Title
Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 164155
Decision Date
Feb 25, 2013
BCDA's sale of Fort Bonifacio land to FBDC under R.A. 7917 exempted from taxes; SC ruled DST assessment void, citing single transaction doctrine and tax exemption.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164155)

Chronology of the Transaction

R.A. 7227 created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) to raise funds through sale of military camps. On February 3, 1995 BCDA established FBDC as a wholly‑owned subsidiary to develop Fort Bonifacio. On February 7, 1995 the Republic issued Special Patent No. 3596 transferring a 214‑hectare portion of Fort Bonifacio to FBDC; FBDC executed a promissory note for P71.2 billion plus in favor of the Republic. The Republic assigned that promissory note to BCDA, which in turn used it to satisfy its subscription to FBDC’s authorized capital. On February 8, 1995 the Republic executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with Quitclaim covering the same land for the same price. An Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued on February 19, 1995. On February 24, 1995 Congress enacted R.A. 7917 declaring proceeds of the Government sale of the Fort Bonifacio land exempt from all forms of taxes.

Subsequent Commercial and Administrative Events

BCDA later sold 55% of FBDC shares to private investors, retaining 45%. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a Letter of Authority on September 15, 1998 to examine FBDC’s 1995 records and, on December 10, 1999, issued a Final Assessment Notice for documentary stamp tax (DST) of P1,068,412,560 based on the Republic’s 1995 Deed of Absolute Sale. FBDC protested and invoked R.A. 7917; the Commissioner did not act within the statutory period, prompting FBDC to file before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

Procedural History

The CTA denied FBDC’s petition and affirmed the DST assessment, treating the Special Patent and the Deed of Absolute Sale as distinct documentary events with differing tax consequences. The Commissioner sought additional penalties; CTA later imposed 20% delinquency interest. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed both the CTA decision and the imposition of interest. FBDC consolidated appeals to the Supreme Court. While petitions were pending, BCDA caused payment of the assessed amounts through a Special Allotment Release Order charged to the Military Camps Sale Proceeds Fund; the Commissioner contended that payment was improper and beyond R.A. 7917’s scope.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether FBDC was liable for DST and 20% delinquency interest on the Deed of Absolute Sale covering the 214‑hectare Fort Bonifacio land. 2) Whether the case became moot and academic by reason of BCDA’s payment of the assessed DST.

Statutory Texts and Legal Character of DST

NIRC Section 196 (as amended by R.A. 7660) imposes DST on conveyances, deeds, instruments or writings “other than grants, patents, or original certificates of adjudication issued by the Government.” DST is characterized as an excise tax levied on the exercise of privileges conferred by law, typically tied to execution of specified documents effecting creation, modification, or termination of private contractual rights.

Core Legal Analysis — Single Transaction Twice Documented

The Supreme Court concluded that the Special Patent and the Deed of Absolute Sale were not two separate conveyances but two instruments documenting the same single transaction: the Republic’s sale and the transfer of legal title to FBDC for the same consideration, paid once (by promissory note) and then assigned to BCDA for capitalization. The Special Patent operated to convey ownership and was issued pursuant to R.A. 7227; the Deed of Absolute Sale, acknowledged in its own terms, effectively confirmed an already absolute and irrevocable transfer effected by the Special Patent. Thus, the Deed was a formality to facilitate registration and issuance of an OCT and not an independent conveyance creating a separate DST taxable event.

Appropriation, Capitalization and Tax Exemption Under R.A. 7227 and R.A. 7917

The Court emphasized that R.A. 7227 expressly directed that proceeds from sale of Metro Manila military camps be used to capitalize BCDA (Sections 6 and 8) and that such proceeds were earmarked for specific government projects, not for general diminution by taxation. The statute’s funding scheme demonstrated legislative intent that the sale proceeds be applied to BCDA capitalization and related uses. Moreover, R.A. 7917 specifically declared proceeds of the Government sale of Fort Bonifacio exempt from all forms of taxes. Taxing the sale proceeds would effectively tax a legislative appropriation and would undermine the statutory scheme authorizing sale and capitalization through BCDA and its subsidiary.

Nature of the Deed and the Inapplicability of DST

Because the Special Patent (a government patent) was among the instruments expressly excluded from DST by Section 196, and because the Deed of Absolute Sale merely formalized an existing transfer effected by the patent, the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.