Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
THE PROVINCIAL
ASSESSOR |
|
G.R. No. 170532 |
|
OF MARINDUQUE, |
|
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
PERALTA, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS AND MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
April 30, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The Provincial
Assessor of the Province of Marinduque (petitioner) assails by Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the May 30, 2005 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) which declared the Siltation Dam and Decant System of
Marcopper Mining Corporation (respondent) exempt from real property tax; and
the September 29, 2005 CA Resolution[2] which
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner
issued against respondent an Assessment
Notice,[3] dated
March 28, 1994, for real property taxes due on the latter's real properties,
including its Siltation Dam and Decant System (subject property) at Barangay
Lamese, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. The
subject property is covered by Tax Declaration No. 05-35697 dated
Respondent paid
the tax demanded,[5] but
appealed the assessment before the Local
Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) on the ground that the subject
property is exempt from real property taxation under Section 234(e) of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7160[6]
or the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides:
Sec. 234. Exemptions
from Real Property Tax. - The following are exempted from payment of the real
property tax:
x x x
(e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control
and environmental protection.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Attached to its appeal is an
Affidavit issued by its Chief Mining Engineer Ricardo Esquieres, Jr.
(Esquieres), stating that the subject property was constructed to comply with
the condition imposed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) that respondent prevent run-offs and silt materials from contaminating
the Mogpog and Boac Rivers; and describing the subject property as a
specialized combination of essential impervious earth materials with a special
provision for a spillway and a diversion canal.
Esquieres explains that the subject property is intended for the purpose
of pollution control, sediment control, domestic and agricultural water supply
and flood control.[7]
Respondent
also submitted a
Dam structure intended primarily for
pollution control of silted materials x x x.”[8]
In a Decision[9] dated
Respondent
appealed[11]
to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) which, in a Decision[12] dated
December 21, 1998, held that respondent’s appeal with the LBAA is timely, but
the same lacked legal basis because the subject property was neither a
machinery nor an equipment but a permanent improvement, and therefore not tax
exempt under Sec. 234(e) of R.A. No. 7160. Citing the definition of machinery
under Sec. 199 of R.A. No. 7160, viz.:
Sec. 199. Definition of Terms. –
When used in this Title, the term:
x x x x
(o)
Machinery embraces machines, equipment, mechanical contrivances, instruments,
appliances or apparatus which may or may not be attached, permanently or
temporarily, to the real property. It includes the physical facilities for
production, the installations and appurtenant service facilities, those which
are mobile, self-powered or self-propelled, and those not permanently attached
to the real property which are actually, directly, and exclusively used to meet
the needs of the particular industry, business or activity and which by their
very nature and purpose are designed for, or necessary to its manufacturing,
mining, logging, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes.”
the CBAA held that
to be considered a “machinery,” the subject property must either be a physical
facility for production; or a service facility; or one that is actually,
directly and exclusively used to meet the needs of the particular industry,
business, or activity; and which by its very nature and purpose is designed
for, or necessary to a manufacturing, mining, logging, commercial, industrial
or agricultural purpose. The subject
property does not produce anything nor operate as auxiliary to a production
process; thus, it is neither a physical facility for production nor a service
facility. It is not even necessary to
the mining activity of respondent, because its purpose is merely to contain
silt and sediments.[13]
Moreover, the CBAA noted that based
on an ocular inspection it conducted, the subject property had not been
actually used for pollution control, for it had been out of operation since
1993.[14]
Respondent
filed a Petition/Motion for Partial Reconsideration,[15] but
the CBAA denied the same in its
Respondent
appealed[17]
to the CA on the sole issue of whether the subject property was tax exempt
under Sec. 234(e) of R.A. No. 7160.[18]
The CA reversed the LBAA and CBAA in its Decision dated
THE
FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS CONSIDERED, the instant petition for review is hereby
GRANTED, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, dated December 21, 1998 and July 27, 2000, respectively are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner's siltation dam and decant system being
exempt from real property tax as it is hereby determined, the Municipal
Treasurer of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, is hereby directed to refund the tax
payments made by petitioner under protest, or in lieu thereof, to credit said
payments in favor of petitioner for any taxes it will be required to pay in the
future.
SO ORDERED.[19]
The CA
held that the concept of machinery under Section 199 of R.A. No. 7160 is broad
enough to include a “machinery, instrument, apparatus or device consisting of
parts which, functioning together, allows a person to perform a task more
efficiently,” such as the subject property.
Not only does it function as a machinery, but it is also actually and
directly used for the mining business of petitioner. The CA noted that it was constructed in
compliance with a DENR requirement; thus, it “is part and parcel of
[respondent's] mining operations to protect the environment within which it
operates xxx [i]t is a device used for cleaning up after production, in order
to clean the water which must necessarily flow into the Mogpog and
Thus,
the CA held that the subject property was exempt from real property taxation
under Section 91 of R.A. No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,[21]
viz.:
Sec. 91. Incentives for Pollution Control Devices.
– Pollution control devices acquired,
constructed or installed by contractors shall not be considered as improvements
on the land or building where they are placed, and shall not be subject to real
property and other taxes or assessments: Provided, however, That
payment of mine wastes and tailings fees is not exempted. (Emphasis supplied)
It qualifies as a pollution control device defined under
DENR Administrative Order No. 95-23 as an “infrastructure,
machinery, equipment, and/or improvement used for impounding, treating or
neutralizing, precipitating, filtering, conveying and cleansing mine industrial
waste and tailing, as well as eliminating and reducing hazardous effects of
solid particles, chemicals, liquids or other harmful by-products and gases
emitted from any facility utilized in mining operations for their disposal.”[22]
The definition “extends to all kinds of pollution control devices acquired,
constructed, or installed on the land or buildings of the mining corporation.”[23]
Finally,
the CA ruled that, contrary to the view of the CBAA, the non-operational state
of the subject property “does not remove it from the purview of the clear
provisions of R.A. No. 7160 x x x and R.A. No. 7942 x x x [i]n the absence of
clear and convincing evidence that the siltation dam and decant system was
inutile to achieve its purpose prior to being damaged, and continued to be so x
x x.”[24]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[25] but
the CA denied it in a Resolution[26] dated
Hence,
the present petition, raising two main issues:
I. The propriety of the present action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court:
i. Whether or not there is
available to Petitioner, the remedy of appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
ii. Whether or not a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the appropriate
remedy;
iii. Whether or not, if available
to the Petitioner, the remedy of appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law were lost through the fault of the
Petitioner.
II. Whether or not the Respondent court committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
rendered the Decision and its subsequent Resolution, exempting the siltation
dam and decant system of Respondent Marcopper from the real property tax
imposed by the Provincial Government of Marinduque.
i. Respondent Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it whimsically,
arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded by treating as though non-existent,
the established and undisputed fact that the Siltation Dam Decant System of
Respondent Marcopper was damaged and has not been in operation since 1993 up
to, at the very least, the ocular inspection conducted by the CBAA in November
1996, if not up to the present, given the failure of Respondent Marcopper to
claim otherwise;
ii. Respondent Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when it whimsically, arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded, by treating as
though non-existent, the established and undisputed fact that Respondent
Marcopper does not have a certificate of tax exemption from the DENR under the
provisions of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 so as to entitle it to
exemption from the realty tax imposed by the local government of Marinduque.
iii. Respondent Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
when, inspite of the non-operation during the relevant years of the Siltation
Dam and Decant System, the lack of certificate of tax exemption therefor and
the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Local Government Code and the
Philippine Mining Act of 1995, it declared the aforesaid real property as a
machinery and equipment or a pollution control device that is exempt from
realty tax.[27] (Emphasis
supplied)
Petitioner posits that the CA committed not only a
reversible error in holding that the subject property is tax exempt under Sec.
234(e) of R.A. No. 7160, but also a grave
abuse of discretion in discarding key factual findings of both the LBAA and the
CBAA regarding the nature of the subject property -- which factual findings
respondent did not even controvert.
Petitioner points out that the CBAA found that the subject property had
not been used for pollution control because it had been out of operation since 1993;[28] and
respondent admitted this in its Petition for Review before the CA where it
categorically stated that “[w]hat is not denied, however, which even the barangay
resolutions state was that the siltation dam was damaged in 1993 when a typhoon
hit Marinduque. This naturally affected
the environment in the area for which reason Marcopper specifically wanted to
repair the dam.”[29] Yet, petitioner argues, the CA completely
ignored such undisputed fact by holding that there is “absence of clear and
convincing evidence that the siltation dam and decant system was inutile to
achieve its purpose prior to being damaged, and continued to be so x x x.”[30]
Petitioner further cites the finding of the CBAA that
respondent did not obtain from the DENR a certification of the tax exempt
classification of the subject properties. This CBAA finding was not controverted
by respondent in its pleadings before the CA; yet, said court completely
glossed over this matter and declared the subject properties tax exempt.[31]
On the
other hand, respondent contends that petitioner's mode of appeal from the CA
Decision should have been a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court filed within fifteen (15) days from October 13, 2005,
the day petitioner received notice of the CA Resolution denying its motion for
reconsideration. That petitioner filed
instead a Petition for Certiorari on
The petition has merit.
On the proper mode of appeal
Previously,
under
Section 36 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464 or the Real Property Tax Code,
the proper mode of appeal from a decision rendered by the CBAA was by special
civil action for certiorari filed directly with the Court.[34] However, with the
passage of R.A. No. 7902,[35] granting
the CA exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of boards and
commissions, the Court issued Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95[36] which
provides
under paragraphs 1[37] and 5[38] that appeal from a decision of the CBAA shall
be by Petition for Review with the CA.
Thus, from the final judgment of the CA, appeal to the Court on
questions of law is by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court.[39] The availability of such remedy bars recourse
to a special civil action for certiorari even if one of the grounds
invoked is grave abuse of discretion.[40]
Indeed,
petitioner erred in its mode of appeal by Petition
for Certiorari under
Rule 65.[41] Nonetheless, in its
Resolution[42] of
On
whether the subject property is exempt from
real property taxation
It
should be borne in mind that the protest and appeals filed by respondents
before the LBAA, CBAA, and CA refer to the Assessment Notice dated
The disputed
assessment notice having taken effect on
Title II
of R.A. No. 7160 governs the administration, appraisal, assessment, levy and
collection of real property tax. Section
234 thereof grants exemption from real property taxation based on ownership,
character or usage. As the Court explained in
Section 234 of the LGC provides for the exemptions from payment of real
property taxes and withdraws previous exemptions therefrom granted to natural and
juridical persons, including government-owned and controlled corporations,
except as provided therein.
x x x x
These exemptions are based on the ownership, character, and use of the
property. Thus:
(a) Ownership Exemptions. Exemptions from real property taxes on the
basis of ownership are real
properties owned by: (i) the Republic, (ii) a province, (iii) a city, (iv) a
municipality, (v) a barangay, and (vi) registered cooperatives.
(b) Character Exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the
basis of their character are: (i) charitable institutions, (ii) houses and
temples of prayer like churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, and (iii) non-profit or religious cemeteries.
(c) Usage exemptions. Exempted from real property taxes on the
basis of the actual, direct and exclusive use to which they are devoted are: (i) all lands,
buildings and improvements which are actually directly and exclusively used for
religious, charitable or educational purposes; (ii) all machineries and
equipment actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts or
by government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and
distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; and
(iii) all machinery and equipment used for pollution control and
environmental protection.
To help provide a healthy environment in the midst
of the modernization of the country, all machinery and equipment for pollution
control and environmental protection may not be taxed by local governments.
(Emphasis supplied)
As held in Mactan, the exemption granted under Sec. 234(e) of R.A. No. 7160 to
“[m]achinery and
equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection” is based on
usage. The term usage means direct,
immediate and actual application of the property itself to the exempting
purpose.[46] Section
199 of R.A. No. 7160 defines actual use as “the purpose for which the property
is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession
thereof.” It contemplates
concrete, as distinguished from mere potential, use. Thus, a claim for exemption under Sec.
234(e) of R.A. No. 7160 should be
supported by evidence that the property sought to be exempt is actually,
directly and exclusively used for pollution control and environmental
protection.[47]
The records yield no allegation or evidence by respondent
that the subject property was actually, directly and exclusively used for
pollution control and environmental protection during the period covered by the assessment notice under protest. Rather, the finding of the CBAA that said
property “apparently out of commission and not apt to its function as would
control pollution and protect the environment”[48]
stands undisputed; such finding is even admitted by respondent when, to repeat,
in its Petition for Review before the CA, it categorically stated that “[w]hat
is not denied, however, which even the barangay resolutions state was that the
siltation dam was damaged in 1993
when a typhoon hit Marinduque. This naturally affected the environment in the
area for which reason Marcopper specifically wanted to repair the dam.”[49]
Moreover, Sec. 206 prescribes the
evidentiary requirements for exemption from real property taxation, viz.:
Sec. 206. Proof of Exemption of Real Property
from Taxation. - Every person
by or for whom real property is declared, who shall claim tax exemption for
such property under this Title shall file with the provincial, city or
municipal assessor within thirty (30) days from the date of the declaration of
real property sufficient documentary evidence in support of such claim
including corporate charters, title of ownership, articles of incorporation,
bylaws, contracts, affidavits, certifications and mortgage deeds, and similar
documents. If the required
evidence is not submitted within the period herein prescribed, the property
shall be listed as taxable in the assessment roll. However, if the property
shall be proven to be tax exempt, the same shall be dropped from the assessment
roll. (Emphasis supplied)
The burden is upon the taxpayer to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that his claim for exemption has legal and factual basis.[50]
As aptly
pointed out by petitioner, there is no allegation nor evidence in respondent's
pleadings that it had complied with the procedural requirement under Sec. 206.
There is nothing in the records that would indicate that, within 30 days from its
filing of Tax Declaration No. 05-35697 on
What
respondent submitted along with its appeal before the LBAA are Affidavit of
Esquieres,[52] the project
design of the subject property,[53]
as well as a Certification[54]
dated
But far
from proving that the subject property is tax exempt, the documents classify
the subject property as anything but machinery or equipment.
The DENR Certification classifies the
subject property as a “structure intended
primarily for pollution control of silted materials in order to protect the
environmental degredation of Maguila-guila,
It is described in greater
detail by respondent’s Chief Mining Engineer Ricardo Esquieres, Jr. in an
October 11, 1994 Affidavit[58]
attached to respondent’s appeal[59] before
the LBAA, thus:
7. The siltation dam and decant system was constructed sometime in
August 1992. It
is not only a specialized combination of essential impervious earth materials which provide adequate strength and detention of turbid streamwater. It also has
special provisions like spillway and diversion canal which also promote its integrity by providing a safe outlet of the
impounded streamwater. Basically,
the zoned-earth dam is composed of a clay core, random fill and filter drains.
1. Clay core – impervious central portion of the dam to be inclined with
a width to heat ratio greater than 1.0 and designed to be thick – thick enough
to reduce seepage.
2. Random fill – relatively more permeable than the clay core and of
greater strength. Placed at the upstream face of the dam (to serve as armor or ballast
against slope stablity).
3. Filters – designed to ensure
that the dam structure is always in its full drained state, thus, relieving any
pore pressure that may develop behind the dam.[60]
Therefore,
by design, composition and function, the subject property is a structure
adhered to the soil, and has neither a mechanical
contrivance, instrument, tool, implement, appliances, apparatus, nor
paraphernalia that produces a mechanical effect or performs a mechanical work
of any kind.[61]
It meets none of the following features of a
machinery as described in Section 199(o) of R.A. No. 7160:
(o) “Machinery” embraces
machines, equipment, mechanical contrivances, instruments, appliances or
apparatus which may or may not be attached, permanently or temporarily, to the
real property. It includes the physical facilities for production, the
installations and appurtenant service facilities, those which are mobile,
self-powered or self-propelled and those not permanently attached to the real
property which are actually, directly, and exclusively used to meet the needs
of the particular industry, business or activity and which by their very nature
and purpose are designed for, or necessary to its manufacturing, mining,
logging, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes.
That a structure such as the subject property does not
qualify as a machinery or equipment used for pollution control as contemplated
under R.A. No. 7160 is evident from the adoption of an expanded definition of pollution
control device in R.A. No. 7942.
Under Section 3 (am) thereof, a pollution control device now also refers
to “infrastructure” or “improvement,” and not just to machinery or equipment.
This new concept, however, cannot benefit respondent, for the assessment notice
under review pertains to real property tax assessed prior to the amendment of
Sec. 234 (e) of R.A. No. 7160 by Sec. 91 in relation to Sec. 3 (am) of R.A. No.
7942. It is settled that tax laws are
prospective in application, unless expressly provided to apply retroactively.[62] R.A. No. 7942 does not provide for the retroactive
application of its provisions.
In sum, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
ignoring irrefutable evidence that the subject property is not a machinery used
for pollution control, but a structure adhering to the soil and intended for
pollution control, but has not been actually applied for that purpose during
the period under assessment.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
diosdado m. peralta
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Danilo B. Pine and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico
and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok; rollo, p. 44.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, p. 53.
[4] Exhibit “C-2,” id. at 54.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] CA rollo, p. 81.
[9] Rollo, p. 63.
[10] G.R. No. 106041,
[11] CA rollo, p. 118.
[12] Rollo, p. 73.
[13] Rollo, pp. 81-82.
[14]
[15] CA rollo, p. 46.
[16] Rollo, p. 84.
[17] CA rollo, p. 9.
[18]
[19] Rollo, p. 59.
[20] Rollo, pp. 55-56.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] CA rollo, p. 318.
[26] Rollo, p. 61.
[27] Petitioner's Memorandum, rollo,
pp. 503-504.
[28] Petition, id. at 14.
[29] Petition for Review in CA-G.R.
No. 60672, CA rollo, p. 21.
[30] CA Decision, rollo,
p. 58.
[31] Petition, rollo, p.
16-17.
[32] Memorandum for Respondent,
id. at 560-563.
[33]
[34] Caltex (Phil.) Inc. v.
Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R. No. L-50466,
[35] An Act Expanding the
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; approved
[36] Rules Governing Appeals to
the Court of Appeals from Judgments or Final Orders of the Court of Tax Appeals
and Quasi-judicial Agencies; effective
June 1, 1995.
[37] 1. Scope.
– These rules shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the
Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of
or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Office of the President,
Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunication Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act
6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, and Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission.
[38] 5. How
appeal taken. – Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for
review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of
service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition
intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
[39] Macasasa v. Sicad,
G.R. No. 146547,
[40] Madrigal Transport, Inc.
v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 156067, August 11, 2004, 436
SCRA 123, 137.
[41] See Talento v. Escalada,
G.R. No. 180884,
[42] Rollo, p. 492.
[43] People v. Zulueta,,
89 Phil. 752, 756-757 (1951). See Hydro Resources Contractors Corp. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 85714,
[44] Sec. 221 of
R.A. No. 7160, which provides;
Sec.
221. Date of Effectivity of Assessment or Reassessment. - All assessments or reassessments
made after the first (1st) day of January of any year shall take effect on the
first (1st) day of January of the succeeding year: Provided, however, That the
reassessment of real property due to its partial or total destruction, or to a
major change in its actual use, or to any great and sudden inflation or
deflation of real property values, or to the gross illegality of the assessment
when made or to any other abnormal cause, shall be made within ninety (90) days
from the date any such cause or causes occurred, and shall take effect at the
beginning of the quarter next following the reassessment (Previously Section 24 of
Presidential Decree No. 464 (PD 464) or the Real Property Tax Code.) See
[45] G.R.
No. 120082,
[46] Lung Center of the
Philippines v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004 , 433 SCRA 119,
137.
[47] See Senator
Aquilino Pimentel, The Local Government Code Revisited,
[48] Rollo, p. 81.
[49] Petition for Review in
CA-G.R. No. 60672, CA rollo, p. 21.
[50] Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Acesite (Philippines) Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 147295,
February 16, 2007, 516 SCRA 93, 103.
[51] CA rollo, p. 55.
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61] See Central Azucarera de La Carlota v. Coscolluela, 44 Phil. 527
(1923).
[62] Pansacola v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 159991, November 16, 2006, 507 SCRA 81, 92-93; Abello
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 120721, February 23, 2005,
452 SCRA 162, 173.