Apostolic Prefect Of Mountain Province.docx

Apostolic Prefect of Mountain Province v City Treasurer of Baguio City (1941) Apostolic Prefect of Mountain Province v City Treasurer of Baguio City GR No 47252, April 18, 1941 FACTS: The Apostolic Prefect is a corporation sole, of religious character, organized under the Philippine laws, and with residence in Baguio. The City imposed a special assessment against properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including those of the Apostolic Prefect, which benefits from its drainage and sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free from tax. ISSUE: Is the Apostolic Prefect exempt from paying? RULING: No, it is liable. In its broad meaning, tax includes both general taxes and special assessment. Yet actually, there is a recognized distinction between them in that assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with reference to special benefits to the property assessed. A special assessment is not, strictly speaking, a tax; and neither the decree nor the Constitution exempt the Apostolic Prefect from payment of said special assessment. Furthermore, arguendo that exemption may encompass such assessment, the Apostolic Prefect cannot claim exemption as it has not proven the property in question is used exclusively for religious purposes; but that it appears that the same is being used to other non-religious purposes. Thus, the Apostolic Prefect is required to pay the special assessment. APOSTOLIC PREFECT VS CITY TREASURER OF BAGUIO CITY GR 4752 April 18, 1941 Imperial, J.: FACTS: The Apostolic Prefect is a corporation , of religious character, organized under the Philippine laws, and with residence in Baguio. The City imposed a special assessment against properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including those of the Apostolic Prefect, which benefits from its drainage and sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free of tax being of religious in character. ISSUE: Whether or not Apostolic Prefect, as a religious entity is exempt from the payment of the special assessment.

RULING: A special assessment is not a tax; and neither the decree nor the Constitution exempt petitioner from payment of said special assessment. Although it its broad meaning, tax includes both general taxes and special assessment, yet there is a recognized distinction: Assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with special benefits to the property assessed. Petitioner likewise, has proven that the property in question is used exclusively for religious purposes; but that it appears the same is being used to other non-religious purposes. Thus, petitioner is required to pay the special assessment.

VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents. August 27, 1987 PARAS, J. Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the OPALA dismissing an appeal from the PPA SHORT VERSION FACTS: Victoria’s Milling doesn’t want to pay what the PPA is charging it as fees and charges. VMC says that since it operates a private wharf on its own land and since the government has never spent anything for its maintenance, it shouldn’t pay. PPA still tells it to pay. It appeals to the CTA, is denied; to the SC, is denied; and t the Office of the President, and is denied for being filed out of the reglementary period. HELD: VMC’s Appeal is filed out of reglementary period and the prior filing of it in other forums does not toll the period. Such is stated in properly published rules of the PPA, authorized to make its own rules by a PD. Even if the appeal were to be heard, VMC still has to pay because the fees and charges PPA collects are not for the use of the wharf that petitioner owns but for the privilege of navigating in public waters, of entering and leaving public harbors and berthing on public streams or waters regardless of whether the wharf is private or not.Apostolic Prefect of Mountain Province v City Treasurer of Baguio City GR No 47252, April 18, 1941

FACTS: The Apostolic Prefect is a corporation sole, of religious character, organized under the Philippine laws, and with residence in Baguio. The City imposed a special assessment against properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including those of the Apostolic Prefect, which benefits from its drainage and sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free from tax.

ISSUE: Is the Apostolic Prefect exempt from paying?

RULING: No, it is liable.

In its broad meaning, tax includes both general taxes and special assessment. Yet actually, there is a recognized distinction between them in that assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with reference to special benefits to the property assessed. A special assessment is not, strictly speaking, a tax; and neither the decree nor the Constitution exempt the Apostolic Prefect from payment of said special assessment.

Furthermore, arguendo that exemption may encompass such assessment, the Apostolic Prefect cannot claim exemption as it has not proven the property in question is used exclusively for religious purposes; but that it appears that the same is being used to other non-religious purposes.

Thus, the Apostolic Prefect is required to pay the special assessment.