Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan vs. LGU Caloocan

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    Systems Plus Computer College sought a tax exemption on parcels of land it leased from sister companies to use for its nonprofit educational activities. The local government denied the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Systems Plus failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals before filing its case; and (2) the parcels of land were not entitled to tax exemption under the Constitution since they were owned by Systems Plus' sister companies, not Systems Plus itself. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan vs. LGU Caloocan

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    99 views1 page
    Systems Plus Computer College sought a tax exemption on parcels of land it leased from sister companies to use for its nonprofit educational activities. The local government denied the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Systems Plus failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals before filing its case; and (2) the parcels of land were not entitled to tax exemption under the Constitution since they were owned by Systems Plus' sister companies, not Systems Plus itself. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.

    Original Title

    Systems-Plus-Computer-College-of-Caloocan-vs.-LGU-Caloocan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Systems Plus Computer College sought a tax exemption on parcels of land it leased from sister companies to use for its nonprofit educational activities. The local government denied the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Systems Plus failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals before filing its case; and (2) the parcels of land were not entitled to tax exemption under the Constitution since they were owned by Systems Plus' sister companies, not Systems Plus itself. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views1 page

    Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan vs. LGU Caloocan

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Dela Rosa
    Systems Plus Computer College sought a tax exemption on parcels of land it leased from sister companies to use for its nonprofit educational activities. The local government denied the exemption. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) Systems Plus failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals before filing its case; and (2) the parcels of land were not entitled to tax exemption under the Constitution since they were owned by Systems Plus' sister companies, not Systems Plus itself. The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City vs.

    Local Government of Caloocan City


    Petitioners: Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City
    Respondents: LGU of Caloocan City, City Assessor, and City Legal Officer

    FACTS
    Systems Plus Computer College is a non-stock and non-profit educational institution. It enjoys
    property tax exemption from the LGU on its buildings but not on the parcels of land which the petitioner
    is renting for P5000 a month from its sister companies, Consolidated Assembly Inc. and Pair
    Management and Development Corporation. Petitioner requested for tax exemptions on the parcels of
    land it leases from its sister companies pursuant to Article VI section 28(3) of the Constitution, but this
    was denied by the City Legal Officer since the lands were owned by the sister companies and income
    from rentals was derived from which.

    The petitioner and the sister companies substituted their contract on the parcels of land and
    converted the parcel of land to donations and the beneficial use thereof. Petitioners yet again ask for a tax
    exemption, which was denied again by the city government since the latter believes that the conversion
    was a way to evade the payment of tax. Petitioners pray for Mandamus to compel the LGU of Caloocan
    to grant the tax exemption.

    ISSUE
    1. W/N petitioners exhausted administrative remedies before they filed for a mandamus petition? NO.
    2. W/N the parcels of land was entitled to tax exemptions under Article VI section 28(3) of the
    Constitution? NO.

    HELD
    Under Section 226 of RA 7160, the remedy of appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals
    is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the
    assessment of property. Petitioners did not seek such appeal from the respective authority.

    Petitioner's argument derives from the misunderstanding of "assessment" under Section 199 Title
    II Book II of the LGC of 1991. "Assessment" is defined as the act or process of determining the value of a
    property, or proportion thereof subject to tax, including the discovery, listing, classification and appraisal
    of properties. Therefore, the determination made by the respondent City Assessor with regard to the
    taxability of the parcels of land in the case at bar squarely falls within its power to assess properties for
    taxation purposes subject to appeal before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals.

    Petitioner is taking an unwarranted shortcut by filing immediately for mandamus. The argument
    gratuitously presumes the existence of the fact which it must first prove by competent and sufficient
    evidence before the City Assessor. It must be stressed that the authority to receive evidence, as basis for
    classification of properties for taxation is legally vested on the respondent City Assessor whose action is
    appealable to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, if
    necessary.

    DECISION
    Petition is DENIED.

    You might also like