Yamane V Lepanto
Yamane V Lepanto
Yamane V Lepanto
the common area, in which the holders of separate interests shall automatically be members or
shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective
units.
In line with the authority of the condominium corporation to manage the condominium project, it
may be authorized, in the deed of restrictions, to make reasonable assessments to meet authorized
expenditures, each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in
proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owners fractional interest in any common areas. [50] It is
the collection of these assessments from unit owners that form the basis of the City Treasurers
claim that the Corporation is doing business.
We can elicit from the Condominium Act that a condominium corporation is precluded by
statute from engaging in corporate activities other than the holding of the common areas, the
administration of the condominium project, and other acts necessary, incidental or convenient to
the accomplishment of such purposes. Neither the maintenance of livelihood, nor the procurement
of profit, fall within the scope of permissible corporate purposes of a condominium corporation
under the Condominium Act.
None of the corporate purposes are geared towards maintaining a livelihood or the obtention of
profit. Even though the Corporation is empowered to levy assessments or dues from the unit
owners, these amounts collected are not intended for the incurrence of profit by the Corporation or
its members, but to shoulder the multitude of necessary expenses that arise from the maintenance
of the Condominium Project.
Still, the City Treasurer has not posited the claim that the Corporation is engaged in business
activities beyond the statutory purposes of a condominium corporation. The assessment appears to
be based solely on the Corporations collection of assessments from unit owners, such assessments
being utilized to defray the necessary expenses for the Condominium Project and the common
areas. There is no contemplation of business, no orientation towards profit in this case. Hence, the
assailed tax assessment has no basis under the Local Government Code or the Makati Revenue
Code, and the insistence of the city in its collection of the void tax constitutes an attempt at
deprivation of property without due process of law.