1

A. Cases Instruction: Each student is expected to digest these cases, to fully argue points and to explain them in class.

1. ESTATE TAX a. CIR v. CA and Pajonar, GR No. 123206, 22 March 2000 - Attorney's fees in order to be deductible from the gross estate must be essential to the collection of assets, payment of debts or the distribution of the property to the persons entitled to it. Administration expenses as are actually and necessarily incurred in the collection of the assets of the estate, payment of the debts, and distribution of the remainder among those entitled thereto. b. CIR v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-22734, September 15, 1967 - as an heir and as a holder-transferee of property belonging to the estate/taxpayer. As an heir he is individually answerable for the part of the tax proportionate to the share he received from the inheritance. His liability, however, cannot exceed the amount of his share. c. Lorenzo v. Posadas, G.R. No. 43082, June 18, 1937 - compensation of a trustee, earned, not in the administration of the estate, but in the management thereof for the benefit of the legatees or devises, does not come properly within the class or reason for exempting administration expenses. . d. Marcos II v. CA, G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997 - Yes! The Supreme Court ratiocinates - "Claims for taxes,

whether assessed before or after the death of the deceased, can be collected from the heirs even after the distribution of the properties of the decedent. They are exempted from the application of the statute of non-claims. The heirs shall be liable therefor, in proportion to their share in the inheritance. Thus the Government has two ways of collecting the taxes in question. One, by going after all the heirs and collecting from each one of them the amount of the tax proportionate to the inheritance received. Another remedy, pursuant to the lien created bySection 315 of the Tax Code upon all property and rights to property belong to the taxpayer for unpaid income tax, is by subjecting said property of the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the payment of the tax due the estate. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105,September 15, 1967.) From the foregoing, it is discernible that the approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a settlement tribunal over the deceased is not a mandatory requirement in the collection of estate taxes. It cannot therefore be argued that the Tax Bureau erred in proceeding with the levying and sale of the properties allegedly owned by the late President, on the ground that it was required to seek first the probate court's sanction. There is nothing in the Tax Code, and in the pertinent remedial laws that implies the necessity of the probate or estate settlement court's approval of the state's claim for estate taxes, before the same can be enforced and collected. "In the Philippine experience, the enforcement and collection of estate tax, is executive in character, as the legislature has seen it fit to ascribe this task to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Section 3 of the National Internal Revenue Code attests to this: "Sec.3. Powers and duties of the Bureau.-The powers and duties of the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall comprehend the assessment and collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, and the enforcement of all forfeitures, penalties, and fines connected therewith, including the execution of judgments in all cases decided in its favor by the Court of Tax Appeals and the ordinary courts. Said Bureau shall also give effect to and administer the supervisory and police power conferred to it by this Code or otherl aws." Thus,it was in Vera vs. Fernandez ]that the court recognized the liberal treatment of claims for taxes charged against the estate of the decedent. Such taxes, we said, were exempted from the application of the statute of non-claims, and this is

2
justified by the necessity of government funding,immortalized in the maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. Vectigalia nervi sunt rei publicae - taxes are the sinews of the state."

2. DONORS TAX a. Abello, et al. v. CIR, GR No. 120721, 23 February 2005 - POLITICAL CONTRIUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO DONORS TAX.

3. VALUE ADDED TAX a. ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Ermita G.R. No. 168056, 1 September 2005 CIR v. Acesite Hotel Corporation, 16 February 2007 - Services rendered to persons or entities whose exemption under special laws or international agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory effectively subjects the supply of such services to zero (0%) rate b. CIR v. American Rubber, 29 November 1966 - exemption from sales tax established in section 188 (b) of the Internal Revenue Tax Code in favor of sales of agricultural products, whether in their original form or not, sales tax is by law imposed directly, not on the thing sold, but on the act (sale) of the manufacturer, producer, or importer, who is exclusively made liable for its timely payment c. CIR v. John Gotamco and Sons, 27 February 1987 - direct taxes are those that are demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them; while indirect taxes are those that are demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, 28 July 2006 - The sale which was involuntary and made pursuant to the declared policy of Government for privatization could no longer be repeated or carried on with regularity. It should be emphasized that the normal VAT-registered activity of NDC is leasing personal property. Any sale, barter or exchange of goods or services not in the course of trade or business is not subject to VAT. d. CIR v. Seagate Technology (Phils.), GR No. 153866, 11 February 2005 - Special laws expressly grant preferential tax treatment to business establishments registered and operating within an ecozone, which by law is considered as a separate customs territory. e. Contex v. CIR, G.R. No. 151135, July 2, 2004 Fort Bonifacio Dev Corp. v. CIR, GR Nos. 158885 & 170680, Apr 2, 2009 - Sec. 100. Value-added tax on sale of goods or properties. (a) Rate and base of tax. xxx. (1) The term goods or properties shall mean all tangible and intangible objects which are capable of pecuniary estimation and shall include: (A) Real properties held primarily for sale to customers or held for lease in the ordinary course of trade or business; xxx. It is apparent that the transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT-registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the acquisition of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies. During that period of transition from non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax credit serves to alleviate the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer. At the very beginning, the VAT-registered taxpayer is obliged to remit a significant portion of the income it derived from its sales as output VAT. The transitional input tax credit mitigates this initial diminution of the taxpayers income by affording the opportunity to offset the losses incurred through the remittance of the output VAT at a stage when the person is yet unable to credit input VAT payments. f. Kapatiran v. Tan, G.R. No. L-81311, June 30, 1988 - Until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative powers "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found." g. Philippine Acetylene v. CIR, 17 August 1967 - We therefore hold that the tax imposed by section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code is a tax on the manufacturer or producer and not a tax on the purchaser except probably in a very remote and inconsequential sense Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994 - The publisher of a newspaper has no immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. He must

3
answer for libel. He may be punished for contempt of court. . . . Like others, he must pay equitable and non discriminatory taxes on his business. 4. TARIFF AND CUSTOMS DUTIES a. Mison v. Natividad, GR No. 82526, 11 September 1992 - The court a quo has no jurisdiction over the res subject of the warrant of seizure and detention. the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught Nestle Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134114. July 6, 2001 - . In order for the rule on solution indebiti to apply, it is an essential condition that petitioner must first show that its payment of the customs duties was in excess of what was required by the law at the time when the subject sixteen importations of milk and milk products were made. Unless shown otherwise, the disputable presumption of regularity of performance of duty lies in favor of the Collector of Customs. b. Provident Tree Farms v. Batario, GR No. 92285, 28 March 1994; - An order of a judge to impound, seize or forfeit must inevitably be based on his determination and declaration of the invalidity of the importation, hence, an usurpation of the prerogative and an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. Zuno v. Cabredo, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1779. April 30, 2003 - No, the RTC judge has NO jurisdiction to issue TRO over seizure and forfeiture proceedings The Collector of customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings of dutiable goods, and regular courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof or stifle and put it to naught. An appeal lies to the Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court of Tax Appeals. It may even reach this Court through an appropriate petition for review

5. LOCAL TAXATION a. Batangas Power Corporation v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, 28 April 2004 - Sec. 133 (g) of the LGC, which proscribes local government units (LGUs) from levying taxes on BOI-certified pioneer enterprises for a period of six years from the date of registration, applies specifically to taxes imposed by the local government, Executive Order No. 226, specifically Section 1, Article 39, Title III, is clearly misplaced as the six-year tax holiday provided therein which commences from the date of commercial operation refers to income taxes imposed by the national government on BOI-registered pioneer firms. Court recognized the removal of the blanket exclusion of government instrumentalities from local taxation as one of the most significant provisions of the 1991 LGC City Government of Quezon City v. Bayantel, G.R. No.162015, March 6, 2006 - Section 232 of the LGC which expressly provides that "a province or city or municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as land, building, machinery, and other improvement not hereinafter specifically exempted." Under this law, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter exempt certain realties from the taxing power of local government units. City of San Pablo, Laguna v. Reyes, 25 March 1999 - Section 137 Franchise Tax Notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, the province may impose a tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent 50% of one percent 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding calendar year based on the incoming receipts, or realized, within its territorial jurisdiction. xxx Ericson Telecommunications v. City of Pasig, GR No.176667, 22 Nov 2007 - SEC. 143. Tax on Business. - The municipality may impose taxes on the following businesses: (e) On contractors and other independent contractors, in accordance with the following schedule: With gross receipts for the preceding calendar year in the Amount of Tax Per Annum amount of: (Emphasis supplied) "Gross Sales or Receipts" include the total amount of money or its equivalent representing the contract price, compensation or service fee, including the amount charged or materials supplied with the services and the deposits or advance payments actually or constructively received during the taxable quarter for the services performed or to be performed for another person excluding discounts if determinable at the time of sales, sales return, excise tax, and valueadded tax (VAT "Constructive receipt" occurs when the money consideration or its equivalent is placed at the control of the person who rendered the service without restrictions by the payor. The following are examples of constructive receipts:

4
(1) deposit in banks which are made available to the seller of services without restrictions; (2) issuance by the debtor of a notice to offset any debt or obligation and acceptance thereof by the seller as payment for services rendered; and (3) transfer of the amounts retained by the payor to the account of the contractor. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 125948, Dec 29, 1998 - "common carrier." In BIR Ruling No. 069-83, it declared: "x x x since [petitioner] is a pipeline concessionaire that is engaged only in transporting petroleum products, it is considered a common carrier under Republic Act No. 387 x x x. Such being the case, it is not subject to withholding tax prescribed by Revenue Regulations No. 13-78, as amended." The legislative intent in excluding from the taxing power of the local government unit the imposition of business tax against common carriers is to prevent a duplication of the so-called "common carrier's tax." Petitioner is already paying three (3%) percent common carrier's tax on its gross sales/earnings under the NIRC. To tax petitioner again on its gross receipts in its transportation of petroleum business would defeat the purpose of the Local Government Code. LTO v. City of Butuan, 20 January 2000 - Under the Local Government Code, certain functions of the DOTC were transferred to the LGUs. It now have the power to regulate the operation of tricycles-for-hire and to grant franchises for the operation thereof. The devolution of the functions of the ase of accidents in national highways involving tricycles because it is in a better position DOTC, performed by the LTFRB, to the LGUs, is aimed at curbing the alarming incretion to address that serious concern better than the national government Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 11September 1996 - 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof had been granted, for reconsideration or otherwise, to a taxable person; (b) Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents appurtenants thereto, mosques nonprofits or religious cemeteries and all lands, building and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious charitable or educational purposes; (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and governmentowned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; (d) All real property owned by duly registered cooperatives as provided for under R.A. No. 6938; and; (e) Machinery and equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection. Except as provided herein, any exemptions from payment of real property tax previously granted to or presently enjoyed by, all persons whether natural or juridical, including all government owned or controlled corporations are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of his Code. Meralco v. Province of Laguna, 5 May 1999 - The LGC explicitly authorizes provincial governments, notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or other special law, x x x (to) impose a tax on businesses enjoying a franchise. It has effectively withdrawn under Section 193 thereof, tax exemptions or incentives theretofore enjoyed by certain entities. MIAA v. CA and Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006 GOVT INTRUMENTALITY NOT A GOCC NAPOCOR v. City of Cabanatuan, 9 April 2003 - "Sec. 193. Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges.- Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code." The power to tax is no longer vested exclusively on Congress; local legislative bodies are now given direct authority to levy taxes, fees and other charges. Although as a general rule, LGUs cannot impose taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, this rule now admits of an exception, i.e., when specific provisions of the LGC authorize the LGUs to impose taxes, fees or charges on the aforementioned entities. Nothing prevents Congress from decreeing that even instrumentalities or agencies of the government performing governmental functions may be subject to tax Palma Development Corporation v. Malangas, GR No. 152492, 16 Oct 2003 - Section 133. Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local Government Units. Unless otherwise provided herein, the exercise of the taxing powers of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays shall not extend to the levy of the following:

5
e) Taxes, fees and charges and other impositions upon goods carried into and out of, or passing through, the territorial jurisdictions of local government units in the guise of charges for wharfage, tolls for bridges or otherwise, or other taxes, fees or charges in any form whatsoever upon such goods or merchandise;" PBA v. CA, 8 August 2000 - The court rules that petitioner is liable to pay amusement tax to the national government, and not to the local government, in accordance with the rates prescribed by PD 1959. The laws on the matter are succinct and clear and need no elaborate disquisition. Section 13 of the Local Tax Code provides: "Sec. 13. Amusement tax on admission. -The province shall impose a tax on admission to be collected from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement xxx." The foregoing provision of law in point indicates that the province can only impose a tax on admission from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement. The authority to tax professional basketball games is not therein included, as the same is expressly embraced in PD 1959, which amended PD 1456 thus: Petron Corporation v. Tiangco, GR No. 158881, 16 April 2008 - Section 133(h) does not generally bar the imposition of business taxes on articles burdened by excise taxes under the NIRC, it specifically prohibits local government units from extending the levy of any kind of "taxes, fees or charges on petroleum products Philreca v. DILG, 10 June 2003 - A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. Moreover, to constitute impairment, the law must affect a change in the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with respect to non-parties Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, 27 November 1998 - A province may not ordinarily impose taxes on stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources, as the same are already taxed under the National Internal Revenue Code. As to stones, sand, gravel, earth and other quarry resources extracted from private land, however, it may not do so, because of the limitation provided by the LGC. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 154993, 25 Oct 2005 - The Condominium Act permits the creation of a condominium corporation, which is specially formed for holding title to the common area, in which the holders of separate interests shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units.

6. REAL PROPERTY TAXATION MIAA v. Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006; - Sec. 243(a) of the LGC exempts from real estate tax any real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines. This exemption should be read in relation with Sec. 133(o) of the LGC, which provides that the exercise of the taxing powers of local governments shall not extend to the levy of taxes, fees or charges of any kind on the National Government, its agencies and instrumentalities. These provisions recognize the basic principle that local governments cannot tax the national government, which historically merely delegated to local governments the power to tax. MIAA v. Pasay GR No. 163072, April 2, 2009 - the exercise of the taxing power of local government units is subject to the limitations enumerated in Section 133 of the Local Government Code. Under Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code, local government units have no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like the MIAA. Hence, MIAA is not liable to pay real property tax for the NAIA Pasay properties Lung Center of the Philippines v. QC, 29 June 2004 - The property tax exemption under Sec. 28(3), Art. Vi of the property taxes only. Thisprovision was implanted by Sec.243 (b) of RA 7160.which provides that in order to beentitled to the exemption, the lung center must be able to prove that: it is a charitableinstitution and; its real properties are actually, directly and exclusively used for charitablepurpose. Accordingly, the portions occupied by the hospital used for its patients are exempt from real property taxes while those leased to private entities are not exempt from such taxes LRTA v. CBAA, 12 October 2000 - Sec. 8. Equipment, Machineries, Spare Parts and Other Accessories and Materials. The importation of equipment, machineries, spare parts, accessories and other materials, including supplies and services, used directly in the operations of the Light Rails Transit System, not obtainable locally on favorable terms, out of any funds of the authority including, as stated in Section 7 above, proceeds from foreign loans credits or indebtedness, shall likewise be exempted from all direct and indirect taxes,

6
customs duties, fees, imposts, tariff duties, compensating taxes, wharfage fees and other charges and restrictions, the provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding." Even granting that the national government indeed owns the carriageways and terminal stations, the exemption would not apply because their beneficial use has been granted to petitioner, a taxable entity. Testate Estate of Concordia Lim v. Manila, 21 February 2000 Lopez v. City of Manila, 19 February 1999 - exceptional cases are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal, (2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the claim involved is small; (6) when irreparable damage will be suffered, (7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, (8) when strong public interest is involved; (9) when the subject of controversy is private land; and (10) in quo-warranto proceeding. Callanta v. Ombudsman, 30 January 1998 - the issuance of a notice of assessment by the local assessor shall be his last action on a particular assessment. On the side of the property owner, it is this last action which gives him [the] right to appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. The above procedure also, does not grant the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor .

7. REMEDIES IN LOCAL TAXATION Jardine Davies v. Judge Aliposa, 27 February 2003 - failure of a taxpayer to interpose the requisite appeal to the Secretary of Justice is fatal to its complaint for a refund. In the instant case, it is our view that the failure of petitioners to appeal to the Secretary of Justice within 30 days as required by Sec. 187 of R.A. 7160 is fatal to their cause. Meralco v. Barlis, 2 February 2002 Talusan v. Tayag, G.R. No. 133698, 4 April 2001 - the notice sent by registered mail adequately protected the rights of the taxpayer, who was the registered owner of the condominium unit. For purposes of the real property tax, the registered owner of the property is deemed the taxpayer. Hence, only the registered owner is entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and other proceedings relative to the tax sale. Drilon v. Lim, 4 August 1994 any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal Sec. 187Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings.The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 1999 - taxpayer who questions the validity or legality of a tax ordinance must file his appeal to the Secretary of Justice, within 30 days from effectivity thereof. In case the Secretary of Justice decides the appeal, a period of 30 days is allowed for an aggrieved party to go to court. But if the Secretary does not act thereon, after the lapse of 60 days, a party could already proceed to court to seek relief Hagonoy M.V. Assoc. v. Hagonoy, Bul., G.R. No. 137621. Feb 6, 2002 - The law requires that an appeal of a tax ordinance or revenue measure should be made to the Secretary of Justice within thirty (30) days from effectivity of the ordinance and even during its pendency, the effectivity of the assailed ordinance shall not be suspended. Ty v. Trampe, 1 December 1995 - as a rule, administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort to Judicial action can prosper, there is a well-settled exception in cases where the controversy does not involve questions of fact but only of law. In the present case, the parties, even during the proceedings in the lower court on 11 April 1994, already agreed "that the issues in the petition are legal," and thus, no evidence was presented in said court.. In laying down the powers of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, R.A. 7160 provides in Sec. 229 (b)that "(t)he proceedings of the Board shall be conducted solely for the purpose of ascertaining the facts x xx". It follows that appeals to this Board may be fruitful only where questions of fact are involved. Again, the protest contemplated under Sec. 252 of R.A. 7160 is needed where there is a question as to the reasonableness of the amount assessed. Hence, if a taxpayer disputes the reasonableness of an increase in a real estate tax assessment, he is required to "first pay the tax" under protest. Otherwise, the city or municipal treasurer will not act on his protest

7
Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan, G.R. No. 146382, Aug 7, 2003 - Section 226 of RA 7160, the remedy of appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of property Olivares v. Marquez, G.R. No. 155591, September 22, 2004 - Administrative remedies should be availed of sfirst by the petitioners in order to give the administrative body the opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly and to prevent unnecessary and premature resorts to courts. Cagayan Robina v. Court of Appeals, 12 October 2000 -

Section 34 of PD 464 states that where the

owner or administrator of a property or an assessor is not satisfied with the decision of the LBAA, he may, within thirty days from receipt of the decision, appeal to the CBAA
Meralco v. Barlis, 18 May 2001; 2 February 2002 - Unpaid taxes are attached to the property and are chargeable against the person who had actual or beneficial use and possession LGU has three (3) concurrent and simultaneous remedies to enforce the Real Property Tax Code provisions, namely: (a) distraint of personal property, (b) sale of delinquent real property, and (c) collection of real property tax through ordinary court action. LGU is not limited to the enforcement of tax lien but is also authorized to proceed against the personal properties of the defaulting taxpayer. Bank deposits are not among those exceptions. Aquino v. QC, GR No. 137534, 3 August 2006; - Section 65's notice of delinquency should be read in line with section 67's tatement that the different tax remedies do not require formal demand for the payment but may be substituted by the notice of delinquency. Also, the local government concerned need not post and publish the notice of delinquency, it being sufficient that personal service was done NHA v. Iloilo City, GR No. 172267, 20 August 2008 - NHA is a tax-exempt entity whose exemption covers real property taxes and so its property should not even be subjected to any delinquency sale. Hence, the bond mandated in Section 267, should not be required of NHA before it can bring suit assailing the validity of the auction sale.NHA is not liable for real property taxes nor for the bond required in Section 267. It follows that any public auction sale involving property owned by NHA would be null and void and any suit filed by the latter questioning such sale should not be dismissed for failure to pay the bond