Documents

Additional Cases

Description
+++
Categories
Published
of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  RAUL SESBRENO VS. CBAA G.R. 106588 MAR. 24, 1997 FACTS: Sesbreno bought real property to which it constructed a residential property. He duly registered the same for taxation purposes and declared therein he owned a residential house made of strong materials. However, the field inspectors found otherwise — what he constructed was a 5 ‐ storey building made of materials. As such, they increased by 1000% the assessment made on the property, to which petitioner naturally contested. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Central Board of Assessment Appeals erred in not strictly applying par. n, Section 3, Presidential Decree No. 464 defining 'market value' as basis for computing the 'assessed value HELD: The cited provision merely defines market value. It does not in any way direct that the market value as defined therein should be used as basis in determining the value of a property for purposes of real property taxation. On the other hand, Section 5 of PD 464 provides unequivocally that (a)ll real property, whether taxable or exempt, shall be appraised at the current and fair market value prevailing in the locality where the property is situated. Contrary to petitioner's contention, acquisition cost cannot be and is not the sole basis of the current and fair market value of a property. The current value of like properties and their actual or potential uses, among others, are also considered.  G.R. No. L-1147 September 24, 1903 ESCOLASTICO DUTERTE Y ROSALES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FLORENTINO RALLOS, defendant-appellee. Facts: Rosales claimed that he and Rallos, and one Castro were partners in the management of a cockpit to which the defendant denied. The court found that no such partnership existed and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied. Through the evidence, it was found that plaintiff demanded by a letter the settlement of their accounts. In the preceding year, the defendant sent to the plaintiff statements of the business for the months of June, July, and August. They are in legal effect the same. It was also found that the plaintiff rendered services in the management of the cockpit and that the defendant paid him money on account of the cockpit. The defendant confirmed that profits were divided and a portion was given to Rosales because he was a friend who helped in the management of the cockpit. Hence, this present petition. Issue: Whether or not Rosales and Rallos created a partnership Held: The court ordered for a new trial. It ruled that Article 1668 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the case. No real estate was contributed by any member. The partnership did not become the owner of the cockpit. It is undisputed that this was owned by the defendant. Furthermore, it held that the finding of the court  below that there was no partnership was against the evidence, and for that a new trial should be instituted.  G.R. No. 133706 May 7, 2002 FRANCISCO ESTOLAS, petitioner, vs. ADOLFO MABALOT, respondent. Facts: on November 11, 1973, a Certificate of Land Transfer was issued in favor of Adolfo Mabalot, hereinafter the Respondent, for over 5,000 square meters located in Brgy. Samon, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. On May 1978, the respondent is in need of money so he passed on the subject land for the amount of P 5, 800 and P 200.00 worth of rice to the petitioner, Francisco Estolas. According to respondent, there was only verbal mortgage but according to the petitioner there was a sale. DAR officials issued a Transfer of Certificate of Title in favor of the petitioner on December 04, 1987. May 1988, respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and on July 08, 1988, a decision was rendered by Atty. Linda F. Peralta of DAR, saying that the Certificate of Land Title must remain under the respondent while a sum of money must be given to the Petitioner. On September 20, 1988, petitioner insisted that there has been a sale and a cancellation of the CLT in respondent’s name. The decision on March 09, 1989 is in favor of the petitioner saying that the abandonment of the Respondent of the land perfected the sale. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Until on May 03, 1989 the respondent filed an appeal to the DAR Central and was granted. Issue: Whether or not the act of respondent in conveying to petitioner the right to possess and cultivate the disputed parcel of land constitutes a valid abandonment thereby rendering the transfer valid. Held: The petition is denied. It was ruled that there was no abandonment because there must be a clear and absolute intention to renounce or to claim or to desert a right or property. In the case at bar, the respondent had not effectiviely abandoned the property because he tried to redeem it. Also the petitioner had demanded P 15, 000.00 for it. G.R. No. 42204 January 21, 1993 HON. RAMON J. FAROLAN, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and BAGONG BUHAY TRADING, respondents. Facts: On January 30, 1972, 80 bales of screen net of 500 rolls with a gross weight of 12, 777 kilograms, consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading, was declared through a customs brokers under Entry No. 8651-72 and was valued $3, 750.00 classified under Tariff Heading No. 39.06-B of the Tariff and Customs Code at 35%. Bagong buhay paid the duties and taxes due in the amount of P11, 350.00. Information came to the Office of the Collector of Customs that the shipment consisted of “mosquito net” made  of nylon which shall fall under Tariff Heading No. 62.02. the office of the collector of customs ordered a re-examination of the  shipment. With the result of the re-examination, the value was re-appraised to P272, 600.00 and the shipment was forfeited by the Collector of Customs in favor of the government due to the misdeclaration as to quantity and value. Private Respondent appealed to Customs but it was denied so they raised the case to Court of Tax Appeals. The CTA reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs on the forfeiture of the object involved due to fraud upon the private respondent because fraud is never presumed. Also, they order that the shipment must be classified as “polyethylene plastic” at the rate of 35% under Tariff Heading 39.02. Issue: Whether or not the ship falls under Tariff Heading No. 39.02 with 35% rate. Held: The decision of the CTA is affirmed. It was rendered that the ship falls under Tariff Heading 39.02 with the rate of 35%. It was held that that principal product contains polyethylene plastic which falls under Tariff Heading No. 39.02 instead of synthetic woven fabric which is through an expert examination and laboratory results thus it isn’t erroneous in character.  
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks