Ormoc sugar vs treasurer of ormoc city 22 SCRA 603 Facts: The Municipal Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed passed Ordinance Ordinance 4 in 1964, 1964, imposing on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc ugar Co! "nc! in Ormoc City a municpal ta# e$ui%alent to 1& per e#port sale to the 'nited tates and other foreign countries! (eferred to as a )production ta#*! +roduction of sugar alone is not ta#ale, the only time the ta# applies is -hen the sugar produced is e#ported! The company paid the said ta# under protest stating that the same is %iolati%e of ec ../0 of the (e%ised (e%ised dministrati%e Code -hich pro%ides: )"t shall not e in the po-er of the municipal council to impose a ta# in any form -hate%er, upon goods and merchandise merchandise carried into the municipality, or out of the same, and any attempt to impose an import or e#port ta# upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonale charge for -harfage, use of ridges or other-ise, shall e %oid!* aid ordinance is alleged %iolati%e of the e$ual protection clause and the rule of uniformity of ta#ation as it singled out Ormoc ugar s eing liale for such ta# impost for no other sugar mill is found in the city! "ssue: 2hether the ordinance %iolates the e$ual protection clause3 eld: 5es, 5es, the upreme upreme court ruled ruled in fa%or of Ormoc Ormoc ugar Company Company!! The ordinance ordinance is preudicial for it ta#es only centrifugal sugar produced and e#ported y the Ormoc ugar Company, "nc! and no other! aid ordinance, to e reasonale, should e in terms applicale to future conditions and shouldn7t e singular and e#clusi%e as to e#clude any suse$uently estalished sugar central, of the same class as the plainti8, for co%erage of the ta#!
Tiu vs CA 301 SCRA 178 Facts: +resident Fidel ! (amos issued #ecuti%e Order ;o! 90, on
, clarifying the application of the ta# and duty incenti%es! The petitioners assail the constitutionality of the said Order claiming that they are e#cluded from the ene?ts pro%ided y ( 0..0 @an act for the con%ersion of former military ases into industrial and commercial usesA, according to -hich the grant and enoyment of the ta# and duty incenti%es authoried y such ordinance! This -as due to the limitation of ta# incenti%es to uic and not to the entire area of Olongapo! The court a $uo also e#plained that the intention of Congress -as to con?ne the co%erage of the to the )secured area* and not to include the )entire Olongapo City and other areas mentioned in ection 1. of the la-!* The Court of ppeals upheld the %alidity and constitutionality and denied the motion for reconsideration! Disagreeing, petitioners no- seeE efore us a re%ie- of the aforecited Court of ppeals Decision and (esolution! "ssue: 2hether or not #ecuti%e order ;o! 90 is constitutional3
eld: 5es, !O! 90 is indeed constitutional! Citing ection 1. of ( 0..0, petitioners contend that the @uic pecial conomic oneA encompasses @1A the City of Olongapo, @.A the Municipality of uic in amales, and @>A the area formerly occupied y the uic ;a%al Base! o-e%er, they claimed that the !O! narro-ed the application to the na%al ase only! ence, petition dismissed!
Herrera vs Q.C 3 SCRA 186 Facts: The petitioners -ere authoried y the Director of the Bureau of ospitals to estalish and operate the t! Catherines ospital! "n 19G>, the petitioners sent a letter to the Hueon City ssessor re$uesting e#emption from payment of real estate ta# on the lot, uilding and other impro%ements comprising the hospital stating that the same -as estalished for charitale and humanitarian purposes and not for commercial gain -hich -as granted e8ecti%e the years 19G> to 19GG! Conse$uently, in any case, in a letter dated ugust 1=, 19GG the Hueon City ssessor informed the petitioners that the pre%iously stated properties -ere renamed from e#empt to Ita#aleI and in this manner sur%eyed for real property ta#es e8ecti%e 19G6! The petitioner ad%anced the assessment to the Hueon City Board of ssessment ppeals, -hich, con?rmed the decision of the City ssessor! motion for ree#amination thereof -as denied! From this decision, the petitioners instituted the instant appeal! "ssue: 2hether or not the petitioners should e e#cused to pay real property ta# for the reason of that the hospital is a charitale institution3 eld: 5es! (endering charity is its primary oecti%e! The income realied from payJ patients is spent for impro%ement of the charity -ards, and that petitioners, Dr! ster Ochangco errera, as directress of said hospital, does not recei%e any salary, although its resident physician gets a monthly salary of +10=!==! "t is -ell settled, in this connection, that the admission of payJpatients does not detract from the charitale character of a hospital, if all its funds are de%oted e#clusi%ely to the maintenance of the institution as a pulic charity!
rovi!ce of A"ra vs Her!a!#o 107 SCRA 10$ Facts: The pro%incial assessor made a ta# assessment on the properties of the (oman Catholic Bishop of Bangued!
"ssue: 2hether the properties of the Bishop of Bangued are ta#Je#empt! eld: ;o, they are not ta# e#empt! The 19>G and the 190> Constitutions di8er in language as to the e#emption of religious property from ta#es as tehy should not only e )e#clusi%ely* ut also )actually* and )directly* used for religious purposes! #emption from ta#ation is not fa%ored and is ne%er presumed, so that if granted, it must e strictly construed against the ta#payer! There must e proof of the actual and direct use of the lands, uildings, and impro%ements for religious @or charitaleA purposes to e e#empted from ta#ation!
A"ra va%%ey vs A&ui!o 162 SCRA 106 Facts: +etitioner ra alley College is an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated -ith the C in 194/! On 6 , rticle ", of the then 19>G +hilippine Constitution, e#pressly grants e#emption from realty ta#es for )Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or con%ents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, uildings, and impro%ements used e#clusi%ely for religious, charitale or educational purposes!* The use of the school uilding or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated y la-, nor y urisprudence!
'i% %u!g vs Q.C $33 SCRA 11( Facts: The petitioner Kung Center of the +hilippines is a nonJstocE and nonJpro?t entity estalished on ! The ground Loor is eing leased to a canteen, medical professionals -hom use the same as their pri%ate clinics, as -ell as to other pri%ate parties! The right portion of the lot is eing leased for commercial purposes to the lliptical Orchids and arden Center! +etitioner ?led a Claim for #emption from realty ta#es amounting to aout +hp4!G million, predicating its claim as a charitale institution! The city assessor denied the Claim! 2hen appealed to the Hueon City Kocal Board
of ssessment, the same -as dismissed! s a general principle, a charitale institution does not lose its character as such and its e#emption form ta#es simply ecause it deri%es income from paying patients, or recei%es susidies from go%ernmentN and no money insures to the pri%ate ene?t of the persons managing or operating the institution! "ssue: 2hether or not the real properties of the lung center are e#empt from real property ta#es! eld: The petition is partially granted! The court held that the petitioner as a charitale institution -ithin the conte#t of the 190> and 19/0 Constitutions! To determine -hether an enterprise is a charitale institutionentity or not, the elements -hich should e considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its corporate purposes, its constitution and yJla-s, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual -orE performed, the character of the ser%ices rendered, the inde?niteness of the ene?ciaries, and the use and occupation of the properties!
