Government Service Insurance System vs City Assessor of Iloilo City, G.R. No.

147192, 27 June 2006 Corona, J: DOCTRINE: A repealing statute must not interfere with vested rights or impair the obligation of contracts; that if any other construction is possible, the act should not be construed so as to affect rights which have vested under the old law. Private respondent[s], have become the private owner[s] of the properties in question in the regular course of proceedings established by law, after the decisions granting such rights had become final and executory. The enactment of the new GSIS Charter cannot be applied in a retroactive manner as to divest the private respondent[s] of [their] ownership. The exemption of a government-owned or controlled corporation from taxes and other charges is not absolute and could be withdrawn, as in fact certain provisions of the LGC, including Section 234 (a), were deemed to have expressly withdrawn the tax-exempt privilege of the GSIS as a government-owned corporation. FACTS: At an auction sale for the satisfaction of delinquent real property taxes, private respondent Rosalina Francisco purchased two parcels of land, a lot registered under the name of GSIS c/o Baldomero Dagdag (with TCT No.41681) and a lot registered under the name of GSIS c/o Rodolfo Ceres (with TCT No. 48580). However, the sale could not be finalized because the owners duplicate certificate of title was at that time, currently unavailable. Rosalina Francisco then filed two separate petitions so the title may be registered under her name. The RTC then granted an issuance of new TCTS while the old copies were considered Null and Void. There was no appeal following these orders therefore they were finalized and executed. However, the previous owner of the parcels of land issued an appeal to annul the judgment of the court. It clams that GSIS should have been exempted from paying real estate tax due to RA 8291, which states that it should have been exempted from all forms of tax. Also, they were not notified of the sale at the auction therefore violating its right to due process.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of the courts granting the private respondent ownership of the lands will be annulled in favor of GSIS, the petitioner. HELD: NO. The petition was denied. According to the CA, the exemption was not applicable because the actual use or beneficial ownership of the properties was conveyed to another person. Also, the claim of lack of notice of the auction sale held no basis thus was denied as well. The petitioner filed for reconsideration at the Supreme Court but was denied again despite citing Section 39 of RA 8291 as its support. They found no error with the decision of the CA, in line with the case of City Baguio v. Busuego, National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System, and Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Marcos. Thus, the courts ruling states that private respondents have become the owners of the properties if the decision granting rights are final. The enactment of the GSIS Charter is not applicable to deny the private respondents ownership. Digested by: Edgar Jino M. Bartolata Jr. 3-S, L-100001, San Beda College of Law