STATELAND, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION STATELAND, INC., Petitioner) CTA Case No . 8633 -versus- Members: Castaneda, Jr., Chairperson Casanova, and Cotangco-Manalastas, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, JUL 1 l 2016 / Respondent. r ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ~ - - - - - - ){ }o:(o ~ . ... . DECISION COTANGCO - MANALASTAS , ~ : This is a Petition for Review filed on April 11, 2013 by Stateland, Inc. to seek the refund or the issuance of ta){ credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of P13,654, 157.00, allegedly representing its e){cess creditable withholding ta){ (CWT) for ta){able year 2010.1 FACTS Petitioner Stateland, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and e){isting under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office address at 3 rd Floor, State Centre Bldg., 333 Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. It is a registered ta){payer with Revenue District Office (RDO) No. 30 of Revenue Region No. 6 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue v (BIR), with Ta){payer Identification Number (TIN) 000-341-850- 000 .2 1 Petition for Rev iew, docket, vol. I, pp . 15-1 6. 2 Pars. 7 and 9, Joint Stipulation of Facts, docket, vol. II , p. 1057 .

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 2 of20 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the BIR, who has the power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws or portions thereof administered by the BIR. Respondent holds office at the 5th Floor, BIR National Office Building, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of developing real properties into subdivisions, and building houses on subdivision lots, or constructing residential or commercial units, townhouses and other similar units and offering these for sale. As a real estate developer, petitioner's property sales transactions are subject to the CWT ranging from 1 Y2�/o to 5�/o of gross selling price, depending on the amount per sales contract, which is classified either as cash sale, deferred payment plan or installment payment plan.3 For taxable year ended December 31, 20 10, petitioner had a total accumulated CWT amounting to P64,887,625.00 and an income tax due amounting only to P1,643,989.00.4 On August 5, 2011, petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund through a letter dated August 4, 20 11, requesting the refund of the amount of P13,654, 157.00, allegedly representing the amount of CWT excessively withheld for 2010.s Due to respondent's inaction on petitioner's refund claim, petitioner filed the instant Petition for RevieWS before this Court on April 11, 2013. Respondent belatedly7 filed her Answers on July 15, 2013, and interposed special and affirmative defenses, alleging, among others, that petitioner committed a fatal error when it failed to submit the supporting documents necessary V to substantiate its administrative claim for tax refund as prescribed under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98 and 3 Pars. 8 and 11, Joint Stipulation of Facts, docket, vol. II, p. 1057. 4 Pars. 12 and 13, Joint Stipulation ofFacts, docket, vol. II, p. 1057. 5 Par. 14, Joint Stipulation of Facts, docket, vol. II, p. 1057. 6 Docket, vol. I, pp. 6-17. 7 Court Resolution dated August 7, 2013, docket, vol. II, pp. 967-968. 8 Docket, vol. II, pp. 938-948.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 3 of20 Revenue Regulations No. 2-2006, that such failure rendered petitioner as to have not thoroughly applied the administrative remedy which was available to it, and that petitioner's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies renders the Court without jurisdiction over this particular claim. Thereafter, petitioner filed its Reply to Answer9 on August 2, 2013. The case was set for Pre-Trial Conference1o on September 12, 2013 and the parties were ordered to submit their respective Pre-Trial Briefs at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial. The Pre-Trial Brief (For the Petitioner)11 was filed on September 6, 2013; while respondent's Pre-Trial Brief12 was filed on September 9, 2013. The parties belatedly13 filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts14 on October 18, 2013 and was approved by the Court upon issuance of the Pre-Trial Order15 on October 24, 2013. Petitioner presented the following witnesses: Mr. Bienvenido S. Uy16 - petitioner's Senior Vice President for External Affairs; and Atty. Rosario S. Bernaldo17, the Court- commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) for the case. Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence18 on June 13, v """"21PPPP04----11711174"434-''901A16"4"oP""-,fA-''f"8"e"P""'rP-Pi1-nt-"1o51gP304-"9E601P7"x24-",h"31'a'i15b"n1""Pid"'tP-s'1-""13""PP4PP9--0-1-811535"4"8"0''14'6"5""P-"P-A-PAt-1"o2-".31"' 9"4' P90"""-4PP8'"--831'"6"P4""'1-P'1"6-3P""19-P'449-0"8-"5'A8P""7"-'P1"' -4'""51PP""7P--'11"-"448'P018-"0486P""""-'''' 9 Docket, vol. II, pp. 953-962. 10 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference, docket, vol. n, p. 969. 11 Docket, vol. II, pp. 973-983. 12 Docket, vol. II, pp. 1012-1015. 13 Court Resolution dated October 17, 2013, docket, vol. II, p. I 055. 14 Docket, vol. II, pp. 1056-1060. 15 Docket, vol. II, pp. 1061-1063. 16 Exhibit "P-1506", docket, vol. III, pp. 1202-1221. 17 Exhibits "P-1399" and "P-1417", docket, vol. IV, pp. 2273-2302 and 2309-2313, respectively. 18 Docket, vol. IV, pp. 2315-2323.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 4 of20 In the Resolution19 dated August 1, 2014, the Court admitted petitioner's Exhibits "P-1 ", "P-5", "P-8" to "P-311", "P- "d5111Pe8345-n49007i"965"e"""'dt''' .o""a"PPnP-"-d8-P118-4"4871P08"4-0'61"""5"'''P0""6-P"1P-P-A3-1-1948"4918w0-48A1-h"A""'i l''"e"'""PEPP"-Px--111-h3144i941b06152i"t-5"s'A'""'"""PP"'P-P-2-a1-1"n134' d490"17P3"6"-"P'3"'-"' 1""'"P4PP"-1-P-1171-34-44A90"18'4"7""""'Pw'' -e"""6PPPr"e---' Accordingly, petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Resolution promulgated on 1 August 2014)20, through registered mail on August 11, 2014 and received by the Court on August 14, 20 14, praying for the admission of the denied exhibits. In a Resolution21 dated December 15, 2014, the Court admitted petitioner's Exhibits E"Px-h1i3b9i9ts-A"P" -' 2""'P"-P1-431"5' -"AP"-4' " 'a"nPd-6""'P"-P1-471"7' -aAn"d' but still denied "P-887" . Petitioner again filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration22 , through registered mail on December 23, 2014 and received by the Court on January 7, 2015, praying for the admission of the denied exhibits. Finally, the Court admitted petitioner's Exh ibit s "P-2" "P-3" ' "1P8-,4"2' "P-6" and "P- 887'' in a Resolution23 dat e d Feb' ruary 015, 'but still denied Exhibit "P-7". On the other hand, respondent manifested in open court24 that she will not present any witness. As a result, respondent was given a period of thirty (30) days from February 18, 2015 while petitioner was given a period of twenty (20) days from notice to file their respective memoranda. Petitioner filed a Tender of Excluded Evidence25 through registered mail on April 29, 2015 and received by the Court on V May 4, 2015. The same was noted by the Court in a Resolution26 dated July 23, 2015. 19 Docket, vol. IV, pp. 2522-2523. 20 Docket, vol. IV, pp. 2527-2532. 21 Docket, vol. V, pp. 2770-2772. 22 Docket, vol. V, pp. 2776-2781. 23 Docket, vol. V, pp. 2879-2881. 24 Minutes ofthe February 18,2015 Hearing, docket, vol. V, p. 2882. 25 Docket, vol. V, pp. 2890-2893. 26 Docket, vol. V., pp. 2986-2987.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 5 of20 The Court declared the case submitted for decision on July 29, 201527, considering the filing of the Memorandum for the Petitioner28 on May 8, 2015 and respondent's failure to file her Memorandum as per Records Verification Report29 dated July 23, 2015. ISSUE The main issue in this case is whether petitioner is entitled to its claim for refund or issuance of a TCC of its unutilized or excess payment of CWT for the taxable year ending December 31, 2010. DISCUSSION /RULING Petitioner anchors its claim for refund on Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, which states: "SEC. 76. Final Adjustment Return.- Every corporation liable to tax under Section 27 shall file a final adjustment return covering the total taxable income for the preceding calendar or fiscal year. If the sum of the quarterly tax payments made during the said taxable year is not equal to the total tax due on the entire taxable income of that year, the corporation shall either: (A) Pay the balance of tax still due; or (B) Carry-over the excess credit; or (C) Be credited or refunded with the excess amount paid, as the case may be. In case the corporation is entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid, the excess amount shown on its final adjustment return may be carried over and credited against the estimated quarterly income tax liabilities for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years. Once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the r succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of tax 27 Court Resolution dated July 29,2015, docket, vol. V, p. 2989. 28 Docket, vol. V, pp. 2906-2951. 29 Docket, vol. V, p. 2984.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 6 of20 credit certificate shall be allowed therefor." (Emphasis supplied) Based on the afore-quoted provision, a corporation entitled to a tax credit or refund of the excess estimated quarterly income taxes paid has two options: (1) to carry over the excess credit or (2) to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or to claim a cash refund. If the option to carry over the excess credit is exercised, the same shall be irrevocable for that taxable period.3o In exercising its option, the corporation must signify in its annual corporate adjustment return (by marking the option box provided in the BIR form) its intention either to carry over the excess credit or to claim a refund.31 The two options are alternative and not cumulative in nature, that is, the choice of one precludes the other.32 A perusal of petitioner's Annual Income Tax Return33 (ITR) for taxable year 2010 shows that petitioner had income tax credits in the total amount of P64,887,625.0034, consisting of the following: Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT Pl0,062,599.0036 p 51,233,468.0035 Creditable Taxes Withheld for the First Three Quarters 3,591 ,558.oo37 Creditable Taxes Withheld for the Fourth Quarter 13,654,157.00 Total Tax Credits P64,88 7,625.00 Petitioner claims that its 20 10 income tax due amounting to P1,643,988.5038 was paid using a portion of its prior year's excess credits of PSI ,233,468.00, thus, leaving the prior year's excess credits in the amount of P49,589,479.50 (P51,233,468.00 less Pl,643,988.50) and creditable taxes withheld during the year 2010 in the amount of V Pl3,654,157.00 totaling to P63,243,636.5039 unutilized as of December 31, 2010, as shown below: 30 Systra Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, G.R. No. 176290, September 21, 2007. 31 Ibid. 32 Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team (Phils.) Energy Corporation (formerly Mirant (Phils.) Energy Corporation), G.R. No. 188016, January 14,2015. 33 Exhibit "P-5", docket, vol. V, pp. 2693-2695. 34 Ibid., Line 30H. 35 Ibid., Line 30A. 36 Ibid., Lines 30C. 37 Ibid., Lines 30D. 38 Ibid., Line 29. 39 Ibid., Line 33.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 7 of20 Prior Year's Excess Credits other than MCIT p 51,233,468.00 Less: Tax Due 1,643,988.50 Balance of Prior Year's Excess Tax Credits Add: Creditable Taxes Withheld during the year 2010 p 49,589,479.50 Excess Tax Credits as of December 31, 2010 13,654,157.00 1"63,243,636.50 Records do not clearly show that petitioner marked the option "To be refunded"40 in its 2010 Annual ITR. However, petitioner filed a letter41 with Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares on April 15, 2011, signifying its intention to be refunded of or issued a TCC for the creditable taxes withheld for the four quarters of 2010 amounting to P13,654, 157.00 and "the balance of P49,598,479.00, which represents prior years excess credits but not fully utilized, shall continue to be carried over thru succeeding years/ quarters." In the said letter, petitioner explained that it is submitting the letter as an attachment to its 2010 annual ITR inasmuch as the EFPS cannot accommodate the filing of ITR showing these intentions and avert any misunderstanding that may result from the EFPS filing. Since only the prior year's excess credits of P49,589,479.00 were carried over to the subsequent first quarter42 of 20 11, the excess creditable tax withheld for 20 10 in the amount of P13,654,157.00 is refundable pursuant to Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provided that the taxpayer also satisfies the following requirements: 1. The claim for refund was filed within the two-year prescriptive period prescribed under Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended; 2. The fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee, showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom; and v 3. The income upon which the taxes were withheld was included in the return of the recipient.43 40 Ibid., Line 33; the copy of the 2010 Annual ITR on record shows a faint white spot inside the circle for the option "To be refunded". 41 Exhibit "P-1398", docket, vol. I, p. 29. 42 Exhibit "P-6", Line 31A, docket, vol. V, p. 2702. 43 United International Pictures AB vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168331, October 11, 2012, Citibank N.A. vs. Court ofAppeals, et al., G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997 and Section 2.58.3, Revenue Regulations No. 2-98, as amended.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 8 of20 As regards the first requisite, the pertinent provisions of Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, are as follows: "SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes. - The Commissioner may - XXX XXX XXX (C) Credit or refund taxes erroneously or illegally received or penalties imposed without authority, refund the value of internal revenue stamps when they are returned in good condition by the purchaser, and, in his discretion, redeem or change unused stamps that have been rendered unfit for use and refund their value upon proof of destruction. No credit or refund of taxes or penalties shall be allowed unless the taxpayer files in writing with the Commissioner a claim for credit or refund within two (2) years after the payment of the tax or penalty: Provided, however, that a return filed showing an overpayment shall be considered as a written claim for credit or refund." "SEC. 229. Recovery of Tax Erroneously or fllegally Collected. -No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessively or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be filed after the expiration of two (2) years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously paid." (Emphasis supplied) It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the reckoning v of the two-year prescriptive period for the filing of a claim for refund or tax credit of excess income tax paid/withheld, both in the administrative and judicial levels, commences from the

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 9 of20 date of filing of the final adjustment return.44 It is only when the final adjustment return covering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer would know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures. 45 In the instant case, petitioner filed its Annual ITR for taxable year 2010 on April 13, 201146. Counting therefrom, petitioner had until April 13, 2013 within which to file its claim for refund or issuance of tax credit certificate, both in the administrative and judicial levels. Therefore, petitioner's administrative claim for refund filed on August 5, 201147 and the Petition for Review filed on April 11, 20 13 were both filed well within the two-year prescriptive period. To comply with the second requisite, petitioner presented various Certificates of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307)48, Withholding Tax Remittance Returns (BIR Form No. 1606)49, and Certificates Authorizing Registrationso for the year 20 10; which were examined by the Court- commissioned Independent CPA. In her Report dated March 14, 201451, the CWT certificates received by petitioner were grouped into the following categories: CWT CATEGORY AMOUNT REFERENCE Cash Basis p 7,693,130.46 Exhibits "P-8" to P-105" Fully Settled Accounts in 2010 Exhibits "P-1 06" to "P-1 76" Last Collection happened in 20 10 2,933,235.02 Exhibits "P-177" to "P-257" Corporate Buyers 2,160,852.69 Exhibits "P-258" to "P-295" Home Development Mutual Fund Exhibits "P-296" to "P-307" (HMDF) Accounts 292,550.00 Installment Sales Of Prior Year, 266,518.10 Fully Settled In Year 2011 Bank Financing Accounts 148,660.71 Exhibits "P-308" to "P-309" TOTAL *1'0.02 roundmg off d1fference 159,210.00 Exhibits "P-31 0" to "P-311" P13,654, 157.00* The Independent CPA cited Section 2.57.2 of Revenue V Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, as amended by RR No. 17-2003, as her legal basis for the said groupings, to wit: 44 ACCRA Investments Corporation vs. The Honorable Court ofAppeals, eta!., G.R. No. 96322, December 20, 1991. 45 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales, Inc. and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 83736, January 15, 1992. 46 Exhibit "P-5", docket, vol. V, pp. 2693-2695. 47 Exhibit "P-1", docket, vol. III, pp. 1222-1223. 48 Exhibits "P-8" to "P-311 ". 49 Exhibits "P-584" to "P-618", "P-620" to "P-634", "P-636" to "P-715", "P-717" to "P-720", "P-722" to "P-777", "P-779" to "P-793", "P-796" to "P-803", "P-805" to "P-828", and "P-830" to "P-886". 50 Exhibits "P-619", "P-635", "P-716", "P-721", "P-778", "P-794", "P-795", "P-804", and "P-829". 51 Exhibits "P-1414" to "P-1416", docket, vol. IV, pp. 2533-2646.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 10 of20 "(J) Gross selling price or total amount of consideration or its equivalent paid to the sellerI owner for the sale, exchange, or transfer of real property classified as ordinary asset. - . . . XXX XXX XXX If the buyer is an individual not engaged m trade or business, the following rules shall apply: (i) If the sale is a sale of property on the installment plan (i.e., payments in the year of sale do not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the selling price), no withholding is required to be made on the periodic installment payments. In such a case, the applicable rate of tax based on the gross selling price or fair market value of the property at the time of the execution of the contract to sell, whichever is higher, shall be withheld on the last installment or installments immediately prior to such last installment, if the last installment is not sufficient to cover the tax due, to be paid to the seller until the tax is fully paid. (ii) If, on the other hand, the sale is on a "cash basis" or is a "deferred-payment sale not on the installment plan" (that is, payments in the year of sale exceed 25% of the selling price), the buyer shall withhold the tax based on the gross selling price or fair market value of the property, whichever is higher, on the first installment. However, if the buyer is engaged in trade or business, whether a corporation or otherwise, these rules shall apply: (i) If the sale is a sale of property on the installment plan [i.e., payments in the year of sale do not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the selling price], the tax shall be deducted and withheld by the buyer from every installment which tax shall be based on the ratio of actual collection of the consideration against the agreed consideration appearing in the Contract to Sell applied to the gross selling price or fair market value of the property at the time of the execution of the Contract to Sell, whichever is higher. XXX XXX XXX (ii) If, on the other hand, the sale is on a "cash basis" or is a "deferred-payment sale not on the installment plan" (that is, payments in the year of sale exceed 25% of the selling price), the buyer shall withhold the tax based on the gross selling V price or fair market value of the property, whichever is higher, on the first installment." 52 52 Docket, vol. IV, pp. 2471-2472.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 11 of20 The foregoing creditable withholding taxes of P13,654,157.00 are presented in detail below: Name of Buyer Tax Base I Amount Exhibits In Philippine Pesos of Tax A. SALES UNDER CASH BASIS Withheld BIR FORM 2307 BIR BIR FORM FORM SPS. RODRIGO, JR. & MERCEDES 1,816,126.00 54,483.78 P-8 1606 2313 1 USON 1,423,936.00 42,718.08 P-9 2 SHEENA CATHERINE RECTO 24,852.00 P-10 P-584 P-619 3 GABRIEL MARCUS EISMA 828,400.00 23,712.00 P-11 P-585 4 VIANNE BEATRICE EISMA 790,400.00 46,819.02 P-12 P-586 5 TITA CUNANAN 1,560,634.00 191,274.15 P-13 P-587 6 SPS. JOEL & EVELYN CORTEZ 3,825,483.04 30,381.00 P-14 P-588 7 SPS. ALEJANDRO & LOIDA DAIRO 1,012,700.00 P-589 122,990.00 P-15 P-590 SPS. ALBERT & CRUNCHIE 2,459,800.00 199,602.23 P-16 8 ABUAN 3,992,044.64 328,918.66 P-17 P-591 9 ANDRES & IMELDA BONIFACIO 6,578,373.21 P-18 P-592 10 SPS. ESTRELLA & ARNEL BERNAL 26,801.85 P-593 11 GENE CRISSEL PULIDO 893,395.00 P-19 P-594 21,705.60 SPS. WILFREDO & MARITES 723,520.00 P-20 P-595 12 CANO 106,859.50 2,137,190.00 P-21 P-596 LYNDON HILARION & RACHEL 114,760.00 13 BERNABE 2,295,200.00 P-22 P-597 222,767.86 SPS. CRISANTA & EMERITO 4,455,357.14 P-23 P-598 14 REYES 26,940.00 898,000.00 P-24 P-599 SPS. APOLINARIO & JOCELYN 101,465.00 15 LAQUI 2,029,300.00 P-25 P-600 108,086.25 SPS. DEXTER &/OR OLGA & 2,161,725.00 P-26 P-601 16 DENNIS APOLONIO 45,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,840,136.98 P-602 SPS. JOHN RAVI & MONALISSA 41,381,584.03 17 HAYAG P-603 P-604 SPS. BERNARDO & MARIA P-605 18 CRISTINA ZUNIGA P-606 SPS. JOEL & GHINGER ANN P-607 19 MARGATE P-608 1ST QUARTER P-609 SPS. RONALDO & ANNA LIZA 2,721,428.57 136,071.43 P-27 P-610 20 LACUNA 1,162,040.00 34,861.20 P-28 P-611 21 NORA BUENO 1,628,151.00 48,844.53 P-29 P-612 22 GAUDINCIA SPITZ 1,232,917.00 36,987.51 P-30 P-613 23 SHEENA MARIE LUZ 896,000.00 26,880.00 P-31 P-614 SPS. ELMER & ANITA P-615 24 PENAVERDE 2,414,400.00 120,720.00 P-32 2,760,089.29 138,004.46 P-33 P-616 SPS. ROWENA & DEMETRIO P-617 25 GABUCAY, JR. 1,448,000.00 43,440.00 P-34 P-618 26 DELIA DACUMA 3,288,633.04 164,431.65 P-35 1,496,891.00 P-36 P-620 SPS. ARNEL & MARIPAZ 3,515,625.00 44,906.73 P-37 P-621 27 MATILLANO 175,781.25 28 NORMA CANCHELA 2,204,655.00 P-38 P-622 29 SEBASTIAN RIOCASA, JR. 686,800.00 110,232.75 P-39 P-623 30 MARY GRACE KREMER 20,604.00 P-624 3,034,732.14 P-40 SPS. MATEO RANDOLPH 1,198,500.00 151,736.61 P-41 P-625 31 GONZALES 2,473,800.00 35,955.00 P-42 P-626 32 MAXIMO MIRANDA, JR. 2,610,982.14 123,690.00 P-43 1,698,000.00 130,549.11 P-44 SPS. JOSEFINA & ARSENIO 2,359,096.00 50,940.00 P-45 33 VILLANUEVA, JR. 38,830,740.18 117,954.80 34 SPS. JESUS & BRENDA PADUGAR P-46 35 GILBERT BALTAZAR 873,130.00 1,712,591.03 P-47 36 SPS. MOSES & VILMA LEUTERIO 2,499,800.00 P-48 37 HAZELANNEPANGHULAN 2,474,800.00 26,193.90 38 ROSALYN CEREBO 124,990.00 P-49 3,325,075.89 123,740.00 P-50 2ND QUARTER 760,000.00 SHARON AREVALO & DANIELA B. 166,253.79 39 NAVARRO & DENICE M. NAVARRO 22,800.00 40 JENNY CLAIRE ACPAL 41 SPS. ROGER & JUDITHA ELLAR SPS. RODRIGO & EVANGELINE 42 CAMARINO 43 SPS. EDGARDO & MARIBEL

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 12 of20 BERNABE 1,500,000.00 45,000.00 P-51 P-627 P-635 SPS. ROSALINA & RENATO 2,449,800.00 122,490.00 P-52 P-628 44 GALICIA 1,489,512.00 P-53 P-629 45 MARIE ANN OCAMPO 1,062,421.00 44,685.36 P-54 P-630 46 SPS. GREG & RAQUIEL DOLIENTE 31,872.63 P-55 P-631 47 LILIA OLAYBAR 713,835.00 21,415.05 P-56 P-632 48 SPS. NICANOR & JUDITH TOGA 2,359,096.00 117,954.80 P-57 P-633 49 MARIELLA SALINDA 2,186,616.00 109,330.80 P-58 P-634 50 MAURICIA BALUYOT 1,299,615.00 38,988.45 P-59 51 REYNALDO ROSAL 1,100,000.00 33,000.00 P-636 52 SPS. PHILIP & CECIL LLANDER P-60 SPS. MARSON & MARILOU 1,380,000.00 41,400.00 P-637 53 BARDULLAS P-61 P-638 ABDUL JAMALL & OTTOMAN 3,272,320.54 163,616.03 P-62 P-639 54 MAMADRA 1'728,500.00 51,855.00 P-63 55 ARNEL MARTINEZ 1,782,800.00 53,484.00 P-640 56 ARDY MANAOIS P-64 P-641 SPS. REZALDY & CARMENCITA 2,409,700.00 120,485.00 P-65 57 TORRES 2,581,614.29 129,080.71 P-642 58 RONILA BANAYO P-66 P-643 SPS. WILFREDO & MARITES 667,968.00 20,039.04 P-67 59 CANO 661,500.00 19,845.00 P-644 60 BENJICANTALLOPES P-68 P-645 SPS. ARSENIO & JOSEFINA 1,807,740.00 54,232.20 P-69 P-646 61 VILLANUEVA 1,507,592.00 45,227.76 P-70 P-647 62 CECILIA CAPILI 1,100,000.00 33,000.00 P-71 63 EISEN NOGA 1,559,000.00 46,770.00 P-648 64 CARLO CAALIM P-72 P-649 SPS. DENNIS & MARIA LISA 680,000.00 20,400.00 P-73 P-650 65 GARCIA 3,516,785.71 175,839.29 P-74 P-651 66 JEHAN LAQUI 3,098,035.71 154,901.79 P-75 67 ZALDY HERMOSADO P-652 68 ROWENA BALBOA 811,262.00 24,337.86 P-76 P-653 3RDQUARTER 52,658,519.14 2,183,228.46 P-77 P-654 69 LOUIE LYLE DELACRUZ P-78 P-655 70 PASTOR JUSTIMBASTE, JR. 2,285,010.00 114,250.50 P-79 P-656 71 NEREN DE OCAMPO 2,459,800.00 122,990.00 P-80 72 SPS. ALLAN & LYRA ARBOLEDA 1,496,500.00 P-657 73 SPS. NOIL & JENNETTE MALLADA 2,414,291.00 44,895.00 P-81 SPS. ARLAN RAYMUND & RHIA 120,714.55 P-658 74 REYES 528,000.00 P-82 MYP GBY PHILIPPINE 15,840.00 P-659 75 CORPORATION 854,000.00 P-83 P-660 SPS. JESUS JR., & ELEONOR 25,620.00 P-84 76 BALISBISAN 26,785.71 P-661 77 MAURICIA BALUYOT 1,339.29 P-85 MELECIA PEDRAZA & 682,500.00 P-662 78 TEODORICA ANGULO 1'983,500.00 20,475.00 P-86 P-663 SPS. MARIAN & ROLANDO 59,505.00 P-87 P-664 79 MIRANDA 740,000.00 P-88 P-665 80 JENELYN GOLE 22,200.00 P-89 P-666 81 JOY & JOY LIN PAROHINOG 720,000.00 P-90 P-667 82 SPS. GLADYS & MICHAEL NIELES 2,209,582.00 21,600.00 P-91 83 ELIAS ARNOCO 1,066,030.00 110,479.10 P-668 84 SPS. AILEEN & JOE! BEN MOOG P-92 P-669 SPS. GUIALUSA & GUIAMALIA 739,200.00 31,980.90 P-93 P-670 85 ANGKAL 1,428,392.86 22,176.00 P-94 P-671 86 VICTORIA AMABEL MIRADOR 1,588,702.00 42,851.79 P-95 P-672 87 MICHELEE PATRICIO 47,661.06 P-96 88 SPS. ADRIAN & GRACE ALIPIT 770,400.00 P-673 89 SPS. JENER & SHARON VILLALON 3,474,107.14 23,112.00 P-97 P-674 SPS. ANASTACIO & HERMINA 173,705.36 P-98 P-675 90 SERRANO 720,000.00 P-99 P-676 91 AMPARO GODINEZ 1' 137'750.00 21,600.00 P-100 92 EDWIN VILLOTA 2,297,800.00 34,132.50 P-677 93 SPS. ROLANDO & ALEXIS BINAS 114,890.00 P-101 MYP GBY PHILIPPINE 1,975,209.00 P-678 94 CORPORATION 7,801,785.71 59,256.27 P-102 P-679 MYP GBY PHILIPPINE 1,593,750.00 390,089.29 P-103 95 CORPORATION P-680 96 AIZA DOMINGO 652,500.00 47,812.50 P-104 SPS. SALVACION & TOBIAS 19,575.00 P-105 97 CORDOVALES 500,548.94 98 AIR INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. 25,027.45 4TH QUARTER 1,758,736.78 992,250.00 87,936.84 29,767.50 2,087,043.00 13,389.65 104,352.15 1,338.96 46,997,563.79 1,957,174.01 TOTAL 179,868,407.14 7 ,693,130.48

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 13 of20 B. FULLY SETTLED ACCOUNTS IN 355,723.22 5,335.85 P-106 P-681 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-107 P-682 2010 1 RALPH SINGZON 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-108 P-683 2 JONATHAN BULAQUENA 526,122.00 15,783.66 P-109 P-684 1,547,982.00 46,439.46 P-110 P-685 SPS. RICARDO & JOCELYN 3 GALLEGO 1,066,000.00 31,980.00 P-111 P-686 4 RENATO TABIO 5 GILBERT DE LEON 850,250.00 25,507.50 P-112 P-687 SPS. MARLON & GLADLEEN 355,723.22 5,335.85 P-113 P-688 6 ALCANTARA 820,243.00 24,607.29 P-114 P-689 SPS. TEODORICO & NEBIAN 589,709.00 17,691.27 P-115 P-690 7 DAYMIEL 3,083,812.50 154,190.63 P-116 P-691 SPS. NATHANIEL & JOCELYN 2,495,800.00 124,790.00 P-117 P-692 8 MILLADO 2,721,428.57 136,071.43 P-118 P-693 9 SPS. ELEAZAR & ALICE LIM 321,974.93 4,829.62 P-119 P-694 SPS.EFREN & MARICEL DELA 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-120 P-695 10 CRUZ 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-121 P-696 11 GABRIEL A. REMEDIO, JR. 363,624.00 5,454.36 P-122 P-697 SPS. ROD NIL CLEMENTE & 454,277.00 6,814.16 P-123 P-698 12 IREENE SALMORIN 568,786.00 17,063.58 P-124 P-699 13 SPS. ROSALITA & JOELITO RUIZ 979,052.00 29,371.56 P-125 P-700 504,000.00 15,120.00 P-126 P-701 SPS. RUMEN & ROSANA 1,974,508.00 59,235.24 P-127 P-702 14 PARUNGAO 3,320,478.57 166,023.93 P-128 P-703 15 SPS. RIONEL & IMELDA DITAN 16 ELMAALMOSA 2,320,200.00 116,010.00 P-129 P-704 17 VERGIL MAGAN 2,721,428.57 136,071.43 P-130 P-705 29,941,122.58 1,173,726.82 SPS. PAQUITO & ARLENE P-131 P-706 18 GALLENERO 381,053.76 5,715.81 P-132 P-707 19 FILIPINA CARANDANG 444,667.00 6,670.01 20 SPS. ANICETO & ZENAIDA RIBAO P-133 P-708 21 GEMMALUZ HOSANA 210,893.00 3,163.40 P-134 P-709 22 RYAN CABRERA 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-135 P-710 23 SPS. NONITO & IMELDA TONO 554,331.00 16,629.93 P-136 P-711 SPS. LUSANTO & DONNA 628,560.00 18,856.80 24 BONIFACIO P-137 P-712 25 JOVEN REDONGA 1,680,000.00 50,400.00 P-138 P-713 3,258,079.46 162,903.97 P-139 P-714 1ST QUARTER P-140 P-715 26 JACQULINE GUARIN 353,827.43 5,307.41 27 ALETH VIAGEDOR 872,635.00 26,179.05 P-141 P-716 SPS. RAYMUND RAFAEL & 774,928.00 23,247.84 P-142 P-717 28 RAQUEL CABREJAS 29 MARICEL GARCIA 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-143 P-718 30 LUCITO JUNIOR REGIS 773,900.00 23,217.00 P-144 P-719 SPS. ZANDRA & VICSON P-145 P-720 31 VALMONTE 3,021,258.04 151,062.90 P-146 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-721 SPS. DANIEL, JR. & TRICIA 509,384.27 P-147 32 ALINGASA 15,281.53 P-148 P-722 33 RAMILO DELACRUZ 675,744.00 P-723 34 FRANSISCO YANGYANG 979,510.00 20,272.32 P-149 35 OFELIA QUEZADA 16,493,770.96 29,385.30 P-150 P-724 375,000.00 578,918.27 P-151 P-725 SPS. RUZEN & MA. LANI 907,311.00 P-726 36 MALACAD 522,522.21 5,625.00 P-152 27,219.33 P-153 P-727 SOLEDAD CAJEFE & FELISA 814,499.52 15,675.68 P-154 P-728 37 YOUNGBERG 500,000.00 P-155 P-729 685,984.00 24,434.99 P-156 P-730 SPS. MARISSA & JAYSON 500,000.00 7,500.00 P-731 38 GUTIERREZ 450,000.00 P-157 20,579.52 P-732 SPS. JAMES & GERALDINE DE 633,993.00 7,500.00 39 JESUS 6,750.00 40 SPS. LEMUEL & JULIET DALISAY 41 ELIZABETH GARCIA 19,019.79 SPS. ROGELIO & REMEDIOS REMEDIOS AND REYNANTE 42 ROBINION 43 JACKYLIN LOBO 2ND QUARTER 44 DIGNA & ROMULO TORRES 45 SPS. ROMULO & MERLY DARAUG 46 TITO SARMAGO SPS. GABRIEL & MS. CECILIA 47 RESUTA 48 ERNEST RAMIREZ 49 ROBERTO TORIO 50 SPS. REYNADLO & JOSIE SOTELO 51 SPS. ROLLY & BEVERLY LACSE SPS. ANICETO & MARIA ARGIE 52 DORIA

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 14 of20 53 MENCHU BALLOS 1,327,700.00 39,831.00 P-158 P-733 SPS. MARISSA & JAYSON 919,600.00 27,588.00 P-159 P-734 54 GUTIERREZ 1,479,832.00 44,394.96 P-160 P-735 55 SPS. JOWELL & MAY BAUTRO 1,683,180.00 50,495.40 P-161 P-736 SPS. CHRISTOPHER & RIADEL 10,799,621.73 296,613.67 56 BACAL 106,734.50 P-162 P-737 2,134,690.00 P-163 P-738 3RDQUARTER 1,289,773.00 38,693.19 P-164 P-739 57 JUDITH MILAOR 23,098.32 P-165 P-740 58 MARY ANN ALVAREZ 769,944.00 23,420.16 P-166 P-741 59 RENIE FERNANDEZ 780,672.00 59,648.07 60 SPS ORLANDO & ALICIA MALIZA 1,988,269.00 P-167 P-742 61 MENCHU BALLOS 19,278.00 642,600.00 P-168 P-743 SPS. ERIC & BERNADETTE DE 20,392.92 P-169 P-744 62 GUZMAN 679,764.00 21,409.50 P-170 P-745 713,650.00 53,819.37 P-171 P-746 SPS. ROMMEL & LORENA 1,793,979.09 P-172 P-747 63 SORIANO 493,100.00 7,396.50 P-173 P-748 64 SPS. MILA & OLINAD CASSI 2,822,172.73 141,108.64 P-174 P-749 65 MARILYN KANNO 824,296.00 P-175 P-750 66 PEDRO ANGELO PATINO 540,000.00 24,728.88 P-176 P-751 67 CRESTITA YAMAZOE 3,311,371.43 16,200.00 68 SPS. IRENE & ELEAZAR MONZON 3,249,592.80 165,568.57 P-177 P-752 69 GEMMALUZ HOSANA 22,033,874.05 162,479.64 P-178 P-753 70 MARLOU KELLY 883,976.26 P-179 P-754 71 TARIK TRADING, INC. 79,268,389.32 P-180 P-755 2,933,235.02 P-181 P-756 4TH QUARTER 375,000.00 P-182 P-757 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-183 P-758 TOTAL 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-184 P-759 723,426.16 5,625.00 P-185 P-760 c. LAST COLLECTION MADE IN 2010 589,709.00 21,702.78 P-186 P-761 1,043,854.13 17,691.27 P-187 P-762 SPS. NICANOR & MARISSA 733,383.00 31,315.62 P-188 P-763 1 ESCOBER 750,000.00 22,001.49 P-189 P-764 2 TERESA SUBERO 2,069,437.27 22,500.00 P-190 P-765 3 ROLANDO & ROELA AGUIRRE 821,157.00 103,471.86 P-191 P-766 4 JUSTA DIMALANTA 2,321,052.00 24,634.71 P-192 P-767 5 MARITES DELA CRUZ 973,524.00 116,052.60 P-193 P-768 6 SPS. ROBERTO & NANCY GAFFUD 3,992,044.64 29,205.72 P-194 P-769 7 NELDA & LUCY SARAMOSING 2,285,397.00 199,602.23 P-195 P-770 8 ALEJANDRO MENOZA, JR. 436,464.00 114,269.85 9 SPS. EDDIE & AURA ACOSTA 714,802.00 6,546.96 P-196 P-771 10 ANABELLE RAMOS 360,354.87 21,444.06 11 VIOLETA BETONIO 348,527.92 5,405.32 P-197 P-772 P-778 12 SPS. RODOLFO & GINA LADERA 1,086,797.73 5,227.92 P-198 P-773 13 SPS. RODGER & LUZ GUERRERO 32,603.93 14 MARY-LYN ALTERADO 1,298,882.00 P-199 P-774 15 SPS. ROAL & MA. LUISA BASA 38,966.46 P-200 P-775 16 DALMACIO DIEGO 21,673,812.72 P-201 P-776 17 SPS. ROMEO & ALMA ENRIQUEZ 93,663.38 829,517.78 P-202 P-777 18 MANUEL & NELLY ALCANTARA 2,809.90 P-203 19 MELINDA CARINO 336,238.25 5,043.57 P-204 P-779 P-205 P-780 SPS. EMMANUEL & JHOANA 361,338.20 5,420.07 P-206 P-781 20 DELACRUZ 1,082,710.00 32,481.30 P-207 P-782 26,450.78 P-208 P-783 1ST QUARTER 881,692.82 21 CARMELITA MERCADO 368,211.05 5,523.17 P-209 P-784 22 ENRICO LAZARO 739,373.65 22,181.21 421,575.00 P-210 P-785 SPS. HAROLD & ROWENA 500,000.00 6,323.63 P-211 P-786 23 ARQUIZA 1,881,190.91 7,500.00 P-212 P-787 24 RACHEL DOMINO 1,699,651.82 56,435.73 P-213 P-788 25 HELEN VARION MARQUION 737,303.64 50,989.55 P-214 P-789 26 MARIA CANDY DRIS 22,119.11 27 SPS. DANILO & LEONICIA CABRAL 375,000.00 28 ROSITA BEDICO 5,625.00 29 JOSEPHINE BULLECER 355,217.58 30 GERALDINE JULATON 837,947.00 5,328.26 31 DENNYLOU SATO 795,347.00 25,138.41 32 BELINA SUAREZ 500,000.00 23,860.41 2,131,238.00 SPS. DENNIS & ANNA LISA 14,097,698.30 7,500.00 33 RESURRECCION 106,561.90 417 292.00 SPS. CORNELIO & MA. LOURDES 34 DESACOLA 35 RENATO CASTILLO 36 SPS. ROMEO &ANALYN FLORES 37 CANDIDA & JOY CASALA 38 PABLITO PENARANDA 2ND QUARTER

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 15 of20 SPS. ERNESTO & GINA 341,022.70 5,115.34 P-215 P-790 P-794 39 AMBROCIO, JR. 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-216 P-791 P-795 40 NICODEMOS YADAO 1,104,439.62 33,133.19 P-217 P-792 P-804 41 ROSALINDA BACANI 522,522.51 15,675.68 P-218 P-793 42 SPS. DOMINIC HAZLYN RIBERAL 1,069,021.00 32,070.63 P-219 P-829 43 FELIPE GOLPE, JR. 785,147.00 23,554.41 P-220 P-796 44 RUFINO & IRENE ABELLA 635,869.00 19,076.07 P-221 45 VILMA ENRIQUEZ P-797 750,000.00 22,500.00 P-222 P-798 SPS. DOMINGO & YOLANDA 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-223 P-799 46 MARTILLANO 701,955.83 P-224 P-800 47 HELEN CHOUNG 734,431.00 21,058.67 P-225 P-801 48 JOBEL URETA 826,735.00 22,032.93 P-226 P-802 49 REGINETTE VILORIA 1,798,554.55 24,802.05 P-227 P-803 50 SPS. EDWIN & JOYCE DELA CRUZ 375,000.00 53,956.64 P-228 51 SPS. CARLOS & ROWENA LOPEZ P-805 52 SPS. ISAGANI & EDNA CATANGAY 548,088.47 5,625.00 P-229 P-806 509,384.27 P-230 SPS. SATURNINO & SALINA 332,800.82 16,442.65 P-231 P-807 53 TOLEDO 15,281.53 54 ELIZABETH GARCIA 500,000.00 P-232 P-808 55 MANNY ANACAY 4,992.01 P-809 500,000.00 P-233 SPS. GILBERTO & RAQUEL 1'953,042.00 7,500.00 P-234 P-810 56 VARGAS 14,738,013.77 7,500.00 P-235 P-811 SPS. MAGELENDE & LUIS 507,480.21 33,245.16 P-812 57 BARETTO 374,811.96 P-236 58 MA. VICTORIA TORRES 363,971.74 15,224.41 P-237 P-813 318,324.61 P-814 3RDQUARTER 5,459.58 P-238 P-815 59 JEAN ASCANO CABALES 1,247,416.00 4,774.87 P-239 P-816 945,000.00 P-240 P-817 SPS. SOCRATES & CYNTHIA 37,422.48 P-241 60 RAMOS 1,066,500.00 28,350.00 P-242 P-818 61 ELOISA PAR 641,029.00 31,995.00 P-819 19,230.87 P-243 P-820 SPS. CONRADO & ESTELA 1,627,087.27 48,812.62 P-244 62 NUNEZ, JR. P-245 P-821 63 DALISAY ISHII 1,796,308.00 53,889.24 P-822 64 DALISAY ISHII 2,116,230.00 105,811.50 P-246 P-823 65 YUKA MARUYAMA P-247 P-824 66 MA. JULIE SIMON 343,793.97 5,156.91 P-248 P-825 P-249 SPS. FELISA & FERNANDO 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-250 P-826 67 CABALLA 373,410.24 5,601.15 68 JENNIFER ACAP 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-251 P-827 69 ORLANDO & MARLITA LORENZO 435,756.01 6,536.34 P-828 404,272.00 6,064.08 P-252 SPS. POLARIS & CIRILA ELFREDA P-253 P-830 70 BARDELAS 1,766,400.00 52,992.00 P-254 P-831 71 ANTONIO DOMINGO P-832 72 ANNIE PASTOLERO 473,311.00 7,099.67 P-255 73 GERALDINE BUCAY 375,000.00 5,625.00 P-256 74 RONALDO RAGOS 718,451.80 21,553.55 P-257 SPS. ENRICO & MA. CECILIA 712,722.43 21,381.67 75 DOJENO 750,000.00 22,500.00 750,000.00 22,500.00 SPS. VERGINES & REUBEN & 18,482,464.28 539,230.94 76 REUBEN TEEJAY AGUIRRE 77 SONNY RAM 68,991,989.07 2,160,852.68 78 LOLITA YOGUE ROLANDO/LAURENCE MA. 79 TERESA TING, JR. 80 SPS. AGNES & ALLAN CAPILI 81 MICHELLE LANOT FOURTH QUARTER TOTAL D. CORPORATE BUYERS 6,927.71 346.39 P-258 P-833 7,043.17 352.16 P-259 P-834 YOUNGJI INTERNATIONAL 7,160.55 358.03 P-260 P-835 1 SCHOOL (CHESTER PLACE BLK 2 14,681.12 734.06 P-261 P-836 35,812.55 1,790.64 LOT 12) P-262 P-837 2,050.87 61.53 P-263 P-838 SUBTOTAL 2,085.05 62.55 P-264 P-839 2,119.80 63.59 P-265 P-840 YOUNGJI INTERNATIONAL 735,982.85 22,079.49 2 SCHOOL (CHESTER PLACE BLK 2A 742,238.57 22,267.16 P-266 P-841 P-267 P-842 LOT 1) 7,868.58 236.06 P-268 P-843 7,986.61 239.60 P-269 P-844 SUBTOTAL 8,106.41 243.19 8,228.00 246.84 YOUNGJI INTERNATIONAL 3 SCHOOL (CHESTER PLACE BLK 2A)

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 16 of20 SUBTOTAL 724,883.20 21,746.50 P-270 P-845 757,072.80 22,712.19 P-846 4 LIGHTLIFE BAPTIST CHURCH 120,833.35 P-271 P-847 (GRAN SEVILLE BLK 1R LOT 1C) 3,625.00 P-272 P-848 19,166.65 575.00 P-273 P-849 3,233.82 97.01 P-274 P-850 3,285.03 98.55 P-275 P-851 3,337.04 100.11 P-276 P-852 3,389.87 101.70 P-277 P-853 3,443.55 103.31 P-278 3,498.07 104.94 P-854 SUBTOTAL ST. MARY'S SCHOOL OF 160,187.38 4,805.62 P-855 5 NOVALICHES, INC. (BLK 1A LOT P-856 18A) 2,640,000.00 132,000.00 P-279 P-857 2,640,000.00 132,000.00 P-858 SUBTOTAL P-280 P-859 ST. MARY'S SCHOOL OF 6,540.24 327.01 P-281 NOVALICHES, INC. (BLK 1A LOT 13,409.41 670.47 P-282 P-860 17A) 343.64 P-283 P-861 6 ST. MARY'S SCHOOL OF 6,872.79 349.37 P-862 NOVALICHES, INC. (BLK 1A LOT 6,987.34 P-284 P-863 17A) 79,775.21 P-864 1,595,504.20 81,465.70 P-285 P-865 SUBTOTAL 1,629,313.98 P-286 P-866 239.60 P-287 P-867 OPEN MISSION IN THE 7,986.61 243.19 P-288 P-868 8,106.41 246.84 P-289 P-869 7 PHILIPPINES (CHESTER PLACE BLK 8,228.00 250.54 P-870 2ALOT3) 8,351.42 21,495.95 P-290 716,531.78 22,476.12 P-291 P-871 SUBTOTAL 749 204.22 1,675.85 P-292 P-872 55,861.71 840.44 P-293 P-873 OPEN MISSION IN THE 28,014.75 260.21 P-294 P-874 8 PHILIPPINES (CHESTER PLACE BLK 8,673.59 578.56 P-295 19,285.24 838.76 P-875 2ALOT 7) 27,958.83 838.76 P-876 27,958.83 5,032.58 P-877 SUBTOTAL 167,752.95 P-878 292,550.01 TOTAL 6,881,582.45 P-879 19,764.00 P-296 P-880 E. HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL 658,800.00 P-881 FUND ACCOUNTS 21,230.52 P-297 707,684.00 P-882 1 EUNICE SALON 22,200.00 P-298 SPS. FERLINETTE & RONNIE 740,000.00 20,760.00 P-299 P-883 692,000.00 83,954.52 2 VERGUELA 2,798,484.00 P-300 P-884 SPS. ARIEL & SHERYLL JANE 21,230.52 P-301 707,684.00 19,650.96 P-302 3 PACA 655,032.00 17,604.00 P-303 4 SHERYLL ALVAREZ 586,800.00 17,955.00 598,500.00 76,440.48 1ST QUARTER 2,548,016.00 7,471.28 P-304 5 MICHAEL DE JESUS 498,085.00 24,252.00 P-305 6 SPS. JAIME & LINA CALLANO 808,400.00 P-306 7 SPS. RUTH & ALBERT ROMANO 24,420.00 8 SPS. ROMEO & PATRICIA RACAL 814,000.00 56,143.28 P-307 2,120,485.00 2ND QUARTER 49,979.82 1,665,994.00 49,979.82 SPS. EDWIN & RONALYN 1,665,994.00 9 ASTORGA 266,518.10 10 SPS. LEA & JERRY MEDRANO 9,132,979.00 126,160.71 P-308 SPS. LUZVIMINDA & EDGARDO 2,523,214.29 126,160.71 P-309 11 PEREY 2,523,214.29 22,500.00 3RDQUARTER 750,000.00 12 SPS. WILLIAM & MINDA AGOJO 4TH QUARTER TOTAL F. INSTALLMENT SALES OF PRIOR YEAR FULLY SETTLED IN YEAR 2011 1 SPS. JUNE & FLORDELIZA CULLA 2ND QUARTER SPS. ALEJANDRO & VANESSA 2 SANTOS

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 17 of20 3RDQUARTER 750,000.00 22 500.00 3,273,214.29 148,660.71 TOTAL G. BANK FINANCING ACCOUNTS 2,320,200.00 116,010.00 P-310 P-885 1,440,000.00 43,200.00 P-311 P-886 SPS. EFREN & LILIBETH 3,760,200.00 1 TERRENAL 159,210.00 2 SPS. MARlA LEONOR & RAUL 3,760,200.00 159,210.00 4TH QUARTER 351,176,761.27 13,654,157.00 TOTAL GRAND TOTAL The Court notes that the income payments represented by BIR Form Nos. 2307, 1606, and 2313, which were vouched and summarized by the Independent CPA as shown above amounted to P351,176,761.27, with taxes withheld totaling P13,654, 157.00. However, upon the Court's scrutiny of the BIR Forms No. 2307 that were furnished to the Court, it is found that some of the copies are unclear due to photocopying limitations. The payor's and payee's names are completely unreadable in the photocopy. Likewise, the amount of income payment and tax withheld are blurred and unreadable. Hence, there were certificates that cannot be reasonably compared to the summary. Nonetheless, in the case of Philippine National Bank us. Commissioner of Internal Revenue53 , the Supreme Court held that the Withholding Tax Remittance Return (BIR Form No. 1606) is sufficient in proving that taxes withheld from buyers were indeed remitted to the BIR, to wit: "In claims for excess and unutilized creditable withholding tax, the submission of BIR Forms 2307 is to prove the fact of withholding of the excess creditable withholding tax being claimed for refund. This is clear in the provision of Section 58.3, RR 2-98, as amended, and in various rulings of the Court. In the words of Section 2.58.3, RR 2-98, 'That the fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding V agent) to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom.' XXX XXX XXX 53 G.R. No. 206019, March 18,2015.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 18 of20 It must be noted that PNB had already presented the Withholding Tax Remittance Returns (BIR Form No. 1606) relevant to the transaction. The said forms show that the amount of P74,400,028.49 was withheld and paid by PNB in the year 2003. It contains, among other data, the name of the payor and the payee, the description of the property subject of the transaction, and the determination of the taxable base, and the tax rate applied. These are the very same key information that would be gathered from BIR Form No. 2307. While perhaps it may be necessary to prove that the taxpayer did not use the claimed creditable withholding tax to pay for his/its tax liabilities, there is no basis in law or jurisprudence to say that BIR Form No. 2307 is the only evidence that may be adduced to prove such non-use." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, petitioner satisfied the second requirement and established the fact of withholding of the amount of P13,654, 157.00. The Court now proceeds to determine whether the income from which the subject taxes were withheld was included and reported by petitioner in its Annual ITR. As indicated in the foregoing table, the claimed creditable withholding taxes of P13,654,157.00 were withheld from the income payments of P351,176,761.27 in 2010, from which petitioner allegedly realized and recognized a gross profit of P110,927,402.28 in its ITR for the year 2010, P52,753,526.91 in its ITR for prior years, and P6,098,766.67 in its ITR for the succeeding year 2011 based on the "Schedule of Sales Subjected to Creditable Withholding Tax In Taxable Year 2010, Amount of Tax Withheld and Corresponding Gross Profit Realized in 20 10 and in Prior and Succeeding Years ITRs"54 and other reconciliation schedulesss submitted by petitioner. However, the Court finds these reconciliation schedules insufficient. Without the detailed general ledgers and the source documents upon which the reconciliation amounts were based as well as petitioner's Audited Financial Statements and Annual ITRs for prior years and 2011, this V Court cannot ascertain whether the income payments related to the claimed CWT of P13,654,157.00 actually formed part of 54 Exhibit "P-888", docket, vol. IV, 2562. 55 Attached to Exhibit "P-1416" as Annexes "0-1", "0-2", "0-3", "0-4", "0-5", "0-6", "0-7'', "0-8", and "0-9".

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 19 of20 petitioner's taxable income in its Annual ITRs for 2010, 2011, and prior years. It bears stressing that a claimant has the burden of proof to establish the factual basis of his or her claim for tax credit or refund. 56 Tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such, they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the refund.57 This Court finds that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements for refund or issuance of TCC of unutilized excess CWT, more specifically, its failure to sufficiently establish that the income from which the subject taxes were withheld was duly reported in its Annual ITR. Hence, the instant claim must be denied. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED. ~~~~/- AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice WE CONCUR: (On Wellness Leave) CAESAR A. CASANOVA ~~-�Jo c.a...t-~P~.. .. ~. Associate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice 56 Citibank, N.A. vs. Court ofAppeals, eta!., G.R. No. 107434, October 10, 1997. 57 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., eta/., G.R. No. 127105, June 25, 1999.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 8633 Page 20 of20 ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. a~~ c.aJ-~~ Sl. dUANITO C. CASTANEifA, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice