TAGUIG CITY TREASURER and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG CITY v. CEDARCREST CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION (formerly AC-316)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court ofTax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane TAGUIG CITY TREASURER AND CTA EB NO. 3061 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF (RTC SCA Case No. 291) TAGUIG CITY. Present: Petitioners, RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, BACORRO-VILLENA, -versus- MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, and ANGELES,JJ CEDARCREST CONDOMINIUM Promulgated: CORPORATION, Respondent. X ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X DECISION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: The Case Before the Court En Bane is a Petition for Review with Manifestation, 1 posted on March 4, 2024 and received on March 12, 2024, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision2 ("Assailed Decision"), dated November 29, 2023 , and the Ordei3 ("Assailed Order"), dated January 15, 2024, both issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 153 ofTaguig City.{ Petition for Review with Man ifestation, Rollo. pp. 12-27. Decision, dated November 29, 2023 (''Assailed Decision"), id. at 32-38. Order, dated January 15, 2024 ('�Assa iled Order"), id. at 47. See Prayer, Petition for Review wi th Manifestation, id. at 26.

DECISIO:\ CTA tB No. 3061 (RTC SCA 1\:o. 291) Page 2 or \.J. The Parties Petitioner City Government of Taguig is a political subdivision of the government, existing under and by virtue of Republic Act ("RA ") No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 ("LGC") and RA No. 8487, otherwise known as the Charter of the City of Taguig. It is represented by the Executive Head and Mayor of the City of Taguig, Ma. Laarni Cayetano. Its office is located at Taguig City Hall, Gen. Luna Street, Tuktukan, Taguig City. 5 Petitioner Taguig City Treasurer is represented by Jonathan Voltaire L. Enriquez as the Treasurer of the City ofTaguig. He holds office at the Office of the City Treasurer, Taguig City Hall, Gen. Luna Street, Tuktukan, Taguig City 6 On the other hand, Cedarcrest Condominium Corporation ("respondent" or "Cedarcrest") is a duly organized condominium corporation existing under Philippine laws, specifically pursuant to RA No. 4726, otherwise known as the "Condominium Act." Its principal office address is located at 9002 G.P. Clubhouse Amaran, Acacia Estates, Barangay Bambang, Taguig City.7 The Facts On January 11, 2022, respondent sought to renew its business permit with petitioner City ofTaguig for the year 2022. In relation thereto, petitioner City Treasurer issued a billing statement,8 imposing against respondent a renewal fee in the total amount of Php462,940.61, broken down as follows: a. Contractor (Condominium Corporation) Php 388,751.77 b. Cedula Corporation I 0,500.00 c. Mayor's Permit Fee 6,000.00 d. Environmental Impact Fee (ElF) 46,081.60 e. Sanitary Inspection Fee 1,100.00 f. Building Inspection Fee 400.00 g. Electrical Inspection Fee 400.00 h. Plumbing Inspection Fee 250.00 I. Mechanical Inspection Fee 500.00 i. Medical/Health Fee r 10.00 See Par. 12, III. The Pa1iies, Petition for Review. id. at 14; see also Par. 2, The Factual Antecedents, Assailed Decision, id. at 32-33. 6 See Par. 13, Ill. The Parties, Petition for Review, id.: see also Par. 2. The Factual Antecedents. Assailed Decision, id. See Par. 14. Ill. The Parties. Petition for Review. id.: see also Par. I. The Factual Antecedents, Assailed Decision. id. at 32: see also Exhibit ��H". Articles of Incorporation, RTC Records. p. 78. Exhibit "C''. Billing Statement. dated January II. 20n. RTC Records, p. 52.

DECISIO:\ ?00.00 CTA EB No_ 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) 150.00 Page 3 of 1-t 150.00 140.00 k. Fire Permit Fee 8,307.?4 I. Business Plate (Sticker) m. Form Fee n. Signboard Fee o. FireCodeRA9514 On January 20, 2022, respondent paid for the full amount in the billing statement. 9 On March 10, 2022, respondent filed a protest10 before the petitioner City Treasurer seeking to refund the local business tax (LBT), ElF, and business plate fee. However, the protest was denied through a letter dated March 16, 2022. 11 Aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint12 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 116, on May 19, 2022, 13 praying for the cancellation of the LBT, ElF and business plate fee imposed for the year 2022, and for refund of the same in the total amount ofPhp445,483.37. MeTC Branch 116 partially granted the reliefs prayed for and ruled in favor of respondent by ordering the refund of the amount relating to LBT, on March 27, 2023. 14 Meanwhile, the lower court denied the claim for refund of ElF and business plate fee, and held that condominium corporations are generally liable to pay for ElF and other fees imposed by City Government of Taguig per Ordinance No. 116, series of2008. The dispositive portion of the decision 15 states: WHEREFORE, premises considered. the instant Complaint is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant City of Taguig is hereby ORDERED to REFUND amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-One Pesos and Seventy-Seven Centavos (Php388,751.77) as the amount of the eiToneously collected local business tax against the plaintitTfor the year 2022. As to the claim for refund on the environmental impact fee. Business Plate (Sticker). and award of attorney's fees. litigation expense and cost of suit. the same are hereby DENIED. Petitioners thereafter filed a Notice of Partial Appeal 16 of the r aforementioned decision on April 17, 2023. See Exhibit "D''. Official Receipt. dated Janua1y 20. 2022, id. at 53. 10 Exhibit �'E". Protest, dated March I0, 2022, id at 54-57. 11 Exhibit �'F'', Letter from the City Treasurer's Office ofTaguig City. dated March 16.2022, id. at 58-59. 12 Complaint, dated May 2, 2022. id at 2- I06. with annexes. n See Official Receipt. dated May 19,2022, for payment of filing fees. id. at 107. " See Me TC Decision, id at p. 281. 15 ld "' Notice of Partial Appeal, id. at pp. 282-283.

D[CISIO:\ CTA EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291 l On November 29, 2023, the RTC Branch 153 ofTaguig City rendered the Assailed Decision, 17 affirming in toto the decision of the MeTC Branch 116, holding respondent not liable for LBT. Petitioners moved for reconsideration18 on December 29, 2023. The same was denied by RTC Branch 153 through the Assailed Order, 19 dated January 15, 2024, received by petitioners on January 17, 2024. Dissatisfied, petitioners posted the instant Petition for Review20 on March 4, 2024. Respondent, on the other hand, submitted its Comment21 thereto on March 17, 2025. In view thereof, the Court submitted the instant case for decision on April 23, 2025.22 The Issue The lone issue raised by petitioners is: WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 153 OF TAGUIG CITY COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT BRANCH 116 WITH REGARD TO THE GRANT OF REFUND OF LOCAL BUSINESS TAX FOR 2022 TO RESPONDENT23 The Arguments In the Petition for Review,24 petitioners raise that there is no law that specifically grants local business tax exemption to respondent. They insist that the power to tax and, correspondingly, the power to grant tax exemptions are exclusively lodged with the legislative branch of the government. Thus, neither the executive nor the judicial branch may usurp such power from Congress. Petitioners proceed to argue that the Supreme Court must take a closer look and reexamine the case of Yamane vs. BA Lepanto Condominiumf 17 Supra note 2. 18 Motion for Reconsideration, dated 19 Supra note 3. ::w Supra note 1. 21 Comment [To the Petition for Review dated 01 March 2024], Rollo, pp. 76-88. 22 See Notice of Resolution. dated April 23, 2025. 23 See Ground in the Support of the Petition. Petition for Review with Manifestation, Rollo. p. 6. 24 Supra note I.

DECISIO'i CTA EB 1\'o. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291 l Corporation25 (Yamane case) to see if such ts not an encroachment of Congress' power to grant tax exemptions. Petitioners also highlight that under the LGC and the Taguig Revenue Code, the local tax due is based on gross sales or receipts. Thus, according to petitioners, income and profit are deemed irrelevant. For petitioners, the association dues, membership fees, and other assessment or charges collected by condominium corporations form part ofthe latter's gross receipts because said payments are given by the members of the condominium corporations in exchange for the beneficial services that the latter provide to the former. They therefore insist that for taxation purposes, the said receipts of the respondent must be taxed at the rate of a contractor. Further, petitioners argue that the Taguig Revenue Code, specifically Section 7 (d) thereof, renders respondent liable for LBT on contractors. Contractors include persons, natural or juridical, whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all kinds of services for a fee. Thus, according to petitioner, LBT imposed on respondent is based on gross receipts, regardless of whether the latter receives income thereto. Finally, petitioners highlight the well-entrenched doctrine that claims for refunds or credits, which partake of the nature of tax exemptions, are strictly construed against the taxpayer. The taxpayer must point to a provision oflaw which confers upon him, in clear and unequivocal terms, an exemption from the common tax burden. On the other hand, respondent, in its Comment26 counters that it is not subject to LBT and does not claim exemption from such. According to respondent, petitioners misinterpret the nature of respondent's claim. Respondent insists that it is not asserting an exemption; rather it is arguing that, due to its status as a condominium corporation, it is not one to the entities subject to LBT in the first place. Also, by invoking Section 10 ofthe Condominium Act and referring to its Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, respondent further argues that it cannot be classified as a contractor. It thus insists that contrary to the allegations of petitioners, respondent does not generate income to sustain its operation. Rather, its funds and assets come from the association dues it assesses and collects from its members. According to respondent, all its money and assets are exclusively used to further its purpose as a condominium corporation, and no dividends are distributed to its members'f 25 G.R. No. 154993. October 25.2005. 26 Supra note 21.

DECISIO' CTA EB :--Jo. 3061 (RTC SCA No_ 291) Page 6 of l.l The Ruling ofthe Court The instant Petition for Review was timely filed before the Court En Bane We shall first look into the timeliness of the filing of the Petition for Review before the Court En Bane. Section 7 ofRA No. 1125,27 as amended by RA No. 9282,28 expressly vests the Court of Tax Appeals with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, orders, or resolutions of the RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction, to wit: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. -The CTA shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 3. Decisions, orders or resolutions ofthe Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction; (Emphasis and italics supplied) To implement the foregoing Section 2 (b), Rule 4 ofthe Revised Rules ofthe Court of Tax Appeals ("RRCTA "),29 states that: Sec. 2. Cases �within the .jurisdiction o. f the Court en bane. -The Court en bane shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: (b) Decisions, resolutions or orders oftire Regional Trial Courts r in local tax cases decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction; 27 An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, June 16. 1954. 28 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections or Republic Act No. 1125. As Amended. Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. and for Other Purposes: March 30, 2004. 29 A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA. 22 November 2005.

DECISIO:\ CTA EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) (Emphasis and italics supplied) In relation thereto, Section 3 (c), Rule 8 of the RRCTA provides that a party aggrieved by such decision, resolution or order of the RTC must file a petition for review before the Court En Bane within 30 days from receipt of the questioned decision or ruling: SEC. 3. Who may appeal: period to file petition. (c) A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise oftheir appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court byfiling before it a petitionfor review 1rithin thirty daysfi�om receipt ofa copy of the questioned decision or ruling. (Emphasis and italics supplied) In this case, a copy of the Assailed Order was received by the petitioner � on January 17, 2024.3 Counting 30 days therefrom, petitioners originally had until February 16, 2024 within which to file an appeal. However, pursuant to a Motion for Extension ofTime to File Petition for Review31 filed on February 15, 2024 and approved on March 6, 2024, petitioners were granted until March 2, 2024 within which to elevate an appeaJ.32 Considering, however, that March 2, 2024 falls on a Saturday, the instant Petition for Review was timely posted on March 4, 2024, the next business day. Now, as regards the merits of the case, the Court En Bane deems it proper to highlight at the outset that petitioners' arguments involve the same issues exhaustively considered and passed upon by RTC Branch 153 in the Assailed Decision. The same arguments were reiterated in the Motion for Reconsideration, thus the denial of the motion "for reasons already discussed in the Decision dated November 29, 2023 and considering further that (petitioners) did not raise any new matter that would merit a reconsideration of its Decision."33 On this ground alone, the Petition for Review should r already be denied. Nonetheless, for full disposal of the case at hand, We shall pass upon the issues raised. _,(, See Notice of Resolution stamped "Received-- by petitioner's counsel on October 21, 2024. ~ 1 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review�, Rollo, pp. 5-8. 32 See Minute Resolution. dated March 6. 2024. id at I I. �'"' Supra note 3.

D[CISIO'i CTA EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA 1\o. 291) Page 8 of \-1. Respondent is not engaged in business and is thus not subject to LET. Petitioners insist that respondent should not be granted with its claim for refund due to the latter's failure to specify the provision of the law which grants it LBT exemption. We note, however, that by proceeding to invoke this argument, petitioners missed the first step which must be established in imposing LBT. Crucial to the determination of whether a person is liable for LBT is the determination of the basis and nature of the tax imposed. Here, petitioners argue that respondent is taxable as a contractor pursuant to Section 7 (d) ofthe Taguig City Ordinance No. 34, series of2017: Section 7. Tax on Contractors- Section 75(d) of the Revenue Code ofTaguig of 1993, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: d) The business of Contractors, including persons. natural or juridical, whose activity consists essentially in the sale of all kinds of services for a fee, regardless of whether or not the performance of the service calls for the exercise or use of their physical or mental faculties, shall be taxes at the rates of: Gross Receipts 250,000.00 Rate up to 300,000.00 P4,537.50 400,000.00 P5,775.00 more than 250,000.00 UP to 500,000.00 P7,700.00 more than 300,000.00 UP to Pl0,312.0 "'ore than 400,000.00 up to 750.000.00 0 imore than 500,000.00 up to I .000,000.00 PI 1.562.0 !more than 750.000.00 up to 2,000.000.00 0 PI2.8I2.0 !more than 1,000.000.00 up to 0 lmore than 2,000,000.00 up to P14,I 75.0 0 PI4.175 plus 75% o I% ir excess o 2,000,000.0 0 For purposes of this Section. all general engineering, general building and specialty contractors with principal offices located outside Taguig City with multi-year projects located within the City shall secure the required Mayor's Permit and shall pay the business and other taxes, fees and charges based on the total contract price payable in annual or . r quarterly installments within the project term.

DEC:ISIO'O CTA LB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) Page 9 of 1-1- Upon completion of the project the contractor shall apply for the retirement of its Mayor's Petmit, and the taxes due thereon shall be recomputed and adjusted based on the gross receipts for the preceding calendar years. The deficiency tax. if any. shall be collected as provided in this Code. (Emphasis and italics supplied) In relation thereto, a contractor IS defined under Section 74 of the Taguig Revenue Code as follows: Contractor includes persons. natural or juridical. not subject to professional tax whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all kinds of services for a fee regardless of whether or not the performance of the service calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of such contractor of his employees. We find, however, that the foregoing provisions are not applicable to respondent. Foremost, Section 7 (d) quoted above specifies that the person must be engaged in business in order to be subjected to LBT. Under Section 31 ofthe LGC, a business is defined as "trade or commercial activity regularly engaged in as a means oflivelihood or with a view to profit." Here, respondent has sufficiently established that it is a condominium corporation governed by the Condominium Act.34 In the Yamane case, the Supreme Court explained that the Condominium Act imposes several limitations on condominium corporations, thus, precluding the latter from engaging in corporate activities other than holding of the common areas, the administration of condominium project, and other acts necessary to the accomplishment of such purpose, thus: The creation of" the condominium co1poration is sanctioned by Republic Act No. ./726. otherwise known as the Condominium Act. Under the law, a condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. To enable the orderly administration over these common areas which are jointly owned by the various unit owners, the Condominium Act permits the creation of a condominium corporation, which is specially formed for the purpose of 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. The necessity of a condominium corporation has not rJ 3'"' See Exhibit "H", Articles of Incorporation, supra note 7.

DECISIO' CTA EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) Page 10 of 1-1- gained widespread acceptance. and even is merely permissible under the Condominium Act Nonetheless, the condominium corporation has been resorted to by many condominium projects, such as the Corporation in this case. In line with the authority of the condominium corporation to manage the condominium project, it may be authorized. in the deed of restrictions. "to make reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures, each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owner's fractional interest in any common areas." It is the collection of these assessments from unit owners that form the basis of the City Treasurer's claim that the Corporation is doing business. The Condominium Act imposes several limitations on the condominium corporation that prove crucial to the disposition of this case. Under Section 10 of the law, the corporate purposes of a condominium corporation are limited to the holding of the common areas, either in ownership or any other interest in real property recognized by law; to the management ofthe project; and to such other purposes as may be necessary, incidental or convenient to the accomplishment of such purpose. Further. the same provision prohibits the articles of incorporation or by-/mrs ofthe condominium corporation fi"om containing any provisions which are contrary to the provisions ofthe Condominium Act. the enabling or master deed. or the declaration of restrictions ofthe condominium project. We can elicit from the Condominium Act that a condominium corporation is precluded by statute from engaging in corporate activities other than the holding of the common areas, the administration of the condominium project, and other acts necessary, incidental or convenient to the accomplishment of such purposes. Neither the maintenance of livelihood, nor the procurement of profit, fall within the scope of permissible corporate purposes ofa condominium corporation under the Condominium Act. (Emphasis and italics supplied) An examination of respondent's Articles of Incorporation35 and By- laws36 shows that its purpose and activities sufficiently comply with the limitations contained in the Condominium Act. None ofthe corporate purposes listed therein are geared towards livelihood or for obtaining profit Nonetheless, petitioners insist that the associatiOn dues, membership fees, and other assessments or charges collected by respondent form part of its gross receipts. They claim that these were collected by respondent from the members of the condominium corporation in exchange for the beneficial services that the latter provide to the former. We find, however, that this f attempt to establish that respondent is engaged in activities beyond the scope of activities allowed under the Condominium Act does not suffice. 35 Exhibit ��H", Articles of Incorporation. supra note 7. 36 Exhibit "I'', By-laws ofCedarcrest Condominium Corporation. RTC Records. pp. 83-91.

OECISIO:" CTA EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) Page II of 1-t It bears emphasis that condominium corporations are authorized "to make reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures, each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its owner's fractional interest in any common areas.'m Here, petitioners failed to identifY the specific factual basis to support its claim that the receipts from the members are for purposes other than meeting the authorized expenditures of the condominium corporations. Without any clear and convincing proof, this allegation remains as such, a mere allegation which deserves scant consideration. Moreover, in the case of Delos Santos vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 38 the Supreme Court, citing the Yamane case and the case of Bureau ofInternal Revenue vs. First �-Bank Tower Condominium Corp.,39 reaffirmed that collection of assoc1atwn dues, membership fees and other assessments/charges is not considered a pursuit of commercial activity, thus: For when a condominium c01poration manages. maintains. and preserves the common areas in the building, it does so only for the benefit ofthe condominium owners. It cannot be said to be engaged in trade or business, thus, the collection of association dues, membership fees, and other assessments/charges is not a result of the regular conduct or pursuit of a commercial or an economic activity, or any transactions incidental thereto. Neither can it be said that a condominium corporation is rendering services to the unit owners for a fee. remuneration of consideration. Association dues. membership fees. and other assessments/charges form part of a pool from which a condominium corporation must draw funds in order to bear the costs for maintenance. repair. improvement. reconstruction expenses and other administrative expenses. Indisputably, the nature and purpose of a condominium corporation negates the carte blanche application of our value-added tax provisions on its transactions and activities (Emphasis and italics supplied) Following the foregoing cases, respondent's collection of assessments intended to cover the necessary expenses for maintaining and managing the condominium project and its common areas lacks profit-oriented motives. Therefore, as it is established that respondent is not engaged in business, it cannot be made subject to LBT. Such conclusion was similarly held in the Yamane case where the Supreme Court further held that: { 37 Section 9 (d) of the Condominium Act. ~& G.R. No. 222548. June 22. 2022. 39 In the Matter of Declaratory Relief on the Validity of BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 65-20 I2 "Clarif);ing the Taxability of Association Dues. Membership Fees and Other Assessments/Charges Collected by Condominium Corporation". G.R. No.2 I580 I. January I5. 2020.

DECISIO:\ CT A F.B No_ 3061 {RTC SC A No. 291 l Accordingly, and with a significant degree of comfort, we hold that condominium corporations are generally exempt from local business taxation under the Local Government Code. irre,pective ol any local ordinance that seeks to declare othenrise. Still, we can note a possible exception to the rule. It is not unthinkable that the unit owners of a condominium would band together to engage in activities for profit under the shelter of the condominium corporation. Such activity would be prohibited under the Condominium Act, but if the fact is established, we see no reason why the condominium corporation may be made liable by the local government unit for business taxes. Even though such activities would be considered as ultra vires, since they are engaged in beyond the legal capacity of the condominium corporation, the principle of estoppel would preclude the corporation or its officers and members from invoking the void nature of its undertakings for profit as a means of acquitting itself of tax liability. Still, the City Treasurer has not posited the claim that the Corporation is engaged in business activities beyond the statutory purposes of a condominium corporation. The assessment appears to be based solely on the Corporation� s collection of assessments from unit owners, such assessments being utilized to defray the necessary expenses for the Condominium Project and the common areas. There is no contemplation of business, 110 orientation towards profit in this case. Hence, the assailed tax assessment has no basis under the Local Government Code or the Makati Revenue Code, and the insistence of the city in its collection of the void tax constitutes an attempt at deprivation ofproperty without due process oflaw. (Emphasis and italics supplied) As such, the RTC Branch 153 of Taguig City correctly affirmed the decision ofMeTC Branch 116: As correctly found by the cou11 a quo. condominium corporations are exempt from local business taxation under the Local Government Code, irrespective of any local ordinance that seeks to declare otherwise. Moreover, (respondent) being a non-stock and non-profit corporation, it is not created for the purpose of engaging into business or with a view to profit. Dues are merely collected to defray the expenses for the maintenance and administration of the common areas of the condominium for the benefit of its members. To reiterate, (petitioners) failed to establish that (respondent) is engaged in business activities. Other than (petitioner" s) bare allegation that (respondent) is a contractor, or alternatively, an owner or operator of business establishment rendering or otTering services, subject to local r business tax, (petitioners) did not present sufficient proof to support said contention, settled is the rule that allegation does not constitute proof.

DECISIO'\ CTA EB No. 306\ (RTC SCA No. 291) All told, the Court En Bane finds no compelling reason to reverse or modifY the Assailed Decision and Assailed Order both rendered by RTC Branch 153 ofTaguig City. ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision, dated November 29,2023, and the Order, dated January 15,2024, ofthe Regional Trial Court Branch 153 ofTaguig City are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: L.-t.L,_, ] MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice JEAN MARIE?s~-~ILLENA ~~ate Justice ~ ~ r. ~ ~r~cwk MARIAN IVf'F. REYE~-FAJXRDO Associate Justice LA~~~ID Associate Justice HENRY~fNGELES Associate Justice

DECISIO'i CT A EB No. 3061 (RTC SCA No. 291) Page 14 of l-1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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. ~-~}-- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice