G.R. No. 211666 February 25, 2015
FACTS
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
represented by DPWH, filed a Complaint for expropriation against
respondent Arlene R. Soriano, the registered owner of a parcel of land. In its
Complaint, petitioner averred that pursuant to RA No. 8974, otherwise known as
"An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-Of-Way, Site or Location
for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for other Purposes,"
the property sought to be expropriated shall be used in implementing the construction
of the NLEX- Harbor Link Project (Segment 9) from NLEX to MacArthur Highway,
Valenzuela City. Consequently, the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of
Possession and a Writ of Expropriation. In another Order, the RTC appointed
members of the Board of Commissioners for the determination of just
compensation. According to the RTC, the records of the case reveal that
petitioner adduced evidence to show that the total amount deposited is just,
fair, and equitable. The RTC
considered respondent to have waived her right to adduce evidence and to object
to the evidence submitted by petitioner for her continued absence despite being
given several notices to do so. On November 15, 2013, the RTC rendered its
Decision. Petitioner now claims that contrary to the RTC’s instruction,
transfer taxes, in the nature of Capital Gains Tax and Documentary Stamp Tax,
necessary for the transfer of the subject property from the name of the
respondent to that of the petitioner are liabilities of respondent and not
petitioner.
ISSUE
Whether
or not the payment of the transfer taxes is the obligation of the respondent.
RULING
Anent petitioner’s
contention that it cannot be made to pay the value of the transfer taxes in the
nature of capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax, which are necessary for
the transfer of the subject property from the name of the respondent to that of
the petitioner, the same is partly meritorious. Pursuant to Sections 24(D) and
56(A)(3) of the NIRC, capital gains tax due on the sale of real property is a
liability for the account of the seller. Thus, it has been held that since
capital gains is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, not the buyer, who
generally would shoulder the tax. Accordingly, BIR Ruling No. 476-2013 constituted
the DPWH as a withholding agent to withhold the 6% final withholding tax in the
expropriation of real property for infrastructure projects. Therefore, the
capital gains tax remains a liability of the seller since it is a tax on the
seller's gain from the sale of the real estate.
As to the documentary
stamp tax, however, this Court finds inconsistent petitioner’s denial of
liability to the same. according
to the BIR, all the parties to a transaction are primarily liable for the
documentary stamp tax, as provided by Section 2 of BIR Revenue Regulations No.
9-2000. As a general rule, any of the parties to a transaction shall be liable
for the full amount of the documentary stamp tax due, unless they agree among
themselves on who shall be liable for the same. In this case, there is no
agreement as to the party liable. However, the
Citizen’s Charter, issued by petitioner DPWH itself, explicitly provides that
the documentary stamp tax, transfer tax, and registration fee due on the
transfer of the title of land in the name of the Republic shall be shouldered
by the implementing agency of the DPWH, while the capital gains tax shall be
paid by the affected property owner. Thus, while there is no specific agreement
between petitioner and respondent, petitioner's Citizen's Charter contains a
clear and unequivocal assumption of accountability for the documentary stamp
tax.
Comments
Post a Comment