Case Digest (G.R. No. 146382)
Facts:
Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City, G.R. No. 146382, August 07, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Systems Plus Computer College is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution established in 1997 in Caloocan City. Although buildings actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes are exempt from property taxation under Art. VI, Sec. 28(3) of the 1987 Constitution, petitioner rented the land parcels on which its buildings stood from its sister corporations, Consolidated Assembly, Inc. and Pair Management and Development Corporation, paying P5,000 monthly.
On January 8, 1998, petitioner asked respondent Local Government of Caloocan City, through respondent Mamerto Manahan in his capacity as City Assessor and Administrator, to extend tax exemption to those parcels on the ground they were used for educational purposes. On February 5, 1998, acting on the recommendation of respondent Atty. Nestor D. Francisco, City Legal Officer, the city denied the request because the parcels were owned by the sister corporations which received rental income and therefore, from the owners’ standpoint, the properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.
On February 15, 1999, petitioner and the two sister corporations executed separate agreements novating existing leases and converting them into donations of the beneficial use of the parcels. Petitioner informed the City Assessor of these agreements on February 19, 1999 and submitted a notarized certification and board resolutions from the owners stating they no longer received rental income. Nevertheless, on July 21, 1999 the city again denied exemption, reasoning that the donations were made immediately after the initial denial and could reasonably be seen as an attempt to evade real property taxes; that tax exemptions should benefit the public and not individual owners; and that petitioner had not shown the parcels were “actually, directly and exclusively” used for educational purposes.
Twice rebuffed administratively, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 121. The RTC, by Resolution dated December 29, 1999, dismissed the mandamus petition as premature; its Order dated February 23, 2000 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief by mandamus?
- Does a writ of mandamus lie to compel the City Assessor to classify the subject parcels as exempt (i.e., to direct the exercise of the assessor’s judgment in fa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)