Systems plus computer colleges vs. Local government of Caloocan.

BY C Y
Systems plus computer colleges vs. Local government of Caloocan.

Facts.

1. The petitioner is a none-stock and a none-profit educational institution and so enjoying a property tax exemption from the local government on its buildings but not on a parcel of land which petitioner is renting from its syster company consolidated assembly and pair management. 2. On January 28 1998, petitioner requested respondent Local government of Caloocan through the city assessor and administrator Manahan to extent tax exemption to the parcel of land claiming that it is being used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes pursuant to Article VI. Section 28 of the 1987 constitution which was denied by the respondent on the ground that the parcel of land was owned by the consolidated assembly which derived income therefrom from rental and other taxes assumed by the petitioner so the land therefore is not being used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes. 3. OnFebuary 15 1999, the petitioner and the consolidated assembly and pair management entered in to an agreement where consolidated and pair management is donating the land to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner wrote the city assessor about the new agreement and seeking a reconsideration on respondents earlier denial for the application for tax exemption but was denied again by the respondent reasoning that: a. The consolidated and pair management being the syster company of the petitioner donated the land to it to avoid payment of taxes. b. The grant of tax exemption rest upon a theory that exemption benefits a body of people and not to lessen the burden of individual or corporation. c. There is no showing that the real property donated to the petitioner is being used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes. 5. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional trial court of Caloocan who dismiss it for being premature so petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the supreme court imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC is dismissing the

case. Issue. Whether or not, the RTC is correct in dismissing the case filed by the petitioner on the ground of being premature. According to the supreme court, the RTC was correct when it dismissed the case for being premature because the petitioner fail to exhaust all administrative remedies. The decision of the city assessor regarding the taxability of the subject real property should be appealed to the local board of assessment appeals. The petitioner cannot bypass the authority of the conserned administrative agency and directly seek redress to the court even on the pretext of raising a supposedly pure question of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy.

So the petition for certiorari was denied.