SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER

Constitutional Law Tax Exemptions Sec 28 Art 6 Soon, Raphael Joshua C.

Abra Valley College vs Aquino primary use of the said building but there was still the issue as to the first 2 floors of the complex
PARAS, J. being used by other reasons. The court did agree to this idea but preferred a more liberal and non-
restrictive use of the word “exclusively” as provided by Art 6, Sec 22(3) of the 1935 constitution.
G.R. No. L-39086
Plaintiff and appellee: Abra Valley College Inc
Defendant and appellant: Juan P. Aquino, Judge, CFI of Abra

EMERGENCY RECIT:

FACTS:
The case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari with regards to the property tax that Abra
Valley College was charged with and the subsequent notice of seizure and sale to Paterno
Millare.
In the case, the real estate tax that the Petitioner was subject to amounted to P 5140.31 in back
taxes. With the unpaid taxes, the proceeds of sale (amounting to P6000) was supposed to be taken What they find in this situation that as while it may be argued that the usage of the
as payment. Petitioners contested this claim stating that the entire property was being director is incidental to the primary purpose of education, the usage of Northern Marketing
“Exclusively Used for Educational Purposes” Corporation in renting out the first floor cannot simply be incidental to educational purposes.

In terms of the place itself, the important facts are that the first floor of the complex is being As the court now finds that there is usage other than the primary purpose listed down in
rented by a commercial establishment and the second floor being used by the director Pedro the Assessment Law, the court deems that the petitioner is not exempt from tax. However, the
Borgonia as his home. This includes the rest of his family as well as his in-laws and court sees that only the first floor is being used for commercial purposes therefore applies half the
grandchildren original amount in back taxes for the spirit for fairness.

ISSUE/S: Irrelevant but could come up

WHETHER OR NOT THE COLLEGE LOT OR BUILDING WAS BEING
EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES– NO
HELD/RATIONALE:
Section 54, paragraph c, Commonwealth Act No. 470 as amended by Republic Act No.
409, otherwise known as the Assessment Law is then used as the basis for this rationale of the
court. This section makes mention those who are exempt from paying real property taxes
“ (c) churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings,
and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or
educational purposes.”
- The lease agreement was only raised in the appellate court already and not at first instance.
- Normally, facts cannot be brought up on appeal because the petition for certiorari is used for
instances where the court may have made a mistake.
- But this is pivotal for the case and therefore the SC has the authority to “review palpable
errors” to arrive at a fair decision
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Abra, Branch I, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that
half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner.

So as already said in the facts, the last phrase of this section was what was in
contention specifically “ used exclusively for … educational purposes.” The petitioner was
arguing that the primary use of the building was that for educational purposes. It was in fact the