Scribd
Upload
592 views1 page

Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs. City of Manila

1) The late Lim took out a real estate loan from GSIS and mortgaged two parcels of land, which were later foreclosed on due to nonpayment and purchased by GSIS in 1977. 2) In 1979, GSIS granted the estate of Lim the right to repurchase the properties. 3) The City of Manila required the estate to pay real estate taxes on the properties for 1977, 1978 and the first quarter of 1979. The estate paid under protest and filed a case against GSIS to recover the payment.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
592 views1 page

Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs. City of Manila

1) The late Lim took out a real estate loan from GSIS and mortgaged two parcels of land, which were later foreclosed on due to nonpayment and purchased by GSIS in 1977. 2) In 1979, GSIS granted the estate of Lim the right to repurchase the properties. 3) The City of Manila required the estate to pay real estate taxes on the properties for 1977, 1978 and the first quarter of 1979. The estate paid under protest and filed a case against GSIS to recover the payment.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs.

City of Manila
GR No. 90639 February 21, 1990

Facts:
The late Lim obtained a real estate loan from GSIS and mortgaged 2 parcels of land which
was foreclosed due to nonpayment of the loan. GSIS, being the highest bidder, bought the property.
No right of redemption was exercised and title was issued to GSIS in 1977. However, the Board
of Trustees of GSIS granted the estate of Lim the right to repurchase and a Deed of Sale was
executed in 1979.
The City Treasurer of Manila required plaintiff to pay the real estate taxes due on the
properties for 1977, 1978 and 1979 and it was paid under protest. A case was filed by the plaintiff
against the GSIS to recover the said payment.

Issue: Who is liable to pay the real estate taxes for the years 1977, 1978, and first quarter of 1979?

Ruling: The one liable is the person who has the actual beneficial use and possession of the
property.
In real estate taxation, unpaid taxes attaches to the property and is chargeable against the
taxable person who has the actual beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not
he is the owner. In this case, to impose the real property tax on the estate which is neither the owner
nor the beneficial user of the property during the designated periods would be contrary to law and
unjust. If plaintiff intended to assume the taxes for the prior periods, the contract should have
specifically stated the same. Hence the tax assessed and collected from plaintiff is not valid.

Plaintiff is not however entitled to refund from GSIS since it is exempt from payment of
real property tax under Section 33 of its Charter and since the tax is based on the “actual use” of
the property, not even GSIS is liable to pay the real property tax on public land leased to other
persons. If there is anyone liable, it will be the lessees of the land.

The City of Manila is hereby ordered to refund the estate the amount of the real estate taxes
paid under protest.

You might also like