CTA Case No. 936 (Decision)

I I l.lll!O"U.BLIC 011' . THE PHILIPPJNBf ''OURT OF TAX APPEAl~ ANIU UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES , I Pe titioner, C.T . A. CASE ' No o 936 -versus- THE TRlliillURER-ASSI:SSOR , THE BO RD OF 'rJ!.X APPEALS OF BASI- LAF CITY A.LID BASILAN CITY, Respondents . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DE C I S I 0 N This is an appeal to declare null and void the realty tax assessments on the U. P. Basilan Land Grant; to recover t he amount of ~18,588.26 paid Qnder protest by the petitioner as real estate tax; and to declare said land grant exempt from t he payment of real estate tax. The undisputed facts, as borne out by the pleadings of t he parties and the evidence adduced during the trial, are: --;:;>' _The petitioner is a non-s toclc and non-profit public institution duly established under Act No . 1870, as amended, to provide advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, sciences and arts, and to give professional and technical training. It is operated and maintained mainly on funds provided for by lmv. The Philippine Legislature passed Act No . 3608, ceding to the petitioner such portion or portions of the public domain not exceeding ten thousand hectares , to be held and administered as a permanent endowment for the additional support ~- .

: # I DECISION CT CASE No . 936 2- and maintenance of said institution. The control and administration of the land are vested in the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, subject to the limitations that the same 11 shall not empower said Board to sell or alienate all or any portions of these lands without the previous con- sent of the Philippine Legislature; 11 that the income , receipts, and profits derived from its administra- tion shall form part of the general f und ;; and that such portion or portions of the land which are not developed, cultivated, leased, or otherwise disposed of , after the lapse of ten years from the date in which such land had been deeded, conveyed, or transferred , shall be opened for settlement and dis- pos i tion in accordance with the Public Land Act. Pursuant to the provisions of said Act No . 3608 , petitioner , in 19>;-0 , toolc possession of about 5, 000 ~ectares of public ~and located in Balac tasan , Basilan City, Bhilippines , now known as the 11U.o.Po Basilan Land Grant , " cultivating major portions 'thereof into plantations dedicated to the raising of agricultural crops, such as coffee, rubber, cacao , etc . None of the income realized therefrom inured to the benefit of any private individual or person, the same having been wholly and exclusively devoted to the purposes for which the University was created . ( )

.l\, \ DECISION CTA CASE No . 936 3- From 1940 to 1955, the property in question was never placed in the tax list of real proper- ties for assessment purposes, neither was it sub- jected to the payment of real estate tax. In a letter, dated May 31, 1955, the respon- dent Assessor, for the first time, asked the peti- tioner to justify its claim of tax exemption on the U. P. Land Grant. Thereafter, the petitioner re- ceived a copy of Land Tax Declaration No . 7245, with a notice that the tax due thereon in the amount of ~7,936.70 is based on the assessed value of �793,670.00 and that the tax commenced with the year 1956. Subsequent demands for the payment of the real estate tax in question followed. These r demands were resisted . When drastic measures were threatened to enforce collection, the petitioner paid under protest the respective amounts of �7,936.70, ~2 , 066 .40, and i8,585 .16 on July 10, 1956 and June 29, 1957. In the meantime, the petitioner, in letters -- dated March 8, 1956 and January 2, 1957, respec- tively, requested the Secretary of Justice for opinion as to whether or not the U. P. Basilan Land Grant is exempt from the payment of real estate tax. In reply thereto, the Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No . 252, dated December 18, 1957, holding that the property in question is tax exempt.

!I DECISION CTA. C.ASE No . 936 4 - T - On the strength of this opinion, the petitioner not only refused to make further payments , but also requested the cancellation of the assess- ments and the r efund of the amounts paid, which request was denied . 1~, on June 24, 1960, the City Treasurer of Basilan, demanded from peti- tioner the payment of the sum of ~56,191 . 8,0 re- presenting alleged realty taxes, plus penalties, on the land grant. On July 14, 1960 , petitioner appealed the decision of the City Assessor of Basilan to the Board of Tax Appeals (Board of Assessment Appeals), which, in L\esolutions Nos . 111 11 and 11 2," all dated August 1 , 1960, dismissed the appeal . Hence , the instant appea ~ / The main issue raised is whether or not the petitioner is exempt from the payment of real estate tax; and if in the affirmative, whether or not this Court may order the refund of the amounts paid as realty tax and delinquency penalties there- on. _The claim for realty tax exemption is based on the provisions of Section 3, (a) of the Assess- ment Law (Com. Act No . 470), the pertinent portion of v1hich states�: 11Sec . 3. Property exempt from tax.- The exemptions shall be as follows: (a) Property owned by the Re- public of the Philippines, any (

'i \ DECISION CTA Ck\SE No . 936 - 5- province , city ~ municipality , or municipal d1strict. 11 As above- stated, the U. P. Land Grant was re- ceived by the petitioner in pursuance of Act No . 3608 . It is under the control and administration of the Board of Regents , subject to the limitation that 11said control and administration shall not empower said Board to sell or alienate all or any portions of these lands without the previous con- sent of the Philippine Legislature . " It is 11 to be held and administered as permanent endowment for additional support and maintenance of said insti- tution. " The limitation on the use of the land grant and the absence of the power of alienation on the part of the petitioner are highly probative of state ownership of the land grant in question. 0) / i1oreover, the establishment of t he land grant as a permanent endowment for the support and maintenance of the petitioner , a public institu- tion performing the governmental function of pro- viding advanced instruction in literature, philo- sophy , t he sciences and arts, and giving profes- sional and technical training , has impressed upon the grant the mark of state ownership. And the doctrine of state ownership over properties be- longing to or owned by public i nstitutions of learni ng i s r ecognized and uphel d in American l egal jurisprudence .~ if .-P

DECISION CTA CASE No. 936 - 6- ~in the case of Walsh v. University of Texas, 169 S.W. 2d. 993, t he Court of Civil Ap- peals of Texas held: In People v. Brooks, 194 N. H. 602, the Supreme Court of Hichigan said : llx x x hile it is true that : 'the Regents of the University of 1Jfichigan, 1 more commonly called the ' board of regents, ' is a separate en- tity , independent of the state as to the management and control of t he University and its property, it is nevertheless a department of the state government, created by the Constitution to perform state func- tions, and the real estate which it holds or acquires is public property belonging to the state , held by the corporation in trust for the purposes of the University, whic h are public purposes. See Auditor General vs. Regent sl 83 Hich. 468, 47 N.\IJ . 440, 10 LRA j76. 11 (Italics supplied) The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas opined: 11But i n either event it belongs to the state of Texas whose title is not that of a mere trustee. The state owns the land just as fully as before it was dedicated to public educational

DECISION CTA CABE No . 936 - 7- purposes.. Theisen v. Robison , 117 Tex. 489 , 8 S . vl . (2d( 646; Smisson vs. State, 71 Tex. 222 , 9 S.~ . 112; Greene vs . Robison , 109 Tex . 367, 210 S . ~I . 498 11 (York vs. Alley 25 S. W. 2d 193) (Italics supplied) Similarly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi said in Coleman, et al . v . 11\ hipple , et al. , 2 So . 2d. 566: 11 The Act of February 28, 1844 , by which t he University of' Hississippi was created , designated certain in- dividuals as trustees and constituted them and their successors as a body politic to be known as ' The Univer- sity of Mississippi. ' Such trustees were not such as are de:fined by the law or trusts . They were the managing board or head of the university, and then and no"i.'l constitute the University of Hississippi , created by t he State through its legislature which , under its act of creation (Sec . 5) retains the right to repeal the entire act; its property is owned b~ the State and itself . State vs . iclcsburg & N. R. R. Co ., 51 Mi ss. 361 ? 365; Okla- homa , etc ., College v . W~llis , 6 Okl. 593 , 52 P. . 9U2n1~7ve4r0siLt. yR. A. 677; McDonal d v of Kentucky , 225 Ky . 205 t1 s 7S . vl . 2d 1046;, Univer- sity v. hy , N. C. 2~1; Trus- Wa l 43 tees of University of Alabama v . vinston , 5 Stew. & P., Als . , 17; Dart v . Houston, 22 Ga. 506. 11 (Italics supplied) Finally, in People v. Barrett (46 N.E. 2d 951), the Supr eme Court of Illinois held: "x x x Though the state has created a body corporate to control t he University of Illinois , yet the state retains t he power of selecting trustee s, and may through other a gents than t he trustees, sell and dispose of t he property of the insti- ( {9

\, DECISION CTA CASE No . 936 ' - 8- tution or change its charter as the Legislature ~Y direct. The pro- perty of the Universitx of Illinois, ttheoeusgJhbehleolndg;sbytoththeebsotaardteo. f trus- People v. Boar of Trustees, 283 Ill. ~9~, 119 N. R. 595; Spalding v . People , 172 Ill. 49, ~9 N.R. 903; Board of Trustees v. Champaign County, 76 Ill. 18~� Thomas v. (Board of Trus- tees of Illinois) Industrial Univer- sity, 71 Ill. 310. 11 (Italics supplied) The conclusion, therefore, is that lands belonging to state institutions of learning are owned by the state. u. Being state-o~ned, the $ Land Grant falls within the category of "property owned by the Republic of the Philippinestt and is immuned from taxation under the provisions of Section3(a) of the ssessment Law, for the reason that the words 11Republic of the Philippines" are expressive only of the kind of agency (government) through -v1hich the mandates of the (Philippine) state are ressed and enforced. ;/ Even on the theory t.hat the petitioner is a part of the government , we believe that the peti- tioner is immuned from taxation. As opined by the Secretary of Justice with whom we concur, and we quote: X X X X 11 0n previous occasions this Office expressed the view that as 'the Uni- versity of the Philippines was es- tablished to provide advanced ( ( try

DECISION CTA CASE No. 936 - 9- instruction in literature, philo- sophy, the sciences and arts and to give professional and technical training (sec. 2, Act No. 1870) for the purpose of effectuating a func- tion imposed upon the Government by the Constitution,' it is a part of the Government . (Ops. Sec. of Jus- tice No . 297, s. 1956; see also opinlon dated November 26, 1946.) 11 It is a fundamental principle that the Government is exempt from the burden of its own tax . Thus, this office has held that the defunct Rural Progress Administration, a government agency which discharged functions governmental in character, was exempt from real property taxes in regard to the Buenavista Estate which it had purchased from the San Juan de Dios Hospital and Ernest Burt, and that the question whether title thereto had already been transferred to the RP at the time was immaterial. (Ops. Sec. of Jus- tice, No . 193 s. 1934) Similarly, as the University of the Philip- pines is a part of the Government, it is exempt from all taxes that otherwise would have to be paid by the grantee with respect to the land grant in question, regardless of whether or not title t hereto has already been transferred to the University. 11 It is also relevant to note that all moneys appropriated and donated for the operation and main- tenance of the university of the Philippines are public funds. (Ops., Sec . of Justice, No . 14, s . 1954) And by Act -No . 3608, above cited 'all incomes, receipts and profits derived from the administration of these land grants shall form part of the general fund of the Univer- sity of the Philippines and be sub- ject to appropriation by the Board of Regents of said institution and devoted only for the J)UrJ)oses for I

DECISION - 10 - CT C E No . 936 ----------- Thich ~id University was e~tablished ' ec . � Besides , by requiring the University of the Philippines to pay taxes on said land grant the Govern- ment would be merely taking money from one pocket and putting it into another; 11 the process adds nothing to the revenue .' (See Ops . ec . of .Justice , No . 4-11, s . 1955. )" (Ops. Sec . of .Justice, No . 252, s . 1957) (~~ Furthermore, aside from the effect of the rule of immunity of state-owned properties from taxation , the tax- exemption of the U. P. Land Grant is implied from Section 4- of ct No . 3608 which enjoins that " 11 incomes, receipts, and profits derived from the administration of these land grants shall form part of the general fund of the University of the Philippines and be sub- ject to appropria tion by the Board of Regents of said institution and devoted only for the pur- poses for which said University was established." In other words , the statute, in bestowing the grant under review, ordains that incomes, re- ceipts and profits therefrom be used only in the performance of the governmental function of the petitioner .of providing advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences and arts, and giving professional and tecru1ical training. It forbids the diversion of any and/or portions of these incomes, receipts and profits to pur- (

DECISION .. CTA CASE No . 936 - 11 - poses , like the payment of taxes, other than that for which the petitioner was established. But, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the U. P. Land Grant is subject to tax pursuant to Section 1 of Republic .tct No. 104, which pro- vides : nsection 1. All corporations , agencies or insthumentalities owned or controlled by the Government shall pay duties, taxes, fees and other charges upon their transaction, busi- ness, industry, sala or income as are imposed by law upon individuals asso- ciations or corporations engage d1 in any taxable business, industry, or activity, except on goods or commo- diti es imported or purchased and sold or distributed for relief purposes as may be determined by the President of the Philippines." The contention is without merit. The taxing provisions of the afore-quoted statute apply to government-owned or controlled corporations, agen- cies or instrumentalities which are engaged main- ly in profit raaldng ventures. In enacting the law, Congress intended to place these government- owned or controlled corporations, agencies or instrumentalities on equal footing with individuals, associations or corporations engaged in like ven- tures . Therefore, Section 1 of Republic .ct No. 104 does not apply to those performing govern- mental functions , like the petitioner University. Furthermore, the respondents contend that the instant petition for review cannot be instituted as (:if)

DECISION CTA CASE No . 936 - 12 - the petitioner has not paid real estate taxes due as of June 24 , 1960 on the U.P. Land Grant in the amount of �47 ,302 . 70. In support of this stand, t hey cite Section 54 of the Assessment Law, which reads: / "Sec . 54. Res.triction 'upon pov1er of court to impeach tax. No court shall entertain any suit assailing the vali- dity of a tax assessed under this Act until the taxpayer shall have paid , under protest , the taxes assessed against him , nor shall any court dec- lare any tax invalid by reason of ir- regularities or informalities in the proceedings of the officers charged with the assessment or collection of the taxes, or of a failure to perform their duties within the time herein specified for their performance, un- less such irregularities, informali- ties , or failure shall have impaired the substantial rights of the tax- payer; nor shall any court declare any tax assessed under the provisions of this Act invalid except upon condition that the taxpayer shall pay the just a mount o f his pet anxd~1nga s determ i ned b y the court i n t he proceed i ngs . " The above contention is equally not well taken . Section 7 of Republic Act 1125 authorizes the Court of Tax Appeals to exercise exclusive ap- pellate jurisdiction to review by appeal "deci- sions of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals in cases i .nvolving the assessment and taxa- tion of real property x X x. " This statute is subsequent to the Assessment Law , on the pro- visions of Section 54 of which respondents ' ob-

,.. / /' / ,.f / \/ DECISION - CTA CASE No. 936 - 13 - jection to the institu tion of this appeal is f ounded . It does not impose any condition on the assumption by this Court of jurisdiction to re- viev.r decisions of the Board of Assessment Appeals. Befor e its passage , the impeac hment of a realty t ax before a court is conditioned upon prior pay- ment unde r protes t of the tax. Hov;ever , after its passage , the t axpayer was accorded the remedy of questioning the a ssessment i n the Court of Tax Appe als before paying the tax. On this point , we bel ieve t hat Sec tion 7 of Republi c Act No . 1125 has modified Sec tion 54 of the As se ssment Law. Having r u l1 i. 0n t he merits of t he case favor ably to the petitioner Un i versity of t he Philipp ines , i t follows tha t this Cour t may order the refund of the SUJJlS of ?7 , 936 . 70 , 'P2, 066.4o and P8 , 585. 16 r epresenting real estate taxes on the U. P. Land Grant i llegall y collec ted on July 10, 1956 and June 29 , 1957 , respectively (Mani l a Elec- t r i c Co. v s . Board of Asses sment Appeals , et al ., C. T. A. No . 358 , December 29 , 1958 ; Phil . Long Dis- t ance Tel ephone Co . vs . Board of Assessment App eals of Bacolod Ci t y , et al ., C. T. A. No . 300, J�une 29 , 1957) , i t appea ring that the instant pe tition for review was filed on Augus t 25 , 1960 or ~dthin six (6 ) years from t he dates of collections (Floro vs . Phil . National Bank , et al ., 1- 15206 , August 30 , 1962; Nazario & Sons vs . Central Bank , G. R. No . L- 15229 , April 29 , 1961) . \1HEREFORE , the de cision of the respondent Bo~fd of Assessment App eals of Basilan Ci t y is hereby reversed . The u. P. Basilan Land Gr ant is

DECISION CTA CASE No . 936 - 14- declared exempt from the payment of realty tax; the real estate tax assessments cover ing the same are cancelled ; and the respondents Basilan City and City Treasurer are ordered to refund to the petitioner University of the Philippines the amounts of - 7 ,936 .70, ?2 ,066 .. 4o and ~8,585 . 16 , or a total of Pl8 ,588 .26, representing realty taxes illegally collected, without special pro- nouncement as to costs . SO ORDERED . Hanila , September 27 , 1962 . -----~ -/~ ~ Presiding Judge I CONCUR: t ssociate Judge Ror112n Ji. Umc-li c on curs ;:1nd dis - sents i n a sep2~ate opinion .

~EPUB IC OF I!E PHILITPPIW=v 001JRT OF TAX , PPE,\LS tiNT::L U! �J IV2-Fc3ITY CF THE PHILIPPIJ\TES , C . T � �\ . Petitioner , Cl .3 ~ NO . 936 - versus - THe TRE. SURER- t.SvES'30R , TL-TE BO:\ D 0? T,". ' t.PPE - OF -J,SIU\1'1 CITY AND nASIU,,N CITY , Respondents . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - X CONCURRING AND DISSETITING OPINION I concur in the view that ~etitioner is not sub- ject to the rca! property tax on the parcel of land granted to it under Act No. 3608. However , I dissent with respect to that portion of the majority opinion ordering the refund to petitioner by the City Treasurer of Basilan and as il an Cit y of t he sum of ~18 ,588. 26 , repre s enting rea l property tax paid by petitioner on said land. My opinion on this question is ex pressed in my dissenting opinions in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co~ v. Boa r d of Tax Appe als of Bacolod City, C. T. A. No. 300 , June 29 , 1957 and Manila Electric Com - pany v. Boar d of sse ssment Appea ls (Que zon City ) , C . T . A~ No . 358 , Dec . 29 , 1958 , from 'Nhich I quote : _.This is an p,pnea l from the decision of the Board of Tax J-.ppeals (now Board of 1\ssessment Appeals , Sec . 21 , Reo . ct IJo . 1125) of the City of Eacolod which sus- tained the decision of the Cit i ssessor holding that the properties used in the telephone system of petitioner in ~acolod are subject to the real property tax. The decision of the City ssessor {whose duties are ~erformed by the Cit Treasurer under Sec . 27 (e) , Com . Act IJo . 326 is con- tained in his letter of Septem~er 9 , 1952 ' requiring the petitioner to file for as - sessment and real estate tax purposes a

())l.TClTHRING /'.J'JD DCIIASSeCNAT::iIENGnoO. P9IN3I6ON - -2- de claration based on the book value of Pe- titioner ' s telephone wires , � oles and � ether app~ratus which are used in the o er- at~on of its telephone system in the said city. ' (Par . 3 , Petition for Reviewo ) It was this decision of the City !"ssessor (City Treasurer) that was elevated to the Board of /'.ssessment :\ppeals of :r:'acolod City and which WE;s sustained by said Board . (Exhsb L & M- 1. . Therefore , in appealing to this Court from the c:e cisi on of the oard , oetitioner may raise onl the issue of the legality of ' requiring the ~eti tioner o file for assessment and real estate tax ~urposes a declaration based on the . ook value of Detitioner ' s t elephone s ys t em in t he sa~u c1t y. 1 This Court has n o jurisdi ct ion to conside~ on appeal any is sue involved in Any matter not raised before and passed upon by said Board . ~Even granting that the question of the legalit of the collection from peti- tioner of the real pro?erty tax in ques - tion was raised in the a0oeal filed with said Poard , it is believ~~ that the Board has no pO'Ner to Dass upon th;)t question . Neither the charter of Bacolod nor the s- sessment Lu'V (Com. :\ct I':o . 470) empowers the Poard to ~ass upon the legality of the collection of real 9ro?ert � taxes by the Cit r Treasurer. he sole remedy of the taxpa er in such case is to institute an action for recovery in the nroner Court of I=irst Instance after complying V'i th the reauisi tes p-rovided by larJ. ' .here is no disagreement among the membe rs of this Court as to its j urisdiction in matters involving refunds of real property taxes oaid . It has een held that this Court has no 'urisdiction over such cases as the duty of tollection of reel property t?xes 8nd the po~~r to refund th~ same is conferred upon ?rovincial dr city treasurers . Since such function of provincial and city treasurers are not reviewable by the Provin- cial or City P,oards of . ssessment Ap)eals ,. this Court has no aower to pass upon refunds of such taxes because

c: :�:cuqRr'3 :T,�n DIS.S.::� 'T::-� ''J OPIIJIC:.J - C. "'" . , .. G\32 :IC. 92c - - ,;) its ��t...:risdictior. is t:::nited to c revit::'V upon ap~eal of decisi,��ns of s� i'' .:'oards o To quote from our eci - sion in Jose h Gam lOa v . aime .:i. 1 arroco , C.:. . No . 704 , Jul 27 , 1960: :1ere a�)pears to l~e sene misconcc~"' c= tion as to tl e na_ure ~n~ sco~e of the duti~s an ~urctions r~ovircial ar.d cit '3o8r' s of ssessmen-: ..0 'Cc.-ls creat - ed under Comrwn"e"lth �.ct ilo. 470 ~nc-' t!1e varic~s charters c~ cha~torcd rities . tnc!or t.'K ;,ss0ssncnt L'" v C. �� i'o . 470 , the sole function of prorinci~l assessors relates o the listin~ end v~luati~n of real pro'Je~ty in their respective 'JIOV - i nces ,l 1nd the orly ~unction of tha prov- incial ,o _rd of . sses�~ment \rpeals e rected in e~ch province is to review , on s~~eal or motu ~io , af"'y acticr. +._\en Ly the provincial aSHeS Or in reJ~rd to V3lUation r)f reel oronerty for pu r p oses o~ tax<tior.. 2 .fter the 2ssc.ssec:i v~2.L�t.. r'f 3 piece c: rGa1. prooert' has ec!n determined , the s~me ~s certified to th~ provincial treas - urer for coll~ctiof"' of the annual real propert t~x 0 � The seme is �rue in c ases involving assessm nt of real ~roperty in c, arter d cities . 'The la ' does not con -:-er uDor. the o;::rd of ssessment A._ppeals , j n cases arising under the rssessrent La~ , t! e pover to r~via ~ an� action of t. e prov - inci al t easurer i n matters affecting colle ction of rsrl propert~ taxes . 3ince the l cgalit of the ~ction ta:cen the provincial tre2st...rer , oy of his Ae uties (the municip~l treasl r ers,, in the ~er for~Pnce of his ut to colldct real prop - erty taxes is not su j ect to review ,y the Poard of . ssessr;1ent r,:)pE.:wls , i t follows t1at t 11..:..s Court h -:~s no �L. ri sdiction over 1 See -:>c:cs , 7-16 , Com o 'ct no . 470 2 Jce Sees . 17 - 19 , id . 3 )ee 3ecs . 18 , 21 - 41 , id . Ll See , for i 1st2nCE: , ecs , 53 -77 , � � I� o. 4 9 {Chart ~r of c.::.t of Iianila I; Sees . 29 - 57 ' � 1 . ~o . ~27 , arter of DuMaguete Cit �

CC'"CFR T .G �nn DI"C'EJ'JTFTG OPI.JION- CT!\ C 3,_:: 'JO . 936 -4- such ca ses ~ They remain co"ni7a le the courts of general �urisdiction as efnre the enactment of Republic � ct l'Jo .. 1 ~ � X X X o � (.3ee also Enrique rt-edina v. Cit reasurer of Dumaguete , Co!.t. IJo ,. 845 , . ug . 27 , 1960 . The f;Jct th~t in this.c~se the offices of Cit Treasurer and City 1\ss ess or of <Jsilan City are oc- cupied y the J{)me person sho ..lld not affect the re- sult . he functions of the City Treas rer , as col - lecting officer under the Assessment Law , are cis - tinct 3nd different from the func ions of City As- sesser , as assessment officer , so that an action of the City Treasurer as reg2rds collection of real p:t:'op - ert~' taYes can not e reviewed .1 the Cit oard of f ssessment Ap~eols even if sue 1 office. acts nnd signs as 'Cit reasurer -. ssessor � (See .)ections 17 - 9 , Com. , ct 'o . 470 , otherv-1ise kno'\ln as the !s - sessment La which is made aoplica le to. the Cit of -as i lan section 24 of Rt2 )U lie L.ct i~o . 288. , That the Cit Treasurer of esilan and the City itsel.c are made rc.spcndents in t'1is case is of no legal consequ nee as the auestion relates to uris- diction over the su "ect natter. IT vr.r:::� ( ~- . H: FOP�-r:i)l"G , 1 vo+e to deny peti- tioner ' s claim for refund. JL'It\LI ssoci.ate Judge