G.R. No.

144104 June 29, 2004

LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
QUEZON CITY and CONSTANTINO P. ROSAS, in his capacity as City Assessor of Quezon
City, respondents.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, of the
Decision1 dated July 17, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57014 which affirmed
the decision of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals holding that the lot owned by the
petitioner and its hospital building constructed thereon are subject to assessment for purposes of
real property tax.

The Antecedents

The petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is a non-stock and non-profit entity established on
January 16, 1981 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1823.2 It is the registered owner of a parcel
of land, particularly described as Lot No. RP-3-B-3A-1-B-1, SWO-04-000495, located at Quezon
Avenue corner Elliptical Road, Central District, Quezon City. The lot has an area of 121,463
square meters and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 261320 of the Registry of
Deeds of Quezon City. Erected in the middle of the aforesaid lot is a hospital known as the Lung
Center of the Philippines. A big space at the ground floor is being leased to private parties, for
canteen and small store spaces, and to medical or professional practitioners who use the same
as their private clinics for their patients whom they charge for their professional services. Almost
one-half of the entire area on the left side of the building along Quezon Avenue is vacant and idle,
while a big portion on the right side, at the corner of Quezon Avenue and Elliptical Road, is being
leased for commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as the Elliptical Orchids and
Garden Center.

The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical services to out-
patients, both paying and non-paying. Aside from its income from paying patients, the petitioner
receives annual subsidies from the government.

On June 7, 1993, both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real
property taxes in the amount of ₱4,554,860 by the City Assessor of Quezon City. 3 Accordingly,
Tax Declaration Nos. C-021-01226 (16-2518) and C-021-01231 (15-2518-A) were issued for the
land and the hospital building, respectively.4 On August 25, 1993, the petitioner filed a Claim for
Exemption5 from real property taxes with the City Assessor, predicated on its claim that it is a
charitable institution. The petitioner’s request was denied, and a petition was, thereafter, filed
before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA, for brevity) for the
reversal of the resolution of the City Assessor. The petitioner alleged that under Section 28,
paragraph 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the property is exempt from real property taxes. It averred
that a minimum of 60% of its hospital beds are exclusively used for charity patients and that the
major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients. The petitioner contends that it is
a charitable institution and, as such, is exempt from real property taxes. The QC-LBAA rendered
judgment dismissing the petition and holding the petitioner liable for real property taxes.6
The QC-LBAA’s decision was, likewise, affirmed on appeal by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals of Quezon City (CBAA, for brevity)7 which ruled that the petitioner was not a charitable
institution and that its real properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable
purposes; hence, it was not entitled to real property tax exemption under the constitution and the
law. The petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which rendered judgment affirming
the decision of the CBAA.8

Undaunted, the petitioner filed its petition in this Court contending that:

A. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING PETITIONER AS NOT ENTITLED TO

REALTY TAX EXEMPTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ITS LAND, BUILDING AND
IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT OF ASSESSMENT, ARE NOT ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY
AND EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

B. WHILE PETITIONER IS NOT DECLARED AS REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPT

UNDER ITS CHARTER, PD 1823, SAID EXEMPTION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE
EXTENDED UPON PROPER APPLICATION.

The petitioner avers that it is a charitable institution within the context of Section 28(3), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution. It asserts that its character as a charitable institution is not altered by
the fact that it admits paying patients and renders medical services to them, leases portions of
the land to private parties, and rents out portions of the hospital to private medical practitioners
from which it derives income to be used for operational expenses. The petitioner points out that
for the years 1995 to 1999, 100% of its out-patients were charity patients and of the hospital’s
282-bed capacity, 60% thereof, or 170 beds, is allotted to charity patients. It asserts that the fact
that it receives subsidies from the government attests to its character as a charitable institution.
It contends that the "exclusivity" required in the Constitution does not necessarily mean "solely."
Hence, even if a portion of its real estate is leased out to private individuals from whom it derives
income, it does not lose its character as a charitable institution, and its exemption from the
payment of real estate taxes on its real property. The petitioner cited our ruling in Herrera v. QC-
BAA9 to bolster its pose. The petitioner further contends that even if P.D. No. 1823 does not
exempt it from the payment of real estate taxes, it is not precluded from seeking tax exemption
under the 1987 Constitution.

In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petitioner is not a charitable entity.
The petitioner’s real property is not exempt from the payment of real estate taxes under P.D. No.
1823 and even under the 1987 Constitution because it failed to prove that it is a charitable
institution and that the said property is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable
purposes. The respondents noted that in a newspaper report, it appears that graft charges were
filed with the Sandiganbayan against the director of the petitioner, its administrative officer, and
Zenaida Rivera, the proprietress of the Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center, for entering into a
lease contract over 7,663.13 square meters of the property in 1990 for only ₱20,000 a month,
when the monthly rental should be ₱357,000 a month as determined by the Commission on Audit;
and that instead of complying with the directive of the COA for the cancellation of the contract for
being grossly prejudicial to the government, the petitioner renewed the same on March 13, 1995
for a monthly rental of only ₱24,000. They assert that the petitioner uses the subsidies granted
by the government for charity patients and uses the rest of its income from the property for the
benefit of paying patients, among other purposes. They aver that the petitioner failed to adduce
substantial evidence that 100% of its out-patients and 170 beds in the hospital are reserved for
indigent patients. The respondents further assert, thus:
 13. That the claims/allegations of the Petitioner LCP do not speak well of its record of
service. That before a patient is admitted for treatment in the Center, first impression is
that it is pay-patient and required to pay a certain amount as deposit. That even if a patient
is living below the poverty line, he is charged with high hospital bills. And, without these
bills being first settled, the poor patient cannot be allowed to leave the hospital or be
discharged without first paying the hospital bills or issue a promissory note guaranteed
and indorsed by an influential agency or person known only to the Center; that even the
remains of deceased poor patients suffered the same fate. Moreover, before a patient is
admitted for treatment as free or charity patient, one must undergo a series of interviews
and must submit all the requirements needed by the Center, usually accompanied by
endorsement by an influential agency or person known only to the Center. These facts
were heard and admitted by the Petitioner LCP during the hearings before the Honorable
QC-BAA and Honorable CBAA. These are the reasons of indigent patients, instead of
seeking treatment with the Center, they prefer to be treated at the Quezon Institute. Can
such practice by the Center be called charitable?10

The Issues

The issues for resolution are the following: (a) whether the petitioner is a charitable institution
within the context of Presidential Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and
Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160; and (b) whether the real properties of the petitioner are
exempt from real property taxes.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is partially granted.

On the first issue, we hold that the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context of the
1973 and 1987 Constitutions. To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity
or not, the elements which should be considered include the statute creating the enterprise, its
corporate purposes, its constitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the
actual work performed, the character of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the
beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of the properties.11

In the legal sense, a charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing
laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts
under the influence of education or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or
otherwise lessening the burden of government.12 It may be applied to almost anything that tend
to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man. It embraces the improvement and
promotion of the happiness of man.13 The word "charitable" is not restricted to relief of the poor
or sick.14 The test of a charity and a charitable organization are in law the same. The test whether
an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out a purpose reorganized in law as
charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit, or private advantage.

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is a non-profit and non-stock corporation which, subject to
the provisions of the decree, is to be administered by the Office of the President of the Philippines
with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human Settlements. It was organized for the welfare
and benefit of the Filipino people principally to help combat the high incidence of lung and
pulmonary diseases in the Philippines. The raison d’etre for the creation of the petitioner is stated
in the decree, viz:
 Whereas, for decades, respiratory diseases have been a priority concern, having been the
leading cause of illness and death in the Philippines, comprising more than 45% of the
total annual deaths from all causes, thus, exacting a tremendous toll on human resources,
which ailments are likely to increase and degenerate into serious lung diseases on
account of unabated pollution, industrialization and unchecked cigarette smoking in the
country;lavvph!l.net

Whereas, the more common lung diseases are, to a great extent, preventable, and curable
with early and adequate medical care, immunization and through prompt and intensive
prevention and health education programs;

Whereas, there is an urgent need to consolidate and reinforce existing programs,

strategies and efforts at preventing, treating and rehabilitating people affected by lung
diseases, and to undertake research and training on the cure and prevention of lung
diseases, through a Lung Center which will house and nurture the above and related
activities and provide tertiary-level care for more difficult and problematical cases;

Whereas, to achieve this purpose, the Government intends to provide material and
financial support towards the establishment and maintenance of a Lung Center for the
welfare and benefit of the Filipino people.15

The purposes for which the petitioner was created are spelled out in its Articles of Incorporation,
thus:

SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is formed are as follows:

1. To construct, establish, equip, maintain, administer and conduct an integrated

medical institution which shall specialize in the treatment, care, rehabilitation
and/or relief of lung and allied diseases in line with the concern of the government
to assist and provide material and financial support in the establishment and
maintenance of a lung center primarily to benefit the people of the Philippines and
in pursuance of the policy of the State to secure the well-being of the people by
providing them specialized health and medical services and by minimizing the
incidence of lung diseases in the country and elsewhere.

2. To promote the noble undertaking of scientific research related to the prevention

of lung or pulmonary ailments and the care of lung patients, including the holding
of a series of relevant congresses, conventions, seminars and conferences;

3. To stimulate and, whenever possible, underwrite scientific researches on the

biological, demographic, social, economic, eugenic and physiological aspects of
lung or pulmonary diseases and their control; and to collect and publish the
findings of such research for public consumption;

4. To facilitate the dissemination of ideas and public acceptance of information on

lung consciousness or awareness, and the development of fact-finding,
information and reporting facilities for and in aid of the general purposes or objects
aforesaid, especially in human lung requirements, general health and physical
fitness, and other relevant or related fields;
 5. To encourage the training of physicians, nurses, health officers, social workers
and medical and technical personnel in the practical and scientific implementation
of services to lung patients;

6. To assist universities and research institutions in their studies about lung

diseases, to encourage advanced training in matters of the lung and related fields
and to support educational programs of value to general health;

7. To encourage the formation of other organizations on the national, provincial

and/or city and local levels; and to coordinate their various efforts and activities for
the purpose of achieving a more effective programmatic approach on the common
problems relative to the objectives enumerated herein;

8. To seek and obtain assistance in any form from both international and local
foundations and organizations; and to administer grants and funds that may be
given to the organization;

9. To extend, whenever possible and expedient, medical services to the public

and, in general, to promote and protect the health of the masses of our people,
which has long been recognized as an economic asset and a social blessing;

10. To help prevent, relieve and alleviate the lung or pulmonary afflictions and
maladies of the people in any and all walks of life, including those who are poor
and needy, all without regard to or discrimination, because of race, creed, color or
political belief of the persons helped; and to enable them to obtain treatment when
such disorders occur;

11. To participate, as circumstances may warrant, in any activity designed and

carried on to promote the general health of the community;

12. To acquire and/or borrow funds and to own all funds or equipment, educational
materials and supplies by purchase, donation, or otherwise and to dispose of and
distribute the same in such manner, and, on such basis as the Center shall, from
time to time, deem proper and best, under the particular circumstances, to serve
its general and non-profit purposes and objectives;lavvphil.net

13. To buy, purchase, acquire, own, lease, hold, sell, exchange, transfer and
dispose of properties, whether real or personal, for purposes herein mentioned;
and

14. To do everything necessary, proper, advisable or convenient for the

accomplishment of any of the powers herein set forth and to do every other act
and thing incidental thereto or connected therewith.16

Hence, the medical services of the petitioner are to be rendered to the public in general in any
and all walks of life including those who are poor and the needy without discrimination. After all,
any person, the rich as well as the poor, may fall sick or be injured or wounded and become a
subject of charity.17
As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption
from taxes simply because it derives income from paying patients, whether out-patient, or
confined in the hospital, or receives subsidies from the government, so long as the money
received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve; and
no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the
institution.18 In Congregational Sunday School, etc. v. Board of Review,19 the State Supreme
Court of Illinois held, thus:

… [A]n institution does not lose its charitable character, and consequent exemption from
taxation, by reason of the fact that those recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are
required to do so, where no profit is made by the institution and the amounts so received
are applied in furthering its charitable purposes, and those benefits are refused to none
on account of inability to pay therefor. The fundamental ground upon which all exemptions
in favor of charitable institutions are based is the benefit conferred upon the public by
them, and a consequent relief, to some extent, of the burden upon the state to care for
and advance the interests of its citizens.20

As aptly stated by the State Supreme Court of South Dakota in Lutheran Hospital Association of
South Dakota v. Baker:21

… [T]he fact that paying patients are taken, the profits derived from attendance upon these
patients being exclusively devoted to the maintenance of the charity, seems rather to
enhance the usefulness of the institution to the poor; for it is a matter of common
observation amongst those who have gone about at all amongst the suffering classes,
that the deserving poor can with difficulty be persuaded to enter an asylum of any kind
confined to the reception of objects of charity; and that their honest pride is much less
wounded by being placed in an institution in which paying patients are also received. The
fact of receiving money from some of the patients does not, we think, at all impair the
character of the charity, so long as the money thus received is devoted altogether to the
charitable object which the institution is intended to further.22

The money received by the petitioner becomes a part of the trust fund and must be devoted to
public trust purposes and cannot be diverted to private profit or benefit.23

Under P.D. No. 1823, the petitioner is entitled to receive donations. The petitioner does not lose
its character as a charitable institution simply because the gift or donation is in the form of
subsidies granted by the government. As held by the State Supreme Court of Utah in Yorgason
v. County Board of Equalization of Salt Lake County:24

Second, the … government subsidy payments are provided to the project. Thus, those
payments are like a gift or donation of any other kind except they come from the
government. In both Intermountain Health Careand the present case, the crux is the
presence or absence of material reciprocity. It is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that the
government, rather than a private benefactor, chose to make up the deficit resulting from
the exchange between St. Mark’s Tower and the tenants by making a contribution to the
landlord, just as it would have been irrelevant in Intermountain Health Care if the patients’
income supplements had come from private individuals rather than the government.
 Therefore, the fact that subsidization of part of the cost of furnishing such housing is by
the government rather than private charitable contributions does not dictate the denial of
a charitable exemption if the facts otherwise support such an exemption, as they do here.25

In this case, the petitioner adduced substantial evidence that it spent its income, including the
subsidies from the government for 1991 and 1992 for its patients and for the operation of the
hospital. It even incurred a net loss in 1991 and 1992 from its operations.

Even as we find that the petitioner is a charitable institution, we hold, anent the second issue, that
those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt from real
property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes.

The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that laws granting exemption from tax are
construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing power. Taxation
is the rule and exemption is the exception. The effect of an exemption is equivalent to an
appropriation. Hence, a claim for exemption from tax payments must be clearly shown and based
on language in the law too plain to be mistaken.26 As held in Salvation Army v. Hoehn:27

An intention on the part of the legislature to grant an exemption from the taxing power of
the state will never be implied from language which will admit of any other reasonable
construction. Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or
must appear by necessary implication from the language used, for it is a well settled
principle that, when a special privilege or exemption is claimed under a statute, charter or
act of incorporation, it is to be construed strictly against the property owner and in favor of
the public. This principle applies with peculiar force to a claim of exemption from taxation
. …28

Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1823, relied upon by the petitioner, specifically provides that
the petitioner shall enjoy the tax exemptions and privileges:

SEC. 2. TAX EXEMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGES. Being a non-profit, non-stock corporation

organized primarily to help combat the high incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases in
the Philippines, all donations, contributions, endowments and equipment and supplies to
be imported by authorized entities or persons and by the Board of Trustees of the Lung
Center of the Philippines, Inc., for the actual use and benefit of the Lung Center, shall be
exempt from income and gift taxes, the same further deductible in full for the purpose of
determining the maximum deductible amount under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.

The Lung Center of the Philippines shall be exempt from the payment of taxes, charges
and fees imposed by the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof
with respect to equipment purchases made by, or for the Lung Center.29

It is plain as day that under the decree, the petitioner does not enjoy any property tax exemption
privileges for its real properties as well as the building constructed thereon. If the intentions were
otherwise, the same should have been among the enumeration of tax exempt privileges under
Section 2:
 It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing,
or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. The rule is expressed in the familiar
maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a number of ways. One
variation of the rule is the principle that what is expressed puts an end to that which is
implied. Expressium facit cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other
matters.

...

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive
interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human
mind. They are predicated upon one’s own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They
proceed from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration
in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those
expressly mentioned.30

The exemption must not be so enlarged by construction since the reasonable presumption is that
the State has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that unless the privilege
is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be intended beyond what was meant.31

Section 28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, thus:

(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,

mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.32

The tax exemption under this constitutional provision covers property taxes only.33 As Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, explained:
". . . what is exempted is not the institution itself . . .; those exempted from real estate taxes are
lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable
or educational purposes."34

Consequently, the constitutional provision is implemented by Section 234(b) of Republic Act No.
7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) as follows:

SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. – The following are exempted from
payment of the real property tax:

...

(b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,

mosques, non-profit or religious cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and
improvements actually, directly, and exclusivelyused for religious, charitable or
educational purposes.35
We note that under the 1935 Constitution, "... all lands, buildings, and improvements used
‘exclusively’ for … charitable … purposes shall be exempt from taxation."36 However, under the
1973 and the present Constitutions, for "lands, buildings, and improvements" of the charitable
institution to be considered exempt, the same should not only be "exclusively" used for charitable
purposes; it is required that such property be used "actually" and "directly" for such purposes.37

In light of the foregoing substantial changes in the Constitution, the petitioner cannot rely on our
ruling in Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals which was promulgated on
September 30, 1961 before the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions took effect.38 As this Court held
in Province of Abra v. Hernando:39

… Under the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents

appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for
religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation." The present
Constitution added "charitable institutions, mosques, and non-profit cemeteries" and
required that for the exemption of "lands, buildings, and improvements," they should not
only be "exclusively" but also "actually" and "directly" used for religious or charitable
purposes. The Constitution is worded differently. The change should not be ignored. It
must be duly taken into consideration. Reliance on past decisions would have sufficed
were the words "actually" as well as "directly" not added. There must be proof therefore
of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings, and improvements for religious or
charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation. …

Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep. Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the
exemption, the petitioner is burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a
charitable institution; and (b) its real properties
are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable purposes. "Exclusive" is
defined as possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others; debarred from participation or
enjoyment; and "exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a privilege
exclusively."40 If real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it is not exclusively
used for the exempted purposes but is subject to taxation.41 The words "dominant use" or
"principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively" without doing violence to
the Constitutions and the law.42 Solely is synonymous with exclusively.43

What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the
direct and immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for which the
charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that is
determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.44

The petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the entirety of its real property is actually,
directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. While portions of the hospital are used for
the treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical services to them, whether paying or
non-paying, other portions thereof are being leased to private individuals for their clinics and a
canteen. Further, a portion of the land is being leased to a private individual for her business
enterprise under the business name "Elliptical Orchids and Garden Center." Indeed, the
petitioner’s evidence shows that it collected ₱1,136,483.45 as rentals in 1991 and ₱1,679,999.28
for 1992 from the said lessees.

Accordingly, we hold that the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts
of the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes.45 On the other hand,
the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the hospital used for its patients,
whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from real property taxes.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The respondent
Quezon City Assessor is hereby DIRECTED to determine, after due hearing, the precise portions
of the land and the area thereof which are leased to private persons, and to compute the real
property taxes due thereon as provided for by law.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.