Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Borja Vs Gella

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus Dait
    The document discusses a case where Jose de Borja tried to use negotiable certificates of indebtedness assigned to him to pay delinquent real estate taxes. The court ruled that the law only allows the original applicant, not an assignee or subsequent holder, to use such certificates to pay taxes owed by the applicant. Therefore, the treasurers were not required to accept the certificates from de Borja to pay his taxes since he was not the original applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Borja Vs Gella

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus Dait
    30 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where Jose de Borja tried to use negotiable certificates of indebtedness assigned to him to pay delinquent real estate taxes. The court ruled that the law only allows the original applicant, not an assignee or subsequent holder, to use such certificates to pay taxes owed by the applicant. Therefore, the treasurers were not required to accept the certificates from de Borja to pay his taxes since he was not the original applicant.

    Original Title

    borja vs gella.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where Jose de Borja tried to use negotiable certificates of indebtedness assigned to him to pay delinquent real estate taxes. The court ruled that the law only allows the original applicant, not an assignee or subsequent holder, to use such certificates to pay taxes owed by the applicant. Therefore, the treasurers were not required to accept the certificates from de Borja to pay his taxes since he was not the original applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Borja Vs Gella

    Uploaded by

    Cyrus Dait
    The document discusses a case where Jose de Borja tried to use negotiable certificates of indebtedness assigned to him to pay delinquent real estate taxes. The court ruled that the law only allows the original applicant, not an assignee or subsequent holder, to use such certificates to pay taxes owed by the applicant. Therefore, the treasurers were not required to accept the certificates from de Borja to pay his taxes since he was not the original applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GR No. L-18330. July 31, 1963.

    JOSE DE BORJA, petitioner-appellee, 


    vs.
    VlCENTE G. GELLA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

    The right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to the
    applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law
    only gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation
    under certain limitations.

    Facts: 
    Jose de Borja has been delinquent in the payment of his real estate taxes since 1958
    for properties located in the City of Manila and Pasay City and has offered to pay
    them with two negotiable certificates of indebtedness in the amounts of P793.40 and
    P717.69.The said negotiable certificates were from Rafael Vizcaya and Pablo Batario
    Luna were the applicants for backpay rights covered by the instrument. Borja ,was,
    however, a mere assignee of the aforesaid negotiable certificates.

    But the offer to pay the real estate tax through the instrument in question were
    rejected by the City Treasurers of both Manila and Pasay.

    Borja was prompted to bring the question before the Treasurer of the Philippines.

    The Treasurer of the Philippines opined that the negotiable certificates cannot be
    accepted as payment of real estate taxes inasmuch as the law provides for their
    acceptance from their backpay holder only or the original applicant himself, but not
    his assignee.

    Borja filed an action., against the treasurers of both the City of Manila and Pasay City,
    and the Treasurer of the Philippines, to impel them to execute an act which the law
    allegedly requires them to perform which is to accept the above-mentioned
    certificates of indebtedness considering that they were already due and redeemable so
    as not to deprive him illegally of his privilege to pay his obligation to the government
    thru such means.

    Issue: 
    Whether or not Borja may apply to the payment of his real estate taxes the certificates
    of indebtedness he holds; while, respondents have the correlative legal duty to accept
    the certificates in payment of the taxes

    Ruling: 
    No. The appellants are not duty bound bound to accept the negotiable certificates of
    indebtedness held by appellee in payment of his real estate taxes for the simple reason
    that they were not obligations subsisting at the time of the approval of Republic Act
    No. 304 which took effect on June 18, 1948. 

    The law is explicit that in order that a certificate may be used in payment of an
    obligation the same must be subsisting at the time of its approval even if we hold that
    a tax partakes of this character, neither can it be contended that appellee can compel
    the government to accept the alleged certificates of indebtedness in payment of his
    real estate taxes under Section 2 of RA 304, also for the reason that in order that such
    payment may be allowed the tax must be owed by the applicant himself. This is the
    correct implication that may be drawn from the use by the law of the words "his
    taxes".

    Hence, the right to use the backpay certificate in settlement of taxes is given only to
    the applicant and not to any holder of any negotiable certificate to whom the law only
    gives the right to have it discounted by a Filipino citizen or corporation under certain
    limitations.

    Here appellee is not himself the applicant of the certificate. in question. He is merely
    an assignee thereof, Or a subsequent holder whose right is at most to have it
    discounted upon maturity—or to negotiate it in the meantime. A fortiori, it may be
    included that, not having the right to use said certificates to pay his taxes, appellee
    cannot compel appellants to accept them as he requests in the present petition for
    mandamus.

    You might also like