Documents

abra college vs aquino

Description
taxation I
Categories
Published
of 2
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
  ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE, INC. represented by PEDRO V. BORGONIA, petitioner, vs. HON. JAN P. A!INO, J d#e, Co rt o$ %irst Inst&n'e, Abr&( AR)IN ). CARIAGA, Provin'i&* +re&s rer, Abr&( GAPAR V. BO!E, ) ni'ip&* +re&s rer, B&n# ed, Abr&( HEIR C% PA+ERNO )ILLARE, respondents%AC+-  Petitioner, an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1948.  College was the d *y re#istered oner   of the parcel of land, upon which the school premises were erected.  ue to non!payment of real estate taxes, Noti'e o$ ei/ re &nd Noti'e o$ &*e  were issued y #espondents $unicipal and Pro%incial &reasurers in satisfaction of the de ts.  Petitioner College then filed a 'o0p*&int $or t1e &nn *0ent &nd de'*&r&tion o$ n **ity  of the orders. PE+I+IONER2 CON+EN+ION- Petitioner contends that the primary use of the lot and uilding for educational purposes, and not the incidental use thereof, determines and exemption from property taxes under Section '' ()*, +rticle - of the 19) Constitution. REPONDEN+2 CON+EN+ION- Pri%ate respondents maintain that the college lot and uilding in /uestion which were su 0ected to seiure and sale to answer for the unpaid tax are used2 (1* for the educational purposes of the college3 ('* as the permanent residence of the President and irector thereof, $r. Pedro . orgonia, and his family including the in!laws and grandchildren3 and ()* for commercial purposes ecause the ground floor of the college uilding is eing used and rented y a commercial esta lishment, the 5orthern $ar6eting Corporation R+C- &he trial court disagreed ecause of the use of the second floor y the irector of petitioner school for residential purposes. 7e thus ruled for the go%ernment and rendered the assailed decision. IE-  &he main issue in this case is the proper interpretation of the phrase used exclusi%ely for educational purposes.hether or not the su 0ect properties are exclusi%ely used for educational purposes and, in the affirmati%e, are a solutely exempted from payment of real estate taxes. HELD-NO . C:- correctly arri%ed at the conclusion that the school uilding as well as the lot where itis uilt, should e taxed, not ecause the second floor of the same is eing used y the irector and his family for residential purposes, ut be'& se t1e $irst $*oor t1ereo$ is bein# sed $or 'o00er'i&* p rposes.  7owe%er, since only a portion is used for purposes of commerce, it is only fair that half of the assessed tax e returned to the school in%ol%ed.  &he phrase exclusi%ely used for educational purposes was further clarified y this Court in the cases of Herrer& Vs. ! e/on City Bo&rd O$ Assess0ent Appe&*s , and Co00issioner o$ Intern&* Reven e vs. Bis1op o$ t1e )ission&ry Distri't , , thus ; <$oreo%er, the exemption in fa%or of property used exclusi%ely for charita le or educational purposes is 3not *i0ited to property &'t &**y indispens&b*e3  therefor (Cooley on &axation, ol. ', p. 14)=*, ut e4tends to $&'i*ities 1i'1 &re in'ident&* to &nd re&son&b*y ne'ess&ry $or t1e &''o0p*is10ent o$ s&id p rposes , such as in thecase of hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurses> home, property use to pro%ide housing facilities for interns, resident doctors, superintendents, and other mem ers of the hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses, interns, and residents>, such as +thletic fields including a firm used for the inmates of the institution.?&he test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes mentioned in the Constitution Aposto*i' Pre$e't v. City +re&s rer o$ B&# io . &he use of the school uilding or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated y law, nor y 0urisprudence. &hus, while the use of the second floor of the main uilding in the case at ar for residential purposes of the irector and his family, may find 0ustification under the concept of incidental use, which is complimentary to the main or primary purpose;educational, the lease of the first floor thereof tothe 5orthern $ar6eting Corporation cannot y any stretch of the imagination e considered incidental to the purpose of education. DIPOI+ION- P#E$-SES C@5S-E#E, the decision of the Court of :irst -nstance of + ra, ranch -, is here y A%%IR)ED  su 0ect to the modification that half of the assessed tax e returned to the petitioner.
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