The News Today Online

City files 'final demand' to PPA

By Maricar M. Calubiran

The city government of Iloilo has filed a final demand for the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to settle its real property tax dues amounting to P46,173,471.40.

Mayor Jerry Treñas said the final demand drafted by the City Legal Office was already sent to the PPA head office thru General Manager Atty. Oscar Sevilla. The demand letter which was dated October 28, 2005 was also furnished to the Office of the President.

The final demand was an offshoot of the talks made between the chief executive and Atty. Sevilla. The PPA thru Sevilla will pay their tax dues provided the city will separate the billing on real property taxes on ports and warehouses operated by the PPA.

The city mayor said their final demand to collect full taxes to the PPA was based on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in 2003. 'The city has been negotiating with the PPA for so long and we want to resolve this issue the soonest,' Treñas said.

In the demand letter, City Legal Officer Atty. Edgar Gil cited that 'in the case at bar, no proof was adduced to establish that the port was constructed by the State. Petitioner cannot have us automatically conclude that its port qualified as 'property of public dominion.'

'It would be unfair to respondent, which would be deprived of its opportunity to present evidence to disprove the factual basis of the new theory. It is thus clear that the Lianga exception cannot apply in this case.'

The city legal officer stressed that 'as correctly pointed out by the respondent, we cannot ignore the fact that petitioner's new position runs contrary to its own admission in the pleadings filed in the trial court. Under paragraph 3 of the respondents complaint quoted hereunder, the fact of petitioner's ownership of the property was specified. Defendant is likewise the declared owner and registered owner of a warehouse standing on Lot No. 1065 situated at Brgy. Concepcion, City Proper under Tax Declaration No. 56325.

'In its paragraph, referring to the above cited complaint, petitioner stated 'Paragraph 3 is admitted.' Notably, this admission was never questioned nor put at issue during trial,' stressed Gil.