Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

1. WHERE THE ACTUAL TITLE HAS PASSED FROM AND OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE OWNER OF THE LAND IS EXEMPT FROM THE "ANNUAL TAX" DEFINED IN SECTION 15 OF ACT No. 2719. — Where the actual title to coal land has passed from and out of the Government, and is registered in a private owner, he is not subject to the payment of the "annual tax" "on each block or tract of 400 hectares or fraction thereof," as specified and defined in and by the provisions of section 15 of Act No. 2719.

STATEMENT

In its first cause of action, plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands, with its principal office and place of business in the municipality and Province of Cebu. That the defendant is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue of the Philippine Islands, with his principal office in the City of Manila. It is then alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. That the plaintiff is the registered owner of 227.67 hectares of coal land, located in the municipality of Danao. Province of Cebu, Philippine Islands, as is evidenced by original certificate of title No. 264, in the land records of the City of Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

That on January 9, 1923, the defendant, claiming to act under section 15 of Act No. 2719, demanded of the plaintiff a tax of P2,000 per annum for the years 1922 and 1923, "because the plaintiff owned the 227.67 hectares of coal land described in paragraph two above." That on February 15, 1923, plaintiff paid the tax under written protest, and demanded a return of the money, which the defendant refused to do.

As a second cause of action, the plaintiff makes like allegations for the year 1923, and for a third cause of action, makes like allegations for the year 1924, and prays for judgment in its favor and against the defendant for the sum of P6,000, with interest and costs.

The defendant demurred to each cause of action on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff, refusing to amend, judgment was entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in not holding section 15 of Act No. 2719 unenforceable as being in direct conflict with section 3 (p) of the Act of Congress, approved August 29, 1916 (Jones Law).

"II. The lower court erred in not holding section 15 of Act No. 2719 in conflict with section 3 (a) of the Act. of Congress, approved August 29, 1916, in that it deprived the plaintiff of its property without due process of law.

"III. The lower court erred in not holding section 15 of Act No. 2719 in conflict with section 3 (e) of the Act of Congress, approved August 29, 1916, in that it impairs the obligation of the contract between the plaintiff and the Philippine Government, as evidenced by original certificate of title No. 264.

"IV. The lower court erred in not holding that section 15 of Act No. 2719, violates section 3 (o) of the Act of Congress approved August 29, 1916, in that the rule of taxation as to uniformity had not been violated.

"V. The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint."