Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2



Facts: The Philippine Tourism Authority filed 4 complaints with the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the
expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangay Alubog and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA¶s
express authority ³to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within
and without the tourist zones´ for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its Revised Charter (PD
564). The heirs of Juancho Ardona et. Al, ) filed their oppositions, and had a common allegation in that the taking is
allegedly not impressed with public use under the Constitution; alleging that there is no specific constitutional
provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes; that assuming that PTA has such power,
the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area; that limiting the amount
of compensation by legislative fiat is constitutionally repugnant; and that since the land is under the land reform
program, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of First Instance (CFI), that has jurisdiction over the
expropriation cases. The Philippine Tourism Authority having deposited with the Philippine National Bank, Cebu
City Branch, an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1533,
the lower court issued separate orders authorizing PTA to take immediate possession of the premises and directing
the issuance of writs of possession. The Heirs of Ardona, et. al. then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the expropriation of parcels of land for the purpose of constructing a sports complex by the
Philippine Tourism Authority be considered taking for ³public use.´

Held: The states power of eminent domain extends to the expropriation of land for tourism purposes although this
specific objective is not expressed in the constitution. The policy objectives of the framers can be expressed only in
general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of the national patrimony public
interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these objectives vary from time to time and
according to place. To freeze specific programs like tourism into express provisions would make the constitution
more prolix than bulky code and require of the framers a prescience beyond Delphic proportions. The particular
mention in the constitution of agrarian reform and transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public
ownership merely underscores the magnitude of the problems sought to be remedied by this programs. They do not
preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the purposes like tourism and other development


Facts: Section 4 of the special education fund ( RA 5447) provides that an annual additional tax of 1% on the
assessed value of the real property in addition to the real property tax levied under existing laws may be imposed,
but such tax shall not exceed a maximum of 3%. That maximum limit gave the municipal board of manila the idea
of fixing the realty tax at 3% thru ordinance # 7125 that imposed an additional ½ % realty tax.

Esso Phil., inc. paid under protest the additional ½ % tax for the third quarter of 1003 on its land and
machineries then filed a complaint contending that such tax is void because it is not authorized by the city charter
nor by law

Issue: WON the imposition of additional ½ % realty tax is void

Held: No. The doctrine of implications in statcon sustains the city of manila¶s contention that the additional tax is
sanctioned by sec. 4 of RA 5447 that ³the total realty tax shall not exceed a maximum of 3%´. While the 1949
revised charter of manila fixed the realty tax at 1 ½%, on the other hand, the RA 5447 definitely fixed 3% as the
maximum realty tax of which 1% would accrue to the SEF. The obvious implication is that an additional ½ % to tax
could be imposed by municipal corporations. Inferentially, that law fixed at 2% the realty tax that would accrue to a
city or municipality.

De villa vs. CA
Facts: Cecilio de villa was charged before the RTCof Makati with the violation of BP 22 as he allegedly draw and
issue a post dated check to Roberto Lorayez in the total amount of $2,500.00 (Php 50,000.00) who upon
presentation to the drawee bank, found that it was dishonored because of insufficiency of funds. The accused
contended that since the questioned check was drawn against his dollar account with a foreign bank, the court has no
jurisdiction over the same or with accounts outside Phil. Jurisdiction and that BP 22 could have not contemplated
extending its coverage over dollar accounts.

Issue: WON the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over the case in question

Held: Yes. It is well established that courts may avail themselves of the actual proceeding of the legislative body to
assist in determining the construction of the statute of doubtful meaning. Thus, where there is doubt as to what a
provision means, the meaning put to the provision during the legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill may be

The records of the Batasan, vol. III, unmistakably show that the intention of the law makers is to apply the
law (BP 22) to whatever currency maybe the subject thereof.

Basco vs PAGCOR

Facts: PAGCOR, a government owned and controlled corporation, is exempted by its chrter from payment of all
kinds of taxes except for the 5% franchise tax. The petioner assail the grant of such exemption on the gorunmd that
it infringes on the right of city of manila to impose local fees and taxes.

Issue: WON PAGCOR is still subject to the local fees and taxes imposed by city of manila

Held: No. The city of manil , being a mere municipal corporation has no inherent right to impose taxes. Thus the
charter or statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power or the municipality cannot assume it. Its power to
tax must always yield to a legislative act which is superior having been passed by the state itself which has the
inherent power to tax.

Local governments have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government and PAGCOR, being
an instrumentality of the latter is therefore exempt from local taxes