The Roxas Building was under construction in 1914 but was not fully completed until 1915. In December 1914, the city assessor prematurely assessed the building for taxes for 1915. The plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest and sued to recover the payment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding (1) the assessment was not legal because the building was still under construction in 1914 and (2) the city assessor failed to provide proper notice of the assessment as required by law. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling requiring the City of Manila to refund the taxes paid with interest.
The Roxas Building was under construction in 1914 but was not fully completed until 1915. In December 1914, the city assessor prematurely assessed the building for taxes for 1915. The plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest and sued to recover the payment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding (1) the assessment was not legal because the building was still under construction in 1914 and (2) the city assessor failed to provide proper notice of the assessment as required by law. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling requiring the City of Manila to refund the taxes paid with interest.
The Roxas Building was under construction in 1914 but was not fully completed until 1915. In December 1914, the city assessor prematurely assessed the building for taxes for 1915. The plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest and sued to recover the payment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding (1) the assessment was not legal because the building was still under construction in 1914 and (2) the city assessor failed to provide proper notice of the assessment as required by law. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling requiring the City of Manila to refund the taxes paid with interest.
The Roxas Building was under construction in 1914 but was not fully completed until 1915. In December 1914, the city assessor prematurely assessed the building for taxes for 1915. The plaintiffs paid the taxes under protest and sued to recover the payment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding (1) the assessment was not legal because the building was still under construction in 1914 and (2) the city assessor failed to provide proper notice of the assessment as required by law. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling requiring the City of Manila to refund the taxes paid with interest.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
Topic Construction of Tax Laws; Mandatory v. Direct Provisions
Case No. GR No. 12182. March 27, 1918. Case Name VIUDA E HIJOS DE PEDRO P. ROXAS vs. JAMES J. RAFFERTY Ponente Malcolm, j.
RELEVANT FACTS 1. Plaintiffs own a parcel of land in Escolta, Manila. In 1993, improvements on the land were demolished and construction of a reinforced concrete building was begun (Roxas Building). No taxes were levied or paid for the year 1914 2. But on December 1914, respondent assessor and collector attempted to assess the Roxas Building for taxation although it still lacked pavements, some floors, partitions, sanitary installations, etc. (The building only finished February 1915.) a. He sent plaintiffs a notice on December 1, 1914, requiring them to declare the new improvements for assessment for the year 1915. The building was assessed at Php300,000, so the taxes due were Php3,000. b. Plaintiffs paid under protest on June 30, 1915. 3. Plaintiffs filed suit before the CFI to recover the sum with interest. 4. CFI ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. 5. Respondent assessor and collector appealed.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio W/N CFI had jurisdiction YES, CFI has jurisdiction. despite petitioner not exhausting its remedies GR: Administrative remedies must be exhausted before resort can be had to the courts. It is a condition precedent to the exercise of the taxpayer's right of action in a court of justice that previous and timely effort shall have been made on his part to have the board of tax appeals correct an alleged error while the matter was yet in their hands and under their control
BUT this is hardly our case. We do not have before us merely a dispute as to an excessive or unequal assessment. The assessment is claimed to be wholly void. Not the correctness of the assessment, but the legality of the assessment is involved. The rule of taxation is that where the tax is illegal, the taxpayer may bring an action directly in the courts to recover back the tax. W/N notice to plaintiffs NO, there was no legal assessment of the Roxas Building for the year 1915. complied with the rules of assessment, i.e. was the 1. Under the Manila Charter, petitioners were under obligation to assessment legal present a declaration of their improvements within sixty days succeeding completion, i.e. on or before April 15, 1915. Under an attempted assessment in November and December 1914, the plaintiffs had and could have had no opportunity to comply with the law. University of the Philippines College of Law 3D
2. Between December 1 and December 15, 1915, the city assessor and collector was under the obligation of adding the improvements on the Roxas property to the assessment list. Between December 1 and December 15, 1914, the city assessor and collector could not prematurely and by anticipation perform this duty on improvements not yet completed. The city assessor and collector perforce could not in 1914 levy a tax on incomplete improvements made during the current year, when the statute only authorized him to make such levy upon completed improvements.
3. The city assessor and collector is obligated to give notice by
publication for ten days prior to December first in two newspapers of general circulation published in the city, that he will be present in his office for that purpose on said days, and he shall further notify in writing each person the amount of whose tax will be changed by such action or such proposed change, by delivering or mailing such notification to such person or his authorized agent at the last known address of such owner or agent in the Philippine Islands some time in the month of November."
It is a general rule that those provisions of a statute relating to the
assessment of taxes, which are intended for the security of the citizen, or to insure the equality of taxation, or for certainty as to the nature and amount of each person's tax, are mandatory; but those designed merely for the information or direction of officers or to secure methodical and systematic modes of proceedings are merely directory.
In the Philippines, the notice requirement is held to be mandatory, so that the
assessor cannot make a valid assessment unless he has given proper notice. Applied to our facts, the assessor should have notified the plaintiffs during November 1915. His attempted notification on December 25, 1914, was not given during the time fixed by statute and was no more than a reminder to plaintiffs to present a sworn declaration of the value of the new improvements on their property. In this instance there was no such substantial compliance with the law as amounts to due process of law. W/N City of Manila is liable YES, City of Manila to pay interest. to pay interest for the refund To narrow our discussion and to avoid misunderstanding, let us set down a f few principles which every one knows. The United States of America, a State of the American Union, and the Government of the Philippine Islands cannot be sued without their consent. Whether interest could be adjudged to a taxpayer against any of these entities, is beside our question. But what is of moment is that the city of Manila is not sovereign but is a public corporation with certain delegated powers, including that of suing and being sued.
RULING Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, without special finding as to costs. So ordered.
