Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19545)
Facts:
Philippine Suburban Development Corporation v. The Auditor General, Pedro M. Gimenez, G.R. No. L-19545, April 18, 1975, Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Philippine Suburban Development Corporation (petitioner) owned the Sapang Palay Estate in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. In June 1960 the President of the Philippines, acting on committee reports and recommendations, approved in principle the acquisition by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) of the unoccupied portion of Sapang Palay for resettlement of squatters and flood victims, and authorized financing through government bond flotation to be absorbed by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). On June 10, 1960 the PHHC board adopted Resolution No. 700 authorizing purchase subject to conditions including confirmation of price, delineation of the parcel, funding from the contemplated bond issue, and approval of the contract of sale by the Auditor General pursuant to Administrative Order No. 290 (Feb. 3, 1959).
PHHC entered into possession of the property with petitioner's consent in the first week of June 1960 to commence road works and resettlement. After further Executive approvals, petitioner (vendor) and PHHC (vendee) executed a public instrument titled “Deed of Absolute Sale” on December 29, 1960 conveying two parcels (TCT Nos. T-23807 and T-23808) for P3,386,223.00 with a payment scheme leaving a balance to be paid when the PHHC obtained bond proceeds; the deed was not registered until March 14, 1961. The Auditor General, to whom a copy was submitted for approval under Administrative Order No. 290, raised objections and recommended re-examination because of a reassessment of the hacienda; nevertheless the President approved the deed on February 1, 1961.
On April 12, 1961 the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan asked PHHC to withhold P30,099.79 from the purchase price for the real property tax due for calendar year 1961. PHHC paid the tax under protest and, by letter dated June 13, 1961, petitioner (through PHHC) asked Secretary of Finance Dominador Aytona for a refund, asserting that ownership had passed on execution and by delivery of possession and thus petitioner ceased to be owner as of December 29, 1960. T...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was prior approval of the Auditor General under Administrative Order No. 290 required for the Deed of Absolute Sale despite the President’s approval?
- Did ownership of the sold parcels pass to PHHC before January 1, 1961 — notwithstanding registration delay under the Torrens system — thereby relieving petitioner of liability for the 1961 real property tax?
- Is petitioner entitled to refund of the real property tax paid under protest bec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)