of its franchise. As may be recalled, the taxing power of local governments under both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions solely depended upon an enabling law. Absent such enabling law, local government units were without authority to impose and collect taxes on real properties within their respective territorial jurisdictions. While Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 may be validly viewed as an implied delegation of power to tax, the delegation under that provision, as couched, is limited to impositions over properties of the franchisee which are not actually, directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise. Necessarily, other properties of Bayantel directly used in the pursuit of its business are beyond the pale of the delegated taxing power of local governments. In a very real sense, therefore, real properties of Bayantel, save those exclusive of its franchise, are subject to realty taxes. Ultimately, therefore, the inevitable result was that all realties which are actually, directly and exclusively used in the operation of its franchise are "exempted" from any property tax.

Bayantel’s franchise being national in character, the "exemption" thus granted under Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 applies to all its real or personal properties found anywhere within the Philippine archipelago.

However, with the LGC’s taking effect on January 1, 1992, Bayantel’s "exemption" from real estate taxes for properties of whatever kind located within the Metro Manila area was, by force of Section 234 of the Code, supra, expressly withdrawn. But, not long thereafter, however, or on July 20, 1992, Congress passed Rep. Act No. 7633 amending Bayantel’s original franchise. Worthy of note is that Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633 is a virtual

reenacment of the tax provision, i.e., Section 14, supra, of Bayantel’s original franchise under Rep. Act No. 3259. Stated otherwise, Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 3259 which was deemed impliedly repealed by Section 234 of the LGC was expressly revived under Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 7633. In concrete terms, the realty tax exemption heretofore enjoyed by Bayantel under its original franchise, but subsequently withdrawn by force of Section 234 of the LGC, has been restored by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 7633.

The Court has taken stock of the fact that by virtue of Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution,8 local governments are empowered to levy taxes. And pursuant to this constitutional empowerment, juxtaposed with Section 2329 of the LGC, the Quezon City government enacted in 1993 its local Revenue Code, imposing real property tax on all real properties found within its territorial jurisdiction. And as earlier stated, the City’s Revenue Code, just like the LGC, expressly withdrew, under Section 230 thereof, supra, all tax exemption privileges in general.

This thus raises the question of whether or not the City’s Revenue Code pursuant to which the city treasurer of Quezon City levied real property taxes against Bayantel’s real properties located within the City effectively withdrew the tax exemption enjoyed by Bayantel under its franchise, as amended.

Bayantel answers the poser in the negative arguing that once again it is only "liable to pay the same taxes, as any other persons or corporations on all its real or personal properties, exclusive of its franchise."

Bayantel’s posture is well-taken. While the system of local government taxation has changed with the onset of the 1987 Constitution, the power of local government units to tax is still limited. As we explained in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority:10

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress; however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local legislative bodies, no longer merely be virtue of a valid delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. Under the latter, the exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. (at p. 680; Emphasis supplied.)

Clearly then, while a new slant on the subject of local taxation now prevails in the sense that the former doctrine of local government units’ delegated power to tax had been effectively modified with Article X, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution now in place, .the basic doctrine on local taxation remains essentially the same. For as the Court stressed in Mactan, "the power to tax is [still] primarily vested in the Congress."

This new perspective is best articulated by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., himself a Commissioner of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which crafted the 1987 Constitution, thus:

What is the effect of Section 5 on the fiscal position of municipal corporations? Section 5 does not change the doctrine that municipal corporations do not possess inherent powers of taxation. What it does is to confer municipal corporations a general power to levy taxes and otherwise create sources of revenue. They no longer have to wait for a statutory grant of these powers. The power of the legislative authority relative to the fiscal powers of local governments has been reduced to the authority to impose limitations on municipal powers. Moreover, these limitations must be "consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy." The important legal effect of Section 5 is thus to reverse the principle that doubts are resolved against municipal corporations. Henceforth, in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal fiscal powers, doubts will be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. It is understood, however, that taxes imposed by local government must be for a public purpose, uniform within a locality, must not be confiscatory, and must be within the jurisdiction of the local unit to pass.11(Emphasis supplied).

In net effect, the controversy presently before the Court involves, at bottom, a clash between the inherent taxing power of the legislature, which necessarily includes the power to exempt, and the local government’s delegated power to tax under the aegis of the 1987 Constitution.

Now to go back to the Quezon City Revenue Code which imposed real estate taxes on all real properties within the city’s territory and removed exemptions theretofore "previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical ….,"12 there can really be no dispute that the power of the Quezon City Government to tax is limited by Section 232 of the LGC which expressly provides that "a province or city or municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land,

21

building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted." Under this law, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter exempt certain realties from the taxing power of local government units. An interpretation denying Congress such power to exempt would reduce the phrase "not hereinafter specifically exempted" as a pure jargon, without meaning whatsoever. Needless to state, such absurd situation is unacceptable.

For sure, in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) vs. City of Davao,13 this Court has upheld the power of Congress to grant exemptions over the power of local government units to impose taxes. There, the Court wrote:

Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations. (Emphasis supplied.)

As we see it, then, the issue in this case no longer dwells on whether Congress has the power to exempt Bayantel’s properties from realty taxes by its enactment of Rep. Act No. 7633 which amended Bayantel’s original franchise. The more decisive question turns on whether Congress actually did exempt Bayantel’s properties at all by virtue of Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633.

Admittedly, Rep. Act No. 7633 was enacted subsequent to the LGC. Perfectly aware that the LGC has already withdrawn Bayantel’s former exemption from realty taxes, Congress opted to pass Rep. Act No. 7633 using, under Section 11 thereof, exactly the same defining phrase "exclusive of this franchise" which was the basis for Bayantel’s exemption from realty taxes prior to the LGC. In plain language, Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7633 states that "the grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay." The Court views this subsequent piece of legislation as an express and real intention on the part of Congress to once again remove from the LGC’s delegated taxing power, all of the franchisee’s (Bayantel’s) properties that are actually, directly and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 168557             February 16, 2007

FELS ENERGY, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS and

THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, Respondents.

x----------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 170628            February 16, 2007

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS, LAURO C. ANDAYA, in his capacity as the Assessor of the

Province of Batangas, and the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS represented by its Provincial Assessor, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Before us are two consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 168557 and G.R. No. 170628, which were filed by petitioners FELS Energy, Inc. (FELS) and National Power Corporation (NPC), respectively. The first is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 25, 2004 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and its Resolution2 dated June 20, 2005; the second, also a petition for review on certiorari, challenges the February 9, 2005 Decision3 and November 23, 2005 Resolution4 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. Both petitions were dismissed on the ground of prescription.

The pertinent facts are as follows:

On January 18, 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy, Inc. over 3x30 MW diesel engine power barges moored at Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract,

denominated as an Energy Conversion Agreement5 (Agreement), was for a period of five years. Article 10 reads:

10.1 RESPONSIBILITY. NAPOCOR shall be responsible for the payment of (a) all taxes, import duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by the National Government of the Republic of the Philippines or any agency or instrumentality thereof to which POLAR may be or become subject to or in relation to the performance of their obligations under this agreement (other than (i) taxes imposed or calculated on the basis of the net income of POLAR and Personal Income Taxes of its employees and (ii) construction permit fees, environmental permit fees and other similar fees and charges) and (b) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Power Barges.6

Subsequently, Polar Energy, Inc. assigned its rights under the Agreement to FELS. The NPC initially opposed the assignment of rights, citing paragraph 17.2 of Article 17 of the Agreement.

On August 7, 1995, FELS received an assessment of real property taxes on the power barges from Provincial Assessor Lauro C. Andaya of Batangas City. The assessed tax, which likewise covered those due for 1994, amounted to P56,184,088.40 per annum. FELS referred the matter to NPC, reminding it of its obligation under the Agreement to pay all real estate taxes. It then gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any conference regarding the real property assessment of the Provincial Assessor.

In a letter7 dated September 7, 1995, NPC sought reconsideration of the Provincial Assessor’s decision to assess real property taxes on the power barges. However, the motion was denied on September 22, 1995, and the Provincial Assessor advised NPC to pay the assessment.8 This prompted NPC to file a petition with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) for the setting aside of the assessment and the declaration of the barges as non-taxable items; it also prayed that should LBAA find the barges to be taxable, the Provincial Assessor be directed to make the necessary corrections.9

In its Answer to the petition, the Provincial Assessor averred that the barges were real property for purposes of taxation under Section 199(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160.

Before the case was decided by the LBAA, NPC filed a Manifestation, informing the LBAA that the Department of Finance (DOF) had rendered an opinion10 dated May 20, 1996, where it is clearly stated that power barges are not real property subject to real property assessment.

On August 26, 1996, the LBAA rendered a Resolution11 denying the petition. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. FELS is hereby ordered to pay the real estate tax in the amount ofP56,184,088.40, for the year 1994.

SO ORDERED.12

The LBAA ruled that the power plant facilities, while they may be classified as movable or personal property, are nevertheless considered real property for taxation purposes because they are installed at a specific location with a character of permanency. The LBAA also pointed out that the owner of the barges–FELS, a private corporation–is the one being taxed, not NPC. A mere agreement making NPC responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments will not justify the exemption of FELS; such a privilege can only be granted to NPC and cannot be extended to FELS. Finally, the LBAA also ruled that the petition was filed out of time.

Aggrieved, FELS appealed the LBAA’s ruling to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA).

On August 28, 1996, the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas City issued a Notice of Levy and Warrant by Distraint13over the power barges, seeking to collect real property taxes amounting to P232,602,125.91 as of July 31, 1996. The notice and warrant was officially served to FELS on November 8, 1996. It then filed a Motion to Lift Levy dated November 14, 1996, praying that the Provincial Assessor be further restrained by the CBAA from enforcing the disputed assessment during the pendency of the appeal.

On November 15, 1996, the CBAA issued an Order14 lifting the levy and distraint on the properties of FELS in order not to preempt and render ineffectual, nugatory and illusory any resolution or judgment which the Board would issue.

Meantime, the NPC filed a Motion for Intervention15 dated August 7, 1998 in the proceedings before the CBAA. This was approved by the CBAA in an Order16 dated September 22, 1998.

22

During the pendency of the case, both FELS and NPC filed several motions to admit bond to guarantee the payment of real property taxes assessed by the Provincial Assessor (in the event that the judgment be unfavorable to them). The bonds were duly approved by the CBAA.

On April 6, 2000, the CBAA rendered a Decision17 finding the power barges exempt from real property tax. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Batangas is hereby reversed. Respondent-appellee Provincial Assessor of the Province of Batangas is hereby ordered to drop subject property under ARP/Tax Declaration No. 018-00958 from the List of Taxable Properties in the Assessment Roll. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas is hereby directed to act accordingly.

SO ORDERED.18

Ruling in favor of FELS and NPC, the CBAA reasoned that the power barges belong to NPC; since they are actually, directly and exclusively used by it, the power barges are covered by the exemptions under Section 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160.19 As to the other jurisdictional issue, the CBAA ruled that prescription did not preclude the NPC from pursuing its claim for tax exemption in accordance with Section 206 of R.A. No. 7160. The Provincial Assessor filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by FELS and NPC.

In a complete volte face, the CBAA issued a Resolution20 on July 31, 2001 reversing its earlier decision. The fallo of the resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the resolution of this Board that:

(a) The decision of the Board dated 6 April 2000 is hereby reversed.

(b) The petition of FELS, as well as the intervention of NPC, is dismissed.

(c) The resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas is hereby affirmed,

(d) The real property tax assessment on FELS by the Provincial Assessor of Batangas is likewise hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED.21

FELS and NPC filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were timely opposed by the Provincial Assessor. The CBAA denied the said motions in a Resolution22 dated October 19, 2001.

Dissatisfied, FELS filed a petition for review before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. Meanwhile, NPC filed a separate petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67491.

On January 17, 2002, NPC filed a Manifestation/Motion for Consolidation in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 praying for the consolidation of its petition with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. In a Resolution23 dated February 12, 2002, the appellate court directed NPC to re-file its motion for consolidation with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491, since it is the ponente of the latter petition who should resolve the request for reconsideration.

NPC failed to comply with the aforesaid resolution. On August 25, 2004, the Twelfth Division of the appellate court rendered judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 denying the petition on the ground of prescription. The decretal portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Resolutions dated July 31, 2001 and October 19, 2001 of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.24

On September 20, 2004, FELS timely filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490.

Thereafter, NPC filed a petition for review dated October 19, 2004 before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165113, assailing the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. The petition was, however, denied in this Court’s Resolution25 of November 8, 2004, for NPC’s failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. NPC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution26 dated January 19, 2005.

Meantime, the appellate court dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. It held that the right to question the assessment of the Provincial Assessor had already prescribed upon the failure of FELS to appeal the disputed assessment to the LBAA within the period prescribed by law. Since FELS had lost the right to question the assessment, the right of the Provincial Government to collect the tax was already absolute.

NPC filed a motion for reconsideration dated March 8, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the February 5, 2005 ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The motion was denied in a Resolution27 dated November 23, 2005.

The motion for reconsideration filed by FELS in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 had been earlier denied for lack of merit in a Resolution28 dated June 20, 2005.

On August 3, 2005, FELS filed the petition docketed as G.R. No. 168557 before this Court, raising the following issues:

A.

Whether power barges, which are floating and movable, are personal properties and therefore, not subject to real property tax.

B.

Assuming that the subject power barges are real properties, whether they are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code ("LGC").

C.

Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are subject to real estate tax, whether or not it should be NPC which should be made to pay the same under the law.

D.

Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are real properties, whether or not the same is subject to depreciation just like any other personal properties.

E.

Whether the right of the petitioner to question the patently null and void real property tax assessment on the petitioner’s personal properties is imprescriptible.29

On January 13, 2006, NPC filed its own petition for review before this Court (G.R. No. 170628), indicating the following errors committed by the CA:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL TO THE LBAA WAS FILED OUT OF TIME.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE POWER BARGES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES.

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE POWER BARGES WAS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.30

Considering that the factual antecedents of both cases are similar, the Court ordered the consolidation of the two cases in a Resolution31 dated March 8, 2006.1awphi1.net

In an earlier Resolution dated February 1, 2006, the Court had required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 30 days from notice. Almost a year passed but the parties had not submitted their respective memoranda. Considering that taxes—the lifeblood of our economy—are involved in the present controversy, the Court was prompted to dispense with the said pleadings, with the end view of advancing the interests of justice and avoiding further delay.

In both petitions, FELS and NPC maintain that the appeal before the LBAA was not time-barred. FELS argues that when NPC moved to have the assessment reconsidered on September 7, 1995, the running of the period to file an appeal with the LBAA was tolled. For its part, NPC posits that the 60-day period for appealing to the LBAA should be reckoned from its receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners’ contentions are bereft of merit.

23

Section 226 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:

SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.

We note that the notice of assessment which the Provincial Assessor sent to FELS on August 7, 1995, contained the following statement:

If you are not satisfied with this assessment, you may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province by filing a petition under oath on the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of ARP/Tax Declaration and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.32

Instead of appealing to the Board of Assessment Appeals (as stated in the notice), NPC opted to file a motion for reconsideration of the Provincial Assessor’s decision, a remedy not sanctioned by law.

The remedy of appeal to the LBAA is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of the property. It follows then that the determination made by the respondent Provincial Assessor with regard to the taxability of the subject real properties falls within its power to assess properties for taxation purposes subject to appeal before the LBAA.33

We fully agree with the rationalization of the CA in both CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The two divisions of the appellate court cited the case of Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman,34 where we ruled that under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160,35 the last action of the local assessor on a particular assessment shall be the notice of assessment; it is this last action which gives the owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The procedure likewise does not permit the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor. The pertinent holding of the Court in Callanta is as follows:

x x x [T]he same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be prevented and excised from our system.36

For its part, the appellate court declared in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491:

x x x. The Court announces: Henceforth, whenever the local assessor sends a notice to the owner or lawful possessor of real property of its revised assessed value, the former shall no longer have any jurisdiction to entertain any request for a review or readjustment. The appropriate forum where the aggrieved party may bring his appeal is the LBAA as provided by law. It follows ineluctably that the 60-day period for making the appeal to the LBAA runs without interruption. This is what We held in SP 67490 and reaffirm today in SP 67491.37

To reiterate, if the taxpayer fails to appeal in due course, the right of the local government to collect the taxes due with respect to the taxpayer’s property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the period to appeal.38 It also bears stressing that the taxpayer’s failure to question the assessment in the LBAA renders the assessment of the local assessor final, executory and demandable, thus, precluding the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment, or from invoking any defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.39

In fine, the LBAA acted correctly when it dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for having been filed out of time; the CBAA and the appellate court were likewise correct in affirming the dismissal. Elementary is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the period therefor is

both mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure in this regard renders the decision final and executory.40

In the Comment filed by the Provincial Assessor, it is asserted that the instant petition is barred by res judicata; that the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 165113 (where there was a final determination on the issue of prescription), effectively precludes the claims herein; and that the filing of the instant petition after an adverse judgment in G.R. No. 165113 constitutes forum shopping.

FELS maintains that the argument of the Provincial Assessor is completely misplaced since it was not a party to the erroneous petition which the NPC filed in G.R. No. 165113. It avers that it did not participate in the aforesaid proceeding, and the Supreme Court never acquired jurisdiction over it. As to the issue of forum shopping, petitioner claims that no forum shopping could have been committed since the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not present.

We do not agree.

Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the

State that there should be an end to litigation – republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause – nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.41 As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:42

x x x An existing final judgment or decree – rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction acting upon a matter within its authority – is conclusive on the rights of the parties and their privies. This ruling holds in all other actions or suits, in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, touching on the points or matters in issue in the first suit.

x x x

Courts will simply refuse to reopen what has been decided. They will not allow the same parties or their privies to litigate anew a question once it has been considered and decided with finality. Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.43

To recall, FELS gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any proceeding regarding real property assessment. Therefore, when petitioner NPC filed its petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 165113, it did so not only on its behalf but also on behalf of FELS. Moreover, the assailed decision in the earlier petition for review filed in this Court was the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490, in which FELS was the petitioner. Thus, the decision in G.R. No. 165116 is binding on petitioner FELS under the principle of privity of interest. In fine, FELS and NPC are substantially "identical parties" as to warrant the application of res judicata. FELS’s argument that it is not bound by the erroneous petition filed by NPC is thus unavailing.

On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings

24

grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.44

Petitioner FELS alleges that there is no forum shopping since the elements of res judicata are not present in the cases at bar; however, as already discussed, res judicata may be properly applied herein. Petitioners engaged in forum shopping when they filed G.R. Nos. 168557 and 170628 after the petition for review in G.R. No. 165116. Indeed, petitioners went from one court to another trying to get a favorable decision from one of the tribunals which allowed them to pursue their cases.

It must be stressed that an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.45 The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.46

Thus, there is forum shopping when there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.47

Having found that the elements of res judicata and forum shopping are present in the consolidated cases, a discussion of the other issues is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, for the peace and contentment of petitioners, we shall shed light on the merits of the case.

As found by the appellate court, the CBAA and LBAA power barges are real property and are thus subject to real property tax. This is also the inevitable conclusion, considering that G.R. No. 165113 was dismissed for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error. Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the burden of proving otherwise.48 Besides, factual findings of administrative bodies, which have acquired expertise in their field, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court; we will not assume to interfere with the sensible exercise of the judgment of men especially trained in appraising property. Where the judicial mind is left in doubt, it is a sound policy to leave the assessment undisturbed.49 We find no reason to depart from this rule in this case.

In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York, et al.,50 a power company brought an action to review property tax assessment. On the city’s motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court of New York held that the barges on which were mounted gas turbine power plants designated to generate electrical power, the fuel oil barges which supplied fuel oil to the power plant barges, and the accessory equipment mounted on the barges were subject to real property taxation.

Moreover, Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that "[d]ocks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast" are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work.51

Petitioners maintain nevertheless that the power barges are exempt from real estate tax under Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160 because they are actually, directly and exclusively used by petitioner NPC, a government- owned and controlled corporation engaged in the supply, generation, and transmission of electric power.

We affirm the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that the owner of the taxable properties is petitioner FELS, which in fine, is the entity being taxed by the local government. As stipulated under Section 2.11, Article 2 of the Agreement:

OWNERSHIP OF POWER BARGES. POLAR shall own the Power Barges and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site used in connection with the Power Barges which have been supplied by it at its own cost. POLAR shall operate, manage and maintain the Power Barges for the purpose of converting Fuel of NAPOCOR into electricity.52

It follows then that FELS cannot escape liability from the payment of realty taxes by invoking its exemption in Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160, which reads:

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax:

x x x

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; x x x

Indeed, the law states that the machinery must be actually, directly and exclusively used by the government owned or controlled corporation; nevertheless, petitioner FELS still cannot find solace in this provision because Section 5.5, Article 5 of the Agreement provides:

OPERATION. POLAR undertakes that until the end of the Lease Period, subject to the supply of the necessary Fuel pursuant to Article 6 and to the other provisions hereof, it will operate the Power Barges to convert such Fuel into electricity in accordance with Part A of Article 7.53

It is a basic rule that obligations arising from a contract have the force of law between the parties. Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the parties to the contract are bound by its terms and conditions.54

Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception.55 The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.56 Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity.

The mere undertaking of petitioner NPC under Section 10.1 of the Agreement, that it shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not justify the exemption. The privilege granted to petitioner NPC cannot be extended to FELS. The covenant is between FELS and NPC and does not bind a third person not privy thereto, in this case, the Province of Batangas.

It must be pointed out that the protracted and circuitous litigation has seriously resulted in the local government’s deprivation of revenues. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its magnitude, acknowledging in its very nature no perimeter so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay for it.57 The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe tax erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy of local governments58 and the objective of the Local Government Code that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.59

In conclusion, we reiterate that the power to tax is the most potent instrument to raise the needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of the local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people.60

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED and the assailed Decisions and Resolutions AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 171470               January 30, 2009

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS (CBAA), LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS (LBAA) OF LA UNION, PROVINCIAL TREASURER, LA UNION and MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF BAUANG, LA

UNION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

What are the real property tax implications of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement between a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) that enjoys tax exemption and a private corporation? Specifically, under the terms of the BOT Areement, can the GOCC

25

be deemed the actual, direct, and exclusive user of machineries and equipment for tax exemption purposes? If not, can it pass on its tax-exempt status to its BOT partner, a private corporation, through the BOT agreement?

The National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) claims in this case that the machineries and equipment used in a project covered by a BOT agreement, to which it is a party, should be accorded the tax-exempt status it enjoys. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of La Union (LBAA), the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) were one in rejecting NAPOCOR’s claim.

The present petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by NAPOCOR challenges this uniform ruling and seeks the reversal of the CTA’s Decision dated February 13, 2006 in the consolidated cases of NAPOCOR v. CBAA, et al.1 and Bauang Private Power Corp. v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng La Union, et al.,2 and of the denial of the motion for reconsideration that followed.

THE ANTECEDENTS

On January 11, 1993, First Private Power Corporation (FPPC) entered into a BOT agreement with NAPOCOR for the construction of the 215 Megawatt Bauang Diesel Power Plant in Payocpoc, Bauang, La Union. The BOT Agreement provided, via an Accession Undertaking, for the creation of the Bauang Private Power Corporation (BPPC) that will own, manage and operate the power plant/station, and assume and perform FPPC’s obligations under the BOT agreement. For a fee,3 BPPC will convert NAPOCOR’s supplied diesel fuel into electricity and deliver the product to NAPOCOR.

The pertinent provisions of the BOT agreement, as they relate to the submitted issues in the present case, read:

2.03 NAPOCOR shall make available the Site to CONTRACTOR for the purpose of building and operating the Power Station at no cost to CONTRACTOR for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the Transfer Date and NAPOCOR shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, rates, and other charges in respect of the Site and the buildings and improvements thereon.

x x x x

2.08 From the date hereof until the Transfer Date, CONTRACTOR shall, directly or indirectly, own the Power Station and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery, and equipment on the Site or used in connection with the Power Station which have been supplied by it or at its cost and it shall operate and manage the Power Station for the purpose of converting fuel of NAPOCOR into electricity.

2.09 Until the Transfer Date, NAPOCOR shall, at its own cost, supply and deliver all Fuel for the Power Station and shall take all electricity generated by the Power Station at the request of NAPOCOR which shall pay to CONTRACTOR fees as provided in Clause 11.

x x x x

2.11 On the Transfer Date, the Power Station shall be transferred by the CONTRACTOR to NAPOCOR without payment of any compensation.

The Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Bauang, La Union initially issued Declaration of Real Property Nos. 25016 and 25022 to 25029 declaring BPPC’s machineries and equipment as tax-exempt. On the initiative of the Bauang Vice Mayor, the municipality questioned before the Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) the declared tax exemption; later, the issue was elevated to the Deputy Executive Director and Officer-in-Charge of the BLGF, Department of Finance, who ruled that BPPC’s machineries and equipments are subject to real property tax and directed the Assessors’ Office to take appropriate action.

The Provincial/Municipal Assessors thereupon issued Revised Tax Declaration Nos. 30026 to 30033 and 30337, and cancelled the earlier issued Declarations of Real Property. The Municipal Assessor of Bauang then issued a Notice of Assessment and Tax Bill to BPPC assessing/taxing the machineries and equipments in the total sum ofP288,582,848.00 for the 1995-1998 period, sans interest of two percent (2%) on the unpaid amounts. BPPC’s Vice-President and Plant Manager received the Notice of Assessment and Tax Bill on August 7, 1998.

On October 5, 1998, NAPOCOR filed a petition (styled In Re Petition to Declare Exempt the Revised and Retroactive to 1995 Tax Declaration Nos. 30026 to 30033 and 30037) with the LBAA. The petition asked that, retroactive to 1995, the machineries covered by the tax declarations be exempt from real property tax under Section 234(c) of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code or LGC); and, that these properties be dropped from the assessment roll pursuant to Section 206 of the LGC. Section 234(c) of the LGC provides: 4

Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from the payment of real property tax:

x x x x

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or –controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;

x x x x.

The LBAA denied NAPOCOR’s petition for exemption in a Decision dated October 26, 2001. It ruled that the exemption provided by Section 234(c) of the LGC applies only when a government-owned or controlled corporation like NAPOCOR owns and/or actually uses machineries and equipment for the generation and transmission of electric power; in this case, NAPOCOR does not own and does not even actually and directly use the machineries. It is the BPPC, a non-government entity, which owns, maintains, and operates the machineries and equipment; using these, it generates electricity and then sells this to NAPOCOR. Additionally, it ruled that the liability for the payment of the real estate taxes is determined by law and not by the agreement of the parties; hence, the provision in the BOT Agreement whereby NAPOCOR assumed responsibility for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, rates, and other charges, in relation with the site, buildings, and improvements in the BOT project, is an arrangement between the parties that cannot be the basis in identifying who is liable to the government for the real estate tax.

NAPOCOR appealed the LBAA ruling to the CBAA. BPPC moved to intervene on the ground that it has a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.5 The CBAA subsequently dismissed the appeal based on its finding that the BPPC, and not NAPOCOR, is the actual, direct and exclusive user of the equipment and machineries; thus, the exemption under Section 234(c) does not apply. The CBAA ruled:

Sec. 234 (c), R.A. 7160 (supra), is clear and unambiguous: "there is no room for construction." (citations omitted)

x x x x

Actual use, according to Sec. 199 (b) of R.A. 7160, "refers to the purpose for which the property is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession thereof." In Velez v. Locsin, 55 SCRA 152: "The word ‘use’ means to employ for the attainment of some purpose or end." In the "Operation of the Power Station" (Clause 8.01 of the BOT Agreement), CONTRACTOR shall, at its own cost, be responsible for the management, operation, maintenance and repair of the Power Station during the Co-operation period x x x." Said Co-operation period is fifteen (15) years, after which the Power Station will be turned over or transferred to NAPOCOR. Does this determine when NAPOCOR should take over the actual, direct and exclusive use of the Power Station? That is fifteen (15) years therefrom?

It has been established that BPPC manufactures or generates the power which is sold to NAPOCOR and NAPOCOR distributes said power to the consumers. In other words, the relationship between BPPC and NAPOCOR is one of manufacturer or seller and exclusive distributor or buyer. The general perception is that the exclusive distributor or buyer of goods has nothing to do with the manufacturing thereof but as exclusive distributor the latter has the right to acquire all the goods to be sold to the exclusion of all others.

In terms of the definitions under Sec. 199 (b) and that offered by Respondents-Appelless (supra), the machineries and equipment are principally or predominantly utilized by BPPC. In terms of the Velez vs. Locsin case (supra), BPPC employs the machineries and equipment to attain its purpose of generating power to be sold to NAPOCOR and collect payment therefrom to compensate for its investment. The BOT Agreement is not a contract for nothing.

The following definitions are given by Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition:

"Actually is opposed to seemingly, pretendedly, or feignedly, as actually engaged in farming means really, truly in fact."

26

"Directly. In a direct way without anything intervening; not by secondary, but by direct means."

"Exclusively. Apart from all others; without admission of others to participation; in a manner to exclude."

Indeed BPPC does not use said machineries and equipment pretendedly or feignedly but truly and factually hence, "actually." BPPC uses them without anything intervening hence, directly. BPPC uses the same machineries and equipment apart from all others hence, exclusively. This is the fact – against the fact there is no argument. This same fact will also deny NAPOCOR’s claim to a ten (10%) assessment level provided for under Sec. 218 of R.A. 7160 (supra) as to the requirement thereto is simply the same as that in realty tax exemption. The BPPC is a private entity, not a Government Owned or Controlled Corporation (GOCC), hence, not entitled to a 10% assessment level.

NAPOCOR then filed with the CTA a petition for review, docketed as CTA E.B. No. 51, to challenge the CBAA decision. BPPC filed its own petition for review of the CBAA decision with the CTA which was docketed as CTA E.B. No. 58. The two petitions were subsequently consolidated.

THE APPEALED CTA RULING

The CTA rendered on February 13, 2006 a decision dismissing the consolidated petitions. It ruled on two issues: (1) whether BPPC seasonably filed its protest against the assessment; and (2) whether the machineries and equipments are actually, directly, and exclusively used by NAPOCOR in the generation and transmission of electric power, and are therefore not subject to tax.

On the first issue, the CTA applied Section 226 of the LGC which provides the remedy from an assessment as follows:

SEC. 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals in the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.

It found that BPPC never filed an appeal to contest or question the assessment; instead, it was NAPOCOR that filed the purported appeal – a petition for exemption of the machineries and equipment. The CTA, however, said that NAPOCOR is not the proper party, and the purported appeal did not substantially comply with the requisites of the law.

According to the CTA, NAPOCOR is not the registered owner of the machineries and equipment. These are registered in BPPC’s name as further confirmed by Section 2.08 of the BOT Agreement.6 Thus, the CTA declared that until the transfer date of the power station, NAPOCOR does not own any of the machineries and equipment, and therefore has no legal right, title, or interest over these properties. Thus, the CTA concluded that NAPOCOR has no cause of action and no legal personality to question the assessment. As the respondent local government units claim, NAPOCOR is an interloper in the issue of BPPC’s real estate tax liabilities.

The CTA additionally found that BPPC’s subsequent attempt to question the assessment via a motion for intervention with the CBAA failed to follow the correct process prescribed by the Rules Governing Appeals to the CBAA;7 its appeal was not accompanied by an appeal bond.

Also, the CTA found NAPOCOR’s petition to be an inappropriate remedy, as it is not the appeal contemplated by law; NAPOCOR was in fact asserting an exemption on the basis of the provisions of the BOT Agreement. An exemption is an evidentiary matter for the assessors, not for the LBAA, to decide pursuant to Section 206 of the LGC;8 NAPOCOR cannot simply bypass the authority granted to concerned administrative agencies, as these available administrative remedies must first be exhausted.

On the more substantive second issue, the CTA saw it clear from the BOT Agreement that BPPC owns and uses the machineries and equipment in the power station, thus directly addressing and disproving NAPOCOR’s "actual, direct, and exclusive use" argument. It noted that under the BOT Agreement, NAPOCOR shall have a right over the machineries and equipments only after their transfer at the end of the 15-year co-operation period. "By the

nature of the agreement and work of BPPC, the [machineries] are actually, directly, and exclusively used by it in the conversion of bunker fuel to electricity for [NAPOCOR] for a fee," the CTA said.

Section 234(c) of the LGC, according to the CTA, is clear. The exemption under the law does not apply because BPPC is not a GOCC – it is an independent power corporation currently operating and maintaining the power plant pursuant to the BOT Agreement. The BOT agreement cannot likewise be the basis for the claimed exemption; tax exemption cannot be agreed upon by mere contract between the parties (BPPC and NAPOCOR), as it must be expressly granted by the Constitution, statute, or franchise. A tax exemption, if and when granted, is also not transferrable, as it is a personal privilege and it must be strictly construed, the CTA said in closing.

THE SEPARATE APPEALS

Thereupon, NAPOCOR and BPPC sought separate reviews of the CTA decision with us.

G.R. No. 173811

BPPC filed on September 11, 2006 its petition separately from NAPOCOR. The BPPC petition was docketed as G.R. No. 173811 and was raffled to the First Division of the Court.

The First Division denied BPPC’s petition in its Resolution dated October 4, 2006 on the reasoning that BPPC failed to sufficiently show that the CTA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

BPPC moved to reconsider the denial of its petition, but the Third Division (after the Court’s reorganization) denied the motion for reconsideration with finality after finding no substantial arguments to warrant reconsideration. The resolution denying BPPC’s petition for review had become final and executory and was thus recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment on April 3, 2007.

G.R. No. 171470 – The Present Case

The NAPOCOR petition now pending with us was filed on April 6, 2006 and was docketed as G.R. No. 171470. We required the respondents to comment on the petition in our Resolution of May 3, 2006. The respondents filed the required comments. NAPOCOR subsequently filed its Reply.

NAPOCOR cited the following as grounds for its petition:

I.

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN NOT RULING THAT PETITIONER IS THE ACTUAL, DIRECT, AND EXCLUSIVE USER OF THE BAUANG DIESEL POWER PLANT.

II.

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DISREGARDING THAT THE REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION IS RETAINED UNDER R.A. NO. 7160.

III.

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN RULING THAT PETITIONER MUST BE ENGAGED IN BOTH GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF POWER BEFORE THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 234(C) OF R.A. NO. 7160 CAN APPLY.

IV.

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN NOT CONSTRUING THE EXEMPTIONS UNDER R.A. NO. 7160 IN HARMONY WITH PETITIONER’S CHARTER AND THE BOT LAW.

V.

ASSUMING THE 215 MW BAUANG DIESEL POWER PLANT IS TAXABLE, THE SAME SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS "SPECIAL" FOR REAL PROEPRTY TAX PURPOSES SUBJECT TO A 10% ASSESSMENT LEVEL, AND NOT AS COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO AN 80% ASSESSMENT RATE.

In the interim and in light of the sale at public auction of the machineries and equipments, NAPOCOR filed a Supplemental Petition based on the following grounds:

I.

27

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S APPEAL BECAUSE THE LATTER IS A GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY WHOSE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INDEBTEDNESS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE SUBJECT POWER PLANT AND [IS] THUS EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES.

II.

THE CTA ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S APPEAL BECAUSE THIS LED TO THE SALE OF THE BAUANG POWER PLANT TO THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF LA UNION, THUS SERIOUSLY VIOLATING PETITIONER’S STATUTORY MANDATE TO CARRY OUT THE TOTAL ELECTRIFICATION OF THE COUNTRY.

To support its claim that it is entitled to tax exemption as the actual, direct, and exclusive user of the machineries and equipment, NAPOCOR argues that:

a. the BOT agreement is a financing agreement where it (NAPOCOR) is the beneficial owner and the actual, direct, and exclusive user of the power plant, while BPPC is the lender/creditor that retains the plant’s legal ownership until it is fully paid; the power plant is a NAPOCOR project and BPPC is just the financier-contractor, and any BPPC activity is made on NAPOCOR’s behalf as a contractor for NAPOCOR; in this way, NAPOCOR takes advantage of BPPC’s financial resources and technical expertise to secure a continuous supply of electric power.

b. its payment of energy fees, fixed operating fees, and other infrastructure fees to BPPC is not inconsistent with its (NAPOCOR’s) beneficial ownership and actual, direct, and exclusive use of the power plant, since the collection of the fees is the repayment scheme prescribed by Section 69 of Republic Act No. 6957,10 as amended by Republic Act No. 7718 (BOT Law, as amended); its amortizations over the 15-year co-operation period constitute full payment for the power plant that would warrant the transfer of ownership without payment of additional compensation; finally, that Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 has booked the power plant as NAPOCOR’s asset for privatization purposes.

c. its tax exemption should apply to a BOT project, citing the conditions that gave rise to the BOT law and its own mandate to provide electricity nationwide; BOT projects are really government projects where the private sector participates to provide the heavy initial financial requirements; and that Congress specifically considered NAPOCOR’s situation in granting tax exemption to machineries and equipment used in power generation and distribution.

d. in the interpretation of Section 234(c) of the LGC, related statutes must be considered and the task of the courts is to harmonize all these laws, if possible; specifically, Section 234(c) of the LGC was enacted to clarify or restore NAPOCOR’s real property tax exemption so that NAPOCOR can perform its public function of supplying electricity to the entire country at affordable rates, while the BOT law was enacted, among others, to authorize NAPOCOR to enter into BOT contracts with the private sector so that NAPOCOR can carry out its mandate; the tax exemption under Section 234(c) of the LGC must be given effect as the only legal and cogent way of harmonizing it with NAPOCOR’s Charter and the BOT law.

NAPOCOR concludes that the CTA’s ruling clearly defeats the spirit behind its creation, the enactment of the BOT Law, and the tax exemption provision under the LGC.

THE COURT’S RULING

We find the petition devoid of merit. Like the Court’s First Division (later, Third Division) in G.R. No. 173811, we find that NAPOCOR failed to sufficiently show that the CTA committed any reversible error in its ruling.

NAPOCOR’s basis for its claimed exemption – Section 234(c) of the LGC – is clear and not at all ambiguous in its terms. Exempt from real property taxation are: (a) all machineries and equipment; (b) [that are] actually, directly, and exclusively used by; (c) [local water districts and] government-owned or –controlled corporations engaged in the [supply and distribution of water and/or] generation and transmission of electric power.

We note, in the first place, that the present case is not the first occasion where NAPOCOR claimed real property tax exemption for a contract partner under Sec. 234 (c) of the LGC. In FELS Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas11 (that was consolidated with NAPOCOR v.

Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas, et al.),12the Province of Batangas assessed real property taxes against FELS Energy, Inc. – the owner of a barge used in generating electricity under an agreement with NAPOCOR. Their agreement provided that NAPOCOR shall pay all of FELS’ real estate taxes and assessments. We concluded in that case that we could not recognize the tax exemption claimed, since NAPOCOR was not the actual, direct and exclusive user of the barge as required by Sec. 234 (c). In making this ruling, we cited the required standard of construction applicable to tax exemptions and said:

Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted. Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is considered a taxable entity.

The mere undertaking of petitioner NPC under Section 10.1 of the Agreement, that it shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not justify the exemption. The privilege granted to petitioner NPC cannot be extended to FELS. The covenant is between FELS and NPC and does not bind a third person not privy thereto, in this case, the Province of Batangas.

We also recognized this strictissimi juris standard in NAPOCOR v. City of Cabanatuan.13 Under this standard, the claimant must show beyond doubt, with clear and convincing evidence, the factual basis for the claim. Thus, the real issue in a tax exemption case such as the present case is whether NAPOCOR was able to convincingly show the factual basis for its claimed exception.

The records show that NAPOCOR, no less, admits BPPC’s ownership of the machineries and equipment in the power plant.14 Likewise, the provisions of the BOT agreement cited above clearly show BPPC’s ownership. Thus, ownership is not a disputed issue.

Rather than ownership, NAPOCOR’s use of the machineries and equipment is the critical issue, since its claim under Sec. 234(c) of the LGC is premised on actual, direct and exclusive use. To support this claim, NAPOCOR characterizes the BOT Agreement as a mere financing agreement where BPPC is the financier, while it (NAPOCOR) is the actual user of the properties.

As in the fact of ownership, NAPOCOR’s assertion is belied by the documented arrangements between the contracting parties, viewed particularly from the prism of the BOT law.

The underlying concept behind a BOT agreement is defined and described in the BOT law as follows:

Build-operate-and-transfer – A contractual arrangement whereby the project proponent undertakes the construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and the operation and maintenance thereof. The project proponent operates the facility over a fixed term during which it is allowed to charge facility users appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated and incorporated in the contract to enable the project proponent to recover its investment, and operating and maintenance expenses in the project. The project proponent transfers the facility to the government agency or local government unit concerned at the end of the fixed term which shall not exceed fifty (50) years x x x x.

Under this concept, it is the project proponent who constructs the project at its own cost and subsequently operates and manages it. The proponent secures the return on its investments from those using the project’s facilities through appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated. At the end of the fixed term agreed upon, the project proponent transfers the ownership of the facility to the government agency. Thus, the government is able to put up projects and provide immediate services without the burden of the heavy expenditures that a project start up requires.

A reading of the provisions of the parties’ BOT Agreement shows that it fully conforms to this concept. By its express terms, BPPC has complete ownership – both legal and beneficial – of the project, including the machineries and equipment used, subject only to the transfer of these properties without cost to NAPOCOR after the lapse of the period agreed upon. As agreed upon, BPPC provided the funds for the construction of the power plant, including the machineries and equipment needed for power generation; thereafter, it actually operated and still operates the power plant, uses its machineries and equipment, and receives

28

payment for these activities and the electricity generated under a defined compensation scheme. Notably, BPPC – as owner-user – is responsible for any defect in the machineries and equipment.15

As envisioned in the BOT law, the parties’ agreement assumes that within the agreed BOT period, BPPC – the investor–private corporation – shall recover its investment and earn profits through the agreed compensation scheme; thereafter, it shall transfer the whole project, including machineries and equipment, to NAPOCOR without additional cost or compensation. The latter, for its part, derives benefit from the project through the fulfillment of its mandate of delivering electricity to consumers at the soonest possible time, without immediately shouldering the huge financial requirements that the project would entail if it were to undertake the project on its own. Its obligation, in exchange, is to shoulder specific operating costs under a compensation scheme that includes the purchase of all the electricity that BPPC generates.

That some kind of "financing" arrangement is contemplated – in the sense that the private sector proponent shall initially shoulder the heavy cost of constructing the project’s buildings and structures and of purchasing the needed machineries and equipment – is undeniable. The arrangement, however, goes beyond the simple provision of funds, since the private sector proponent not only constructs and buys the necessary assets to put up the project, but operates and manages it as well during an agreed period that would allow it to recover its basic costs and earn profits. In other words, the private sector proponent goes into business for itself, assuming risks and incurring costs for its account. If it receives support from the government at all during the agreed period, these are pre-agreed items of assistance geared to ensure that the BOT agreement’s objectives – both for the project proponent and for the government – are achieved. In this sense, a BOT arrangement is sui generis and is different from the usual financing arrangements where funds are advanced to a borrower who uses the funds to establish a project that it owns, subject only to a collateral security arrangement to guard against the nonpayment of the loan. It is different, too, from an arrangement where a government agency borrows funds to put a project from a private sector-lender who is thereafter commissioned to run the project for the government agency. In the latter case, the government agency is the owner of the project from the beginning, and the lender-operator is merely its agent in running the project.

If the BOT Agreement under consideration departs at all from the concept of a BOT project as defined by law, it is only in the way BPPC’s cost recovery is achieved; instead of selling to facility users or to the general public at large, the generated electricity is purchased by NAPOCOR which then resells it to power distribution companies. This deviation, however, is dictated, more than anything else, by the structure and usages of the power industry and does not change the BOT nature of the transaction between the parties.

Consistent with the BOT concept and as implemented, BPPC – the owner-manager-operator of the project – is the actual user of its machineries and equipment. BPPC’s ownership and use of the machineries and equipment are actual, direct, and immediate, while NAPOCOR’s is contingent and, at this stage of the BOT Agreement, not sufficient to support its claim for tax exemption. Thus, the CTA committed no reversible error in denying NAPOCOR’s claim for tax exemption.

For these same reasons, we reject NAPOCOR’s argument that the machineries and equipment must be subjected to a lower assessment level. NAPOCOR cites as support Section 216 of the LGC which provides:

Section 216. Special Classes of Real Property. - All lands, buildings, and other improvements thereon actually, directly and exclusively used for hospitals, cultural, or scientific purposes, and those owned and used by local water districts, and government-owned or controlled corporations rendering essential public services in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power shall be classified as special.

in relation with Section 218 (d) of the LGC which provides:

Section 218. Assessment Levels. - The assessment levels to be applied to the fair market value of real property to determine its assessed value shall be fixed by ordinances of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan of a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area, at the rates not exceeding the following:

x x x x

(d) On Special Classes: The assessment levels for all lands buildings, machineries and other improvements;

Actual Use Assessment Level

Cultural 15%

Scientific 15%

Hospital 15%

Local water districts 10%

Government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power

10%

   

Since the basis for the application of the claimed differential treatment or assessment level is the same as the claimed tax exemption, the lower tribunals correctly found that there is no basis to apply the lower assessment level of 10%.

As our last point, we note that a real concern for NAPOCOR in this case is its assumption under the BOT agreement of BPPC’s real property tax liability (which in itself is a recognition that BPPC’s real properties are not really tax exempt). NAPOCOR argues that if no tax exemption will be recognized, the responsibility it assumed carries practical implications that are very difficult to ignore. In fact, NAPOCOR’s supplemental petition is anchored on these practical implications – the alleged detriment to the public interest that will result if the levy, sale, and transfer of the machineries and equipment were to be completed. NAPOCOR’s reference is to the fact that the machineries and equipment have been sold in public auction and the buyer – the respondent Province – will consolidate its ownership over these properties on February 1, 2009.

We fully recognize these concerns. However, these considerations are not relevant to our disposition of the issues in this case. We are faced here with the application of clear provisions of law and settled jurisprudence to a case that, to our mind, should not be treated differently solely because of non-legal or practical considerations. Significantly, local government real property taxation also has constitutional underpinnings, based on Section 5 of Article X of the Constitution,16 that we cannot simply ignore. In FELS

Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas,17 earlier cited, we said:

The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in its magnitude, acknowledging in its very nature no perimeter so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay for it. The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld to avoid severe tax erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the autonomy of local governments and the objective of the Local Government Code that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals.

In conclusion, we reiterate that the power to tax is the most potent instrument to raise the needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities of the local government units for the delivery of basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the people. [Emphasis supplied.]

This ruling reminds us of the other side of the coin in terms of concerns and protection of interests. La Union, as a local government unit, has no less than its own constitutional interests to protect in pursuing this case. These are interests that this Court must also be sensitive to and has taken into account in this Decision.

We close with the observation that our role in addressing the concerns and the interests at stake is not all-encompassing. The Judiciary can only resolve the current dispute through our

29

reading and interpretation of the law. The other branches of government which act on policy and which execute these policies, including NAPOCOR itself and the respondent local government unit, are more in the position to act in tackling feared practical consequences. This ruling on the law can be their springboard for action.

In light of these conclusions and observations, we need not discuss the other issues raised.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY NAPOCOR’s petition for lack of merit. We AFFIRM the appealed decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. Costs against NAPOCOR.

SO ORDERED.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G.R. No. 171586               July 15, 2009

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PROVINCE OF QUEZON and MUNICIPALITY OF PAGBILAO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We resolve in this petition for review on certiorari the question of whether the National Power Corporation (NPC), as a government-owned and controlled corporation, can claim tax exemption under Section 234 of the Local Government Code (LGC) for the taxes due from the Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (Mirant)1 whose tax liabilities the NPC has contractually assumed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The NPC is a government-owned and controlled corporation mandated by law to undertake, among others, the production of electricity from nuclear, geothermal, and other sources, and the transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis.2 To pursue this mandate, the NPC entered into an Energy Conversion Agreement (ECA) with Mirant on November 9, 1991. The ECA provided for a build-operate-transfer (BOT) arrangement between Mirant and the NPC. Mirant will build and finance a coal-fired thermal power plant on the lots owned by the NPC in Pagbilao, Quezon for the purpose of converting fuel into electricity, and thereafter, operate and maintain the power plant for a period of 25 years. The NPC, in turn, will supply the necessary fuel to be converted by Mirant into electric power, take the power generated, and use it to supply the electric power needs of the country. At the end of the 25-year term, Mirant will transfer the power plant to the NPC without compensation. According to the NPC, the power plant is currently operational and is one of the largest sources of electric power in the country.3

Among the obligations undertaken by the NPC under the ECA was the payment of all taxes that the government may impose on Mirant; Article 11.1 of the ECA4 specifically provides:

11.1 RESPONSIBILITY. [NPC] shall be responsible for the payment of (a) all taxes, import duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by the National Government of the Republic of the Philippines or any agency or instrumentality thereof to which [Mirant] may at any time be or become subject in or in relation to the performance of their obligations under this Agreement (other than (i) taxes imposed or calculated on the basis of the net income [of Mirant] and (ii) construction permit fees, environmental permit fees and other similar fees and charges), and (b) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Site, the buildings and improvements thereon and the Power Station. [Emphasis supplied.]

In a letter dated March 2, 2000, the Municipality of Pagbilao assessed Mirant’s real property taxes on the power plant and its machineries in the total amount of P1,538,076,000.00 for the period of 1997 to 2000. The Municipality of Pagbilao furnished the NPC a copy of the assessment letter.

To protect its interests, the NPC filed a petition before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) entitled "In Re: Petition to Declare Exempt from Payment of Property Tax on Machineries and Equipment Used for Generation and Transmission of Power, under Section 234(c) of RA 7160 [LGC], located at Pagbilao, Quezon xxx"5 on April 14, 2000. The NPC objected to the assessment against Mirant on the claim that it (the NPC) is entitled to the tax exemptions provided in Section 234, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the LGC. These provisions state:

Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from payment for the real property tax:

x x x           x x x          x x x

(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly, and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or –controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power;

x x x           x x x          x x x

(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.

Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or –controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of the Code.

Assuming that it cannot claim the exemptions stated in these provisions, the NPC alternatively asserted that it is entitled to:

a. the lower assessment level of 10% under Section 218(d) of the LGC for government-owned and controlled corporations engaged in the generation and transmission of electric power, instead of the 80% assessment level for commercial properties as imposed in the assessment letter; and

b. an allowance for depreciation of the subject machineries under Section 225 of the LGC.

The LBAA dismissed the NPC’s petition on the Municipality of Pagbilao’s motion, through a one-page Order dated November 13, 2000.6

The NPC appealed the denial of its petition with the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA). Although it noted the incompleteness of the LBAA decision for failing to state the factual basis of its ruling, the CBAA nevertheless affirmed, in its decision of August 18, 2003, the denial of the NPC’s claim for exemption. The CBAA likewise denied the NPC’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting the NPC to institute an appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

Before the CTA, the NPC claimed it was procedurally erroneous for the CBAA to exercise jurisdiction over its appeal because the LBAA issued a sin perjuicio7 decision, that is, the LBAA pronounced a judgment without any finding of fact. It argued that the CBAA should have remanded the case to the LBAA. On substantive issues, the NPC asserted the same grounds it relied upon to support its claimed tax exemptions.

The CTA en banc resolved to dismiss the NPC’s petition on February 21, 2006. From this ruling, the NPC filed the present petition seeking the reversal of the CTA en banc’s decision.

THE PETITION

The NPC contends that the CTA en banc erred in ruling that the NPC is estopped from questioning the LBAA’s sin perjuicio judgment; the LBAA decision, it posits, cannot serve as an appealable decision that would vest the CBAA with appellate jurisdiction; a sin perjuicio decision, by its nature, is null and void.

The NPC likewise assails the CTA en banc ruling that the NPC was not the proper party to protest the real property tax assessment, as it did not have the requisite "legal interest." The NPC claims that it has legal interest because of its beneficial ownership of the power plant and its machineries; what Mirant holds is merely a naked title. Under the terms of the ECA, the NPC also claims that it possesses all the attributes of ownership, namely, the rights to enjoy, to dispose of, and to recover against the holder and possessor of the thing owned. That it will acquire and fully own the power plant after the lapse of 25 years further underscores its "legal interest" in protesting the assessment.

The NPC’s assertion of beneficial ownership of the power plant also supports its claim for tax exemptions under Section 234(c) of the LGC. The NPC alleges that it has the right to control and supervise the entire output and operation of the power plant. This arrangement, to the NPC, proves that it is the entity actually, directly, and exclusively using the subject machineries. Mirant’s possession of the power plant is irrelevant since all of Mirant activities relating to power generation are undertaken for and in behalf of the NPC. Additionally, all the electricity Mirant generates is utilized by the NPC in supplying the power needs of the country; Mirant therefore operates the power plant for the exclusive and direct benefit of the

30

NPC. Lastly, the NPC posits that the machineries taxed by the local government include anti-pollution devices which should have been excluded from the assessment under Section 234(e) of the LGC.

Assuming that the NPC is liable to pay the assessed real property tax, it asserts that a reassessment is necessary as it is entitled to depreciation allowance on the machineries and to the lower 10% assessment level under Sections 225 and 218(d) of the LGC, respectively. This position is complemented by its prayer to have the case remanded to the LBAA for the proper determination of its tax liabilities.

THE COURT’S RULING

This case is not one of first impression. We have previously ruled against the NPC’s claimed exemptions under the LGC in the cases of FELS Energy, Inc. v. Province of Batangas8 and NPC v. CBAA.9 Based on the principles we declared in those cases, as well as the defects we found in the NPC’s tax assessment protest, we conclude that the petition lacks merit.

The NPC is estopped from questioning the CBAA’s jurisdiction

The assailed CTA en banc decision brushed aside the NPC’s sin perjuicio arguments by declaring that:

The court finds merit in [NPC’s] claim that the Order of the LBAA of the Province of Quezon is a sin perjuicio decision. A perusal thereof shows that the assailed Order does not contain findings of facts in support of the dismissal of the case. It merely stated a finding of merit in the contention of the Municipality of Pagbilao xxx.

However, on appeal before the CBAA, [NPC] assigned several errors, both in fact and in law, pertaining to the LBAA’s decision. Thus, petitioner is bound by the appellate jurisdiction of the CBAA under the principle of equitable estoppel. In this regard, [NPC] is in no position to question the appellate jurisdiction of the CBAA as it is the same party which sought its jurisdiction and participated in the proceedings therein.10 [Emphasis supplied.]

We agree that the NPC can no longer divest the CBAA of the power to decide the appeal after invoking and submitting itself to the board’s jurisdiction. We note that even the NPC itself found nothing objectionable in the LBAA’s sin perjuicio decision when it filed its appeal before the CBAA; the NPC did not cite this ground as basis for its appeal. What it cited were grounds that went into the merits of its case. In fact, its appeal contained no prayer for the remand of the case to the LBAA.

A basic jurisdictional rule, essentially based on fairness, is that a party cannot invoke a court’s jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief and, after failing to obtain the requested relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.11 Moreover, a remand would be unnecessary, as we find the CBAA’s and the CTA en banc’s denial of NPC’s claims entirely in accord with the law and with jurisprudence.

The entity liable for tax has the right to protest the assessment

Before we resolve the question of the NPC's entitlement to tax exemption, we find it necessary to determine first whether the NPC initiated a valid protest against the assessment. A taxpayer's failure to question the assessment before the LBAA renders the assessment of the local assessor final, executory, and demandable, thus precluding the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment, or from invoking any defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.12

Section 226 of the LGC lists down the two entities vested with the personality to contest an assessment: the owner and the person with legal interest in the property.

A person legally burdened with the obligation to pay for the tax imposed on a property has legal interest in the property and the personality to protest a tax assessment on the property. This is the logical and legal conclusion when Section 226, on the rules governing an assessment protest, is placed side by side with Section 250 on the payment of real property tax; both provisions refer to the same parties who may protest and pay the tax:

SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. - Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the

SECTION 250. Payment of Real Property Taxes in Instalments. - The owner of the real property or the person having legal interest therein may pay the basic

provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city xxx.

real property tax xxx due thereon without interest in four (4) equal instalments xxx.

The liability for taxes generally rests on the owner of the real property at the time the tax accrues. This is a necessary consequence that proceeds from the fact of ownership.13 However, personal liability for realty taxes may also expressly rest on the entity with the beneficial use of the real property, such as the tax on property owned by the government but leased to private persons or entities, or when the tax assessment is made on the basis of the actual use of the property.14 In either case, the unpaid realty tax attaches to the property15 but is directly chargeable against the taxable person who has actual and beneficial use and possession of the property regardless of whether or not that person is the owner.16

In the present case, the NPC, contrary to its claims, is neither the owner nor the possessor/user of the subject machineries.

The ECA’s terms regarding the power plant’s machineries clearly vest their ownership with Mirant. Article 2.12 of the ECA17 states:

2.12 OWNERSHIP OF POWER STATION. From the Effective Date until the Transfer Date [that is, the day following the last day of the 25-year period], [Mirant] shall, directly or indirectly, own the Power Station and all the fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site or used in connection with the Power Station which have been supplied by it or at its cost. [Mirant] shall operate, manage, and maintain the Power Station for the purpose of converting fuel of [NPC] into electricity. [Emphasis supplied.]

The NPC contends that it should nevertheless be regarded as the beneficial owner of the plant, since it will acquire ownership thereof at the end of 25 years. The NPC also asserts, by quoting portions of the ECA, that it has the right to control and supervise the construction and operation of the plant, and that Mirant has retained only naked title to it. These contentions, unfortunately, are not sufficient to vest the NPC the personality to protest the assessment.

In Cariño v. Ofilado,18 we declared that legal interest should be an interest that is actual and material, direct and immediate, not simply contingent or expectant. The concept of the directness and immediacy involved is no different from that required in motions for intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court that allow one who is not a party to the case to participate because of his or her direct and immediate interest, characterized by either gain or loss from the judgment that the court may render.19 In the present case, the NPC’s ownership of the plant will happen only after the lapse of the 25-year period; until such time arrives, the NPC's claim of ownership is merely contingent, i.e., dependent on whether the plant and its machineries exist at that time. Prior to this event, the NPC’s real interest is only in the continued operation of the plant for the generation of electricity. This interest has not been shown to be adversely affected by the realty taxes imposed and is an interest that NPC can protect, not by claiming an exemption that is not due to Mirant, but by paying the taxes it (NPC) has assumed for Mirant under the ECA.

To show that Mirant only retains a naked title, the NPC has selectively cited provisions of the ECA to make it appear that it has the sole authority over the power plant and its operations. Contrary to these assertions, however, a complete reading of the ECA shows that Mirant has more substantial powers in the control and supervision of the power plant's construction and operations.

Under Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the ECA, Mirant is responsible for the design, construction, equipping, testing, and commissioning of the power plant. Article 5.1 on the operation of the power plant states that Mirant shall be responsible for the power plant’s management, operation, maintenance, and repair until the Transfer Date. This is reiterated in Article 5.3 where Mirant undertakes to operate the power plant to convert fuel into electricity.

31

While the NPC asserts that it has the power to authorize the closure of the power plant without any veto on the part of Mirant, the full text of Article 8.5 of the ECA shows that Mirant is possessed with similar powers to terminate the agreement:

8.5 BUYOUT. If the circumstances set out in Article 7.18, Article 9.4, Article 14.4 or Article 28.4 arise or if, not earlier than 20 years after the Completion Date, [the NPC] gives not less than 90 days notice to [Mirant] that it wishes to close the power station, or if [the NPC] has failed to ensure the due payment of any sum due hereunder within three months of its due date then, upon [Mirant] giving to [the NPC] not less than 90 days notice requiring [the NPC] to buy out [Mirant] or, as the case may be, [the NPC] giving not less than 90 days notice requiring [Mirant] to sell out to [NPC], [NPC] shall purchase all [Mirant's] right, title, and interest in and to the Power Station and thereupon all [Mirant's] obligations hereunder shall cease. [Emphasis supplied.]1avvphi1

On liability for taxes, the NPC indeed assumed responsibility for the taxes due on the power plant and its machineries,20 specifically, "all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the site, the buildings and improvements thereon and the [power plant]." At first blush, this contractual provision would appear to make the NPC liable and give it standing to protest the assessment. The tax liability we refer to above, however, is the liability arising from law that the local government unit can rightfully and successfully enforce, not the contractual liability that is enforceable between the parties to a contract as discussed below. By law, the tax liability rests on Mirant based on its ownership, use, and possession of the plant and its machineries.

In Testate of Concordia Lim v. City of Manila,21 we had occasion to rule that:

In [Baguio v. Busuego22], the assumption by the vendee of the liability for real estate taxes prospectively due was in harmony with the tax policy that the user of the property bears the tax. In [the present case], the interpretation that the [vendee] assumed a liability for overdue real estate taxes for the periods prior to the contract of sale is incongruent with the said policy because there was no immediate transfer of possession of the properties previous to full payment of the repurchase price.

xxxx

To impose the real property tax on the estate which was neither the owner nor the beneficial user of the property during the designated periods would not only be contrary to law but also unjust.

For a fuller appreciation of this ruling, the Baguio case referred to a contract of sale wherein the vendee not only assumed liability for the taxes on the property, but also acquired its use and possession, even though title remained with the vendor pending full payment of the purchase price. Under this situation, we found the vendee who had assumed liability for the realty taxes and who had been given use and possession to be liable. Compared with Baguio, the Lim case supposedly involved the same contractual assumption of tax liabilities,23 but possession and enjoyment of the property remained with other persons. Effectively, Lim held that the contractual assumption of the obligation to pay real property tax, by itself, is not sufficient to make one legally compellable by the government to pay for the taxes due; the person liable must also have use and possession of the property.

Using the Baguio and Lim situations as guides, and after considering the comparable legal situations of the parties assuming liability in these cases, we conclude that the NPC’s contractual liability alone cannot be the basis for the enforcement of tax liabilities against it by the local government unit. In Baguio and Lim, the vendors still retained ownership, and the effectiveness of the tax liabilities assumed by the vendees turned on the possession and use of the property subject to tax. In other words, the contractual assumption of liability was supplemented by an interest that the party assuming liability had on the property taxed; on this basis, the vendee in Baguio was found liable, while the vendee in Lim was not. In the present case, the NPC is neither the owner, nor the possessor or user of the property taxed. No interest on its part thus justifies any tax liability on its part other than its voluntary contractual undertaking. Under this legal situation, only Mirant as the contractual obligor, not the local government unit, can enforce the tax liability that the NPC contractually assumed; the NPC does not have the "legal interest" that the law and jurisprudence require to give it personality to protest the tax imposed by law on Mirant.

By our above conclusion, we do not thereby pass upon the validity of the contractual stipulation between the NPC and Mirant on the assumption of liability that the NPC

undertook. All we declare is that the stipulation is entirely between the NPC and Mirant, and does not bind third persons who are not privy to the contract between these parties. We say this pursuant to the principle of relativity of contracts under Article 1311 of the Civil Code which postulates that contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs. Quite obviously, there is no privity between the respondent local government units and the NPC, even though both are public corporations. The tax due will not come from one pocket and go to another pocket of the same governmental entity. An LGU is independent and autonomous in its taxing powers and this is clearly reflected in Section 130 of the LGC which states:

SECTION 130. Fundamental Principles. - The following fundamental principles shall govern the exercise of the taxing and other revenue-raising powers of local government units:

xxx

(d) The revenue collected pursuant to the provisions of this Code shall inure solely to the benefit of, and be subject to disposition by, the local government unit levying the tax, fee, charge or other imposition unless otherwise specifically provided herein; xxx. [Emphasis supplied.]

An exception to the rule on relativity of contracts is provided under the same Article 1311 as follows:

If the contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfilment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person. [Emphasis supplied.]

The NPC’s assumption of tax liability under Article 11.1 of the ECA does not appear, however, to be in any way for the benefit of the Municipality of Pagbilao and the Province of Quezon. In fact, if the NPC theory of the case were to be followed, the NPC’s assumption of tax liability will work against the interests of these LGUs. Besides, based on the objectives of the BOT Law24 that underlie the parties’ BOT agreement,25 the assumption of taxes clause is an incentive for private corporations to take part and invest in Philippine industries. Thus, the principle of relativity of contracts applies with full force in the relationship between Mirant and NPC, on the one hand, and the respondent LGUs, on the other.

To reiterate, only the parties to the ECA agreement can exact and demand the enforcement of the rights and obligations it established – only Mirant can demand compliance from the NPC for the payment of the real property tax the NPC assumed to pay. The local government units (the Municipality of Pagbilao and the Province of Quezon), as third parties to the ECA, cannot demand payment from the NPC on the basis of Article 11.1 of the ECA alone. Corollarily, the local government units can neither be compelled to recognize the protest of a tax assessment from the NPC, an entity against whom it cannot enforce the tax liability.

The test of exemption is the nature of the use, not ownership, of the subject machineries

At any rate, the NPC’s claim of tax exemptions is completely without merit. To successfully claim exemption under Section 234(c) of the LGC, the claimant must prove two elements:

a. the machineries and equipment are actually, directly, and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations; and

b. the local water districts and government-owned and controlled corporations claiming exemption must be engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or the generation and transmission of electric power.

As applied to the present case, the government-owned or controlled corporation claiming exemption must be the entity actually, directly, and exclusively using the real properties, and the use must be devoted to the generation and transmission of electric power. Neither the NPC nor Mirant satisfies both requirements. Although the plant’s machineries are devoted to the generation of electric power, by the NPC’s own admission and as previously pointed out, Mirant – a private corporation – uses and operates them. That Mirant operates the machineries solely in compliance with the will of the NPC only underscores the fact that NPC does not actually, directly, and exclusively use them. The machineries must be actually, directly, and exclusively used by the government-owned or controlled corporation for the exemption under Section 234(c) to apply.26

32

Nor will NPC find solace in its claim that it utilizes all the power plant’s generated electricity in supplying the power needs of its customers. Based on the clear wording of the law, it is the machineries that are exempted from the payment of real property tax, not the water or electricity that these machineries generate and distribute.27

Even the NPC’s claim of beneficial ownership is unavailing. The test of exemption is the use, not the ownership of the machineries devoted to generation and transmission of electric power.28 The nature of the NPC’s ownership of these machineries only finds materiality in resolving the NPC’s claim of legal interest in protesting the tax assessment on Mirant. As we discussed above, this claim is inexistent for tax protest purposes.

Lastly, from the points of view of essential fairness and the integrity of our tax system, we find it essentially wrong to allow the NPC to assume in its BOT contracts the liability of the other contracting party for taxes that the government can impose on that other party, and at the same time allow NPC to turn around and say that no taxes should be collected because the NPC is tax-exempt as a government-owned and controlled corporation. We cannot be a party to this kind of arrangement; for us to allow it without congressional authority is to intrude into the realm of policy and to debase the tax system that the Legislature established. We will then also be grossly unfair to the people of the Province of Quezon and the Municipality of Pagbilao who, by law, stand to benefit from the tax provisions of the LGC.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the National Power Corporation’s petition for review on certiorari, and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc dated February 21, 2006. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

33