CITY OF PASIG versus REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 185023

Auus! 2"# 2011
SECON$ $I%ISION
FACTS AS TO PETITIONER
(MPLDC) owned two parcels of land, situated in Pasig City, Portions of which are leased to
different business establishments. In !"#, the registered owner of MPLDC, $ose %. Campos
(Campos), &oluntarily surrendered MPLDC to the 'epublic of the Philippines. (n )*
+eptember ,**,, the Pasig City -ssessor.s (ffice sent MPLDC two notices of ta/
delin0uency for its failure to pay real property ta/ on the properties for the period !1! to
,**. (I'C) President ($alandoni) and 2reasurer 'a3on informed the Pasig City 2reasurer
that the ta/ for the period !1! to !"# had been paid, and that the properties were e/empt
from ta/ beginning !"1.(n ,* (ctober ,**4, the Pasig City -ssessor.s (ffice sent MPLDC
a notice of final demand for payment of ta/ for the period !"1 to ,**4
FACTS AS TO RESPON$ENT
(n ! 5o&ember ,**4, MPLDC recei&ed two warrants of le&y on the properties. (n
December ,**4, respondent 'epublic of the Philippines, through the Presidential
Commission on 6ood 6o&ernment (PC66), filed with the '2C a petition for prohibition with
prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary in7unction to en7oin
petitioner Pasig City from auctioning the properties and from collecting real property ta/. (n
, December ,**4, the Pasig City 2reasurer offered the properties for sale at public auction.
+ince there was no other bidder, Pasig City bought the properties and was issued the
corresponding certificates of sale.
In its # 5o&ember ,**# Decision, the '2C granted the petition ruling that being part of the
reco&ered ill8gotten wealth of President Marcos, and therefore are owned by the +tate itself,
are e/empt from payment of real property ta/es. the C- set aside the '2C and ruled that
the se0uestration per se, did not operate to con&ert Mid8Pasig and its properties to public
property.
ISSUE RAISE$ BY PETITIONER
Petitioner argues that the parcels of land are sub7ect to real property ta/.
ISSUE RAISE$ BY RESPO$ENT
'espondent argues that the parcels of land, being owned by the state, is e/empted from real
property ta/.
RULING OF T&E SUPRE'E COURT
In the present case, the parcels of land are not properties of public dominion because they
are not 9intended for public use, such as roads, canals, ri&ers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the +tate, ban:s, shores, roadsteads.9 5either are they 9intended for some
public ser&ice or for the de&elopment of the national wealth.9 MPLDC leases portions of the
properties to different business establishments. 2hus, the portions of the properties leased to
ta/able entities are not only sub7ect to real estate ta/, they can also be sold at public auction
to satisfy the ta/ delin0uency. In sum, only those portions of the properties leased to ta/able
entities are sub7ect to real estate ta/ for the period of such leases.