Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 153 views

    Eusibio Villanueva Et

    Uploaded by

    Jenalin Florano
    The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of an ordinance imposing a municipal license tax on tenement houses in Iloilo City. The Court found that: 1) The tax did not constitute double taxation as a real estate tax and license tax are different in character. 2) The tax was not oppressive or unconstitutional despite including a penal clause for non-payment. 3) The tax did not violate the rule of uniformity as tenement houses are a distinct class of property and taxes only need be uniform within the taxing authority, not across other cities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Eusibio Villanueva Et

    Uploaded by

    Jenalin Florano
    153 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of an ordinance imposing a municipal license tax on tenement houses in Iloilo City. The Court found that: 1) The tax did not constitute double taxation as a real estate tax and license tax are different in character. 2) The tax was not oppressive or unconstitutional despite including a penal clause for non-payment. 3) The tax did not violate the rule of uniformity as tenement houses are a distinct class of property and taxes only need be uniform within the taxing authority, not across other cities.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    EUSIBIO VILLANUEVA ET

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of an ordinance imposing a municipal license tax on tenement houses in Iloilo City. The Court found that: 1) The tax did not constitute double taxation as a real estate tax and license tax are different in character. 2) The tax was not oppressive or unconstitutional despite including a penal clause for non-payment. 3) The tax did not violate the rule of uniformity as tenement houses are a distinct class of property and taxes only need be uniform within the taxing authority, not across other cities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    153 views2 pages

    Eusibio Villanueva Et

    Uploaded by

    Jenalin Florano
    The Supreme Court ruled on the validity of an ordinance imposing a municipal license tax on tenement houses in Iloilo City. The Court found that: 1) The tax did not constitute double taxation as a real estate tax and license tax are different in character. 2) The tax was not oppressive or unconstitutional despite including a penal clause for non-payment. 3) The tax did not violate the rule of uniformity as tenement houses are a distinct class of property and taxes only need be uniform within the taxing authority, not across other cities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EUSIBIO VILLANUEVA ET.AL VS.

    CITY OF ILOILO
    G.R. NO. L-26521 DECEMBER 28, 1968

    CASTRO, J.:

    FACTS:
    The defendant relaying on RA 2264, enacted an ordinance no 11 imposing municipal license tax
    on tenement houses. Plaintiffs filed a complaint praying that the ordinance be declared invalid.
    The lower court ruled that ordinance no. 11 was illegal on the ground that RA 2264 does not
    empower cities to impose apartment taxes ; the same is oppressive and unreasonable; it
    constitute not only double taxation but treble at that ; and it violates the rule of uniformity of
    taxation.
    Hence this appeal.
    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the ordinance imposed double taxation
    2. Whether or not is oppressive and unconstitutional because it carries a penal clause
    3. Whether or not ordinance no 11 violate the rule of uniformity of taxation
    RULING:
    1. No. In order to constitute double taxation in the objectionable or prohibited sense the
    same property must be taxed twice when it should be taxed but once; both taxes must
    be imposed on the same property or subject-matter, for the same purpose, by the same
    State, Government, or taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction or taxing district,
    during the same taxing period, and they must be the same kind or character of tax." It
    has been shown that a real estate tax and the tenement tax imposed by the ordinance,
    although imposed by the same taxing authority, are not of the same kind or character. It
    is well settled rule that a license tax maybe levied upon a business or occupation
    although the land or property used in connection therewith is subject to property tax.
    The state may collect an ad valorem tax on property used in calling, and at the same
    time impose a license tax on that calling, the imposition of the latter kind of tax being in
    no sense a double taxation.

    2. No. A tax is not a debt in the sense of an obligation incurred by contract, express or
    implied, and therefore is not within the meaning of constitutional or statutory
    provisions abolishing or prohibiting imprisonment for debt, and a statute or ordinance
    which punishes the non-payment thereof by fine or imprisonment is not, in conflict with
    that prohibition. Nor is the tax in question a poll tax, for the latter is a tax of a fixed
    amount upon all persons, or upon all persons of a certain class, resident within a
    specified territory, without regard to their property or the occupations in which they
    may be engaged. On the other hand, the charter of Iloilo City empowers its municipal
    board to "fix penalties for violations of ordinances, which shall not exceed a fine of two
    hundred pesos or six months' imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for
    each offense.

    3. This Court has already ruled that tenement houses constitute a distinct class of
    property. It has likewise ruled that "taxes are uniform and equal when imposed upon all
    property of the same class or character within the taxing authority. Neither is the rule of
    equality and uniformity violated by the fact that tenement taxes are not imposed in
    other cities, for the same rule does not require that taxes for the same purpose should
    be imposed in different territorial subdivisions at the same time. So long as the burden
    of the tax falls equally and impartially on all owners or operators of tenement houses
    similarly classified or situated, equality and uniformity of taxation is accomplished.

    Jenalin L Florano

    You might also like