This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As we declared in Testate Estate of Concordia T. Lim, "the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner." Of the same tenor is the Court's holding in the subsequent Manila Electric Company v. Barlis[25] and later in Republic v. City of Kidapawan.[26] Actual use refers to the purpose for which the property is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession thereof.[27] | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 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 property[15] 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] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| 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. | |||||