Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TESTATE ESTATE OF CONCORDIA T. LIM v. CITY OF MANILA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171586 2010-01-25	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON BRION, J.
For the third argument, we relied on the Court's rulings in Baguio v. Busuego[6] and Lim v. Manila.[7] In these cases, the Court essentially declared that contractual assumption of tax liability alone is insufficient to make one liable for taxes. The contractual assumption of tax liability must be supplemented by an interest that the party assuming the liability had on the property; the person from whom payment is sought must have also acquired the beneficial use of the property taxed. In other words, he must have the use and possession of the property - an element that was missing in Napocor's case.
	GR NO. 166651 2005-12-09	REPUBLIC v. CITY OF KIDAPAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
(a) 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; The above provision exempts from real property taxation properties of the government, provided the beneficial use of the property was not transferred to a taxable person. Conversely, if the beneficial use has been transferred to a taxable entity, such as PNOC-EDC, then the real property owned by the government, which in this case is the MAGRA, is subject to real property tax. At this point, it is well to note that in real estate taxation, the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner.[15]
	GR NO. 127383 2005-08-18	CITY OF DAVAO v. RTC TINGA, J.
On the other hand, GSIS contends, as the RTC held, that the requisites for repeal are laid down in Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, namely that it be done expressly and 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 GSIS fund. It stresses that it had been exempt from taxation as far back as 1936, when its original charter was enacted through Commonwealth Act No. 186.[14] It asserts further that this Court had previously recognized the "extraordinary exemption" of GSIS in Testate Estate of Concordia T. Lim v. City of Manila,[15] and such exemption has similarly been affirmed by the Secretary of Justice and the Office of the President in the aforementioned issuances also cited by the RTC.[16]
	GR No. 114231 2001-05-18	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NELIA A. BARLIS DE LEON, JR., J.
The fact that NAPOCOR is the present owner of the Sucat power plant machineries and equipment does not constitute a legal barrier to the collection of delinquent taxes from the previous owner, MERALCO, who has defaulted in its payment. In Testate Estate of Concordia T. Lim v. City of Manila,[18] the Court held that the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner. In that case, the Court declared that to impose the real property tax on the subsequent owner which was neither the owner nor the beneficial user of the property during the designated periods would not only be contrary to law but also unjust. Correspondingly, petitioner MERALCO, not NAPOCOR, is liable for the payment of the back taxes on said properties.