Title
Apostolic Prefect of the Mt. Province vs. El Tesorero de la Ciudad de Baguio
Case
G.R. No. 47252
Decision Date
Apr 18, 1941
A religious corporation contested a 1937 special assessment for a sewer system, claiming exemption under the Constitution. The Court ruled the assessment valid, as it was not a tax and the properties lacked exclusive religious use.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 47252)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

The payment under protest was made on June 25, 1937. The case was decided on April 18, 1941. The relevant legal framework includes the Philippine Constitution applicable at that time (Batas Commonwealth), Ordinance No. 137 and its subsequent amendments, and the enabling Act No. 1963 (now Article 2553 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code), which empowers the city to levy special assessments for public improvements.

Factual Stipulations

Both parties agreed on several facts:

  1. The petitioner is a religious corporation with properties in Baguio dedicated to religious and educational purposes.
  2. The respondent demanded and collected the special contribution under the cited ordinances.
  3. The special contribution corresponds to benefits conferred by the city's sewerage and drainage system, which operates on a "special assessment" basis, affecting properties included on the official special assessment list established by Ordinance No. 137.
  4. The petitioner previously paid special contributions without protest until 1937, when it formally protested the payment.
  5. The construction directly benefits all properties included in the special assessment list, including those of the petitioner.
  6. The petitioner claims exemption from the special contribution based on constitutional provisions exempting properties used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes from taxation.

Legal Issues

The core issues are:

  1. Whether the special contribution levied under Ordinance No. 137 is a tax subject to constitutional exemptions or a special assessment not covered by such exemptions.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s properties are exempt from payment because they are devoted exclusively to religious purposes.
  3. Whether Ordinance No. 137 and its amendments are valid and effective in imposing the special contribution.
  4. Whether the petitioner had already fulfilled its share of the expenses related to the sewerage system before the 1937 payment.

Nature of the Special Contribution

The Court analyzed the nature of special contributions, distinguishing them from general taxes. It affirmed an established principle that special assessments are levies imposed on property owners who directly benefit from particular public improvements, such as drainage and sewerage systems. Unlike general taxes, special assessments are:

  • Levied solely on property
  • Based strictly on the benefits conferred to the properties assessed
  • Limited in time and locality to the improvement and affected properties
    These characteristics distinguish special assessments from taxes, which are broader and impose a general liability on personal property as well. Thus, the contribution demanded from the petitioner is a special assessment, not a general tax.

Application of Constitutional Exemptions

The petitioner invoked the constitutional exemption under Article 14, Section 3 of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, which exempts cemeteries, churches, parishes, convents, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes from taxation. The Court held that this exemption applies exclusively to taxes and does not extend to special assessments, as these are not taxes in the legal sense. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove that the properties were used exclusively for religious purposes, an essential requirement for exemption. Stipulations only indicated dedication to religious purposes, not exclusivity, thus negating any entitlement to exemption.

Validity of Ordinance No. 137 and Amendments

The Court confirmed the validity of Ordinance No. 137 and its numerous amendments. It held that the City of Baguio was duly authorized by Section 1, Article 8 of Act No. 1963 (now Article 2553 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code) to impose special contributions to defray costs of public improvements such as the sewerage and drainage system benefiting affected properties. Therefore,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.