CASE FACTS DOCTRINE RULING

POWER OF TAXATION
The question at issue in this case is whether or not the building and
grounds of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Manila are subject
to taxation, under section 48 of the charter of the city of Manila quoted
in the footnote
The city of Manila, contending that the property is taxable, assessed it
and levied a tax thereon. It was paid under protest and this action
begun to recover it on the ground that the property was exempt from
taxation under the charter of the city of Manila. The decision was for
YMCA v CIR the city and the association appealed.
TAXATION; EXEMPTIONS; YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.
— Under a statute providing that "lands or buildings used exclusively
for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes, and not
for profit, shall be exempt from taxation:" Held: That the Young The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded with
Men’s Christian Association is exempt from taxation on the ground instructions to enter a judgment against the city of Manila and in favor of the
that it is a combination of religious, charitable, and educational Young Men’s Christian Association of Manila in the sum of P6,221.35. without
institutions and not founded and conducted for profit costs in this instance. So ordered.

The plaintiff, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, represented herein

by the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, possesses and is the owner of a parcel
of land in the municipality of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, all four sides of
which face on public streets. On the south side is a part of the church
yard, the convent and an adjacent lot used for a vegetable garden,
containing an area of 1,624 square meters, in which there is a stable
and a well for the use of the convent. In the center is the remainder of 1. LAND TAX; EXEMPTION; CONVENT; VEGETABLE GARDEN. — The
the churchyard and the church. On the north side is an old cemetery exemption from the payment of the land tax in favor of the convent The judgment appealed from is reversed in all its parts and it is held that both
Roman Catholic Bishop v with two of its walls still standing, and a portion where formerly stood includes not only the land actually occupied by the building, but also lots are exempt from land tax and the defendants are ordered to refund to
Provincial Board Ilocos a tower, the base of which may still be seen, containing a total area of the adjacent ground or vegetable garden destined to the incidental plaintiff whatever was paid as such tax, without any special pronouncement as
Norte 8,955 square meters. use of the parish priest in his ordinary life. to costs. So ordered.

The ordinance in question, which was approved by the municipal board

of the City of Manila on July 25, 1950, imposes a municipal occupation
tax on persons exercising various professions in the city and penalizes
non-payment of the tax "by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos
or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment in the discretion of the court." Among the
professions taxed were those to which plaintiffs belong. The ordinance
was enacted pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 18 of the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila (as amended by Republic Act No. 409),
which empowers the Municipal Board of said city to impose a municipal
Punsalan v Municipal occupation tax, not to exceed P50 per annum, on persons engaged in
Board City of Manila the various professions above referred to.
2. ID.; DOUBLE TAXATION. — There is double taxation where one
tax is imposed by the state and the other is imposed by the city, it
being widely recognized that there is nothing inherently obnoxious in
the requirement that license fees or taxes be enacted with respect to In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed in so far as it
the same occupation, calling or activity by both the state and the declares Ordinance No. 3398 of the City of Manila illegal and void and affirmed
political subdivisions thereof. (Citing 1 Cooley on Taxation, 4th ed., in so far as it holds the validity of the provision of the Manila charter
p. 492 and 51 Am. Jur., 341.) authorizing it. With costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

1

American Bible v City of
Manila
In Re Validity of Oridnance
3659 of Manila v Municipal
Board
Philippine Health Care v CIR
NAPOCOR v City of
Cabanatuan
. MUNICIPAL TAX; RETAIL DEALERS IN GENERAL MERCHANDISE;
ORDINANCE PRESCRIBING TAX NEED NOT BE APPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO BE EFFECTIVE. — The business of "retail dealers in
general merchandise" is expressly enumerated in subsection (o),
section 18 of Republic Act No. 409: hence, an ordinance prescribing
a municipal tax on said business does not have to be approved by Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, We hereby
the President to be effective, as it is not among those businesses reverse the decision appealed from, sentencing defendant to return to plaintiff
referred to in subsection (ii) Section 18 of the same Act subject to the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected from it. Without pronouncement as to
the approval of the President. costs. It is so ordered.
The petitioner-appellant, an association of registered massagists and
licensed operators of massage clinics in the City of Manila and other
parts of the country, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of
Manila for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of Municipal
Ordinance No. 3659, promulgated by the Municipal Board and
approved by the City Mayor. To stop the City from enforcing said
ordinance, the petitioner secured an injunction upon filing of a bond in
the sum of P1,000.00. A hearing was held, but the parties without
introducing any evidence submitted the case for decision on the
pleadings, although they submitted written memoranda. Thereafter,
the trial court dismissed the petition and later dissolved the writ of
injunction previously issued.The petitioner appealed said order of
dismissal directly to this Court. In support of its appeal,
petitioner-appellant contends among other things that the trial court
erred in holding that the Ordinance in question has not restricted the The amount of the fee or charge is properly considered in
practice of massotherapy in massage clinics to hygienic and aesthetic determining whether it is a tax or an exercise of the police power.
massage, that the Ordinance is valid as it does not regulate the The amount may be so large as to itself show that the purpose was
practice of massage, that the Municipal Board of Manila has the power to raise revenue and not to regulate, but in regard to this matter
to enact the Ordinance in question by virtue of Section 18, Subsection there is a marked distinction between license fees imposed upon
(kk), Republic Act 409, and that the permit fee of P100.00 is moderate useful and beneficial occupations which the sovereign wishes to
and not unreasonable. Inasmuch as the appellant assails and discusses regulate but not restrict, and those which are inimical and dangerous In conclusion, we find and hold that the Ordinance in question as we interpret
certain provisions regarding the ordinance in question, and it is to the public, health, morals or safety. In the latter case the fee it and as intended by the appellees is valid. We deem it unnecessary to discuss
necessary to pass upon the same, for purposes of ready reference, we maybe very large without necessarily being a tax (Cooley on and pass upon the other points raised in the appeal. The order appealed from
are reproducing said ordinance in toto. taxation Vol. IV pp. 3516- 17; ​Italics supplied​.) is hereby affirmed. No costs.