Lawyerly

GR No. 175417

2015-02-09

GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

PERALTA, J.

It is interesting to note that the water works system in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, including the three (3) water tanks subject of the assailed Writ of Execution in G.R. No. 198923, is devoted to public use and thus, property of public dominion, which GMAWD has the right to operate, maintain, and manage. 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. Otherwise, essential public services would stop if properties of public dominion would be subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale.[9] Since it is GEMASCO which is liable for the payment of the separation pay and backwages to its illegally dismissed employees, any contemplated sale must be confined only to those properties absolutely owned by it and the subject water tanks must corollarily be excluded from the same.

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

Examples of instrumentalities of the national government are the Manila International Airport Authority,[246] the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority,[247] the Government Service Insurance System,[248] and the Philippine Reclamation Authority.[249] These entities are not integrated within the department framework but are nevertheless vested with special functions to carry out a declared policy of the national government.

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

To be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation, the entity must have been organized as a stock or non-stock corporation.[267]

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

At any rate, the PEZA cannot be taxed for real property taxes even if it acts as a developer or operator of special economic zones. The PEZA is an instrumentality of the national government exempt from payment of real property taxes under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. As this court said in Manila International Airport Authority, "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."[277]

GR No. 184203

2014-11-26

CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY

LEONEN, J.

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." . . .[290] (Emphasis in the original; italics supplied)

GR No. 185918

2012-04-18

LOCKHEED DETECTIVE v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Lockheed moved to reconsider the amended decision but the same was denied in the assailed CA Resolution dated December 23, 2008. The CA cited Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[19] which held that UP ranks with MIAA, a government instrumentality exercising corporate powers but not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. While said corporations are government instrumentalities, they are loosely called government corporate entities but not government-owned and controlled corporations in the strict sense.

GR No. 185023

2011-08-24

CITY OF PASIG v. REPUBLIC

CARPIO, J.

In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court held: x x x 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.

GR No. 177131

2011-06-07

BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Thereafter, considering the BSP's claim that it is a private corporation, this Court, in a Resolution [34] dated July 20, 2010, required the parties to file, within a period of twenty (20) days from receipt of said Resolution, their respective comments on the issue of whether Commonwealth Act No. 111, as amended by Republic Act No. 7278, is constitutional.

GR No. 178030

2010-12-15

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS

CARPIO, J.

Besides, the Lucena Fishing Port Complex is a property of public dominion intended for public use, and is therefore exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a)[11] of the Local Government Code. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.[12] Thus, Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

GR No. 186242

2009-12-23

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CITY TREASURER

VELASCO JR., J.

Apart from the foregoing consideration, the Court's fairly recent ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[20] a case likewise involving real estate tax assessments by a Metro Manila city on the real properties administered by MIAA, argues for the non-tax liability of GSIS for real estate taxes. There, the Court held that MIAA does not qualify as a GOCC, not having been organized either as a stock corporation, its capital not being divided into shares, or as a non-stock corporation because it has no members. MIAA is rather an instrumentality of the National Government and, hence, outside the purview of local taxation by force of Sec. 133 of the LGC providing in context that "unless otherwise provided," local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. And as the Court pronounced in Manila International Airport Authority, the airport lands and buildings MIAA administers belong to the Republic of the Philippines, which makes MIAA a mere trustee of such assets. No less than the Administrative Code of 1987 recognizes a scenario where a piece of land owned by the Republic is titled in the name of a department, agency, or instrumentality. The following provision of the said Code suggests as much: 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: x x x x

GR Nos. 154211-12

2009-06-22

SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY

VELASCO JR., J.

This Court's disquisition in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[102] ruling that MIAA is not a government-owned and/or controlled corporation (GOCC), but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation, and that its real properties are owned by the Republic of the Philippines is instructive. Therein we found that MIAA is neither a stock or a non-stock corporation, for its capital is not divided into shares nor does it have members. Moreover, the airport lands and buildings it administers are owned by the Republic, which certainly takes them outside the commerce of man and makes MIAA a mere trustee thereof. These findings are squarely applicable to PPA, as it is similarly situated as MIAA. First, PPA is likewise not a GOCC for not having shares of stocks or members. Second, the docks, piers and buildings it administers are likewise owned by the Republic and, thus, outside the commerce of man. Third, PPA is a mere trustee of these properties. Hence, like MIAA, PPA is clearly a government instrumentality, an agency of the government vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions.[103]

GR No. 163072

2009-04-02

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PASAY

CARPIO, J.

In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[6] (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.

GR No. 150301

2007-10-02

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

This is in consonance with the ruling in Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. Court of Appeals[21] where this Court held that: On the basis of the parameters set in the MIAA [Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals][22] case, the Authority should be classified as an instrumentality of the national government. As such, it is generally exempt from payment of real property tax, except those portions which have been leased to private entities.

GR NO. 169836

2007-07-31

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court made a distinction between a GOCC and an instrumentality. Thus:Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows:

	GR No. 175417 2015-02-09	GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY PERALTA, J.
It is interesting to note that the water works system in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, including the three (3) water tanks subject of the assailed Writ of Execution in G.R. No. 198923, is devoted to public use and thus, property of public dominion, which GMAWD has the right to operate, maintain, and manage. 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. Otherwise, essential public services would stop if properties of public dominion would be subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale.[9] Since it is GEMASCO which is liable for the payment of the separation pay and backwages to its illegally dismissed employees, any contemplated sale must be confined only to those properties absolutely owned by it and the subject water tanks must corollarily be excluded from the same.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Examples of instrumentalities of the national government are the Manila International Airport Authority,[246] the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority,[247] the Government Service Insurance System,[248] and the Philippine Reclamation Authority.[249] These entities are not integrated within the department framework but are nevertheless vested with special functions to carry out a declared policy of the national government.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
To be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation, the entity must have been organized as a stock or non-stock corporation.[267]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
At any rate, the PEZA cannot be taxed for real property taxes even if it acts as a developer or operator of special economic zones. The PEZA is an instrumentality of the national government exempt from payment of real property taxes under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code. As this court said in Manila International Airport Authority, "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."[277]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
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." . . .[290] (Emphasis in the original; italics supplied)
	GR No. 185918 2012-04-18	LOCKHEED DETECTIVE v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Lockheed moved to reconsider the amended decision but the same was denied in the assailed CA Resolution dated December 23, 2008. The CA cited Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[19] which held that UP ranks with MIAA, a government instrumentality exercising corporate powers but not organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. While said corporations are government instrumentalities, they are loosely called government corporate entities but not government-owned and controlled corporations in the strict sense.
	GR No. 185023 2011-08-24	CITY OF PASIG v. REPUBLIC CARPIO, J.
In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court held: x x x 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.
	GR No. 177131 2011-06-07	BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thereafter, considering the BSP's claim that it is a private corporation, this Court, in a Resolution [34] dated July 20, 2010, required the parties to file, within a period of twenty (20) days from receipt of said Resolution, their respective comments on the issue of whether Commonwealth Act No. 111, as amended by Republic Act No. 7278, is constitutional.
	GR No. 178030 2010-12-15	PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS CARPIO, J.
Besides, the Lucena Fishing Port Complex is a property of public dominion intended for public use, and is therefore exempt from real property tax under Section 234(a)[11] of the Local Government Code. Properties of public dominion are owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.[12] Thus, Article 420 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
	GR No. 186242 2009-12-23	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CITY TREASURER VELASCO JR., J.
Apart from the foregoing consideration, the Court's fairly recent ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[20] a case likewise involving real estate tax assessments by a Metro Manila city on the real properties administered by MIAA, argues for the non-tax liability of GSIS for real estate taxes. There, the Court held that MIAA does not qualify as a GOCC, not having been organized either as a stock corporation, its capital not being divided into shares, or as a non-stock corporation because it has no members. MIAA is rather an instrumentality of the National Government and, hence, outside the purview of local taxation by force of Sec. 133 of the LGC providing in context that "unless otherwise provided," local governments cannot tax national government instrumentalities. And as the Court pronounced in Manila International Airport Authority, the airport lands and buildings MIAA administers belong to the Republic of the Philippines, which makes MIAA a mere trustee of such assets. No less than the Administrative Code of 1987 recognizes a scenario where a piece of land owned by the Republic is titled in the name of a department, agency, or instrumentality. The following provision of the said Code suggests as much: 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: x x x x
	GR Nos. 154211-12 2009-06-22	SPS. ERNESTO F. CURATA AND LOURDES M. CURATA v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VELASCO JR., J.
This Court's disquisition in Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[102] ruling that MIAA is not a government-owned and/or controlled corporation (GOCC), but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation, and that its real properties are owned by the Republic of the Philippines is instructive. Therein we found that MIAA is neither a stock or a non-stock corporation, for its capital is not divided into shares nor does it have members. Moreover, the airport lands and buildings it administers are owned by the Republic, which certainly takes them outside the commerce of man and makes MIAA a mere trustee thereof. These findings are squarely applicable to PPA, as it is similarly situated as MIAA. First, PPA is likewise not a GOCC for not having shares of stocks or members. Second, the docks, piers and buildings it administers are likewise owned by the Republic and, thus, outside the commerce of man. Third, PPA is a mere trustee of these properties. Hence, like MIAA, PPA is clearly a government instrumentality, an agency of the government vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions.[103]
	GR No. 163072 2009-04-02	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CITY OF PASAY CARPIO, J.
In Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals[6] (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.
	GR No. 150301 2007-10-02	PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA AZCUNA, J.
This is in consonance with the ruling in Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. Court of Appeals[21] where this Court held that: On the basis of the parameters set in the MIAA [Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals][22] case, the Authority should be classified as an instrumentality of the national government. As such, it is generally exempt from payment of real property tax, except those portions which have been leased to private entities.
	GR NO. 169836 2007-07-31	PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Court made a distinction between a GOCC and an instrumentality. Thus:Section 2(13) of the Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines a government-owned or controlled corporation as follows:

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. CA