CASE DIGEST : National Food Authority v. City Government of Tagum, City Assessor and City Treasurer of Tagum G.R. No. 261472, May 21, 2024

 

FACTS

The National Food Authority (NFA) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En Banc, which dismissed its petition seeking to prohibit the City Government of Tagum from collecting real property taxes (RPT) amounting to ₱2,643,816.53 on several parcels of land and buildings owned and used by the NFA in Tagum City. The CTA ruled that the NFA should have first exhausted the administrative remedies under Sections 226 and 252 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) by appealing to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) and paying the tax under protest. It likewise held that the NFA was a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC), not a government instrumentality, and was therefore subject to real property tax.

Before the Supreme Court, the NFA argued that the issue was purely one of law—whether it was exempt from real property tax—and therefore direct recourse to the courts was proper. It maintained that, although vested with corporate powers, it is a government instrumentality created to ensure food security, stabilize the supply and price of rice, and maintain buffer stocks under its charter and later Republic Act No. 11203 (Rice Tariffication Law). It asserted that its properties are owned by the Republic and devoted to public service, making them exempt from local taxation under Sections 133(o) and 234(a) of the Local Government Code, which prohibit local governments from taxing the National Government and exempt real property owned by the Republic unless its beneficial use is granted to a taxable person.

ISSUE

Whether the NFA was required to first exhaust the administrative remedies under Sections 226 and 252 of the Local Government Code before questioning the real property tax assessments imposed by the City of Tagum.

Whether the NFA is a government instrumentality or a government-owned or controlled corporation, and consequently whether its properties are exempt from real property tax under Sections 133(o) and 234(a) of the Local Government Code, considering their ownership by the Republic and their use for public service.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CTA En Banc. It held that the NFA properly filed a petition for prohibition because the controversy involved a pure question of law—whether the City of Tagum had legal authority to assess and collect real property taxes from the NFA. Since the issue did not require examination of factual matters or the correctness of the assessment but merely the legal authority to tax, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies under Sections 226 and 252 of the Local Government Code did not apply. The Court emphasized that administrative remedies are unnecessary where only legal questions are involved.

On the merits, the Court ruled that the NFA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers, not a taxable GOCC. Although it possesses corporate powers, it performs essential governmental functions involving national food security and acts as an instrumentality of the Republic. Accordingly, its properties are properties of public dominion devoted to public service and remain owned by the Republic. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, local governments cannot tax the National Government or its instrumentalities, while Section 234(a) exempts real property owned by the Republic from real property taxation unless beneficial use has been granted to a taxable entity. Since no such beneficial use was shown, the Court declared the real property tax assessments and notices of delinquency void, reaffirming that government instrumentalities performing governmental functions are exempt from local real property taxes.

CASE DIGEST : Philippine Heart Center v. Local Government of Quezon City G.R. No. 225409 March 11, 2020

 

FACTS

The Philippine Heart Center (PHC) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed its petition for certiorari questioning the assessment, levy, and auction sale of its properties for unpaid real property taxes (RPT) imposed by the Local Government of Quezon City. The PHC was created under Presidential Decree No. 673, which established it as a specialty government hospital mandated to provide comprehensive cardiovascular care, conduct research, and train medical professionals. Its charter initially granted it tax exemptions, although these were later deemed withdrawn after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160).

The Quezon City Assessor assessed eleven PHC properties for RPT, and upon PHC's failure to pay, the City Treasurer issued warrants of levy and eventually auctioned the properties. Instead of appealing the assessment before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) under the Local Government Code, PHC directly filed a petition for certiorari, asserting that the City acted without jurisdiction because the PHC is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers, not a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC), and that its properties are owned by the Republic and are therefore exempt from RPT under Sections 133(o) and 234(a) of the Local Government Code. Section 133(o) prohibits local governments from imposing taxes on the National Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities, while Section 234(a) exempts real property owned by the Republic unless its beneficial use is granted to a taxable person.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was an improper remedy and that PHC should have exhausted the administrative remedies under the Local Government Code. It likewise sustained the tax assessment. PHC elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the issue involved was purely one of law—whether it was legally exempt from real property taxation—and therefore fell within the recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to question the real property tax assessment, levy, and auction sale, despite the administrative remedies provided under the Local Government Code, considering that the controversy involved a pure question of law regarding the authority of Quezon City to impose the tax.

Whether the Philippine Heart Center is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers or a taxable government-owned or controlled corporation, and consequently whether its properties are exempt from real property tax under Sections 133(o) and 234(a) of the Local Government Code, in relation to Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) and Presidential Decree No. 673.

Whether the real property assessments, levy, and auction sale conducted by Quezon City were valid in light of the constitutional and statutory limitations on the taxing powers of local government units over national government instrumentalities.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that certiorari was the proper remedy because the case involved a pure question of law—whether Quezon City had legal authority to assess and collect real property taxes against PHC. Since the issue did not concern the correctness of the assessment but the jurisdiction of the taxing authority, PHC was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before the LBAA or CBAA. The Court reiterated that exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where only legal questions are involved or where the taxing authority allegedly acted without jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Court ruled that the Philippine Heart Center is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers, not a GOCC. Applying the doctrines in MIAA v. City of Parañaque and related cases, the Court explained that an entity does not become a GOCC merely because it possesses corporate powers. Under Executive Order No. 292, a GOCC must be organized as a stock or non-stock corporation. PHC has neither capital stock nor members and performs primarily governmental functions—providing specialized public health services, conducting research, and training medical professionals pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 673. Thus, it remains an instrumentality of the National Government.

The Court further held that PHC's real properties are owned by the Republic of the Philippines and devoted to public service. Accordingly, they are exempt from real property taxation under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which prohibits local governments from taxing the National Government and its instrumentalities, and Section 234(a), which exempts real property owned by the Republic unless its beneficial use has been granted to a taxable private entity. Since no beneficial use had been transferred to a taxable person, the tax assessments, warrants of levy, and auction sale were declared void.

Finally, the Court emphasized that local governments possess only delegated taxing powers under the Constitution and the Local Government Code, and these powers must always be exercised within the limitations imposed by Congress. Because PHC is a national government instrumentality performing essential public health functions, its properties cannot be subjected to local real property taxation absent a clear legislative withdrawal of the exemption. The decision reaffirmed the distinction between government instrumentalities vested with corporate powers and GOCCs, and strengthened the rule that properties of the Republic devoted to public use remain beyond the reach of local real property taxes

CASE DIGEST : Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) v. Quezon City G.R. No. 221626 October 9, 2019

 

FACTS

The Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), created under Executive Order No. 603, was tasked to construct, operate, and maintain the country's light rail transit system. In 2007, the City of Quezon City issued statements of delinquency, warrants of levy, and notices of tax delinquency against LRTA for unpaid real property taxes (RPT) on its lands, railways, carriageways, stations, and other facilities. Quezon City later auctioned the properties, and in the absence of other bidders, the properties were forfeited to the city pursuant to Section 263 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160). LRTA challenged the assessments, arguing that it is a government instrumentality exempt from local taxation under Section 133(o) and Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code, as interpreted in MIAA v. Court of Appeals.

The Regional Trial Court upheld the tax assessments, relying on the earlier case of LRTA v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, which had classified LRTA properties as taxable patrimonial properties. On appeal, LRTA argued that subsequent jurisprudence, particularly MIAA v. Court of Appeals, GSIS v. City Treasurer of Manila, and City of Lapu-Lapu v. PEZA, had clarified that government instrumentalities performing essential public functions are exempt from local real property taxes. It maintained that its railways, stations, and related facilities are properties of public dominion devoted to public use, owned by the Republic, and therefore beyond the taxing power of local government units.

ISSUE

Whether the Light Rail Transit Authority is a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) subject to local real property tax, or a government instrumentality exempt from taxation under Sections 133(o) and 234(a) of the Local Government Code.

Whether the LRTA's railways, carriageways, stations, and other properties are properties of public dominion under the Civil Code, thereby exempt from real property tax, and whether Quezon City's tax assessments, levy, and auction sale of these properties were valid.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the LRTA is a government instrumentality, not a GOCC. Although its charter grants it corporate powers, it does not possess capital stock divided into shares or members, which are essential characteristics of stock and non-stock corporations under the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Corporation Code. Consequently, LRTA forms part of the National Government and is covered by the limitation under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which prohibits local government units from imposing taxes, fees, or charges on the National Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities unless expressly authorized by law. The Court likewise held that Section 234(a) of the Local Government Code exempts from real property tax properties owned by the Republic, except where their beneficial use has been granted to a taxable private entity.

The Court further held that LRTA's railroads, carriageways, terminal stations, and the lands on which they stand are properties of public dominion under the Civil Code because they are devoted to public use and public service as part of the country's mass transportation system. Such properties are outside the commerce of man and cannot be levied upon or sold at public auction. Accordingly, the real property tax assessments, warrants of levy, auction sales, and certificates of sale issued by Quezon City were declared void. However, the Court clarified that private entities enjoying the beneficial use of LRTA properties for private purposes may still be assessed and taxed, but the exemption remains with LRTA and its public-use properties. The ruling effectively abandoned the earlier doctrine in LRTA v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals in light of the Court's later jurisprudence recognizing the tax immunity of government instrumentalities

CASE DIGEST : Manila Gas Corporation v. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-42780 January 17, 1936

 

FACTS

Manila Gas Corporation, a domestic corporation operating a gas utility in Manila under a legislative franchise, filed an action to recover ₱56,757.37 in withholding income taxes that it paid under protest to the Collector of Internal Revenue. The taxes were withheld from dividends paid to its foreign stockholder, Islands Gas and Electric Company (a New York corporation), and from interest payments on bonds and other indebtedness made to the same corporation and to General Finance Company of Switzerland. Manila Gas argued that these taxes were illegally collected.

The corporation contended that, under its franchise, payment of a 2½% franchise tax on gross receipts was "in lieu of all taxes," and thus the dividends paid to its stockholders should not be subject to income tax. It also argued that the interest paid to foreign corporations outside the Philippines did not constitute income from Philippine sources under Act No. 2833 (Income Tax Law) and therefore should not be subject to Philippine income tax. It further suggested that Act No. 3761, which amended the Income Tax Law to include interest paid "within or without the Philippine Islands," was unconstitutional, although this issue had not been raised before the trial court.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that both the dividends and interest payments were subject to withholding income tax. Manila Gas appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the issues of whether the franchise exempted the dividends from taxation and whether the interest paid to foreign corporations constituted taxable income derived from Philippine sources.

ISSUE

Whether the dividends paid by Manila Gas Corporation to its foreign corporate stockholder were exempt from income tax by virtue of the tax exemption clause in its franchise, and whether taxing such dividends impaired the obligation of contracts in violation of the Constitution.

Whether the interest paid by Manila Gas Corporation to foreign corporations on bonds and other indebtedness constituted income from sources within the Philippines under Act No. 2833, as amended by Act No. 3761, and was therefore subject to Philippine income tax despite being paid outside the country.

HELD

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. It ruled that the dividends paid by Manila Gas Corporation to its foreign stockholder were subject to income tax notwithstanding the franchise exemption. The Court explained that a corporation has a juridical personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. While the corporation itself enjoyed a franchise tax privilege, such exemption did not extend to the income received by its shareholders. Thus, taxing the dividends did not amount to taxing the corporation nor impair the obligation of contracts under the Constitution. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Philippine Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, which recognized the separate legal personality of corporations and their shareholders.

The Court likewise held that the interest paid to the foreign corporations was income derived from sources within the Philippines and therefore taxable under Act No. 2833, as amended by Act No. 3761. It explained that the word "source" refers to the origin of the income, and since Manila Gas earned its revenues entirely from its operations in the Philippines, the interest payments originated from Philippine sources regardless of where payment was actually made. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Act No. 3761 because the issue had not been properly raised before the lower court. Accordingly, the Collector of Internal Revenue validly withheld the income taxes, and the judgment against Manila Gas Corporation was affirmed. 

CASE DIGEST : Heirs of Spouses Anselmo Binay and Sevilla Manalo, et al. v. Bienvenido Banaag, et al. G.R. No. 226112, September 7, 2022 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

The petitioners, the Heirs of Spouses Anselmo Binay and Sevilla Manalo, filed a complaint for forcible entry against the respondents, claiming ownership and prior possession of a 25,334-square-meter parcel of land in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-3303, issued pursuant to Free Patent No. (IV-19)-3005. They alleged that they and their predecessors had been in peaceful possession of the property since 1945, had cultivated it, planted fruit-bearing trees, and consistently paid real property taxes. In August and October 2005, the respondents allegedly used force, threats, intimidation, and fencing to prevent the petitioners from entering and using the property, prompting the filing of an ejectment case under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

The respondents denied the allegations and asserted that the land formed part of their ancestral domain as members of the Iraya-Mangyan Tribe, claiming continuous possession by their ancestors. They relied on a cadastral survey and a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) to support their claim. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that their Torrens title and long possession established their better right to possess the property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the petitioners failed to sufficiently prove actual physical possession despite holding a Torrens title. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the requisites of forcible entry under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, particularly whether the petitioners had established prior physical possession by a preponderance of evidence. It also addressed whether ownership documents, such as a Torrens title, tax declarations, and government records relating to the issuance of a free patent, could sufficiently establish prior possession in an ejectment case.

---

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners sufficiently proved their prior physical possession of the disputed property, as required in an action for forcible entry under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, thereby entitling them to recover possession from the respondents.

Whether the petitioners' Torrens title, free patent, tax declarations, and other government-issued documents constituted competent evidence of possession despite the respondents' claim of ancestral domain and actual occupation.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decisions of the MCTC and RTC by disregarding the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners and giving greater weight to the respondents' unsupported allegations of possession.

---

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decisions of the MCTC and RTC. The Court held that under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a plaintiff in a forcible entry case must establish by preponderance of evidence: (1) prior physical possession of the property, (2) deprivation of such possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and (3) filing of the action within one year from dispossession. The Court found that all these elements were satisfactorily established by the petitioners.

The Court emphasized that while ejectment cases primarily concern physical possession (possession de facto) rather than ownership, Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court authorizes courts to provisionally determine ownership whenever necessary to resolve the issue of possession. It explained that a Torrens title is strong evidence of ownership, from which the right to possess naturally flows, and that although tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession, they are persuasive indicia that the holder possesses the property in the concept of an owner because no reasonable person would continuously pay taxes on land he does not possess.

The Court further ruled that possession may be acquired not only through actual or material occupation but also through juridical acts, such as the issuance and registration of a free patent, execution of public instruments, and other legal formalities recognized by law. The petitioners' documentary evidence—including the application for free patent, report of the Lands Examiner confirming continuous occupation since 1945, approval of the free patent, issuance of OCT No. P-3303, tax declarations, and government records—proved by a preponderance of evidence that they had prior possession before the respondents' forcible entry. In contrast, the respondents relied mainly on unsupported allegations and affidavits, which were insufficient to overcome the petitioners' superior documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to vacate the property and restored possession to the petitioners. 

CASE DIGEST : Joan V. Alarilla v. Rolando L. Lorenzo G.R. No. 240124, August 31, 2022 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Joan V. Alarilla, then Mayor of Meycauayan City, Bulacan, was charged before the Office of the Ombudsman with grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. The complaint alleged that she, in conspiracy with her husband, former Mayor Eduardo Alarilla, approved the disbursement of 41 municipal checks amounting to ₱5,130,329.14 in favor of two suppliers, LC San Pascual Construction Supply and VSP Trading and General Merchandise, for goods and services that were allegedly never delivered. It was claimed that the transactions were fictitious and that public funds were unlawfully disbursed.

The Ombudsman required the parties to submit their counter-affidavits and position papers. After the pleadings were completed in December 2008, no significant action was taken on the case for almost eight years. Only on November 2, 2016 did the Ombudsman render a decision finding Alarilla administratively liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, while dismissing the complaint against Eduardo because his term had already ended and he had passed away. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling.

Before the Supreme Court, Alarilla argued that the extraordinary delay in resolving the administrative complaint violated her constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. She further maintained that the government projects were legitimate and that the procurement and payment procedures were properly observed.

The Supreme Court examined whether the prolonged inaction of the Ombudsman justified the dismissal of the administrative complaint under the standards established in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, which laid down the framework for determining violations of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

---

ISSUE

Whether the nearly eight-year delay by the Office of the Ombudsman in resolving the administrative complaint violated petitioner's constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Whether the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty despite the alleged inordinate delay.

Whether the administrative complaint should be dismissed without resolving the merits because of the violation of petitioner's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, applying the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan.

---

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Office of the Ombudsman. It held that petitioner's constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution was violated. The Court emphasized that this constitutional protection extends not only to criminal proceedings but also to administrative and quasi-judicial cases. Applying the guidelines in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that once the delay exceeds the prescribed or reasonable period, the burden shifts to the government to justify such delay. In this case, the Ombudsman failed to provide sufficient justification for allowing the case to remain unresolved for almost eight years after the parties had already submitted all their pleadings.

The Court explained that the Ombudsman must show that it complied with proper procedures, that the complexity of the case justified the delay, and that the respondent suffered no prejudice. None of these circumstances was established. The administrative complaint involved a finite set of documentary evidence and was not so complex as to warrant years of inaction. The Court stressed that unexplained institutional delay cannot be excused by a mere invocation of the Ombudsman's heavy workload or broad investigatory powers, as constitutional rights cannot yield to administrative inefficiency.

The Supreme Court further held that petitioner did not waive her constitutional right. Citing Cagang and Javier v. Sandiganbayan, it recognized that respondents in Ombudsman administrative proceedings have no procedural remedy to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of inordinate delay because such motions are generally prohibited under the Ombudsman's rules. Consequently, petitioner timely asserted her constitutional right at the earliest opportunity available. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee is intended to protect individuals from unreasonable delays that cause anxiety, uncertainty, and prejudice in administrative proceedings.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Joan V. Alarilla without passing upon the merits of the allegations of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. The Court declared that the violation of the constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the case, reiterating that the guarantee under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution is a substantive right that government agencies, including the Office of the Ombudsman, must faithfully observe in the administration of justice.

CASE DIGEST : Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. Marcos, et al. G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 1996

 

FACTS

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) was created under Republic Act No. 6958 to manage and operate the Mactan International Airport and other airports in Cebu. Section 14 of its charter granted it exemption from the payment of real property taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political subdivisions. However, after the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), the City Treasurer of Cebu assessed and demanded payment of real property taxes on several parcels of land owned by MCIAA, claiming that its tax exemption had been withdrawn by Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, which generally repealed tax exemptions previously granted to government-owned or controlled corporations unless expressly preserved by law.

MCIAA refused to pay, arguing that it was an instrumentality of the National Government rather than an ordinary government-owned or controlled corporation. It invoked Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, which prohibits local government units from imposing taxes on the National Government, its agencies, and instrumentalities. After paying the assessed taxes under protest, MCIAA filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court, which dismissed the petition and ruled that its tax exemption had been repealed. MCIAA then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is exempt from the payment of real property taxes under its charter and as a government instrumentality, despite the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, particularly Sections 193, 234, and 133(o) thereof.

HELD

The Supreme Court denied the petition and held that MCIAA is liable for real property taxes. It ruled that while MCIAA's charter under R.A. No. 6958 originally granted it exemption from real property taxes, such exemption was effectively withdrawn by Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Government Code, which expressly repealed tax exemptions previously enjoyed by government-owned or controlled corporations unless specifically retained by the Code. The Court explained that tax exemptions are never presumed and must be expressed in clear and unmistakable language. Since the Local Government Code did not preserve MCIAA's exemption, it ceased to exist upon the Code's effectivity.

The Court further clarified that Section 133(o), which prohibits local governments from imposing taxes on the National Government and its instrumentalities, pertains to the power to levy taxes, whereas real property tax is specifically governed by Section 234 of the Local Government Code, which enumerates the properties exempt from such tax. The Court emphasized that Congress has the constitutional authority to withdraw tax exemptions in furtherance of local fiscal autonomy under the Constitution. Accordingly, MCIAA's properties, not falling within the exemptions under Section 234, remained subject to local real property taxation, and the RTC's dismissal of the petition was affirmed.

CASE DIGEST : Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals G.R. No. 215955 January 13, 2021

 

FACTS

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Republic Act No. 6234, was granted tax exemptions, including exemption from real property tax (RPT), over properties used in carrying out its governmental functions. Following the privatization of its water distribution operations through concession agreements with private concessionaires, the Pasay City Assessor and Treasurer assessed and collected RPT on MWSS properties. MWSS contested the assessments, arguing that its tax exemption under its charter remained in force and that the Local Government Code (LGC) did not expressly repeal such exemption.

Instead of pursuing the administrative remedies before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA), MWSS filed a petition directly before the Regional Trial Court, asserting that the issue involved was purely legal—whether the local government had authority under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) to assess and collect RPT against a government entity enjoying a statutory tax exemption. The lower courts dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, prompting MWSS to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether MWSS was required to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Local Government Code, particularly the appeal process before the LBAA and CBAA, before questioning the real property tax assessment.

Whether MWSS remained exempt from real property tax under Republic Act No. 6234, notwithstanding the enactment of the Local Government Code and the privatization of its water distribution operations.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply because the controversy involved a pure question of law—whether the City Assessor and City Treasurer possessed the legal authority to assess and collect real property taxes from MWSS. Under the Local Government Code, the jurisdiction of the LBAA and CBAA is limited to questions involving the correctness or reasonableness of property assessments, not the legal authority of the taxing officials. Consistent with Ty v. Trampe, when only legal issues are involved, direct recourse to the courts is proper.

The Court further ruled that MWSS continued to enjoy its real property tax exemption under Republic Act No. 6234, as such exemption was not expressly withdrawn by the Local Government Code. The privatization of MWSS operations did not divest it of its status as a government instrumentality nor automatically remove the statutory exemption covering its properties devoted to public service. Consequently, the Pasay City officials had no authority to assess and collect real property taxes against the exempt MWSS properties, rendering the assessments void