Leticia Lim v. Jose Jamosmos
CTA EB NO. 2056
February 22, 2022
Doctrine:
It is well settled that in real estate taxation, the unpaid tax attaches to the property. The personal liability for the tax delinquency is generally on whoever is the owner of the property at the time the tax accrues. This is a necessary consequence that proceeds from the fact of ownership. Hence, for purposes of ascertaining who is personally liable for the real property taxes, the determination of who is the owner of the warehouse building is in order.
Facts:
The instant case involves a claim for refund by petitioner in the amount of P98,432.75, representing the real property taxes on a warehouse building declared under the name of a certain Cheng Lei Ti which was constructed on the land owned by petitioner.
On December 28, 1993, the City of Assessor of Dumaguete City issued TO No. 93-009-1073 in the name of Cheng Lei Ti, cancelling TO No. 9-1266. Thereafter on September 22, 2015, the City Treasurer of Dumaguete City issued a Notice of Delinquency to Cheng Lei Ti for the unpaid real property taxes on the subject warehouse building, but said Notice was served to the lessee of petitioner, Pepsi-Cola Products, lnc. On February 10, 2016, petitioner wrote a letter to the City Treasurer of Dumaguete City, requesting the waiver of penalties imposed on Cheng Lei Ti.9 On February 22, 2016, petitioner received through her representative the Notice of Delinquency. On May 10, 2016, petitioner paid under protest the amount of P98,432. 75, representing the real property tax liabilities of Cheng Lei Ti for the warehouse building under TO No. 93-009-1 073, covering the years 1992 to 2016.
Issues:
Whether or not the petitioner should be held liable for the taxes of a lessee assessed in 1991.
Held:
No. It is well settled that in real estate taxation, the unpaid tax attaches to the property. The personal liability for the tax delinquency is generally on whoever is the owner of the property at the time the tax accrues. This is a necessary consequence that proceeds from the fact of ownership. Hence, for purposes of ascertaining who is personally liable for the real property taxes, the determination of who is the owner of the warehouse building is in order.
In this case, while it is undisputed that petitioner is the owner of the land where the subject warehouse building was erected, the record of the case is bereft of any indication that petitioner similarly owns the subject warehouse building. As borne out by the records, the subject warehouse building was declared under the name of Cheng Lei Ti as shown in TD No. 93-009-1073. Although as a rule, tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and sere as sufficient basis for inferring possession. Further, there is no showing that petitioner was in actual use of the said warehouse building during the period covered by the Notice of Delinquency. In fact, the said Notice was addressed to Cheng Lei Ti and not the petitioner.
