GR No. L-18330. July 31, 1963.
JOSE DE BORJA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
VlCENTE G. GELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Facts:
Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958 for properties located in the City of Manila and Pasay City and has offered to pay them with two negotiable certificates of indebtedness in the amounts of P793.40 and P717.69, respectively. Borja ,was, however, a mere assignee of the aforesaid negotiable certificates. The said negotiable certificates were from Rafael Vizcaya and Pablo Batario Luna were the applicants for backpay rights covered by the instrument.
The offer to pay the real estate tax through the instrument in question were rejected by the City Treasurers of both Manila and Pasay. They based it on the ground of the instrument’s limited negotiability under Section 2, Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act 800
Furthermore, the City Treasurer of Manila: rejected it on the ground that he was ordered not to accept them by the city mayor.
Borja was prompted to bring the question before the Treasurer of the Philippines.
The Treasurer of the Philippines 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.
Frustrated, Borja filed an action., against the treasurers of both the City of Manila and Pasay City, and the Treasurer of the Philippines, to impel them to execute an act which the law allegedly requires them to perform which is to accept the above-mentioned certificates of indebtedness considering that they were already due and redeemable so as not to deprive him illegally of his privilege to pay his obligation to the government thru such means.
Trial Court: Treasurer of the Philippines, and the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City are ordered to accept petitioner's Negotiable Certificates of Indebtedness in the sums of P793.40 and P717.39 in payment of real estate taxes of his properties in the City of Manila and Pasay City, respectively, without costs.
Issue:
Whether Borja has the right to apply to the payment of his real estate taxes to the government of Manila and Pasay through the certificates of indebtedness he holds while appellants have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of said taxes
Ruling:
No. The appellants are not duty bound bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of Republic Act No. 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948.
It should be noted that the real estate taxes in question have reference to those due in 1958 and subsequent years. The law is explicit that in order that a certificate may be used in payment of an obligation the same must be subsisting at the time of its approval even if we hold that a tax partakes of this character, neither can it be contended that appellee can compel the government to accept the alleged certificates of indebtedness in payment of his real estate taxes under Section 2 of RA 304, also for the reason that in order that such payment may be allowed the tax must be owed by the applicant himself. This is the correct implication that may be drawn from the use by the law of the words "his taxes". Verily, 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.
Here appellee is not himself the applicant of the certificate. in question. He is merely an assignee thereof, Or a subsequent holder whose right is at most to have it discounted upon maturity—or to negotiate it in the meantime. A fortiori, it may be included that, not having the right to use said certificates to pay his taxes, appellee cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for mandamus.
As a consequence, we cannot but hold that mandamus does not lie against appellants because they have in no way neglected to perform an act enjoined upon them by law as a duty, nor have they unlawfully excluded appellee from the use or enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled.
The offer to pay the real estate tax through the instrument in question were rejected by the City Treasurers of both Manila and Pasay. They based it on the ground of the instrument’s limited negotiability under Section 2, Republic Act No. 304, as amended by Republic Act 800
Furthermore, the City Treasurer of Manila: rejected it on the ground that he was ordered not to accept them by the city mayor.
Borja was prompted to bring the question before the Treasurer of the Philippines.
The Treasurer of the Philippines 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.
Frustrated, Borja filed an action., against the treasurers of both the City of Manila and Pasay City, and the Treasurer of the Philippines, to impel them to execute an act which the law allegedly requires them to perform which is to accept the above-mentioned certificates of indebtedness considering that they were already due and redeemable so as not to deprive him illegally of his privilege to pay his obligation to the government thru such means.
Trial Court: Treasurer of the Philippines, and the treasurers of the City of Manila and Pasay City are ordered to accept petitioner's Negotiable Certificates of Indebtedness in the sums of P793.40 and P717.39 in payment of real estate taxes of his properties in the City of Manila and Pasay City, respectively, without costs.
Issue:
Whether Borja has the right to apply to the payment of his real estate taxes to the government of Manila and Pasay through the certificates of indebtedness he holds while appellants have the correlative legal duty to accept the certificates in payment of said taxes
Ruling:
No. The appellants are not duty bound bound to accept the negotiable certificates of indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple reason that they were not obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of Republic Act No. 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948.
It should be noted that the real estate taxes in question have reference to those due in 1958 and subsequent years. The law is explicit that in order that a certificate may be used in payment of an obligation the same must be subsisting at the time of its approval even if we hold that a tax partakes of this character, neither can it be contended that appellee can compel the government to accept the alleged certificates of indebtedness in payment of his real estate taxes under Section 2 of RA 304, also for the reason that in order that such payment may be allowed the tax must be owed by the applicant himself. This is the correct implication that may be drawn from the use by the law of the words "his taxes". Verily, 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.
Here appellee is not himself the applicant of the certificate. in question. He is merely an assignee thereof, Or a subsequent holder whose right is at most to have it discounted upon maturity—or to negotiate it in the meantime. A fortiori, it may be included that, not having the right to use said certificates to pay his taxes, appellee cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for mandamus.
As a consequence, we cannot but hold that mandamus does not lie against appellants because they have in no way neglected to perform an act enjoined upon them by law as a duty, nor have they unlawfully excluded appellee from the use or enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled.
No comments:
Post a Comment