This case has been cited 2 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] | |||||
|
2006-02-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,[30] not errors of judgment.[31] Where the issue or question involves or affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari.[32] Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[33] The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[34] | |||||