SECOND DIVISION Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.

1146, the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977,

[G.R. NO. 127383 : August 18, 2005] as amended by P. D. No. 1981, which mandated such exemption.
THE CITY OF DAVAO, CITY TREASURER AND THE CITY ASSESSOR OF DAVAO
CITY, Petitioners, v. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XII, DAVAO CITY AND THE The RTC conceded that the tax exempting statute, P.D. No. 1146, was enacted prior to the
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Respondent. Local Government Code. However, it noted that the earlier law had prescribed two
conditions in order that the tax exemption provided therein could be withdrawn by future
DECISION enactments, namely: (1) that Section 33 be expressly and categorically repealed by law; and
TINGA, J.: (2) that a provision be enacted to substitute the declared policy of exemption from any and
all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of the GSIS fund.11 The RTC concluded that
A Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the tax-exempt status of the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) for the years 1992 to 1994 in contravention of the mandate both conditions had not been satisfied by the Local Government Code. The RTC likewise
under the Local Government Code of 1992,1 the precedent set by this Court in Mactan-Cebu accorded weight to Legal Opinion No. 165 of the Secretary of Justice dated 16 December
International Airport Authority v. Hon. Marcos,2 and the public policy on local autonomy 1996 concluding that Section 33 was not repealed by the Local Government Code, and a
enshrined in the Constitution.3 memorandum emanating from the Office of the President dated 14 February 1995 expressing
the same opinion.12
The matter was elevated to this Court directly from the trial court on a pure question of
law.4 The facts are uncontroverted. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

On 8 April 1994, the GSIS Davao City branch office received a Notice of Public Auction Now then, in light of the foregoing observation, the court perceives, that the cause of action
scheduling the public bidding of GSIS properties located in Matina and Ulas, Davao City for asseverated by petitioner in its petition has been well established by law and jurisprudence,
non-payment of realty taxes for the years 1992 to 1994 totaling Two Hundred Ninety Five and therefore the following relief should be granted:
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Pesos and Sixty One Centavos (P295,721.61).5 The
auction was subsequently reset by virtue of a deadline extension allowed by Davao City for
a) The tax exemption privilege of petitioner should be upheld and continued and that the
the payment of delinquent real property taxes.6
warrants of levy and notices of levy issued by the respondent Treasurer is hereby voided and
declared of no effect;
On 28 July 1994, the GSIS received Warrants of Levy and Notices of Levy on three parcels of
land owned by the GSIS. Another Notice of Public Auction was received by the GSIS on 29
b) Let a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the City Treasurer from proceeding with the
August 1994, setting the date of auction sale for 20 September 1994.
auction sale of the subject properties, as well as the respondents Register of Deeds from
annotating the warrants/notices of levy on the certificate of titles of petitioners real
On 13 September 1994, the GSIS filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus properties subject of this suit; and
And/Or Declaratory Relief with the RTC of Davao City. It also sought the issuance of a
temporary restraining order. The case was raffled to Branch 12, presided by Judge Maximo
c) Compelling the City Assessor of Davao City to include the properties of petitioner in the list
Magno Libre. On 13 September 1994, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order for a
of properties exempt from payment of realty tax and if the warrants and levies issued by the
period of twenty (20) days,7 effectively enjoining the auction sale scheduled seven days later.
City Treasurer had been annotated in the memorandum of encumbrance on the certificates
Following exchange of arguments, the RTC issued an Order dated 3 April 1995 issuing a writ
of title of petitioner's properties, to cancel such annotation so that the certificates of titles of
of preliminary injunction effective for the duration of the suit.8
petitioners will be free from such liens and encumbrances.

At the pre-trial, it was agreed that the sole issue for resolution was purely a question of law,
SO ORDERED.13
that is, whether Sections 234 and 534 of the Local Government Code, which have withdrawn
real property tax exemptions of government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs),
have also withdrawn from the GSIS its right to be exempted from payment of the realty taxes Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated 30 October
sought to be levied by Davao City.9 The parties submitted their respective memoranda. 1996, hence the present petition.

On 28 May 1996, the RTC rendered the Decision10 now assailed before this Court. It Petitioners argue that the exemption granted in Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended,
concluded that notwithstanding the enactment of the Local Government Code, the GSIS was effectively withdrawn upon the enactment of the Local Government Code, particularly
retained its exemption from all taxes, including real estate taxes. The RTC cited Section 33 of Sections 193 and 294 thereof. These provisions made the GSIS, along with all other GOCCs,
subject to realty taxes. Petitioners point out that under Section 534(f) of the Local
Government Code, even special laws, such as PD No. 1146, which are inconsistent with the Moreover, these exemptions shall not be affected by subsequent laws to the contrary, such
Local Government Code, are repealed or modified accordingly. as the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1931 and other similar laws that have been or
will be enacted, unless this section is expressly and categorically repealed by law and a
On the other hand, GSIS contends, as the RTC held, that the requisites for repeal are laid provision is enacted to substitute the declared policy of exemption from any and all taxes as
down in Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, namely that it be done expressly and an essential factor for the solvency of the fund.17
categorically by law, and that a provision be enacted to substitute the declared policy of
exemption from taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of the It bears noting though, and it is perhaps key to understanding the necessity of the addendum
provided under P.D. No. 1981, that a presidential decree enacted a year earlier, P.D. No.
GSIS fund. It stresses that it had been exempt from taxation as far back as 1936, when its 1931, effectively withdrew all tax exemption privileges granted to GOCCs.18 In fact, P.D. No.
original charter was enacted through Commonwealth Act No. 186.14 It asserts further that 1931 was specifically named in the afore-quoted addendum as among those laws which,
this Court had previously recognized the "extraordinary exemption" of GSIS in Testate Estate despite passage, would not affect the tax exempt status of GSIS. Section 1 of P.D. No. 1931
of Concordia T. Lim v. City of Manila,15 and such exemption has similarly been affirmed by the states:
Secretary of Justice and the Office of the President in the aforementioned issuances also
cited by the RTC.16 Sec. 1. The provisions of special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all
exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore
GSIS likewise notes that had it been the intention of the legislature to repeal Section 33 of granted in favor of government-owned or controlled corporations including their
P.D. No. 1146 through the Local Government Code, said law would have included the subsidiaries, are hereby withdrawn.
appropriate retraction in its repealing clause found in Section 534(f). However, said section,
according to the GSIS, partakes the nature of a general repealing provision which is accorded There is no doubt that the GSIS which was established way back in 1937 is a GOCC, a fact that
less weight in light of the rule that implied repeals are not favored. Consequently with its GSIS itself admits in its petition for certiorari before the RTC.19 It thus clear that Section 1 of
position that it remains exempt from realty taxation, the GSIS argues that the Notices of P.D. No. 1931 expressly withdrew those exemptions granted to the GSIS. Presidential Decree
Assessment, Warrants and Notices of Levy, Notices of Public Auction Sale and the No. 1931 did allow the exemption to be restored in special cases through an application for
Annotations of the Notice of Levy are void ab initio. restoration with the Secretary of Finance, but otherwise, the exemptions granted to the GSIS
prior to the enactment of P.D. No. 1931 were withdrawn.
A review of the relevant statutory provisions is in order.
Notably, P.D. No. 1931 was also an exercise of legislative powers then accorded to President
Presidential Decree No. 1146 was enacted in 1977 by President Marcos in the exercise of his Marcos by virtue of Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution. Whether he was aware of
legislative powers. Section 33, as originally enacted, read: the effect of P.D. No. 1931 on the GSIS's tax-exempt status or the ramifications of the decree
thereon is unknown; but apparently, he immediately reconsidered the withdrawal of the
exemptions on the GSIS. Thus, P.D. No. 1981 was enacted, expressly stating that the tax-
Sec. 33. Exemption from tax, Legal Process and Lien. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of
exempt status of the GSIS under Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 remained in place,
the State that the actuarial solvency of the funds of the System shall be preserved and
notwithstanding the passage of P.D. No. 1931.
maintained at all times and that the contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits
under this Act shall be kept as low as possible in order not to burden the members of the
system and/or their employees. . . . Accordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, However, P.D. No. 1981 did not stop there, serving merely as it should to restore the
the System, its assets, revenues including the accruals thereto, and benefits paid, shall be previous exemptions on the GSIS. It also attempted to proscribe future attempts to alter the
exempt from all taxes. These exemptions shall continue unless expressly and specifically tax-exempt status of the GSIS by imposing unorthodox conditions for its future repeal. Thus,
revoked and any assessment against the System as of the approval of this Act are hereby as intimated earlier, a second paragraph was added to Section 33, containing the restrictions
considered paid. relied upon by the RTC and presently invoked by the GSIS before this Court.

As it stood then, Section 33 merely provided a general rule exempting the GSIS from all taxes. These laws have to be weighed against the Local Government Code of 1992, a landmark law
However, Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 was amended in 1985 by President Marcos, again in which implemented the constitutional aspirations for a more extensive breadth of local
the exercise of his legislative powers, through P.D. No. 1981. It was through this latter decree autonomy. The Court, in Mactan, was asked to consider the effect of the Local Government
that a second paragraph was added to Section 33 delineating the requisites for repeal of the Code on the taxability by local governments of GOCCs such as the Mactan Cebu International
tax exemption enjoyed by the GSIS by incorporating the following: Airport Authority (MCIAA). Particularly, MCIAA invoked Section 133(o) of the Local
Government Code as the basis for its claimed exemption, the provision reading:
SECTION 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. - Unless government-owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity
otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, of this Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:
Evidently, Section 133 was not intended to be so absolute a prohibition on the power of LGUs
.... to tax the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, as evidenced by these
cited provisions which "otherwise provided." But what was the extent of the limitation under
(o) Taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and Section 133? This is how the Court, in a discussion of far-reaching consequence, defined the
instrumentalities and local government units. parameters in Mactan:

However, the Court, in ruling MCIAA non-exempt from realty taxes, considered that Section The foregoing sections of the LGC speak of: (a) the limitations on the taxing powers of local
133 qualified the exemption of the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities government units and the exceptions to such limitations; and (b) the rule on tax exemptions
from local taxation with the phrase "unless otherwise provided herein." The Court then and the exceptions thereto. The use of exceptions or provisos in these sections, as shown by
considered the other relevant provisions of the Local Government Code, particularly the the following clauses:
following:
(1) "unless otherwise provided herein" in the opening paragraph of Section 133;
SECTION 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. - Unless otherwise provided in this (2) "Unless otherwise provided in this Code" in Section 193;
Code, tax exemption or incentives granted to, or enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or (3) "not hereafter specifically exempted" in Section 232; and
juridical, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except local water (4) "Except as provided herein"
districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit in the last paragraph of Section 234
hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this initially hampers a ready understanding of the sections. Note, too, that the aforementioned
Code. clause in Section 133 seems to be inaccurately worded. Instead of the clause "unless
otherwise provided herein," with the "herein" to mean, of course, the section, it should have
used the clause "unless otherwise provided in this Code." The former results in absurdity
SECTION 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. 'A province or city or a municipality within the
since the section itself enumerates what are beyond the taxing powers of local government
Metropolitan Manila area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land,
units and, where exceptions were intended, the exceptions are explicitly indicated in the
building, machinery, and other improvements not hereafter specifically exempted.
next. For instance, in item (a) which excepts income taxes "when levied on banks and other
financial institutions"; item (d) which excepts "wharfage on wharves constructed and
SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. - - The following are exempted from maintained by the local government unit concerned"; and item (1) which excepts taxes, fees
payment of the real property tax: and charges for the registration and issuance of licenses or permits for the driving of
"tricycles." It may also be observed that within the body itself of the section, there are
(a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions exceptions which can be found only in other parts of the LGC, but the section
except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a interchangeably uses therein the clause, "except as otherwise provided herein" as in items (c)
taxable person; and (i), or the clause "except as provided in this Code" in item (j). These clauses would be
(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, obviously unnecessary or mere surplusages if the opening clause of the section were "Unless
non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, otherwise provided in this Code" instead of "Unless otherwise provided herein." In
directly, and exclusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes;
(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local any event, even if the latter is used, since under Section 232 local government units have the
water districts and government-owned and controlled corporations engaged in the power to levy real property tax, except those exempted therefrom under Section 234, then
distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; Section 232 must be deemed to qualify Section 133.
(d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No.
6938; and
Thus, reading together Sections 133, 232, and 234 of the LGC, we conclude that as a general
(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection.
rule, as laid down in Section 133, the taxing powers of local government units cannot
extend to the levy of, inter alia, "taxes, fees and charges of any kind on the National
Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and local government units"; however,
Except as provided herein, any exemption from payment of real property tax previously pursuant to Section 232, provinces, cities, and municipalities in the Metropolitan Manila
granted to, or presently enjoyed by, all persons, whether natural or juridical, including all Area may impose the real property tax except on, inter alia, "real property owned by the
Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial
use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person," as Absent Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, there would be no impediment in squarely
provided in item (a) of the first paragraph of Section 234. applying the express provisions of Sections 193, 232 and 234 of the Local Government Code,
as the Court did in Mactan and recently in Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association,
As to tax exemptions or incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or judicial Inc. et al. v. Secretary of Interior And Local Government, et al.  21 and in ruling that the tax
persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations, Section 193 of the LGC exemptions of GSIS were withdrawn by the Code. Thus, the crucial proposition is whether the
prescribes the general rule, viz., they are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC, except GSIS tax exemptions can be deemed as withdrawn by the Local Government Code
those granted to local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non- notwithstanding Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 as amended.
stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, and unless otherwise provided in
the LGC. The latter proviso could refer to Section 234 which enumerates the properties Concededly, it does not appear that at the very least, the second conditionality of Section 33
exempt from real property tax. But the last paragraph of Section 234 further qualifies the has been met. No provision has been enacted "to substitute the declared policy of exemption
retention of the exemption insofar as real property taxes are concerned by limiting the from any and all taxes as an essential factor for the solvency of the fund."22 Yet the Court is
retention only to those enumerated therein; all others not included in the enumeration lost averse to employing this framework, in the first place as utilized by the RTC, for we recognize
the privilege upon the effectivity of the LGC. Moreover, even as to real property owned by a fundamental flaw in Section 33, particularly the amendatory second paragraph introduced
the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions covered by item (a) of the by P.D. No. 1981.
first paragraph of Section 234, the exemption is withdrawn if the beneficial use of such
property has been granted to a taxable person for consideration or otherwise. The second paragraph of Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, effectively imposes
restrictions on the competency of the Congress to enact future legislation on the taxability of
Since the last paragraph of Section 234 unequivocally withdrew, upon the effectivity of the the GSIS. This places an undue restraint on the plenary power of the legislature to amend or
LGC, exemptions from payment of real property taxes granted to natural or juridical persons, repeal laws, especially considering that it is a lawmaker's act that imposes such burden. Only
including government-owned or controlled corporations, except as provided in the said the Constitution may operate to preclude or place restrictions on the amendment or repeal
section, and the petitioner is, undoubtedly, a government-owned corporation, it necessarily of laws. Constitutional dicta is of higher order than legislative statutes, and the latter should
follows that its exemption from such tax granted it in Section 14 of its Charter, R.A. No. 6958, always yield to the former in cases of irreconcilable conflict.
has been withdrawn. Any claim to the contrary can only be justified if the petitioner can seek
refuge under any of the exceptions provided in Section 234, but not under Section 133, as it It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive limitations on the legislative powers
now asserts, since, as shown above, the said section is qualified by Sections 232 and is the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws.23 Irrepealable laws deprive
234.20 (Emphasis supplied.) succeeding legislatures of the fundamental best senses carte blanche  in crafting laws
appropriate to the operative milieu. Their allowance promotes an unhealthy stasis in the
This Court, in Mactan, acknowledged that under Section 133, instrumentalities were legislative front and dissuades dynamic democratic impetus that may be responsive to the
generally exempt from all forms of local government taxation, unless otherwise provided in times. As Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno once observed, "[t]o be sure, there are no
the Code. On the other hand, Section 232 "otherwise provides" insofar as it allowed local irrepealable laws just as there are no irrepealable Constitutions. Change is the predicate of
government units to levy an ad valorem real property tax, irrespective of who owned the progress and we should not fear change."24
property. At the same time, the imposition of real property taxes under Section 232 is in turn
qualified by the phrase "not hereinafter specifically exempted." The exemptions from real Moreover, it would be noxious anathema to democratic principles for a legislative body to
property taxes are enumerated in Section 234, which specifically states that only real have the ability to bind the actions of future legislative body, considering that both
properties owned "by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions" are assemblies are regarded with equal footing, exercising as they do the same plenary powers.
exempted from the payment of the tax. Clearly, instrumentalities or GOCCs do not fall within Perpetual infallibility is not one of the attributes desired in a legislative body, and a
the exceptions under Section 234. legislature which attempts to forestall future amendments or repeals of its enactments
labors under delusions of omniscience.
Worth reckoning, however, is an essential difference between the situation of the MCIAA
(and most other GOCCs, for that matter) and that of the GSIS. Unlike most other GOCCs, It might be argued that Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, does not preclude the
there is a statutory provision' Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended which imposes repeal of the tax-exempt status of GSIS, but merely imposes conditions for such to validly
conditions on the subsequent withdrawal of the GSIS's tax exemptions. The RTC justified the occur. Yet these conditions, if honored, have the precise effect of limiting the powers of
affirmance of the tax exemptions based on the non-compliance by the Local Government Congress. Thus, the same rationale for prohibiting irrepealable laws applies in prohibiting
Code with these conditionalities, and not by reason of a general proposition that GOCCs or restraints on future amendatory laws. President Marcos, who exercised his legislative powers
instrumentalities remain exempt from local government taxation. in amending P.D. No. 1146, could not have demanded obeisance from future legislators by
imposing restrictions on their ability to legislate amendments or repeals. The concerns that
may have militated his enactment of these restrictions need not necessarily be shared by There are other reasons that guide us to construe the Local Government Code in favor of the
subsequent Congresses. City of Davao's position. Section 5 of the Local Government Code provides the guidelines on
how to construe the Code's provisions in cases of doubt, and they are self-explanatory, thus:
We do not mean to trivialize the need to ensure the solvency of the GSIS fund, a concern that
has seen legislative expression, even with the most recently enacted Government Service Section 5. Rules of Interpretation. - In the interpretation of the provisions of this Code, the
Insurance System Act of 1997.25 Yet at the same time, we recognize that Congress has the following rules shall apply:
putative authority, through valid legislation, to diminish such fund, or even abolish the GSIS
itself if it so desires. The GSIS may provide vital services and security to employees of the civil (a) Any provision on a power of a local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its
service, yet it is not a sacred cow that is beyond abolition by Congress if, for example, more favor, and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of devolution of
innovative methods are devised to ensure stable pension funds for government employees. If powers and of the lower local government unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the
Congress has the inherent power to abrogate the GSIS itself, then it necessarily has the ability existence of the power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit
to inflict less detrimental burdens, such as abolishing its tax-exempt status. If there could be concerned;
legal authority proscribing the Congress from enacting such legislation, such should be
sourced from the Constitution itself, and not from antecedent statutes which were
(b) In case of doubt, any tax ordinance or revenue measure shall be construed strictly against
themselves enacted by legislative power.
the local government unit enacting it, and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. Any tax
exemption, incentive or relief granted by any local government unit pursuant to the
The Court's position is aligned with entrenched norms of statutory construction. In Duarte v. provisions of this Code shall be construed strictly against the person claiming it; (Emphasis
Dade,26 the Court cited with approval Lewis' Southerland on Statutory Construction, which supplied.)
states:
Also worthy of note is that the Constitution itself promotes the principles of local autonomy
A state legislature has a plenary law-making power over all subjects, whether pertaining to as embodied in the Local Government Code. The State is mandated to ensure the autonomy
persons or things, within its territorial jurisdiction, either to introduce new laws or repeal the of local governments,28 and local governments are empowered to levy taxes, fees and
old, unless prohibited expressly or by implication by the federal constitution or limited or charges that accrue exclusively to them, subject to congressional guidelines and
restrained by its own. It cannot bind itself or its successors by enacting irrepealable laws limitations.29 The principle of local autonomy is no mere passing dalliance but a
except when so restrained. Every legislative body may modify or abolish the acts passed by constitutionally enshrined precept that deserves respect and appropriate enforcement by
itself or its predecessors. This power of repeal may be exercised at the same session at which this Court.
the original act was passed; and even while a bill is in its progress and before it becomes a
law. This legislature cannot bind a future legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It
We are aware that this stance runs contrary to that which was adopted by the Secretary of
cannot declare in advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or the effect of subsequent
Justice in his Opinion dated 22 July 1993, as well as the memorandum from the Office of the
legislation upon existing statutes. (Emphasis supplied.)27
President dated 14 February 1995, expressing the same opinion. However, statutory
interpretations of these executive bodies do not hold decisive sway upon the judiciary but
The citation is particularly apropos to our present task, since the question for resolution is are merely persuasive. These issuances cannot derogate from the binding precept that one
primarily one of statutory construction, i.e., whether or not Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146 has legislature cannot enact irrepealable legislation or limit or restrict its own power or the
been repealed by the Local Government Code. It is evident that we cannot render effective power of its successors as to the repeal of statutes.30 The act of one legislature is not binding
the amendatory second paragraph of Section 33 upon and does not tie the hands of future legislatures.31

as the RTC did, for by doing so, we would be giving sanction to a disingenuous means The GSIS's tax-exempt status, in sum, was withdrawn in 1992 by the Local Government Code
employed through legislative power to bind subsequent legislators to a particular mode of but restored by the Government Service Insurance System
repeal.
Act of 1997, the operative provision of which is Section
Thus, the two conditionalities of Section 33 cannot bear relevance on whether the Local
Government Code removed the tax-exempt status of the GSIS. The express withdrawal of all
39.32 The subject real property taxes for the years 1992 to 1994 were assessed against GSIS
tax exemptions accorded to all persons, natural or juridical, as stated in Section 193 of the
while the Local Government Code provisions prevailed and, thus, may be collected by the
Local Government Code, applies without impediment to the present case. Such position is
City of Davao.
bolstered by the other cited provisions of the Local Government Code, and by
the Mactan ruling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The
appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 12 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Puno,  (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.