City of Cabanatuan vs. Hon. Gatmaitan

 G.R. No. L-19129             February 28, 1963

CITY OF CABANATUAN, ET AL., petitioners,

vs.

THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL., respondents. The City Attorney of Cabanatuan City for petitioners. The Government Corporate Counsel for respondents.

FACTS:

The Manila Railroad Company is a government-owned and controlled corporation, said company has been engaged in operating a railroad transportation business and for that purpose it acquired several parcels of land located in Cabanatuan City.

The City of Cabanatuan revised the assessment of said lots in 1948, and again in 1956, and assessed thereon the amount of P41,806.68 as real estate taxes, including penalties, allegedly due for the years 1945 to 1949.

Because of a demand made by the City of Cabanatuan that said taxes be paid as otherwise the lots would be forfeited, the company paid under protest the aforesaid amount.

Basis of the protest is the company's claim that it is exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under the provisions of Section 1 (12) of its charter, Act No. 1510. 

Whereupon, the company filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to recover the taxes it had paid under protest on the ground that their assessment and collection were unwarranted and illegal.

The City of Cabanatuan set up as a defense that the parcels of land on which the taxes in question were assessed and collected are not exempt from taxation under the provisions of the company's charter because the same are not devoted for the purposes of its transportation business but for uses not contemplated within its charter.

The court a quo rendered judgment holding that the claim for exemption of the company is in accordance with law and as a consequence it ordered the City of Cabanatuan to refund to it with legal interest thereon, plus costs.

This decision having become final, the court a quo in due course issued the corresponding writ of execution. 

Thereupon, the City of Cabanatuan filed a motion to quash raising for the first time the issue that the court a quo had no jurisdiction to act on the case it involving the correctness of a tax assessment which comes under the competence of the Court of Tax Appeals. When this motion was denied, the City of Cabanatuan interposed the present petition for certiorari

ISSUE:

Whether CTA has jurisdiction and not CA has jurisdiction over this case.

RULING:

CA has jurisdiction.

It would appear that the Court of Tax Appeals is given exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal (1) decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code; (2) decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties or other matters arising under the Customs Law; and (3) decisions of Provincial or City Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property or other matters arising under the Assessment Law.

If the case involves a matter which is not enumerated or contemplated in the provision above-quoted, it is not appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. It comes under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance.

The instant case involves the refund of certain real estate tax assessed and collected by the treasurer of the City of Cabanatuan by virtue of an assessment made under the Assessment Law. It does not involve the refund of an internal revenue tax or of a matter that arises under the National Internal Revenue Code. Since the law only allows the refund of an internal revenue tax, or any other matter arising under the National Internal Revenue Code in order that it may come under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, we have necessarily to exclude from its jurisdiction the refund of customs duties or real estate taxes that come under the Customs Law or Assessment Law under the principle of exclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

In the circumstances, we hold that this case comes under the jurisdiction of the proper court of first instance it involving the refund of a real estate tax which does not come under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed. 

( NOTE: This was old case. Pls check updated cases where SC ruled that CTA and not CA has jurisdiction.)