Engracia v. IAC

ENGRANCIO FRANCIA v.
IAC
#3
GR No. L-676649 Date: June 28, 1988
DOCTRINE
There can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government.
Francia’s argument that the government owed him P4,116.00, when a portion of his land was expropriated on
October 15, 1977.
FACTS
Engracio Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot and a two-story house built upon it situated at Barrio San
Isidro, now District of Sta. Clara, Pasay City, Metro Manila. The lot, with an area of about 328 square meters, is
described and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4739 (37795) of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City.
On October 15, 1977, a 125 square meter portion of Francia's property was expropriated by the Republic of the
Philippines for the sum of P4,116.00 representing the estimated amount equivalent to the assessed value of the
aforesaid portion.
Since 1963 up to 1977 inclusive, Francia failed to pay his real estate taxes. Thus, on December 5, 1977, his property
was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Pasay City pursuant to Section 73 of Presidential Decree No. 464
known as the Real Property Tax Code in order to satisfy a tax delinquency of P2,400.00. Ho Fernandez was the highest
bidder for the property.
Francia was not present during the auction sale since he was in Iligan City at that time helping his uncle ship bananas.
On March 3, 1979, Francia received a notice of hearing of LRC Case No. 1593-P "In re: Petition for Entry of New
Certificate of Title" filed by Ho Fernandez, seeking the cancellation of TCT No. 4739 (37795) and the issuance in his
name of a new certificate of title. Upon verification through his lawyer, Francia discovered that a Final Bill of Sale had
been issued in favor of Ho Fernandez by the City Treasurer on December 11, 1978. The auction sale and the final bill
of sale were both annotated at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) by the Register of Deeds.
On March 20, 1979, Francia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. He later amended his complaint on January 24,
1980.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the expropriation may compensate for the real estate taxes due
RULING: YES/NO
No. There can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government.
Francia’s argument that the government owed him P4,116.00, when a portion of his land was expropriated on
October 15, 1977.
Furthermore, The tax was due to the city government while the expropriation was effected by the national government.
Moreover, the amount of P4,116.00 paid by the national government for the 125 square meter portion of his lot was
TAX 1 | 3D 2021-2022
deposited with the Philippine National Bank long before the sale at public auction of his remaining property. Notice of
the deposit dated September 28, 1977 was received by the petitioner on September 30, 1977. The petitioner admitted
in his testimony that he knew about the P4,116.00 deposited with the bank but he did not withdraw it. It would have
been an easy matter to withdraw P2,400.00 from the deposit so that he could pay the tax obligation thus aborting the
sale at public auction.
According to Article 1278 of the Civil Code, there is legal compensation when obligation of persons, who in their
own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other are extinguished. The circumstances do not satisfy
provided by Article 1279:
Article 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:
(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the
other;
(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind,
and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;
(3) That the two debts be due;
(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;
(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and
communicated in due time to the debtor.
Given this, there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government.
TAX 1 | 3D 2021-2022

Engracia v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engracia v. IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engracia v. IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGRANCIO FRANCIA v.

Article 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:

(3) That the two debts be due;

(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;

You might also like