8/9/2019 Mactan Cebu Airport vs Marcos

1/2

Makiling, Faye Maena B.Tax 1

MACTAN CEBU AIRPORT vs. MARCOS, G.R. No. 120082, September 11, 199

!ACTS"The instant case is a Petition for review under Rule 4 of the Rules of !ourt on

a "ure #uestion of law are the decision of $$ March 1%% of the Regional Trial !ourt&RT!' of !e(u !ity, Branch $), dis*issing the "etition for declaratory relief in !ivil!ase +o. !B-1%)), entitled /Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Cityof Cebu,0 and its order of 4 May 1%% denying the *otion to reconsider thedecision. Petitioner Mactan !e(u nternational 2ir"ort 2uthority &M!22' wascreated (y virtue of Re"u(lic 2ct +o. %3, *andated to /"rinci"ally undertake theecono*ical, ecient and e5ective control, *anage*ent and su"ervision of theMactan nternational 2ir"ort in the Province of !e(u and the 6ahug 2ir"ort in !e(u!ity.

7ince the ti*e of its creation, "etitioner M!22 en8oyed the "rivilege ofexe*"tion fro* "ay*ent of realty taxes in accordance with 7ection 14 of its!harter97ec. 14. Tax Exemptions. -- The 2uthority shall (e exe*"t fro* realty taxes i*"osed(y the +ational :overn*ent or any of its "olitical su(divisions, agencies andinstru*entalities.

;owever, on 3.>%.

Petitioner o(8ected on the ground of its exe*"tion as "rovided under itscharter. t was also asserted that it is an instru*entality of the govern*ent"erfor*ing govern*ental functions, citing 7ection 1== of the 6ocal :overn*ent!ode of 1%%1 which "uts li*itations on the taxing "owers of local govern*ent units.

Res"ondent !ity refused to cancel and set aside "etitionerAs realty taxaccount, insisting that the M!22 is a govern*ent-controlled cor"oration whose taxexe*"tion "rivilege has (een withdrawn (y virtue of 7ections 1%= and $=4 of the6ocal :overn*ent !ode that took e5ect on anuary 1, 1%%$.

ISSUE"s the "etitioner considered a govern*ent entityCagencies and

instru*entality to (e considered exe*"t fro* taxation under its charterD

#E$%"+

8/9/2019 Mactan Cebu Airport vs Marcos

2/2

Makiling, Faye Maena B.Tax 1

of the general "rovision on withdrawal of tax exe*"tion "rivileges in 7ection 1%= ofthe sa*e !ode and consistent with the 7tate "olicy to ensure autono*y to localgovern*ents and the o(8ective of the 6:! that they en8oy genuine and *eaningfullocal autono*y to ena(le the* to attain their fullest develo"*ent as self-reliantco**unities and *ake the* e5ective "artners in the attain*ent of national goals.