CITY ASSESSOR OF CEBU VS.

ASSOCIATION OF BENEVOLA DE CEBU

G.R 152904 June 28, 2007
Velasco, Jr. J.:

FACTS:
Benevola de Cebu is a non-stock non-profit organization which in 1990, a medical arts building was constructed and in 1998
was issued with a certification classifying the building as commercial. City assessor of Cebu assessed the building with a
market value of Php 28,060,520 and on assessed value of Php 9,821,180 at the assessment level of 35% and not 10%
which is currently imposed on private respondent herein. Petitioner claimed that the building is used as commercial
clinic/spaces for renting out to physicians and thus classified as commercial. Benevola de Cebu contended that the building
is used actually, directly and exclusively part of hospital and should have an assessment level of 10%

ISSUE:
Whether or not the new building is liable to pay the 35% assessment level?
RULING:
We hold that the new building is an integral part of the hospital and should not be assessed as commercial. Being a tertiary
hospital, it is mandated to fully departmentalized and be equipped with the service capabilities needed to support certified
medical specialist and other licensed physicians. The fact that they are holding office is a separate building does not take
away the essence and nature of their services vis-a-vis the overall operation of the hospital and to its patients.
Under the Local Government Code, Sec. 26: All lands, buildings and other improvements thereon actually, directly and
exclusively used for hospitals, cultural or scientific purposes and those owned and used by local water districts shall be
classified as special.
Association of Customs Brokers v Municipality Board (1953) Petitioner: Association of Customs
Brokers, Inc. and G. Manalapit Respondent: Municipality Board, City Treasurer, City Assessor, and
City Mayor of Manila

Ponente: Bautista Angelo J.

FACTS: 1. Petition for declaratory relief to test the validity of Ordinance No. 3379 passed by the
Municipal (Manila) 2. The Association and Manalapit (brokers and public service operators of motor
challenge the validity of Ord No. 3379 1. While it levies a so-called property tax it is in reality a
license tax,which is beyond the power of the Municipal Board. 2. Ordinance offends against the rule
of uniformity of taxation; and 3. Constitutes double taxation. 3. Board contend that the ordinance
imposes a property tax which is within the power of the City of Manila to impose (Revised Charter
[RA 409 Section 18p); does not violate the rule of uniformity of taxation; does it constitute double
taxation. 4. CFI sustained validity and dismissed the petition, hence this appeal.

ISSUE:

1) W/N Tax imposed is Property Tax

2) W/N Ord No. 3379 is valid.

NO HELD: RA 409 Section 18p: confers upon the municipal board the power "to tax motor and other
vehicles operating within the City of Manila the provisions of any existing law to the contrary
notwithstanding." Reps contend that this power also confer upon the City the power to enact an
ordinance imposing the property tax on motor vehicles operating within the city limits. Motor Vehicles
Law, as amended, (Act No. 3992) Sec 70 b No further fees than those fixed in this Act shall be
exacted or demanded by any public highway, bridge or ferry, or for the exercise of the profession of
chauffeur, or for the operation of any motor vehicle by the owner thereof: Provided, however, That
nothing in this Act shall be construed to exempt any motor vehicle from the payment of any lawful
and equitable insular, local or municipal property tax imposed thereupon. . . . This is an all-inclusive
provision and applies to all motor vehicles. This can be construed as limiting the broad grant of
power. RA 409 Sec 18: City of Manila can impose a tax on motor vehicles operating within its limit. It
can only refer to property tax. A different interpretation would make it repugnant to the Motor Vehicle
Law. Ord No. 3379 "An Ordinance Levying a Property Tax on All Motor Vehicles Operating Within
the City of Manila" Sec 1: Provides that the tax should be 1. 1% ad valorem per annum. 2.
Proceeds of the tax "shall accrue to the Streets and Bridges Funds of the City and shall be
expended exclusively for the repair, maintenance and improvement of its streets and bridges."
GENERAL RULE: ad valorem tax is a property tax, EXCEPTION: "If a tax is in its nature an
excise, it does not become a property tax because it is proportioned in amount to the value of the
property used in connection with the occupation, privilege or act which is taxed. Every excise
necessarily must finally fall upon and be paid by property and so may be indirectly a tax upon
property; but if it is really imposed upon the performance of an act, enjoyment of a privilege, or the
engaging in an occupation, it will be considered an excise." ***CHARACTER of the tax as a property
tax or a license or occupation tax must be determined by its incidents, and from the natural and legal
effect of the language employed in the act or ordinance, and not by the name by which it is
described, or by the mode adopted in fixing its amount. If it is clearly a property tax, it will be so
regarded, even though nominally and in form it is a license or occupation tax; and, on the other
hand, if the tax is levied upon persons on account of their business, it will be construed as a license
or occupation tax, even though it is graduated according to the property used in such business, or on
the gross receipts of the business. (37 C.J., 172) Ord No. 3379: refers to property tax and it is
fixed ad valorem. It is merely levied on motor vehicles with the main purpose of raising funds to be
expended.

Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992) intends to prevent Municipal Corporation s participation in the
distribution of the proceeds that are raised for the same purpose. This prohibition is intended to
prevent duplication in the imposition of fees for the same purpose. Because of this, court believes
that the ordinance in question merely imposes a LICENSE FEE although under the cloak of an ad
valorem tax to circumvent the prohibition above adverted to. Ordinance infringes the rule of the
uniformity of taxation. It exacts the tax and does not distinguish between a motor vehicle for hire and
one, which is purely for private use. Neither does it distinguish between a motor vehicle registered in
the City of Manila and one registered in another place but occasionally comes to Manila and uses its
streets and public highways. Ordinance intends to burden with the tax only those registered in the
City of Manila as may be inferred from the word "operating" used therein. There is no pretense that
the ordinance equally applies to motor vehicles who come to Manila for a temporary stay or for short
errands, and it cannot be denied that they contribute in no small degree to the deterioration of the
streets and public highway. The fact that they are benefited by their use they should also be made to
share the corresponding burden. And yet such is not the case. This is an inequality which we find in
the ordinance, and which renders it offensive to the Constitution.

DISPOSITION: Decision appealed from is REVERSED. Ordinance is NULL AND VOID

GARCIA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

211 SCRA 219

July 3, 1992

Feliciano, J.:

FACTS:

The President issued an EO which imposed, across the board, including crude oil and
otheroil products, additional duty ad valorem. The Tariff Commission held public hearingson said EO and
submitted a report to the President for consideration and appropriateaction. The President, on the
other hand issued an EO which levied a special duty of P0.95per liter of imported crude oil and P1.00 per
liter of imported oil products.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the President may issue an EO which is tantamount to enacting a bill in the

nature of revenue-generating measures.

RULING:

The Court said that although the enactment of appropriation, revenue and tariff billsis within the
province of the Legislative, it does not follow that EO in question, assuming they may be characterized
as revenue measure are prohibited to the President, that they must be enacted instead by Congress.
Section 28 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides: The Congress may, by law authorize the
President to fix tariff rates and other duties orim posts The relevant Congressional statute is the
Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines and Sections 104 and401, the pertinent provisions thereof.