Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18330)
Facts:
Jose de Borja v. Vicente G. Gella, G.R. No. L-18330, July 31, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner-appellee Jose de Borja had become delinquent in payment of real estate taxes for properties in the City of Manila and Pasay City beginning in 1958. He held two negotiable certificates of indebtedness (Nos. 3064 and 3065) in the amounts of P793.40 and P717.39 respectively; those instruments represented backpay entitlements originally acknowledged to Rafael Vizcaya and Pablo Batario Luna. De Borja offered the certificates to the city treasurers of Manila and Pasay as payment of his delinquent real estate taxes.
The treasurers refused acceptance, relying on the limited negotiability provided in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act No. 800, and, in Manila's case, instructions from the city mayor. De Borja sought an opinion from the Treasurer of the Philippines, who stated that the negotiable certificates could be accepted for payment only from the backpay holder or original applicant, not an assignee. After that opinion, and failing to obtain acceptance, De Borja filed suit on June 30, 1960 against the treasurers of Manila and Pasay and against the Treasurer of the Philippines to compel them to accept the certificates as payment (seeking mandamus) and to enjoin sale of his properties for nonpayment.
After trial the court a quo granted relief to De Borja: it enjoined the treasurers from selling his properties for tax delinquency and ordered the Treasurer of the Philippines and the city treasurers to accept Certificates Nos. 3064 and 3065 in payment of his real estate taxes without cost. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning twelve errors reduced to two principal legal questions concerning (a) the right of an assignee...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner, as an assignee of negotiable certificates of indebtedness, have the right to apply those certificates in payment of his real estate taxes and do the city treasurers have a legal duty to accept them?
- Can compensation (set-off) be invoked to extinguish petitioner’s real estate tax liability by reason of the credit represented by ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)