Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > November 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-51223 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

211 Phil. 97:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-51223. November 25, 1983.]

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA and HON. EUFROCINIO S. DELA MERCED, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Manuel M. Lazaro, Pilipinas Arenas Laborte and Antonio M. Brillantes for defendant-appellant NDC.

Antero P. Tomas for plaintiff-appellee Prov. of Nueva Ecija.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; REAL ESTATE TAXES; GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATION; PROPERTY OWNED NOT DEVOTED TO PUBLIC USE; NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF REAL ESTATE TAX. — Commonwealth Act No. 182 which created the NDC contains no provision exempting it from the payment of real estate tax on properties it may acquire. Subject properties are situated in the town of Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. These properties are not devoted to public use but were acquired for resale to qualified persons. They were developed for the purpose of reselling the same for consideration to qualified tenants. Thus, Defendant-Appellant is not exempt from payment of real estate tax over said properties.

2. ID.; ID.; NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; NOT CLASSIFIED AS MUNICIPAL OR PUBLIC CORPORATION; MAY BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIE CORPORATION LAW. — Defendant-appellant NDC does not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation in the sense that it may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense, it is an entity different from the government. Unlike the government, defendant corporation may be sued without its consent, and is subject to taxation. In the case of NDC v. Jose Yulo Tobias, 7 SCRA 692, it was held that." . . plaintiff is neither the Government of the Republic nor a branch or subdivision thereof, but a government owned and controlled corporation which cannot be said to exercise a sovereign function (Associacion Cooperativa de Credito Agricola de Miagao v. Monteclaro, 74 Phil. 281), it is a business corporation, and as such, its causes of action are subject to the statute of limitations. . . . That plaintiff herein does not exercise sovereign powers — and, hence, can not invoke the exemptions thereof — but is an agency for the performance of purely corporate, properties, or business functions, is apparent from its Organic Act (Commonwealth Act 182 as amended by Commonwealth Act 311) pursuant to Section 3 of which it ‘shall be subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law in so far as they are not inconsistent’ with the provisions of said Commonwealth Act ‘and shall have the general powers mentioned in said’ Corporation Law.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


On October 16, 1972, the Province of Nueva Ecija filed with the then Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija a complaint against the National Development Company (NDC, for short) for the collection of real estate taxes.

On April 17, 1975, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering the latter "to pay the sum of P32,402.04, representing the unpaid real estate taxes and penalties from the fourth quarter of 1970 up to the year 1972, and to continue paying up to the present, and to pay the costs." (p. 35, Record on Appeal)chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The NDC, not satisfied with the aforementioned judgment, appealed on the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The trial court erred in holding that the defendant-appellant National Development Company is liable for real estate taxes on the land subject of the case.

"2. The trial court erred in not ruling that plaintiff-appellee, Province of Nueva Ecija should refund to defendant-appellant National Development Company the amount paid as real estate taxes for the land subject matter of this case from 1952 to 1970."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendant-appellant NDC submits that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 182, as emended, and Executive Order No. 399, otherwise known as the Uniform Charter for Government Corporations; that under Section 2 of said Act, fifty-one per centum of the capital stock shall be subscribed by the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the remainder thereof may be offered to the provincial, municipal and city governments; and, that the NDC being owned by the Republic of the Philippines, it follows that its real properties, particularly those situated at Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija, are exempt from payment of real estate taxes. In support of this contention, Defendant-Appellant cited the case of Board of Assessment Appeals of Laguna v. Court of Tax Appeals and NAWASA, 8 SCRA 225, where the Court ruled that "Section 3(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 470 makes no distinction between property held in a sovereign, governmental or political capacity and those possessed in a private, proprietary or patrimonial character . . . Section 1 of Republic Act No. 104 only refers to the payment by corporations, agencies, or instrumentalities owned or controlled by the government, of duties, taxes, fees and other charges upon `transactions, business industry, sale, or income,’ but does not include taxes on property like real estate taxes."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find no merit in the appeal.

1. Commonwealth Act No. 182 which created the NDC contains no provision exempting it from the payment of real estate tax on properties it may acquire. Subject properties are situated in the town of Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija, and are more particularly described as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Lot No. Survey AREA KIND LOCATION

Psu-3607 9181.6113 riceland Sabani Estate

pasture Sabani Estate

residential Sabani Estate

commercial Sabani Estate

school site Sabani Estate

etc. Sabani Estate

Psu-36074 9271.6113 riceland Sabani Estate

pasture Sabani Estate

residential Sabani Estate

commercial Sabani Estate

school site Sabani Estate

etc. Sabani Estate

Psu-36074 9269.1580 riceland Sabani Estate

pasture Sabani Estate

residential Sabani Estate

commercial Sabani Estate

school site Sabani Estate

etc. Sabani Estate

(p. 33, Record on Appeal)

These properties are not devoted to public use but were acquired for resale to qualified persons. They were developed for the purpose of reselling the same for consideration to qualified tenants. Thus, Defendant-Appellant is not exempt from payment of real estate tax over said properties. There is justification in the contention of plaintiff-appellee that —

". . . the 11,500 hectares of real properties of the National Development Company in the town of Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija must perforce, owing to its big area, constitute a very substantial territory of the said town should be considered. It is undeniable that to any municipality the principal source of revenue with which it would defray its operation will come from real property taxes. If the National Development Company would be exempt from paying real property taxes over these properties, the town of Gabaldon will be deprived of much needed revenues with which it will maintain itself and finance the compelling needs of its inhabitants." (p. 6, Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee)

2. Defendant-appellant NDC does not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation in the sense that it may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense, it is an entity different from the government. Unlike the government, defendant corporation may be sued without its consent, and is subject to taxation. In the case of NDC v. Jose Yulo Tobias, 7 SCRA 692, it was held that." . . plaintiff is neither the Government of the Republic nor a branch or subdivision thereof, but a government owned and controlled corporation which cannot be said to exercise a sovereign function (Associacion Cooperativa de Credito Agricola de Miagao v. Monteclaro, 74 Phil. 281), it is a business corporation, and as such, its causes of action are subject to the statute of limitations . . . That plaintiff herein does not exercise sovereign powers — and, hence, can not invoke the exemptions thereof — but is an agency for the performance of purely corporate, proprietary or business functions, is apparent from its Organic Act (Commonwealth Act 182, as amended by Commonwealth Act 311) pursuant to Section 3 of which it ‘shall be subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law in so far as they are not inconsistent’ with the provisions of said Commonwealth Act, ‘and shall have the general powers mentioned in said’ Corporation Law, and, hence, ‘may engage in commercial, industrial, mining, agricultural, and other enterprises which may be necessary or contributory to the economic development of the country, or important in the public interest,’ as well as ‘acquire, hold, mortgage, and alienate personal and real property in the Philippines or elsewhere; . . . make contracts of any kind and description’, and ‘perform any and all acts which a corporation or natural persons is authorized to perform under the laws now existing or which may be enacted hereafter."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the appeal of defendant-appellant National Development Company is dismissed and the decision, dated April 17, 1975, of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. RAMON BAGATSING

    210 Phil. 457

  • G.R. Nos. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-33822-23 November 22, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 499

  • G.R. No. L-47282 November 23, 1983 - CONSTANCIO ABAPO v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 529

  • G.R. No. L-57091 November 23, 1983 - PAZ S. BAENS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-23625 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO TERRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28255 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN C. MAGTIRA

    211 Phil. 7

  • G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983 - ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 26

  • G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983 - CLEMENTE BRIÑAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 37

  • G.R. No. L-32312 November 25, 1983 - AURELIO TIRO v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 46

  • G.R. No. L-32573 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-33277 November 25, 1983 - JORGE C. PACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-44412 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME V. SAMBANGAN

    211 Phil. 72

  • G.R. No. L-49656 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO S. QUINTAL

    211 Phil. 79

  • G.R. No. L-51223 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 97

  • G.R. No. L-54242 November 25, 1983 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. RENE NIETO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 101

  • G.R. No. L-55436 November 25, 1983 - NICASIO BORJE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 106

  • G.R. No. L-55463 November 25, 1983 - ROBERTO V. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57518 November 25, 1983 - LUCAS BARASI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 138

  • G.R. No. L-58630 November 25, 1983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 145

  • G.R. No. L-60744 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE A. LUCES

    211 Phil. 152

  • G.R. No. L-62032 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DUMLAO

    211 Phil. 159

  • G.R. No. L-62050 November 25, 1983 - JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 166

  • G.R. No. L-62283 November 25, 1983 - CARIDAD CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 171

  • G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 176

  • G.R. No. L-63318 November 25, 1983 - PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 180

  • G.R. Nos. L-64207-08 November 25, 1983 - CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 187

  • G.R. No. L-40884 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CHAVEZ

    211 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-48273 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 197

  • G.R. Nos. L-62617-18 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO A. COLANA

    211 Phil. 216

  • G.R. No. L-63564 November 28, 1983 - JOB QUIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 220

  • G.R. No. L-64013 November 28, 1983 - UNION GLASS & CONTAINER CORP., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 222

  • A.M. No. 1812-CTJ November 29, 1983 - STEPHEN L. MONSANTO v. POMPEYO L. PALARCA

    211 Phil. 237

  • B.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

    211 Phil. 251

  • G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

  • G.R. No. L-30965 November 29, 1983 - G.A MACHINERIES, INC. v. HORACIO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-33243 November 29, 1983 - ISIDRO C. NERY, ET AL. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 278

  • G.R. No. L-34036 November 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO ESTRADA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 282

  • G.R. No. L-35250 November 29, 1983 - MINERVA C. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 295

  • G.R. No. L-41971 November 29, 1983 - ZONIA ANA T. SOLANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 307

  • G.R. No. L-44063 November 29, 1983 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 321

  • G.R. No. L-45461 November 29, 1983 - PONCIANO L. ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 342

  • G.R. No. L-50259 November 29, 1983 - FLORENTINO SALINAS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 351

  • G.R. No. L-51533 November 29, 1983 - PAZ L. MAKABALI v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 357

  • G.R. Nos. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 - ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, ET AL. v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 373

  • G.R. No. L-55160 November 29, 1983 - INOCENTES L. FERNANDEZ v. MANUEL S. ALBA

    211 Phil. 380

  • G.R. No. L-57131 November 29, 1983 - ESTELITA GRAVADOR v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-57314 November 29, 1983 - TEODORO SANCHEZ v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 389

  • G.R. No. L-62023 November 29, 1983 - G & S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 392

  • G.R. No. L-63277 November 29, 1983 - PETRA VDA. DE BORROMEO v. JULIAN B. POGOY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 396

  • G.R. No. L-64809 November 29, 1983 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-65004 November 29, 1983 - PERFECTO DEL ROSARIO, JR. v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO

    211 Phil. 406