Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 154993 October 25, 2005 LUZ R.

YAMANE, ! "er c#$#c t% #& t"e C'TY TREASURER O( MA)AT' C'TY, Petitioner, vs. *A LEPANTO CON+OM'NUM CORPORAT'ON, Respondent. DECISION T !,#, J.Petitioner City Tre surer of ! " ti, #u$ % & ne 'City Tre surer(, presents for resolution of this Court t)o novel *uestions+ one procedur l, the other subst ntive, yet both of obvious si,nific nce. The first pert ins to the proper &ode of -udici l revie) undert "en fro& decisions of the re,ion l tri l courts resolvin, the deni l of t . protests & de by loc l ,overn&ent tre surers, pursu nt to the #oc l /overn&ent Code. The second is )hether loc l ,overn&ent unit c n, under the #oc l /overn&ent Code, i&pel condo&iniu& corpor tion to p y business t .es. 0 1hile )e ,ree )ith the City Tre surer2s position on the first issue, there ulti& tely is sufficient -ustific tion for the Court to overloo" )h t is essenti lly procedur l error. 1e uphold respondents on the second issue. Indeed, there re disturbin, spects in both procedure nd subst nce th t ttend the tte&pts by the City of ! " ti to fle. its t .in, &uscle. Considerin, th t the t . i&position no) in *uestion h s utterly no b sis in l ), -udici l relief is i&per tive. There re fe)er indisput ble c uses for the e.ercise of -udici l revie) over the e.ercise of the t .in, po)er th n )hen the t . is b sed on )hi&, nd not on l ). The f cts, s culled fro& the record, follo). Respondent 345#ep nto Condo&iniu& Corpor tion 'the 6Corpor tion6( is duly or, ni$ed condo&iniu& corpor tion constituted in ccord nce )ith the Condo&iniu& 4ct, 7 )hich o)ns nd holds title to the co&&on nd li&ited co&&on re s of the 345#ep nto Condo&iniu& 'the 6Condo&iniu&6(, situ ted in P seo de Ro. s, ! " ti City. Its &e&bership co&prises the v rious unit o)ners of the Condo&iniu&. The Corpor tion is uthori$ed, under 4rticle V of its 4&ended 3y5# )s, to collect re,ul r ssess&ents fro& its &e&bers for oper tin, e.penses, c pit l e.penditures on the co&&on re s, nd other speci l ssess&ents s provided for in the ! ster Deed )ith Decl r tion of Restrictions of the Condo&iniu&. On 08 Dece&ber 099:, the Corpor tion received Notice of 4ssess&ent d ted 0; Dece&ber 099: si,ned by the City Tre surer. The Notice of 4ssess&ent st ted th t the Corpor tion is 6li ble to p y the correct city business t .es, fees nd ch r,es,6 co&puted s tot lin, P0,<=0,=0>.?? for the ye rs 0998 to 099?. > The Notice of 4ssess&ent ) s silent s to the st tutory b sis of the business t .es ssessed. Throu,h counsel, the Corpor tion responded )ith )ritten t . protest d ted 07 @ebru ry 0999, ddressed to the City Tre surer. It ) s evident in the protest th t the Corpor tion ) s perple.ed on the st tutory b sis of the t . ssess&ent. 1ith due respect, )e sub&it th t the 4ssess&ent h s no b sis s the Corpor tion is not li ble for business t .es nd surch r,es nd interest thereon, under the ! " ti ARevenueB Code or even under the A#oc l /overn&entB Code.

The ! " ti ARevenueB Code nd the A#oc l /overn&entB Code do not cont in ny provisions on )hich the 4ssess&ent could be b sed. One &i,ht r,ue th t Sec. >4.=7'&( of the ! " ti ARevenueB Code i&poses business t . on o)ners or oper tors of ny business not specified in the s id code. 1e sub&it, ho)ever, th t this is not pplic ble to the Corpor tion s the Corpor tion is not n o)ner or oper tor of ny business in the conte&pl tion of the ! " ti ARevenueB Code nd even the A#oc l /overn&entB Code. ; Proceedin, fro& the pre&ise th t its t . li bility rose fro& Section >4.=7'&( of the ! " ti Revenue Code, the Corpor tion proceeded to r,ue th t under both the ! " ti Code nd the #oc l /overn&ent Code, 6business6 is defined s 6tr de or co&&erci l ctivity re,ul rly en, ,ed in s &e ns of livelihood or )ith vie) to profit.6 It ) s sub&itted th t the Corpor tion, s condo&iniu& corpor tion, ) s or, ni$ed not for profit, but to hold title over the co&&on re s of the Condo&iniu&, to & n ,e the Condo&iniu& for the unit o)ners, nd to hold title to the p rcels of l nd on )hich the Condo&iniu& ) s loc ted. Neither ) s the Corpor tion uthori$ed, under its rticles of incorpor tion or by5l )s to en, ,e in profit5& "in, ctivities. The ssess&ents it did collect fro& the unit o)ners )ere for c pit l e.penditures nd oper tin, e.penses.8 The protest ) s re-ected by the City Tre surer in letter d ted ; ! rch 0999. She insisted th t the collection of dues fro& the unit o)ners ) s effected pri& rily 6to sust in nd & int in the e.penses of the co&&on re s, )ith the end in vie) AsicB of ,ettin, full ppreci tive livin, v lues AsicB for the individu l condo&iniu& occup nts nd to co&& nd better & r"et ble AsicB prices for those occup nts6 )ho )ould in the future sell their respective units. <Thus, she concluded since the 6ch nces of ,ettin, hi,her prices for )ell5& n ,ed co&&on re s of ny condo&iniu& re better nd &ore effective th t condo&iniu&s )ith poor AsicB & n ,ed co&&on re s,6 the corpor tion ctivity 6is profit venture & "in, AsicB6. ? @ro& the deni l of the protest, the Corpor tion filed n Appeal )ith the Re,ion l Tri l Court 'RTC( of ! " ti.: On 0 ! rch 7===, the ! " ti RTC 3r nch 8? rendered Decision9 dis&issin, the ppe l for l c" of &erit. 4cceptin, the pre&ise l id by the City Tre surer, the RTC c"no)led,ed, in s dly risible l n,u ,e+ Cerein ppell nt, to defr y the i&prove&ents nd be utific tion of the co&&on re s, collect AsicB ssess&ents fro& its &e&bers. Its end vie) is to ,et ppreci te livin, rules for the unit o)ners AsicB, to ,ive n i&pression to outsides AsicB of the *u lity of service the condo&iniu& offers, so s to llo) present o)ners to co&& nd better prices in the event of s le. 0= 1ith this, the RTC concluded th t the ctivities of the Corpor tion fell s*u rely under the definition of 6business6 under Section 0>'b( of the #oc l /overn&ent Code, nd thus sub-ect to loc l business t . tion.00 @ro& this Decision of the RTC, the Corpor tion filed Petition for Review under Rule ;7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure )ith the Court of 4ppe ls. Initi lly, the petition ) s dis&issed outri,ht07 on the ,round th t only decisions of the RTC brou,ht on ppe l fro& first level court could be elev ted for revie) under the &ode of revie) prescribed under Rule ;7. 0> Co)ever, the Corpor tion pointed out in its Motion for Reconsideration th t under Section 098 of the #oc l /overn&ent Code, the re&edy of the t .p yer on the deni l of the protest filed )ith the loc l tre surer is to ppe l the deni l )ith the court of co&petent -urisdiction. 0; Persu ded by this contention, the Court of 4ppe ls reinst ted the petition. 08 On ? Dune 7==7, the Court of 4ppe ls Speci l Si.teenth Division rendered the Decision0< no) ss iled before this Court. The ppell te court reversed the RTC nd decl red th t the Corpor tion ) s not li ble to p y business t .es to the City of ! " ti. 0? In doin, so, the Court of 4ppe ls delved into -urisprudenti l definitions of profit, 0: nd concluded th t the Corpor tion ) s not en, ,ed in profit. @or one, it ) s held th t the very st tutory concept of condo&iniu&

corpor tion sho)ed th t it ) s not -uridic l entity intended to & "e profit, s its sole purpose ) s to hold title to the co&&on re s in the condo&iniu& nd to & int in the condo&iniu&. 09 The Court of 4ppe ls li"e)ise cited provisions fro& the Corpor tion2s 4&ended 4rticles of Incorpor tion nd 4&ended 3y5# )s th t, to its esti& tion, est blished th t the Corpor tion ) s not en, ,ed in business nd the ssess&ent collected fro& unit o)ners li&ited to those necess ry to defr y the e.penses in the & inten nce of the co&&on re s nd & n ,e&ent the condo&iniu&.7= Epon deni l of her Motion for Reconsideration,70 the City Tre surer elev ted the present Petition for Reviewunder Rule ;8. It is r,ued th t the Corpor tion is en, ,ed in business, for the dues collected fro& the different unit o)ners is utili$ed to) rds the be utific tion nd & inten nce of the Condo&iniu&, resultin, in 6full ppreci tive livin, v lues6 for the condo&iniu& units )hich )ould co&& nd better & r"et prices should they be sold in the future. The City Tre surer li"e)ise vers th t the r tion le for business t .es is not on the inco&e received or profit e rned by the business, but the privile,e to en, ,e in business. The f ct th t the Corpor tion is e&po)ered 6to c*uire, o)n, hold, en-oy, le se, oper te nd & int in, nd to convey sell, tr nsfer or other)ise dispose of re l or person l property6 lle,edly *u lifies 6 s incident to the f ct of Athe Corpor tion2sB ct of en, ,in, in business. 77 The City Tre surer lso cl i&s th t the Corpor tion h d filed the )ron, &ode of ppe l before the Court of 4ppe ls )hen the l tter filed its Petition for Revie) under Rule ;7. It is re soned th t the decision of the ! " ti RTC ) s rendered in the e.ercise of ori,in l -urisdiction, it bein, the first court )hich too" co,ni$ nce of the c se. 4ccordin,ly, )ith the Corpor tion h vin, pursued n erroneous &ode of ppe l, the RTC Decision is dee&ed to h ve beco&e fin l nd e.ecutory. @irst, )e dispose of the procedur l issue, )hich essenti lly boils do)n to )hether the RTC, in decidin, n ppe l t "en fro& deni l of protest by loc l tre surer under Section 098 of the #oc l /overn&ent Code, e.ercises 6ori,in l -urisdiction6 or 6 ppell te -urisdiction.6 The *uestion ssu&es &e sure of i&port nce to this petition, for the doption of the position of the City Tre surer th t the &ode of revie) of the decision t "en by the RTC is ,overned by Rule ;0 of the Rules of Civil Procedure &e ns th t the decision of the RTC )ould h ve lon, beco&e fin l nd e.ecutory by re son of the f ilure of the Corpor tion to file notice of ppe l. 7> There re discernible conflictin, vie)s on the issue. The first, s e.pressed by the Court of 4ppe ls, holds th t the RTC, in revie)in, deni ls of protests by loc l tre surers, e.ercises ppell te -urisdiction. This position is nchored on the l n,u ,e of Section 098 of the #oc l /overn&ent Code )hich st tes th t the re&edy of the t .p yer )hose protest is denied by the loc l tre surer is 6to #$$e#. )ith the court of co&petent -urisdiction.6 7; 4pp rently thou,h, the #oc l /overn&ent Code does not el bor te on ho) such 6 ppe l6 should be undert "en. The other vie), s & int ined by the City Tre surer, is th t the -urisdiction e.ercised by the RTC is ori,in l in ch r cter. This is the first ti&e th t the position h s been presented to the court for d-udic tion. Still, this r,u&ent does find -urisprudenti l &oorin, in our rulin, in Garcia v. De Jesus,78 )here the Court proffered the follo)in, distinction bet)een ori,in l -urisdiction nd ppell te -urisdiction+ 6Ori,in l -urisdiction is the po)er of the Court to t "e -udici l co,ni$ nce of c se instituted for -udici l ction for the first ti&e under conditions provided by l ). 4ppell te -urisdiction is the uthority of Court hi,her in r n" to re5e. &ine the fin l order or -ud,&ent of lo)er Court )hich tried the c se no) elev ted for -udici l revie).6 7< The *uoted definitions )ere t "en fro& the co&&ent ries of the estee&ed Dustice @loren$ Re, l do. 1ith the definitions s be con, the revie) t "en by the RTC over the deni l of the protest by the loc l tre surer )ould f ll )ithin th t court2s ori,in l -urisdiction. In short, the revie) is the initi l -udici l co,ni$ nce of the & tter. !oreover, l belin, the s id revie) s n e.ercise

of ppell te -urisdiction is in ppropri te, since the deni l of the protest is not the -ud,&ent or order of lo)er court, but of loc l ,overn&ent offici l. The strin,ent concept of ori,in l -urisdiction & y see&in,ly be neutered by Rule ;> of the 099? Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 0 of )hich lists sle) of d&inistr tive ,encies nd *u si5 -udici l tribun ls or their officers )hose decisions & y be revie)ed by the Court of 4ppe ls in the e.ercise of its ppell te -urisdiction. Co)ever, the b sic l ) of -urisdiction, 3 t s P &b ns 3l,. 079 '3.P. 079(,7? ineluct bly confers ppell te -urisdiction on the Court of 4ppe ls over fin l rulin,s of *u si5-udici l ,encies, instru&ent lities, bo rds or co&&ission, by e.plicitly usin, the phr se 6 ppell te -urisdiction.6 7: The po)er to cre te or ch r cteri$e -urisdiction of courts belon,s to the le,isl ture. 1hile the tr dition l notion of ppell te -urisdiction connotes -udici l revie) over lo)er court decisions, it h s to yield to st tutory redefinitions th t cle rly e.p nd its bre dth to enco&p ss even revie) of decisions of officers in the e.ecutive br nches of ,overn&ent. %et si,nific ntly, the #oc l /overn&ent Code, or ny other st tute for th t & tter, does not e.pressly confer ppell te -urisdiction on the p rt of re,ion l tri l courts fro& the deni l of t . protest by loc l tre surer. On the other h nd, Section 77 of 3.P. 079 e.pressly deline tes the ppell te -urisdiction of the Re,ion l Tri l Courts, confinin, s it does s id ppell te -urisdiction to c ses decided by !etropolit n, !unicip l, nd !unicip l Circuit Tri l Courts. Enli"e in the c se of the Court of 4ppe ls, 3.P. 079 does not confer ppell te -urisdiction on Re,ion l Tri l Courts over rulin,s & de by non5-udici l entities. @ro& these pre&ises, it is evident th t the st nce of the City Tre surer is correct s & tter of l ), nd th t the proper re&edy of the Corpor tion fro& the RTC -ud,&ent is n ordin ry ppe l under Rule ;0 to the Court of 4ppe ls. Co)ever, )e & "e this pronounce&ent sub-ect to t)o i&port nt *u lific tions. @irst, in this p rticul r c se there re nonetheless si,nific nt re sons for the Court to overloo" the procedur l error nd ulti& tely uphold the d-udic tion of the -urisdiction e.ercised by the Court of 4ppe ls in this c se. Second, the doctrin l )ei,ht of the pronounce&ent is confined to c ses nd controversies th t e&er,ed prior to the en ct&ent of Republic 4ct No. 97:7, the l ) )hich e.p nded the -urisdiction of the Court of T . 4ppe ls 'CT4(. Republic 4ct No. 97:7 definitively proves in its Section ?' ('>( th t the CT4 e.ercises e.clusive ppell te -urisdiction to revie) on ppe l decisions, orders or resolutions of the Re,ion l Tri l Courts in loc l t . c ses ori,in l decided or resolved by the& in the e.ercise of their ori,in lly or ppell te -urisdiction. !oreover, the provision lso st tes th t the revie) is tri,,ered 6by filin, petition for revie) under procedure n lo,ous to th t provided for under Rule ;7 of the 099? Rules of Civil Procedure.679 Republic 4ct No. 97:7, ho)ever, )ould not pply to this c se si&ply bec use it rose prior to the effectivity of th t l ). To decl re other)ise )ould be to institute -urisdiction l rule derived not fro& e.press st tutory ,r nt, but fro& i&plic tion. The -urisdiction of court to t "e co,ni$ nce of c se should be cle rly conferred nd should not be dee&ed to e.ist on &ere i&plic tions,>= nd this settled rule )ould be needlessly e& scul ted should )e decl re th t the Corpor tion2s position is correct in l ). 3e th t s it & y, ch r cteristic of ll procedur l rules is dherence to the precept th t they should not be enforced blindly, especi lly if &ech nic l pplic tion )ould defe t the hi,her ends th t ni& tes our civil procedureFthe -ust, speedy nd ine.pensive disposition of every ction nd proceedin,.>0 Indeed, )e h ve repe tedly upheldF nd utili$ed ourselvesFthe discretion of courts to nonetheless t "e co,ni$ nce of petitions r ised on n erroneous &ode of ppe l nd inste d tre t these petitions in the & nner s they should h ve ppropri tely been filed. >7 The Court of 4ppe ls could very )ell h ve tre ted the Corpor tion2s petition for revie) s n ordin ry ppe l.

!oreover, )e reco,ni$e th t the Corpor tion2s error in elev tin, the RTC decision for revie) vi Rule ;7 ctu lly )or"ed to the benefit of the City Tre surer. There is )ider l titude on the p rt of the Court of 4ppe ls to refuse co,ni$ nce over petition for revie) under Rule ;7 th n it )ould h ve over n ordin ry ppe l under Rule ;0. Ender Section 0>, Rule ;0, the st ted ,rounds for the dis&iss l of n ordin ry ppe l prior to the tr ns&ission of the c se records re )hen the ppe l ) s t "en out of ti&e or )hen the doc"et fees )ere not p id. >> On the other h nd, Section <, Rule ;7 provides th t in order th t the Court of 4ppe ls & y llo) due course to the petition for revie), it &ust first & "e prima facie findin, th t the lo)er court h s co&&itted n error th t )ould ) rr nt the revers l or &odific tion of the decision under revie). >; There is no si&il r re*uire&ent of prima facie deter&in tion of error in the c se of ordin ry ppe l, )hich is perfected upon the filin, of the notice of ppe l in due ti&e. >8 Evidently, by e&ployin, the Rule ;7 &ode of revie), the Corpor tion f ced ,re ter ris" of h vin, its petition re-ected by the Court of 4ppe ls s co&p red to h vin, filed n ordin ry ppe l under Rule ;0. This ) s not n error th t )or"ed to the pre-udice of the City Tre surer. 1e no) proceed to the subst ntive issue, on )hether the City of ! " ti & y collect business t .es on condo&iniu& corpor tions. 1e be,in )ith n overvie) of the po)er of loc l ,overn&ent unit to i&pose business t .es.

The po)er of loc l ,overn&ent units to i&pose t .es )ithin its territori l -urisdiction derives fro& the Constitution itself, )hich reco,ni$es the po)er of these units 6to cre te its o)n sources of revenue nd to levy t .es, fees, nd ch r,es sub-ect to such ,uidelines nd li&it tions s the Con,ress & y provide, consistent )ith the b sic policy of loc l utono&y.6 >< These ,uidelines nd li&it tions s provided by Con,ress re in & in cont ined in the #oc l /overn&ent Code of 0990 'the 6Code6(, )hich provides for co&prehensive inst nces )hen nd ho) loc l ,overn&ent units & y i&pose t .es. The si,nific nt li&it tions re enu&er ted pri& rily in Section 0>> of the Code, )hich include &on, others, prohibition on the i&position of inco&e t .es e.cept )hen levied on b n"s nd other fin nci l institutions.>? None of the other ,ener l li&it tions under Section 0>> find pplic tion to the c se t b r. The &ost )ell5"no)n &ode of loc l ,overn&ent t . tion is perh ps the re l property t ., )hich is ,overned by Title II, 3oo" II of the Code, nd )hich be rs no pplic tion in this c se. 4 different set of provisions, found under Title I of 3oo" II, ,overns other t .es i&pos ble by loc l ,overn&ent units, includin, business t .es. Ender Section 080 of the Code, cities such s ! " ti re uthori$ed to levy the s &e t .es fees nd ch r,es s provinces nd &unicip lities. It is in 4rticle II, Title II, 3oo" II of the Code, ,overnin, &unicip l t .es, )here the provisions on business t . tion relev nt to this petition & y be found. >: Section 0;> of the Code specific lly enu&er tes sever l types of business on )hich &unicip lities nd cities & y i&pose t .es. These include & nuf cturers, )holes lers, distributors, de lers of ny rticle of co&&erce of )h tever n tureG those en, ,ed in the e.port or co&&erce of essenti l co&&oditiesG contr ctors nd other independent contr ctorsG b n"s nd fin nci l institutionsG nd peddlers en, ,ed in the s le of ny &erch ndise or rticle of co&&erce. !oreover, the loc l sanggunian is lso uthori$ed to i&pose t .es on ny other businesses not other)ise specified under Section 0;> )hich the sanggunian concerned & y dee& proper to t .. The cover ,e of business t . tion p rticul r to the City of ! " ti is provided by the ! " ti Revenue Code '6Revenue Code6(, en cted throu,h !unicip l Ordin nce No. 975=?7. The Revenue Code re& ins in effect s of this )ritin,. 4rticle 4, Ch pter III of the Revenue Code ,overns business t .es in ! " ti, nd it is *uite specific s to the p rticul r businesses )hich re covered by business t .es. To ,ive s &ple of the specified businesses under the Revenue Code )hich re not enu&er ted under

the #oc l /overn&ent Code, )e cite Section >4.=7'f( of the Code, )hich levies t .+

,ross receipt

'f( On contr ctors nd other independent contr ctors defined in Sec. >4.=0'*( of Ch pter III of this Code, nd on o)ners or oper tors of business est blish&ents renderin, or offerin, services such s+ dvertisin, ,enciesG ni& l hospit lsG ss yin, l bor toriesG belt nd buc"le shopsG bl c"s&ith shopsG boo"bindersG boo"in, officers for fil& e.ch n,eG boo"in, offices for tr nsport tion on co&&ission b sisG breedin, of , &e coc"s nd other sportin, ni& ls belon,in, to othersG business & n ,e&ent servicesG collectin, ,enciesG escort servicesG fe sibility studiesG consult ncy servicesG , r ,esG , rb ,e dispos l contr ctorsG ,old nd silvers&ith shopsG inspection services for inco&in, nd out,oin, c r,oesG interior decor tin, servicesG - nitori l servicesG -ob pl ce&ent or recruit&ent ,enciesG l ndsc pin, contr ctorsG l the & chine shopsG & n ,e&ent consult nts not sub-ect to profession l t .G &edic l nd dent l l bor toriesG &erc ntile ,enciesG &esssen,eri l servicesG oper tors of shoe shine st ndsG p intin, shopsG per& press est blish&entsG rent5 5pl nt servicesG polo pl yersG school for ndHor horse5b c" ridin, c de&yG re l est te ppr isersG re l est te bro"er ,esG photost tic, )hiteHblue printin,, Iero., typin,, nd &i&eo,r phin, servicesG rent l of bicycles ndHor tricycles, furniture, shoes, ) tches, household ppli nces, bo ts, type)riters, etc.G ro stin, of pi,s, fo)ls, etc.G shippin, ,enciesG shipy rd for rep irin, ships for othersG shops for she rin, ni& lsG sil"screen or T5shirt printin, shopsG st blesG tr vel ,enciesG v ci dor shopsG veterin ry clinicsG video rent ls ndHor cover ,e servicesG d ncin, schoolsHspeed re din,HEDPG nursery, voc tion l nd other schools not re,ul ted by the Dep rt&ent of Educ tion, Culture nd Sports, 'DECS(, d y c re centersG etc.>9 Other provisions of the Revenue Code li"e)ise sub-ect hotel nd rest ur nt o)ners nd oper tors;=, re l est te de lers, nd lessors of re l est te;0 to business t .es. Should the co&prehensive listin, not prove enco&p ssin, enou,h, there is lso c tch5 ll provision si&il r to th t under the #oc l /overn&ent Code. This is found in Section >4.=7'&( of the Revenue Code, )hich provides+ '&( On o)ners or oper tors of ny business not specified bove sh ll p y the t . t the r te of t)o percent '7J( for 099>, t)o nd one5h lf percent '7 KJ( for 099; nd 0998, nd three percent '>J( for 099< nd the ye rs there fter of the ,ross receipts durin, the precedin, ye r. ;7 The initi l in*uiry is )h t provision of the ! " ti Revenue Code does the City Tre surer rely on to & "e the Corpor tion li ble for business t .es. Even t this point, there lre dy st nds proble& )ith the City Tre surer2s c use of ction. Our c reful e. &in tion of the record reve ls hi,hly disconcertin, f ct. 4t no point h s the City Tre surer been c ndid enou,h to infor& the Corpor tion, the RTC, the Court of 4ppe ls, or this Court for th t & tter, s to )h t e. ctly is the precise st tutory b sis under the ! " ti Revenue Code for the levyin, of the business t . on petitioner. 1e h ve e. &ined ll of the ple din,s sub&itted by the City Tre surer in ll the ntecedent -udici l proceedin,s, s )ell s in this present petition, nd lso the co&&unic tions by the City Tre surer to the Corpor tion )hich for& p rt of the record. No)here therein is there ny cit tion & de by the City Tre surer of ny provision of the Revenue Code )hich )ould serve s the le, l uthority for the collection of business t .es fro& condo&iniu&s in ! " ti. Ostensibly, the notice of ssess&ent, )hich st nds s the first inst nce the t .p yer is offici lly & de ) re of the pendin, t . li bility, should be sufficiently infor& tive to pprise the t .p yer the le, l b sis of the t .. Section 098 of the #oc l /overn&ent Code does not ,o s f r s to e.pressly re*uire th t the notice of ssess&ent specific lly cite the provision of the ordin nce involved but it does re*uire th t it st te the n ture of the t ., fee or ch r,e, the &ount of deficiency, surch r,es, interests nd pen lties. In this c se, the notice of ssess&ent sent to the Corpor tion did st te th t the ssess&ent ) s for business t .es, s )ell s the &ount of the

ssess&ent. There & y h ve been prima facie co&pli nce )ith the re*uire&ent under Section 098. Co)ever in this c se, the Revenue Code provides &ultiple provisions on business t .es, nd t v ryin, r tes. Cence, )e could ppreci te the Corpor tion2s confusion, s e.pressed in its protest, s to the e. ct le, l b sis for the t ..;> Reference to the loc l t . ordin nce is vit l, for the po)er of loc l ,overn&ent units to i&pose loc l t .es is e.ercised throu,h the ppropri te ordin nce en cted by the sanggunian, nd not by the #oc l /overn&ent Code lone. ;; 1h t deter&ines t . li bility is the t . ordin nce, the #oc l /overn&ent Code bein, the en blin, l ) for the loc l le,isl tive body. !oreover, c reful e. &in tion of the Revenue Code sho)s th t )hile Section >4.=7'&( see&s desi,ned s c tch5 ll provision, Section >4.=7'f(, )hich provides for different t . r te fro& th t of the for&er provision, & y be construed to be of si&il r i&port. 1hile Section >4.=7'f( is *uite e.h ustive in enu&er tin, the cl ss of businesses t .ed under the provision, the listin,, )hile it does not include condo&iniu&5rel ted enterprises, ends )ith the bbrevi tion 6etc.6, or 6et ceter 6. 1e do note our disco&fort )ith the unli&ited bre dth nd the d n,erous uncert inty )hich re the t)in h ll& r"s of the )ords 6et ceter .6 Cert inly, )e c nnot be disposed to uphold ny t . i&position th t derives its uthority fro& eni,& tic nd uncert in )ords such s 6et ceter .6 %et )e c nnot even s y )ith definiteness )hether the t . i&posed on the Corpor tion in this c se is b sed on 6et ceter ,6 or on Section >4.=7'&(, or on ny other provision of the Revenue Code. 4ssu&in, th t the ssess&ent & de on the Corpor tion is on provision other th n Section >4.=7'&(, the & in le, l issue t "es on different co&ple.ion. @or e. &ple, if it is b sed on 6et ceter 6 under Section >4.=7'f(, )e )ould h ve to e. &ine )hether the Corpor tion f ces n lo,ous co&p rison )ith the other businesses listed under th t provision. Cert inly, the City Tre surer h s not been helpful in th t re, rd, s she h s been silent ll throu,h out s to the e. ct b sis for the t . i&position )hich she )ishes th t this Court uphold. Indeed, there is only one thin, th t prevents this Court fro& rulin, th t there h s been due process viol tion on ccount of the City Tre surer2s f ilure to disclose on p per the st tutory b sis of the t .Lth t the Corpor tion itself does not lle,e in-ury risin, fro& such f ilure on the p rt of the City Tre surer. 1e do not "no) )hy the Corpor tion chose not to put this issue into liti, tion, thou,h )e c n ulti& tely presu&e th t no in-ury ) s sust ined bec use the City Tre surer f iled to cite the specific st tutory b sis of the t .. 1h t is essenti l thou,h is th t the loc l tre surer be re*uired to e.pl in to the t .p yer )ith sufficient p rticul rity the b sis of the t ., so s to le ve no doubt in the &ind of the t .p yer s to the specific t . involved. In this c se, the Corpor tion see&s confident enou,h in liti, tin, despite the f ilure of the City Tre surer to d&it on )h t e. ct provision of the Revenue Code the t . li bility ensued. This is perh ps bec use the Corpor tion h s nchored its centr l r,u&ent on the position th t the #oc l /overn&ent Code itself does not s nction the i&position of business t .es , inst it. This position ) s sust ined by the Court of 4ppe ls, nd no) &erits our n lysis. 4s st ted e rlier, loc l t . on businesses is uthori$ed under Section 0;> of the #oc l /overn&ent Code. The )ord 6business6 itself is defined under Section 0>0'd( of the Code s 6tr de or co&&erci l ctivity re,ul rly en, ,ed in s &e ns of livelihood or )ith vie) to profit.6;8 This definition of 6business6 t "es on i&port nce, since Section 0;> llo)s loc l ,overn&ent units to i&pose loc l t .es on businesses other th n those specified under the provision. !oreover, even those business ctivities specific lly n &ed in Section 0;> re the&selves susceptible to bro d interpret tion. @or e. &ple, Section 0;>'b( uthori$es the i&position of business t .es on )holes lers, distributors, or de lers in ny rticle of co&&erce of )h tever "ind or n ture.

It is thus i&per tive th t in order th t the Corpor tion & y be sub-ected to business t .es, its ctivities &ust f ll )ithin the definition of business s provided in the #oc l /overn&ent Code. 4nd to hold th t they do is to i,nore the very st tutory n ture of condo&iniu& corpor tion. The cre tion of the condo&iniu& corpor tion is s nctioned by Republic 4ct No. ;?7<, other)ise "no)n s the Condo&iniu& 4ct. Ender the l ), condo&iniu& is n interest in re l property consistin, of sep r te interest in unit in residenti l, industri l or co&&erci l buildin, nd n undivided interest in co&&on, directly or indirectly, in the l nd on )hich it is loc ted nd in other co&&on re s of the buildin,.;< To en ble the orderly d&inistr tion over these co&&on re s )hich re -ointly o)ned by the v rious unit o)ners, the Condo&iniu& 4ct per&its the cre tion of condo&iniu& corpor tion, )hich is speci lly for&ed for the purpose of holdin, title to the co&&on re , in )hich the holders of sep r te interests sh ll uto& tic lly be &e&bers or sh reholders, to the e.clusion of others, in proportion to the ppurten nt interest of their respective units.;? The necessity of condo&iniu& corpor tion h s not , ined )idespre d ccept nce ;:, nd even is &erely per&issible under the Condo&iniu& 4ct.;9 Nonetheless, the condo&iniu& corpor tion h s been resorted to by & ny condo&iniu& pro-ects, such s the Corpor tion in this c se. In line )ith the uthority of the condo&iniu& corpor tion to & n ,e the condo&iniu& pro-ect, it & y be uthori$ed, in the deed of restrictions, 6to & "e re son ble ssess&ents to &eet uthori$ed e.penditures, e ch condo&iniu& unit to be ssessed sep r tely for its sh re of such e.penses in proportion 'unless other)ise provided( to its o)ner2s fr ction l interest in ny co&&on re s.68= It is the collection of these ssess&ents fro& unit o)ners th t for& the b sis of the City Tre surer2s cl i& th t the Corpor tion is doin, business. The Condo&iniu& 4ct i&poses sever l li&it tions on the condo&iniu& corpor tion th t prove cruci l to the disposition of this c se. Ender Section 0= of the l ), the corpor te purposes of condo&iniu& corpor tion re li&ited to the holdin, of the co&&on re s, either in o)nership or ny other interest in re l property reco,ni$ed by l )G to the & n ,e&ent of the pro-ectG nd to such other purposes s & y be necess ry, incident l or convenient to the cco&plish&ent of such purpose. 80 @urther, the s &e provision prohibits the rticles of incorpor tion or by5l )s of the condo&iniu& corpor tion fro& cont inin, ny provisions )hich re contr ry to the provisions of the Condo&iniu& 4ct, the en blin, or & ster deed, or the decl r tion of restrictions of the condo&iniu& pro-ect. 87 1e c n elicit fro& the Condo&iniu& 4ct th t condo&iniu& corpor tion is precluded by st tute fro& en, ,in, in corpor te ctivities other th n the holdin, of the co&&on re s, the d&inistr tion of the condo&iniu& pro-ect, nd other cts necess ry, incident l or convenient to the cco&plish&ent of such purposes. Neither the & inten nce of livelihood, nor the procure&ent of profit, f ll )ithin the scope of per&issible corpor te purposes of condo&iniu& corpor tion under the Condo&iniu& 4ct. The Court h s e. &ined the p rticul r 4rticles of Incorpor tion nd 3y5# )s of the Corpor tion, nd these docu&ents un&ist " bly he) to the li&it tions cont ined in the Condo&iniu& 4ct. Per the 4rticles of Incorpor tion, the Corpor tion2s corpor te purposes re li&ited to+ ' ( o)nin, nd holdin, title to the co&&on nd li&ited co&&on re s in the Condo&iniu& Pro-ectG 'b( doptin, such necess ry &e sures for the protection nd s fe,u rd of the unit o)ners nd their property, includin, the po)er to contr ct for security services nd for insur nce cover ,e on the entire pro-ectG 'c( & "in, nd doptin, needful rules nd re,ul tions concernin, the use, en-oy&ent nd occup ncy of the units nd co&&on re s, includin, the po)er to fi. pen lties nd ssess&ents for viol tion of such rulesG 'd( to provide for the & inten nce, rep ir, s nit tion, nd cle nliness of the co&&on nd li&ited co&&on re sG 'e( to provide nd contr ct for public utilities nd other services to the co&&on re sG 'f( to contr ct for the services of persons or

fir&s to ssist in the & n ,e&ent nd oper tion of the Condo&iniu& Pro-ectG ',( to disch r,e ny lien or encu&br nces upon the Condo&iniu& Pro-ectG 'h( to enforce the ter&s cont ined in the ! ster Deed )ith Decl r tion of Restrictions of the Pro-ectG 'i( to levy nd collect those ssess&ents s provided in the ! ster Deed, in order to defr y the costs, e.penses nd losses of the condo&iniu&G '-( to c*uire, o)n, hold, en-oy, le se oper te nd & int in, nd to convey, sell tr nsfer, &ort, ,e or other)ise dispose of re l or person l property in connection )ith the purposes nd ctivities of the corpor tionG nd '"( to e.ercise nd perfor& such other po)ers re son bly necess ry, incident l or convenient to cco&plish the fore,oin, purposes.8> Obviously, none of these st ted corpor te purposes re ,e red to) rds & int inin, livelihood or the obtention of profit. Even thou,h the Corpor tion is e&po)ered to levy ssess&ents or dues fro& the unit o)ners, these &ounts collected re not intended for the incurrence of profit by the Corpor tion or its &e&bers, but to shoulder the &ultitude of necess ry e.penses th t rise fro& the & inten nce of the Condo&iniu& Pro-ect. Dust s &uch is confir&ed by Section 0, 4rticle V of the 4&ended 3y5# )s, )hich enu&er te the p rticul r e.penses to be defr yed by the re,ul r ssess&ents collected fro& the unit o)ners. These )ould include the s l ries of the e&ployees of the Corpor tion, nd the cost of & inten nce nd ordin ry rep irs of the co&&on re s.8; The City Tre surer nonetheless contends th t the collection of these ssess&ents nd dues re 6)ith the end vie) of ,ettin, full ppreci tive livin, v lues6 for the condo&iniu& units, nd s result, profit is obt ined once these units re sold t hi,her prices. The Court cites )ith pprov l the t)o counterpoints r ised by the Court of 4ppe ls in re-ectin, this contention. @irst, if ny profit is obt ined by the s le of the units, it ccrues not to the corpor tion but to the unit o)ner. Second, if the unit o)ner does obt in profit fro& the s le of the corpor tion, the o)ner is lre dy re*uired to p y c pit l , ins t . on the ppreci ted v lue of the condo&iniu& unit. 88 !oreover, the lo,ic on this point of the City Tre surer is b fflin,. 3y this r tion le, every ! " ti City c r o)ner & y be considered s bein, en, ,ed in business, since the rep irs or i&prove&ents on the c r & y be dee&ed oriented to) rds ppreci tin, the v lue of the c r upon res le. There is n evident distinction bet)een persons )ho spend on rep irs nd i&prove&ents on their person l nd re l property for the purpose of incre sin, its res le v lue, nd those )ho defr y such e.penses for the purpose of preservin, the property. The v st & -ority of persons f ll under the second c te,ory, nd it )ould be hi,hly specious to sub-ect these persons to loc l business t .es. The profit &otive in such c ses is h rdly the drivin, f ctor behind such i&prove&ents, if it )ere conte&pl ted t ll. 4ny profit th t )ould be derived under such circu&st nces )ould &erely be incident l, if not ccident l. 3esides, )e shudder t the thou,ht of upholdin, t . li bility on the b sis of the st nd rd of 6full ppreci tive livin, v lues6, phr se th t defies st tutory e.plic tion, co&&onsensic l &e nin,, the En,lish l n,u ,e, or even definition fro& /oo,le. The e.ercise of the po)er of t . tion constitutes depriv tion of property under the due process cl use,8< nd the t .p yer2s ri,ht to due process is viol ted )hen rbitr ry or oppressive &ethods re used in ssessin, nd collectin, t .es.8? The f ct th t the Corpor tion did not f ll )ithin the enu&er ted cl sses of t . ble businesses under either the #oc l /overn&ent Code or the ! " ti Revenue Code lre dy fore) rns th t cle r de&onstr tion is essenti l on the p rt of the City Tre surer on )hy the Corpor tion should be t .ed ny) y. 6@ull ppreci tive livin, v lues6 is nothin, but bl ther in se rch of &e nin,, nd to i&pose t . hin,ed on th t st nd rd is both rbitr ry nd oppressive. The City Tre surer lso contends th t the f ct th t the Corpor tion is en, ,ed in business is evinced by the 4rticles of Incorpor tion, )hich specific lly e&po)ers the Corpor tion 6to c*uire, o)n, hold, en-oy, le se, oper te nd & int in, nd to convey, sell, tr nsfer &ort, ,e or

other)ise dispose of re l or person l property.6 8: 1h t the City Tre surer f ils to dd is th t every corpor tion or, ni$ed under the Corpor tion Code89 is so specific lly e&po)ered. Section ><'?( of the Corpor tion Code st tes th t every corpor tion incorpor ted under the Code h s the po)er nd c p city 6to purch se, receive, t "e or ,r nt, hold, convey, sell, le se, pled,e, &ort, ,e nd other)ise de l )ith such re l nd person l property . . . s the tr ns ction of the l )ful business of the corpor tion & y re son bly nd necess rily re*uire . . . .6<=1ithout this po)er, corpor tions, s -uridic l persons, )ould be deprived of the c p city to en, ,e in &ost &e nin,ful le, l rel tions. 4, in, )h tever c p city the Corpor tion & y h ve pursu nt to its po)er to e.ercise cts of o)nership over person l nd re l property is li&ited by its st ted corpor te purposes, )hich re by the&selves further li&ited by the Condo&iniu& 4ct. 4 condo&iniu& corpor tion, )hile en-oyin, such po)ers of o)nership, is prohibited by l ) fro& tr ns ctin, its properties for the purpose of , inful profit. 4ccordin,ly, nd )ith si,nific nt de,ree of co&fort, )e hold th t condo&iniu& corpor tions re ,ener lly e.e&pt fro& loc l business t . tion under the #oc l /overn&ent Code, irrespective of ny loc l ordin nce th t see"s to decl re other)ise. Still, )e c n note possible e.ception to the rule. It is not unthin" ble th t the unit o)ners of condo&iniu& )ould b nd to,ether to en, ,e in ctivities for profit under the shelter of the condo&iniu& corpor tion.<0 Such ctivity )ould be prohibited under the Condo&iniu& 4ct, but if the f ct is est blished, )e see no re son )hy the condo&iniu& corpor tion & y be & de li ble by the loc l ,overn&ent unit for business t .es. Even thou,h such ctivities )ould be considered s ultra vires, since they re en, ,ed in beyond the le, l c p city of the condo&iniu& corpor tion<7, the principle of estoppel )ould preclude the corpor tion or its officers nd &e&bers fro& invo"in, the void n ture of its undert "in,s for profit s &e ns of c*uittin, itself of t . li bility. Still, the City Tre surer h s not posited the cl i& th t the Corpor tion is en, ,ed in business ctivities beyond the st tutory purposes of condo&iniu& corpor tion. The ssess&ent ppe rs to be b sed solely on the Corpor tion2s collection of ssess&ents fro& unit o)ners, such ssess&ents bein, utili$ed to defr y the necess ry e.penses for the Condo&iniu& Pro-ect nd the co&&on re s. There is no conte&pl tion of business, no orient tion to) rds profit in this c se. Cence, the ss iled t . ssess&ent h s no b sis under the #oc l /overn&ent Code or the ! " ti Revenue Code, nd the insistence of the city in its collection of the void t . constitutes n tte&pt t depriv tion of property )ithout due process of l ). 1CERE@ORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs. SO ORDERED. +ANTE O. T'NGA 4ssoci te Dustice 1E CONCER+ REYNATO S. PUNO 4ssoci te Dustice Ch ir& n

MA. AL'C'A AUSTR'A/MART'NEZ, ROMEO 0. CALLE0O, SR. 4ssoci te Dustice 4ssoci te Dustice 'On #e ve( M'N'TA 1. C2'CO/NAZAR'O 4ssoci te Dustice ATTESTAT'ON I ttest th t the conclusions in the bove Decision h d been in consult tion before the c se ) s ssi,ned to the )riter of the opinion of the Court2s Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairman, Second Division CERT'('CAT'ON Pursu nt to Section 0>, 4rticle VIII of the Constitution, nd the Division Ch ir& n2s 4ttest tion, it is hereby certified th t the conclusions in the bove Decision h d been re ched in consult tion before the c se ) s ssi,ned to the )riter of the opinion of the Court2s Division. CI#4RIO /. D4VIDE, DR. Chief Justice

(oot!ote& The ,ener l uthority for loc l ,overn&ent units to cre te their o)n sources of revenue throu,h t . tion is est blished under Section 8, 4rticle I of the Constitution, s ffir&ed under Section 079 of Republic 4ct No. ?0<= '#oc l /overn&ent Code(.
0 7

Republic 4ct No. ;?7<

3ro"en do)n s follo)s+ T . Deficiency fro& 0998 to 099? L P:==,:88.<<G 78J surch r,e L P7==,70>.90G Interest L P<=0,9;;.7=. See RTC Records, pp. ?75?>.
> ;

d. t ?;. Records, pp. 7=570. RTC Rollo, p. 0<. !id. Doc"eted s Civil C se No. 995?;:.

<

Penned by Dud,e Rein to /. Muil l . Rollo, p. 0=<. !id. In Resolution d ted 0: ! y 7===.

0=

00

07

0>

d. t <;. d. t 0;;. In Resolution d ted 78 Duly 7===.

0;

08

Penned by Dustice C. 4*uino, concurred in by Dustices E. de los S ntos nd R. ! &bon,.

0< 0?

d. t 77.

Citing &on, others, ! dri, l v. R fferty, >: Phil ;0;G nd #ynch v. Turrish, 7<; ES 770.
0: 09

d. t 70. !id. In Resolution d ted 7: 4u,ust 7==7.

7=

70

77

Rollo, p. >>.

6This Court h s inv ri bly ruled th t perfection of n ppe l in the & nner nd )ithin the period l id do)n by l ) is not only & nd tory but lso -urisdiction l. The f ilure to perfect n ppe l s re*uired by the rules h s the effect of defe tin, the ri,ht to ppe l of p rty nd precludin, the ppell te court fro& c*uirin, -urisdiction over the c se. The ri,ht to ppe l is not n tur l ri,ht nor p rt of due processG it is &erely st tutory privile,e, nd & y be e.ercised only in the & nner nd in ccord nce )ith the provisions of the l ). The p rty )ho see"s to v il of the s &e &ust co&ply )ith the re*uire&ent of the rules. @ ilin, to do so, the ri,ht to ppe l is lost.6 See 3 l, &i v. Court of 4ppe ls, /.R. No. 0>07:?, 9 Dece&ber 7==;, ;;8 SCR4 890.
7> 7;

See Section 098, Rep. 4ct No. ?0<= '0990(. /.R. Nos. ::08: N 9?0=:5=9, ; ! rch 0997, 7=< SCR4 ??9. !id. .

78

7<

Other)ise "no)n s the Dudici ry Reor, ni$ tion 4ct of 09:= nd since &ended sever l ti&es.
7? 7:

See Section 9, 3.P. 079. See Section 9, Rep. 4ct No. 97:7.

79

Philippine Ports 4uthority v. @uentes, /.R. No. 90789, 0< 4pril 0990, 098 SCR4 ?9=, ?9<, citing Victori s !illin, Co. v. CT4, /.R. No. <<>:0, @ebur ry 79, 09:;.
>= >0

See Section <, Rule 0, 099? Rules of Civil Procedure.

6The rules of procedure ou,ht not to be pplied in very ri,id technic l sense, s they re used only to help secure, not override subst nti l -ustice. If technic l nd ri,id enforce&ent of the rules is & de, their i& )ould be defe ted. Conse*uently, in the interest of -ustice, the inst nt petition for revie) & y be tre ted s speci l civil ction on certior ri. A4B petition )hich should h ve been brou,ht under Rule <8 nd not under Rule ;8 of the Rules of Court, is not n infle.ible rule. The strict pplic tion of procedur l technic lities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the c se on the &erits.6 R &isc l v. S ndi, nb y n, /.R. Nos. 0;=8?<599, 0> Dece&ber 7==;, ;;< SCR4 0<<. See lso e.g., 4bcede v. 1or"& n2s Co&pens tion Co&&ission, /.R. No. #5;7;==, 4u,ust ?, 09:8G # ,u v. Cusi, /.R. No. #5;;<;9, 4pril 08, 09::G #on,os Rur l 1 ter)or"s v. Desierto, /.R. No. 0>8;9<, Duly >=, 7==7G Rubenito v. # , t , /.R. No. 0;=989. Dece&ber 70, 7==;G
>7 >>

See Section 0>, Rule ;0, 099? Rules of Civil Procedure. See Section <, Rule ;7, 099? Rules of Civil Procedure. See Section 9, Rule ;0, 099? Rules of Civil Procedure. See Section 8, 4rticle I, Constitution. See Section 0>>' (, #oc l /overn&ent Code.

>;

>8

><

>?

4rticle I, 3oo" II, Title II, concernin, provinci l t .es, uthori$e the i&position of t .es on the business of printin, nd public tion, on businesses en-oyin, fr nchise, nd on persons e.ercisin, profession re*uirin, ,overn&ent e. &in tion. 1hile these re d&ittedly t .es i&posed on businesses, they find no relev nce to the present c se.
>: >9

See Section >4.=7'f(, ! " ti Revenue Code. See Section >4.=7'h(, ! " ti Revenue Code. See Section >4.=7'"(, ! " ti Revenue Code. Section >4.=7'&(, ! " ti Revenue Code. Supra note ;.

;=

;0

;7

;>

See Section 0>7, #oc l /overn&ent Code. Indeed, even s the #oc l /overn&ent Code enu&er tes specific e. &ples of loc l t .es, the provisions therein cl rify th t 6the Aloc l ,overn&ent unitB & y i&pose t .6, thus ch r cteri$in, loc l t .es s option l on the p rt of loc l ,overn&ent unit, nd not & nd tory ccordin, to the Code. Cert inly, loc l ,overn&ent unit & y choose not to i&pose the loc l t . t ll, even if it is uthori$ed to do so under the #oc l /overn&ent Code.
;; ;8

See Section 0>0'e(, #oc l /overn&ent Code. See Section 7, Rep. 4ct No. ;?7<. !id.

;<

;?

6The su,,estion h s been c utiously dv nced th t the unit o)ners &i,ht for& corpor tion to oper te the condo&iniu& nd in this ) y prob bly void unli&ited person l li bility.6 See O07, 4lberto @errer nd P rl Stecher, I # ) of Condo&iniu& '09<? ed.(
;: ;9

See Section 7, Rep. 4ct No. ;?7<. See Section 9'd(, Rep. 4ct No. ;?7<. See Section 0=, Rep. 4ct No. ;?7<, !id. See RTC Records, pp. ;;5;<. d. t >85><. Rollo, p. 7=.

8=

80

87

8>

8;

88

6This is not to s y thou,h th t the constitution l in-unction , inst depriv tion of property )ithout due process of l ) & y be p ssed over under the ,uise of the t .in, po)er, e.cept )hen the t "in, of the property is in the l )ful e.ercise of the t .in, po)er, s )hen '0( the t . is for public purposeG '7( the rule on unifor&ity of t . tion is observedG '>( either the person or property t .ed is )ithin the -urisdiction of the ,overn&ent levyin, the t .G nd ';( in the ssess&ent nd collection of cert in "inds of t .es notice nd opportunity for he rin, re provided.6 Pepsi5Col 3ottlin, Co&p ny v. !unicip lity of T n u n, 0<0 Phil. 890.
8< 8?

!id. Rollo, p. >>. 3 t s P &b ns 3l,. <:. See Section ><'?(, Corpor tion Code.

8:

89

<=

Indeed, t le st one co&&ent tor on 4&eric n condo&iniu& l ) h s offered the follo)in, e.pl n tion on ho) this & y be cco&plished+
<0

Ender cert in conditions it is possible for the o)ners of condo&iniu& pro-ect to en, ,e in business, the inco&e of )hich )ould be sub-ect to the @eder l inco&e t .. . . . To &eet these conditions, ho)ever, the o)ners of the condo&iniu&, ctin, throu,h their ssoci tion of o)ners, &ust ,ener lly f ll into one of t)o ,ener l cl ssific tions insof r s the Intern l Revenue Code is concerned, either s p rtnership or s corpor tion. The @eder l inco&e t . re,ul tions define p rtnership s includin, syndic te, ,roup, pool, -oint venture or other unincorpor ted or, ni$ tion throu,h or by &e ns of )hich ny business, fin nci l oper tion or venture is c rried on nd )hich is not corpor tion, trust or est te )ithin the &e nin, of the Intern l Revenue Code. 4 corpor tion includes ssoci tion, )hich re t . ble s corpor tion, nd -oint5stoc" co&p nies. . . . The individu l p rt&ent o)ners re ,ener lly ten nts in co&&on of the co&&on re s nd -oint o)ners of the person l property of the or, ni$ tion. 4l&ost inv ri bly they re not p rtners nd the &ere f ct th t they ,ree to sh re e.penses

does not & "e the rr n,e&ent p rtnership. The @eder l re,ul tions specific lly prescribe th t -oint undert "in, &erely to sh re e.penses is not p rtnership. !ere co5o)nership or property )hich is & int ined, "ept in rep ir, nd rented or le sed does not constitute p rtnership. . . . Ten nts in co&&on & y, ho)ever, be p rtners if they ctively c rry on tr de, business, fin nci l oper tion or venture nd divide the profits thereof. Conse*uently p rtnership & y be cre ted if the co5o)ners of n p rt&ent buildin, le se sp ce nd provide services to the occup nts. The princip l *uestion is )hether the o)ners re en, ,ed in business for profit. . . . 4ccordin,ly )here portions of condo&iniu& pro-ect re le sed or rented s b rber shops, dru, stores, be uty shops, or other co&er enterprises, the inco&e therefro& )ill be sub-ect to t . tion. If the condo&iniu& o)ners re conductin, business for profit, it &ust lso be deter&ined )hether the business is p rtnership or corpor tion. If it &eets the tests prescribed for corpor te entity by the Revenue Service its inco&e )ill be sub-ect to t . tion s corpor tion, other)ise it )ill be considered s so&e other for& of t . ble entity. See @errer nd Stecher, supra note ;:, t O;8;. Ender Philippine l ) thou,h, condo&iniu& corpor tion & y not dopt purposes other th n those provided under the Condo&iniu& 4ct. nfra. 6The ter& ultr vires refers to n ct outside or beyond corpor te po)ers, includin, those th t & y ostensibly be )ithin such po)ers but re, by ,ener l or speci l l )s, prohibited or decl red ille, l.6 T)in To)ers Condo&iniu& Corp. v. Court of 4ppe ls, ;;< Phil. 7:= '7==>(.
<7