Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18276)
Facts:
The case at hand is C. N. Hodges v. The Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, Hon. Rodolfo Ganzon, in his capacity as City Mayor of the City of Iloilo, and The City of Iloilo, with G.R. No. L-18276, decided on January 12, 1967. The controversy originated when the Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo enacted Ordinance No. 31 on June 7, 1960, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2264, entitled "An Ordinance Imposing Municipal Tax On The Sale of Real Property Situated In The City of Iloilo." The ordinance mandated that any individual or entity selling real property within the City of Iloilo must pay a tax equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the contract price or consideration before the sale could be registered and ownership transferred at the Register of Deeds of Iloilo. Failure to pay the tax within five days resulted in a surcharge, while noncompliance was punishable by fines or imprisonment.
- N. Hodges, the petitioner, engaged in the real estate business, was
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18276)
Facts:
In June 1960, the municipal board of the City of Iloilo enacted Ordinance 31, series of 1960, imposing a municipal sales tax of one-half of one percent (0.5%) on the sale of real property within the city. The ordinance required that payment of this tax—paid within five days of the sale—be made prior to the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds, thereby effectively making tax payment a precondition for transferring ownership. Penal sanctions were also provided for non-compliance. Petitioner C. N. Hodges, engaged in real estate transactions in Iloilo, challenged the ordinance on the ground that it exceeded the corporate powers of the city. He initiated an action for declaratory relief on June 28, 1960, before the ordinance took effect, and later amended his petition to include a claim for reimbursement of the taxes he had paid under the ordinance once it became effective. The respondents (the Municipal Board, the City Mayor, and the City itself) defended the ordinance citing their authority under the city charter and the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act 2264). An initial procedural issue raised was whether the petitioner should have exhausted administrative remedies as provided in part by the Local Autonomy Act. However, the nature of the petitioner’s challenge—as one questioning the corporate power and validity of the ordinance rather than the character of the tax—is distinct from the administrative remedy relief provided by the Secretary of Finance for cases of “unjust, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory” taxes.Issues:
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction given the contention by the appellants that the petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies prescribed by the Local Autonomy Act.
- Whether the municipal board of the City of Iloilo exercised its corporate powers within the limits of its authority in enacting an ordinance that imposes a real property sales tax and makes its payment a condition for registration of the sale, especially when such an added requirement might effectively amend registration requirements prescribed by higher law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)