Borja v Gella
GR No L-18330, July 31, 1963
FACTS:
Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958 and has offered to pay them with two negotiable certificates of indebtedness to which he is only an assignee. These were rejected by the City treasurers of both Manila and Pasay cities on the ground of their limited negotiability. Borja brought the question to the Treasurer of the Philippines who opined that the negotiable certificates cannot be accepted as payment of real estate taxes inasmuch as the law provides for their acceptance from their backpay holder only or the original applicant himself, but not his assignee. Lower court ruled in favor of Borja.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Borja may apply to the payment of his real estate taxes the certificates of indebtedness he holds; while, respondents have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of the taxes
2. Whether compensation can take place between Borja’s real estate tax liability and the credit represented by the certificate of indebtedness
RULING:
1. No, the respondents are not duty bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the approval of RA 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948. Under RA 304, payment through a certificate of indebtedness may be allowed if the tax is owed by the applicant himself. Furthermore, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant himself. Futhermore, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law only gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation under certain limitations. Borja is not himself the applicant of the certificate in question, he is merely as assignee thereof.
2. No, the debtor insofar as the certificates of indebtedness are concerned is the Republic of the Philippines, whereas the real estate taxes owed by Borja are due to the City of Manila and Pasay City, each one of which having a distinct and separate personality from our Republic. This is contrary to Article 1279 (1) of the Civil Code which states that “each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other”
GR No L-18330, July 31, 1963
FACTS:
Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958 and has offered to pay them with two negotiable certificates of indebtedness to which he is only an assignee. These were rejected by the City treasurers of both Manila and Pasay cities on the ground of their limited negotiability. Borja brought the question to the Treasurer of the Philippines who opined that the negotiable certificates cannot be accepted as payment of real estate taxes inasmuch as the law provides for their acceptance from their backpay holder only or the original applicant himself, but not his assignee. Lower court ruled in favor of Borja.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Borja may apply to the payment of his real estate taxes the certificates of indebtedness he holds; while, respondents have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of the taxes
2. Whether compensation can take place between Borja’s real estate tax liability and the credit represented by the certificate of indebtedness
RULING:
1. No, the respondents are not duty bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the approval of RA 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948. Under RA 304, payment through a certificate of indebtedness may be allowed if the tax is owed by the applicant himself. Furthermore, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant himself. Futhermore, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law only gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation under certain limitations. Borja is not himself the applicant of the certificate in question, he is merely as assignee thereof.
2. No, the debtor insofar as the certificates of indebtedness are concerned is the Republic of the Philippines, whereas the real estate taxes owed by Borja are due to the City of Manila and Pasay City, each one of which having a distinct and separate personality from our Republic. This is contrary to Article 1279 (1) of the Civil Code which states that “each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment