This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled that an issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the complaint.[33] However, a case should not be dismissed simply because one of the issues raised therein had become moot and academic by the onset of a supervening event, whether intended or incidental, if there are other causes which need to be resolved after trial. When a case is dismissed without the other substantive issues in the case having been resolved would be tantamount to a denial of the right of the plaintiff to due process. It must be stressed that the material allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of an action. The designation of the nature of an action, or its title, is not meaningless or of no effect in the determination of its purpose and object.[34] | |||||
|
2004-09-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The well-established rule is that the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of an action.[14] A perusal of the petition before the RTC plainly shows that what is actually being assailed is the correctness of the assessments made by the local assessor of Parañaque on petitioners' properties. The allegations in the said petition purportedly questioning the assessor's authority to assess and collect the taxes were obviously made in order to justify the filing of the petition with the RTC. In fact, there is nothing in the said petition that supports their claim regarding the assessor's alleged lack of authority. What petitioners raise are the following: (1) some of the taxes being collected have already prescribed and may no longer be collected as provided in Section 194 of the Local Government Code of 1991; (2) some properties have been doubly taxed/assessed; (3) some properties being taxed are no longer existent; (4) some properties are exempt from taxation as they are being used exclusively for educational purposes; and (5) some errors are made in the assessment and collection of taxes due on petitioners' properties,[15] and that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in making the "improper, excessive and unlawful the collection of taxes against the petitioner[s]."[16] Moreover, these arguments essentially involve questions of fact. Hence, the petition should have been brought, at the very first instance, to the LBAA. | |||||