Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
378 views1 page

Pfda Vs Navotas

The Municipality of Navotas assessed real estate taxes allegedly due from the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) for properties under its jurisdiction from 1981-1990. PFDA did not pay the taxes despite demands. Navotas then issued a notice of public auction sale of the properties. PFDA sought to defer the sale, arguing it was exempt from such taxes. The Department of Finance ordered an inspection, but Navotas proceeded with publishing the notice. PFDA filed a case to enjoin the sale. The court ruled PFDA did not present clear evidence it was exempt, so the injunction dissolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled PFDA was generally exempt from real property tax, but the exemption did

Uploaded by

baijam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
378 views1 page

Pfda Vs Navotas

The Municipality of Navotas assessed real estate taxes allegedly due from the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) for properties under its jurisdiction from 1981-1990. PFDA did not pay the taxes despite demands. Navotas then issued a notice of public auction sale of the properties. PFDA sought to defer the sale, arguing it was exempt from such taxes. The Department of Finance ordered an inspection, but Navotas proceeded with publishing the notice. PFDA filed a case to enjoin the sale. The court ruled PFDA did not present clear evidence it was exempt, so the injunction dissolved. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled PFDA was generally exempt from real property tax, but the exemption did

Uploaded by

baijam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

150301 October 2, 2007


PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
169, MALABON, METRO MANILA, THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, METRO MANILA, HON.
FLORANTE M. BARREDO, in his official capacity as Municipal Treasurer of Navotas, Metro Manila, and
HON. NORBERTO E. AZARCON, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Auction Sale Committee of
Navotas, Metro Manila, respondent.
Facts: Municipality of Navotas assessed the real estate taxes allegedly due from petitioner Philippine Fisheries
Development Authority (PFDA) for the period 1981-1990 on properties under its jurisdiction, management and
operation located inside the Navotas Fishing Port Complex (NFPC). Taxes were not paid despite the demands of the
treasures hence they give notice of sale by public auction of the properties of PFDA. Petitioner sought the deferment
of sale contending they are exempted from such tax. The matter was referred to the DOF and ordered to conduct an
ocular inspection to determine who the actual users of the properties concerned are. Despite the order of DOF
Navotas proceeded to publish the notice of sale. PFDA instituted a civil case before the RTC to enjoin the auction
sale. RTC ruled in favor of PFDA issuing a writ of preliminary injuction. The writ dissolved when PFDA failed to
present clear and convincing evidence that they are exempted from real property tax. Upon appeal CA affirmed the
ruling of the RTC, hence this petition.

Issue: whether or not petitioner is liable to pay real property tax.


Ruling: No. Section 234 (a) of the LGC states that real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any
of its political subdivisions is exempted from payment of the real property tax "except when the beneficial use
thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person."
Thus, as a rule, petitioner PFDA, being an instrumentality20 of the national government, is exempt from real
property tax but the exemption does not extend to the portions of the NFPC that were leased to taxable or private
persons and entities for their beneficial use.
In light of the above, petitioner is only liable to pay the amount of P62,841,947.79 representing the total taxes due as
of December 31, 2001 from PFDA-owned properties that were leased, as shown in the Summary of Realty Taxes
Due Properties Owned and/or Managed by PFDA as per Realty Tax Order of Payment dated September 16, 2002.

You might also like