Title
Provincial Government of Cavite vs. CQM Management, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 248033
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2020
CQM Management seeks injunction against Cavite tax delinquency sale; properties exempt under RA 7916, tax collection prescribed, laches bars enforcement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248033)

Background of the Case

On November 25, 2014, the respondent filed a petition for an injunction with a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. This was against the Provincial Government of Cavite and the Provincial Treasurer in relation to their intent to auction the properties of Maxon and Ultimate for unpaid taxes. The properties in question were acquired as a result of foreclosure proceedings initiated by the prior lender, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, after the original owners defaulted on their loans.

Foreclosure Proceedings and Ownership Transfer

The foreclosure led to the auction sale of the properties, resulting in the acquisition of the Maxon property and the Ultimate property by the respondent. The Maxon property, located in the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) with an area of 17,466 square meters, had an outstanding obligation of P30 million. The Ultimate property, covering 3,000 square meters, had a P10.5 million obligation. The respondent subsequently acquired ownership through a deed of assignment dated March 31, 2011.

Tax Liability Claims

Following the acquisition, the Provincial Treasurer issued assessments against both Maxon and Ultimate for unpaid real property taxes and announced a public auction. It was indicated that Maxon owed approximately P15.9 million in taxes from 2000 to 2013, while Ultimate owed about P6.2 million from 1997 to 2013. The auction did not occur due to the RTC's issuance of a preliminary injunction.

RTC Ruling

On February 19, 2016, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, determining it was exempt from real property taxes under Section 24 of Republic Act (RA) 7916—specifically as the properties were located within an ecozone. The court stated that exempt status applied to such properties, which only required payment of a 5% gross income tax.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's decision on May 23, 2018, affirming that the respondent did not bear tax liability for the periods concerning the properties since ownership and possession had not yet transferred by the time the debts accrued. The appellate court reinforced that the respondent became the owner only when the redemption periods expired and further noted that lack of timely action by the petitioners barred them under the principles of laches and estoppel from collecting the taxes.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, stating that the liability for property taxes generally lies with the owner during the period the tax accrues. Since the respondent was neither the owner nor had beneficial possession during the periods in question, it was unjust to impose tax liabilities. The Court reaffirmed the

...continue reading

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