SM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION SM DEVELOPMENT CTA Case No. 9396 CORPORATION, Members: Petitione~; CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson, and MANAHAN, JJ. -versus- COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated : INTERNAL REVENUE, / Respondent APR 0 B Z019 / )7 ~~ ~ ,.,. . x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION CASTANEDA, JR., J.: This case involves a Petition for Review1 filed on July 27, 2016 by SM Development Corporation to seek the cancellation of the alleged deficiency income tax, value-added tax (VAT), withholding tax on compensation (WTC), expanded withholding tax (EWT), fringe benefits tax (FBT), and documentary stamp tax (DST) in the aggregate amount of P2,079,673,845.352 for taxable year 2009. ~ 1 Docket, Vol. I, pp. 10-52. 2 Exhibit "59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 963-964.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 THE FACTS Petitioner SM Development Corporation is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal business address at 15F Two E-Com Center, Harbor Drive, MOA Complex, Pasay City.3 It is also registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), with Taxpayer Identification No. 000-601-470-0004 and Permit to Use Computerized Accounting System or Components thereof via its Permit No. 051-CAS-122807-0000125 dated December 28, 2007.6 On the other hand, respondent is the duly appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who has the power to decide on 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 (NIRC) or other laws or portions thereof administered by the BIR. He holds office at the BIR National Office Building, BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. Pursuant to BIR Letter of Authority (LOA) No. LOA-125-2010- 000001117 dated May 14, 2010, which was served to petitioner on May 20, 2010, revenue examiners from LT Regular Audit Division 2 of the Large Taxpayers Service Regular of the BIR conducted a tax examination/audit of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2009 pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 36-2010 (Conglomerate Audit Program).8 Petitioner, through Ms. Cecilia R. Patricio, Senior Vice President -Corporate Tax Division, executed the following Waivers of the Statute of Limitation under the National Internal Revenue Code, extending the BIR's period to assess: 9 9v- 3 Exhibit "P-1", docket, Vol. III, p. 816; Exhibit "P-70", QJA 6, Judicial Affidavit (JA) of Gemma L. Mangaliman dated February 10, 2017, docket, Vol. II, p. 338; Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), docket, Vol. II, p. 670. 4 Exhibit "P-3", docket, Vol. III, p. 830. 5 Exhibit "P-4", docket, Vol. III, p. 831. 6 Par. 1, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 670. 7 Exhibit "P-45", docket, Vol. III, p. 900. 8 Par. 2, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, pp. 667-668. 9 Pars. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 668.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Waiver Date of Execution Last day of Period to Assess pt April 25, 201210 December 31, 2012 2nd Auqust 22, 201211 March 31, 2013 3rd January 19, 201312 December 31, 2013 April 30, 2014 4th Auqust 29, 201313 September 30, 2014 5th January 27, 201414 December 31, 2014 6th Auqust 6, 201415 April 30, 2015 August 3t 2015 7th November 14,201416 8th March 3, 201517 On July 10, 2014, petitioner received from the BIR a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice18 (PAN) covering various assessments for deficiency income tax, VAT, WTC, EWT, FBT, and DST for taxable year 2009 in the total amount of P1,724,540,187.98, inclusive of surcharge, interest, and compromise penalty.19 Petitioner filed with the BIR its protest letter20 against the PAN on July 25, 2014.21 On March 17, 2015, petitioner received from the BIR the Formal Letter of Demand/Formal Assessment Notice22 (FLD/FAN) dated March 13, 2015, together with the Details of Discrepancies, for deficiency income tax, VAT, WTC, EWT, FBT, and DST in the aggregate amount of P1,848,309,206.42, inclusive of surcharge, interest, and compromise penalty for taxable year of 2009.23 The BIR received petitioner's protest letter24 with request for reinvestigation on April 16, 2015.25 ~ 10 Exhibit "P-46", docket, Vol. III, p. 903. 11 Exhibit "P-47", docket, Vol. III, p. 904. 12 Exhibit "R-5", BIR Records, p. 198. 13 Exhibit "P-49", docket, Vol. III, p. 905. 14 Exhibit "P-50", docket, Vol. III, p. 906. 15 Exhibit "P-51", docket, Vol. III, p. 907. 16 Exhibit "P-52", docket, Vol. III, p. 908. 17 Exhibit "P-53", docket, Vol. III. p. 909. 18 Exhibit "P-54", docket, Vol. III, pp. 910-912. 19 Par. 8, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 668. 20 Exhibit "P-55", docket, Vol. III, pp. 920-926. 21 Par. 9, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 668. 22 Exhibit "P-56", docket, Vol. III, pp. 937-951. 23 Par. 12, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 669. 24 Exhibit "P-57", docket, Vol. III, pp. 952-960. 25 Par. 13, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 669.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 On June 15, 2015, petitioner filed its letter26 with the BIR submitting the relevant supporting documents to its protest letter. Petitioner received a copy of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment27 (FDDA) on June 27, 2016, which denied petitioner's protest letter by reiterating the demand for payment of the aggregate amount of P2,079,673,845.35, inclusive of increments, for deficiency income tax, VAT, WTC, EWT, FBT, and DST for taxable year 2009, broken down as follows: 28 Basic Tax Surcharae Interest Compromise Total p 808 765 458.34 p 1 005 084 964.12 p 50 000.00 p 1 813 900 422.46 Income Tax p - VAT 96 742 570.95 124 466,606.34 50 000.00 221 259 177.29 WTC 2 494 288.32 - 3 222 757.18 25 000.00 5 742 045.50 EWT 7 616 053.41 - 9 840 358.32 50 000.00 FBT 1 498 580.71 1 936 248.39 25 000.00 17 506 411.73 DST 6 822 798.99 - 8,852 815.35 50 000.00 3 834 474.28 Total 1'250 000.00 17,431,314.09 1'923 939,750.72 374 645.18 1'1153 403 749.70 1'2 079 673 845.35 1 705 699.75 1'2 080 344.93 Hence, the instant petition. On November 7, 2016, respondent filed his Answer29, interposing the following special and affirmative defenses: "SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 4. Respondent re-pleads and adopts the preceding paragraphs of this Answer as part of his Special and Affirmative Defenses. RESPONDENT ISSUED THE ASSESSMENT AND SERVED IT TO PETITIONER WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BYLAW. A. RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ASSESS PETITIONER FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2009 DID NOT PRESCRIBE AS THE THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD ')t-- 26 Exhibit "P-58" docket, Vol. III, pp. 961-962. 27 Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 963-964. 28 Par. 14, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 669. 29 Docket, Vol. I, pp. 252-275.

DEOSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 WITHIN WHICH TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT FINDS NO APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE. 5. Petitioner contends that the assessment was issued beyond the prescriptive period provided by law. 6. Respondent respectfully disagrees. Petitioner failed to consider that the applicable prescriptive period to assess in this case is ten (10) years from discovery of false or fraudulent return. 7. Section 222 (a) of the Tax Code specifically provides: XXX XXX XXX 8. In the instant case, preliminary review disclosed that petitioner failed to declare its correct Taxable Income subject to Income Tax. Perusal of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) revealed that petitioner only declared in its Income Tax return the amount of P575,145,486.00. However, result of the audit investigation revealed that the taxable income per audit should have been P981,309,104.14. This result to a substantial under declaration of around 41% of the supposed taxable income of petitioner. 9. In addition, perusal of the same FDDA revealed that petitioner declared the amount of P1,206,850,730.07 as taxable sales in its VAT returns. However, after audit, the correct amount of sales should have been P2,013,038,821.28. This means, there was under declaration of sales in the amount of P806,188,091.21 or around 40%. 10. The foregoing only concludes that petitioner committed substantial underdeclaration of its taxable income and sales, therefore, clearly falls under false or fraudulent return. 11. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Aznar vs. CTA, had the occasion to define false or fraudulent return in this wise: 'It-'

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 That there is a difference between 'false return' and 'fraudulent return' cannot be denied. While the first merely implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or not, the second implies intentional or deceitful entry with intent to evade the taxes due. (Emphasis ours) 12. Since the correct sales of petitioner did not appear in its VAT returns and the correct taxable income in its Income Tax return, there can only be one inevitable conclusion - that there was a substantial under- declaration in its VAT and Income Tax returns. 13. To reiterate, a false return implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or not. Although the Aznarcase distinguishes what constitute 'false returns' referring to mistake, carelessness or ignorance, from that of 'fraudulent returns' referring to intent to evade taxes, the same case does not make a distinction as regards the prescriptive period of 10 years. Indeed, in the same case of Aznar, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) for an extension of 10 year to assess the taxpayer, thus: XXX XXX XXX 14. It is clear from the statutory provision in Section 222 of the Tax Code that in the three different cases of (1) false return, (2) fraudulent return with intent to evade tax, or (3) failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may begin without assessment, at any time within 10 years after the discovery of the (1) falsity, (2) fraud, (3) omission. The discrepancy in petitioner's return manifests an evident substantial underdeclaration which eloquently demonstrates the falsity or fraudulence of the VAT and Income Tax returns with an intent to evade the payment of tax. Respondent, could therefore, rightfully invoke Section 222 because his right to assess has not yet prescribed. B. EVEN ASSUMING BUT WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT~

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 THE ORDINARY PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION WITHIN WHICH TO ASSESS TAX LIABILITIES IS APPLICABLE, RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ASSESS PETITIONER FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2009 STILL DID NOT PRESCRIBE. 15. Section 203 of the Tax Code provides the period within which assessment should be made, to wit: XXX XXX XXX 16. Since internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, applying the foregoing provision, the last day for filing of return for taxable year 2009 is 15 April 2010, hence, petitioner's internal revenue taxes can be assessed three (3) years therefrom, or until 15 April 2013. 17. As an exception to the ordinary three (3) year prescriptive period, Section 222 (b) of the Tax Code allows extension of the period to assess provided there is valid waiver of the statute of limitation. 18. A perusal of the BIR records revealed that, before the expiration of the three (3) year prescriptive period, petitioner executed waivers which validly extended the period to assess, to wit: XXX XXX XXX 19. From the foregoing, considering that petitioner executed valid waivers extending the period to assess until 30 April 2015, the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) dated 13 March 2015 and Final Assessment Notices (FAN) that were received by petitioner on 17 March 2015 did not prescribe. 20. Moreover, as regards the withholding taxes cr-- involved, petitioner, being a withholding agent, has the obligation to withhold the tax as agent of the government

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 and to remit the same to the government. The taxes it withholds are held in trust for the government. 21. While Section 203 of the Tax Code states that '[e]xcept as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return xxx', a cursory reading of the said provision would reveal that the period of limitation to conduct an assessment extends only to assessment of 'all internal revenue taxes' as distinguished from assessment of 'penalties' on the withholding agent for its failure to remit to the government the proper amount of tax withheld. 22. To point out, a withholding tax is not an internal revenue tax but is only a system used to collect income tax in advance. Withholding is a system, the actual tax is income tax. This ensures that taxes will be paid first, and will be paid on time as the government needs the funding to meet its obligations. The system is used to equal or at least approximate or collect in full the tax due from the payor on certain income payments. 23. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. The Court of Appeal~ Court of Tax Appeals and A. Soriano Corp., G.R. No. 108576. January 20, 1999, it was provided: 'In the operation of the withholding tax system, the withholding agent is the payor, a separate entity acting no more than an agent of the government for the collection of the tax in order to ensure its payments; the payer is the taxpayer - he is the person subject to tax imposed by law; and the payee is the taxing authority. In other words, the withholding agent is merely a tax collector, not a taxpayer. Under the Withholding system, however, the agent-payor becomes a payee by fiction of law. His (agent) liability is direct and independent from the taxpayer, because the income tax is still impose on and due from the latter. The agent is not liable for the tax as no wealth flowed into him -he earned no income. xxx.' (Emphasis Supplied) r"

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 24. Clearly, in case of breach by the agent of his legal duty, he is assessed not for the collection of income tax. He is merely penalized for failure to comply with the withholding tax provision. Therefore, in case of such breach, and no income taxes were withheld or remitted by the agent, the agent is penalized. The tax cannot be collected from the agent because as stated in the above case, '(t)he agent is not liable for the tax as no wealth flowed into him - he earned no income.' The cause of action against the withholding agent is not for the collection of the tax but for the enforcement of the withholding tax provision of the Tax Code. 25. The fact that the amount sought to be collected from the withholding agent is not a tax, despite the nomenclature 'deficiency tax', but rather a penalty has long been emphasized by the Honorable Supreme Court in NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY vs. COMMISSIONER OFINTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. No. L-53961, June 30, 1987, stating: XXX XXX XXX 26. Prescinding from the foregoing circumstances, respondent humbly posits that the period of limitation upon assessment provided in Section 203 of the Tax Code finds no application. The said provision prescribes a limitation only as to the assessment and collection of taxes but not of penalties. Simply put, the provision protects statutory taxpayers, but not agents who are remiss on their obligations. 27. Considering the foregoing discussion, respondent's right to assess petitioner for the deficiency taxes has not prescribed, thus, the assessment is valid and lawful. THE WAIVERS EXECUTED BY PETITIONER ARE VALID. 28. The waivers executed by petitioner validly extended the period to assess until 30 April 2015. Jt.-

DEGSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 29. Petitioner even alleged that it executed the eighth waiver on 3 March 2015 that stretched the right to assess of the BIR until 31 August 2015. 30. Petitioner unreasonably challenges its own waivers by stating that the same are invalid and defective. It unjustly questions the validity of the waivers executed by interposing that the formalities and requisites of a valid waiver have not been complied with. 31. Respondent submits that the waivers are in the form prescribed by law, duly notarized, and executed by petitioner's duly authorized representative, therefore, valid and binding upon petitioner. 32. Petitioner erroneously alleged that the signature of Cecilia R. Patricio in the waivers should not be given credence since she was not required by the BIR to present Board Resolution to the effect that she is empowered to sign the Waivers of Statute of Limitation in behalf of petitioner. However, such allegation is misleading and contradicting the actual facts. 33. Respondent notes that the Secretary's Certificate certifying the resolution of the Board of Directors of petitioner was issued which appoints Cecilia R. Patricio as its authorized representative in handling tax cases in connection with the conglomerate tax audit examination of the SIR and authorizes her to sign, execute and deliver waiver and other pertinent documents which may be necessary under the premises for and behalf of petitioner. 34. Clearly, there was substantial compliance with the requirement of presentation of board resolution. Petitioner cannot just execute seven (7) different waivers (or eight waivers as alleged by petitioner), and thereafter contend that all the waivers it executed are mere scrap of paper. 35. The authority of petitioner's representative, Cecilia R. Patricio to sign the waivers of the statute of limitation cannot be impugned by petitioner considering that the requirements for the issuance of a valid waiver were faithfully complied With and respondent acted in ~

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 good faith and relied on the waivers in delaying the issuance of the Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN). 36. Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90 (RMO 20-90) which implements Sections 203 and 222 (b) of the Tax Code provides that the waiver shall be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized representative, and that in case of a corporation, it must be signed by any of its responsible officials. 37. It is undisputed that Cecilia R. Patricio, SVP- Corporate Tax Division, is one of the responsible officials who can represent petitioner in its transactions with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). 38. A perusal of petitioner's reply to the Preliminary Assessment Notice dated 25 July 2014 shows that it was signed by Cecilia R. Patricio for and in behalf of petitioner. Also, petitioner's protest to the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) dated 16 April 2015 was signed for Cecilia R. Patricio. 39. Such representation clearly shows that Cecilia R. Patricio was indeed authorized by petitioner to sign and execute necessary documents in its behalf for its transactions with the BIR relative to the tax audit/investigation. Petitioner, in executing and filing such protests to the PAN and FLD/FAN, is estopped from challenging Cecilia R. Patricio's authority. 40. The Honorable Supreme Court held in RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU~ G.R. No. 170257, September 7, 2011: XXX XXX XXX 41. Moreover, even assuming but without admitting that respondent was not able to strictly comply with Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-1990 (RMO 20- 1990) and Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 05- 2001 (RDAO 05-2001), the waivers remain valid as upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court in the recent case of COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. NEXT 7t--

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 MOBILE, INC (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.), G.R. No. 212825, December 7, 2015, to wit: XXX XXX XXX 42. Petitioner cannot insist on the invalidity of the waivers. Such waivers are clearly valid and effectively extend the period to assess. 43. Therefore, the assessment was issued and served to petitioner within the period of prescribed by law. THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED AGAINST PETITIONER HAS BASES IN FACTS AND LAW 44. Petitioner's contentions in its petition are bereft of merit. The assessment issued against it has bases in fact and in law. 45. After the conduct of investigation, records reveal that there is due from petitioner deficiency income tax, value-added tax, withholding tax on compensation, expanded withholding tax, fringe benefit tax, and documentary stamp tax for taxable year 2009. A. INCOME TAX 46. Respondent assessed deficiency income tax of petitioner based on, among others, gross profit on undeclared sales not subjected to income tax, disallowed expenses for nonwithholding of tax, and disallowed per allocation of expense. a. Gross profit on undeclaredsales notsubjected to income tax- P2,164,465,567.65 47. Verification disclosed that various sales of real property during the year with initial payment of more than 25%, deferred sales, were not reported for the purpose of computation of income tax due in violation of Sec. 49 (B) of the Tax Code. XXX XXX XXX~

DEOSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 b. Disallowed expenses for non-withholding of tax - P513,571,489.48 49. Comparison of expenses claimed as deduction per income tax return as against those subjected to withholding taxes per Alphalist disclosed that petitioner failed to withhold and remit fully to the government the corresponding taxes from income payment/expenses. 50. Clearly, petitioner violated Section 34 (K) of the Tax Code which provides: (K) Additional Requirements for Deductibility of Certain Payments. - Any amount paid or payable which is otherwise deductible from, or taken into account in computing gross income or for which depreciation or amortization may be allowed under this Section, shall be allowed as a deduction only if it is shown that the tax required to be deducted and withheld therefrom has been paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue in accordance with this Section 58 and 81 of this Code. c. Disallowed per allocation of expense P17,847,804 51. Verification disclosed that per allocation of expense schedule, it was disclosed that operating expense attributable to taxable activity was overcharged by the amount P17,847,804, hence, disallowed pursuant to Section 50 of the Tax Code which states: XXX XXX XXX 52. In light of the foregoing, petitioner is correctly assessed of deficiency income tax for taxable year 2009. B. VALUE ADDED TAX a. Undeclared sales not subjected to VAT - P447,351,295.21 53. Verification disclosed that petitioner's collections on taxable cash, deferred and installment sales ~

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 of all its projects amounted to P1,654,202,025.28 while its VAT returns filed reflected P1,206,850,730.07 only. As a result, petitioner failed to include in its return sale of real property amounting to P447,351,295.21 pursuant to Sec. 4.106-3 of Revenue Regulations No. 16-2005, as amended. b. Other income- P358,836,796 54. Verification disclosed that petitioner failed to include in its return its other income amounting to P358,836,796.00 (Rent income, Management fee, Commission income and Miscellaneous income), pursuant to Sec. 108 of the Tax Code as implemented by Sec. 4.108- 1 of the RR 16-2005, as amended. C. WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMPENSATION 55. The assessment represents the tax on the discrepancy in the amount of Salaries and Wages per Books and the amount reflected in the Alphalist amounting to P10,858,895.61 which was not subjected to withholding tax per Revenue Regulations No. 2-98. Withholding tax due of P2,494,288.32 was computed using the composite rate of 22.97% arrived at after factoring the tax due per alphalist of P17,114,673.09 divided by the total taxable salaries of P74,504,065.87 also per alphalist. 56. Also, Section 80 (A) of the Tax Code provides: (A) Employer. - The employer shall be liable for the withholding and remittance of the correct amount of tax required to be deducted and withheld under this Chapter. If the employer fails to withhold and remit the correct amount of tax as required to be withheld under the provision of this Chapter, such tax shall be collected from the employer together with the penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to withhold and remit. 9v

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 D. EXPANDED WITHHOLDING TAX 57. Verification disclosed that petitioner failed to remit in full the expanded withholding tax of its income payments in violation of provisions of RR 2-98, as amended. 58. As previously discussed, petitioner failed to withhold and remit fully to the government the corresponding taxes from income payment. Thus, petitioner violated Section 34 (K) of the Tax Code. E. FRINGE BENEFIT TAX 59. Payment of allowances to executives and managers was not subjected to fringe benefit tax pursuant to the provisions of Section 33 of the Tax Code, as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 3-98, as amended. F. DOCUMENTARYSTAMP TAX a. DST on Rental Income- P211,672.00 60. Petitioner is liable to pay documentary stamp tax on rental income. As Section 194 of the Tax Code provides: XXX XXX XXX b. DocumentaryStamp Tax on advances - P6,S07,555.00 61. Advances for project development to related parties amounting to P1,301,510,831.00 was subjected to documentary stamp tax at the rate of Pl.OO for each P200.00 pursuant to Section 179 of the Tax Code. 62. Such advances to related parties are covered by debt instruments on which DST is imposed. Section 179 of the Tax Code states: XXX XXX XXX ~

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 c. DST on sale oftreasury shares- P103,572. 00 63. Sale of 27,619,146 treasury shares was subjected to DST at the rate of P.75 for each P200.00 pursuant to Sec. 175 of the Tax Code. It is stated in Section 175 of the Code: XXX XXX XXX THE ASSESSMENT ISSUED IS VALID AND LAWFUL PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE ASSESSED DEFICIENCY TAXES. 64. In light of the foregoing, petitioner was well informed in writing of the law and facts on which the assessment was made; he clarified the assessment in the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Formal Letter of Demand (FLO), and Final Decision on Disputed Assessments (FDDA). 65. It can be gleaned from the BIR Records of this case that petitioner filed its protest to the Formal Letter of Demand and submitted supporting documents. However, evaluation thereof disclosed that they are not sufficient to warrant reduction or cancellation of the deficiency tax assessments. Petitioner failed to substantiate its allegations to prove irregularities in the assessment. 66. 'The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.' 67. Considering that the assessments are prima facie correct, respondent need not prove the presumption of regularity of the assessment. 68. Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides: XXX XXX XXX 69. Assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in ~

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed. Even an assessment based on estimates is prima facie valid and lawful where it does not appear to have been arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. (Marcos II vs. Court ofAppeals, GR. No. 120880, June 5, 1997.) 70. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is wrong but the taxpayer is right. Otherwise the presumption of correctness of tax assessment stands. (Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Hantex Trading Co. Inc., G.R No. 136975, March 31, 2005.) 71. All told, petitioner's assertions that the assessment issued to it by respondent has no basis in fact and law are mere fallacy. Above discussion disproves petitioner's claim. Thus, it is reiterated that petitioner is liable for the assessed deficiency income tax, value-added tax, withholding tax on compensation, expanded withholding tax, fringe benefit tax, and documentary stamp tax for taxable year 2009." A Notice of Pre-Trial Conference30 was issued by the Court, setting the case for pre-trial conference on January 19, 2017, which was cancelled and reset to February 16, 2017.31 Accordingly, respondent's Pre-Trial Brier2 was filed on January 10, 2017, while petitioner's Pre-Trial Brier3 was filed on February 10, 2017. The pre-trial conference ensued. 34 The parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues35 on March 8, 2017. Subsequently, the Court issued a Pre-Trial Order36 on March 16, 2017 and the pre-trial was deemed terminated. Upon petitioner's motion37, Atty. Adan T. Delamide was commissioned by the Court as Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA) on May 29, 2017 and to render a report on the voluminous~ 3o Docket, Vol. I, pp. 277-278. 31 Order dated January 10, 2017, docket, Vol. I, p. 330. 32 Docket, Vol. I, pp. 300-307. 33 Docket, Vol. II, pp. 607-634. 34 Minutes of the Hearing, February 16, 2017, docket, Vol. II, p. 637. 3s Docket, Vol. II, pp. 667-691. 36 Docket, Vol. II, pp. 693-703. 37 Docket, Vol. II, pp. 657-661.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 documents and long accounts of petitioner.38 On September 8, 2017, the ICPA issued a report. 39 Petitioner presented the testimonies of the following witnesses by way of Judicial Affidavits in lieu of direct examination: Gemma L. Mangaliman40 and ICPA Adan T. Delamide41 � Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence42 was filed on October 3, 2017. In the Resolution43 issued on November 3, 2017, the Court admitted Exhibits 11P-1 11 11 P-211 11P-2-A11 ~~P-3 11 ~~P-411 ~~P-511 11P-611 11 P- 711 11P-811 11P-911 IIP-1011 ' I IIP-1211 f 11P-1311I 11Pf -1411 11 I 11 I 11 I I I IIP-11 II 11P-21 11 I P-15 IIP-16 I 11P-2011 I f f I 11 P-25 11 I ~~P-17 11 ~~P-19 11 I ~~P-18 11 I I I I ~~P-22 11 I ~~P-23 11 I ~~P-24 11 I I 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 f 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 I P-26 P-27 11 P-28 11 ~~P-29 11 11 P-30 11 P-31 P-32 11 P-33 11 11 P-34 11 P-37 I P-39 P-42 P-43 11 P-38 11 ~~P-35 11 ~~P-36 11 ~~P-40 11 ~~P-41 11 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 f 111P1 P-4-577111II1 I I 11 P11-P5-16101II 11 P11-P5-26110II -A11P11,-53~~p11-II 11 P-44 11 P-45 I P-46 f ~~P-49 11 , , P-54 I I11 ,~~11PP--550911 I 11 11 ~~P-55 11 , ~~P-56 11 , , 11 P-58 , 61 II/ 11P-61-A11I 1111PP--6662-1A1I 1111 P-62-A11 P11 P-6-673-A11 f11 11 P-64 11 11~P~P-6-649-1A1 111I1P11-P69-6-5A1111I 11P- 65-AII ~~P-6611 11P-6711 I 11 11 P-68 1I 1 11 P- 70 11 11 'P-70-A11 I ~~P-71 II I 11 Pt-o63~0~2IP4-711I09116P3-161 3I011 P25-7110t9o6I141 P11-7to09111IP2-117I 0~9~8P-37110I91113P1-1 to 1I1 P-7094711 I to 11 P-70948 11 7098411 to ' 11P-7101911 to 11 P11-P7-1I7012053151 I I to ~~P-71034 ~~P-71026 11 to ~~P-71028 11 ~~P-71029 11 ~~P-71018 11 I 11 ,11 11, 11P-7103611, I , ~~P-71030 11 P-71037 11 , ~~P-71038 11 to 11 P-71041 II 11 P-7104211 to ~~P-7105211 ~~P-71053 11 ~~p- 11 P'-71054-A11, 11 P-71055-AI 11 11 I 71053-A~~, ~~P-71054 11 , and to P-71055-C. However, the Court denied Exhibit "P-48" for failure to submit the duly marked document/exhibit. On the other hand, respondent presented Revenue Officer Manuel T. Tasarra as his witness, who testified by way of Judicial Affidavit44 in lieu of direct examination. Respondent filed his Formal Offer of Evidence45 on December 11, 2017. Subsequently, the Court admitted Exhibits 11R-1 11, 11R-1-A11, 11R- 211 11 R-311 ~~R-411 ~~R-5 11 ~~R-611 11 R-711 11R-811 11R-911 11R-1011 11 R-11 11 11R- 12' 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 I f 11 11 R-15-AI 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 11 I 11 f 11R- R-13 R-14 ~~R-15 R-16 R-17 R-18 and 1911 ' I f f I I I I through a Resolution46 dated January 17, 2018. '}<--- 38 Minutes of the Hearing, May 29, 2017, docket, Vol. II, p. 723. 39 Exhibit "P-71,053", !CPA Report. 40 Exhibit "P-70", docket, Vol. II, pp. 336-367. 41 Exhibit "P-71,054", docket, Vol. II, pp. 755-786. 42 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 789-814. 43 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1131-1132. 44 Exhibit "R-20", docket, Vol. I, pp. 316-329. 45 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1142-1148. 46 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1155-1156.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 The Court declared the case deemed submitted for decision on April 13, 2018,47 considering respondent's Memorandum48 filed on February 26, 2018 and petitioner's Memorandum49 filed on April 10, 2018. THE ISSUE Per parties' stipulation, the lone issue50 for the Court's determination is: "Whether petitioner is liable to pay the assessed deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax, Withholding Tax on Compensation, Expanded Withholding Tax, Fringe Benefit Tax, and Documentary Stamp Tax for taxable year 2009, plus surcharge, 20% deficiency and delinquency interest pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code." Petitioner's Arguments51 Petitioner argues that the Waivers executed by Ms. Cecilia R. Patricio which purport to extend the prescriptive period are invalid and ineffective for the following reasons: (a) the date of receipt by petitioner of the duly signed Waivers specifically the 2nd, 4th and 6th Waivers is not indicated therein; (b) the 2nd, 3'd, 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th Waivers do not show the date when respondent accepted such Waivers; and (c) the acknowledgment in the 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th Waivers indicates that Cecilia R. Patricio was acting as the authorized representative of Supplies Station, Inc. and not of SM Development Corporation. Petitioner points out that since the said Waivers were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 222{8) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, Revenue Memorandum Order {RMO) No. 20-90, and Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) No. 5-2001, the same should not be given any force and effect and should be disregarded. Thus, it is clear that respondent's right to assess petitioner for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2009 has lapsed 'Jtt-- 47 Resolution dated April 13, 2018, docket, Vol. III, p. 1250. 4B Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1162-1183. 49 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1190-1248. 5o JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 671. 51 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1190-1248.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 since the FLD/FAN was belatedly issued on March 13, 2015, which is beyond the three-year prescriptive period provided by law. Granting without conceding that the assessment for deficiency taxes has not prescribed, petitioner avers that the assessment is void for lack of factual and legal bases. Respondent's Arguments52 Respondent counters that the assessments have not prescribed. He claims that petitioner failed to consider that the applicable prescriptive period to assess in this case is ten (10) years from discovery of a false return, pursuant to Section 222(a) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended. Perusal of the FDDA revealed that there is a substantial underdeclaration of around 41% of the supposed taxable income and underdeclaration of around 40% of taxable sales. From the foregoing, it clearly falls under false or fraudulent return. Even assuming but without conceding that the ordinary three (3) year-prescriptive period within which to assess tax liabilities is applicable, respondent maintains that the period to assess still did not prescribe. Section 222(b) of the NIRC of 1997 allows extension of the period to assess, provided there is a valid waiver of the statute of limitation. Respondent claims that contrary to the allegation of petitioner, a perusal of the BIR Records revealed that, before the expiration of the three-year prescriptive period, petitioner executed seven (7) Waivers consecutively which validly extended the period to assess until April 30, 2015. Petitioner even alleged that there was an eighth (8th) Waiver executed on March 3, 2015 that stretched the right to assess until August 31, 2015. From the foregoing, the FLD/FAN dated March 13, 2015 which was received by petitioner on March 17, 2015 was timely issued. Further, respondent posits that a withholding tax is not an internal revenue tax but is only a system used to collect income tax in advance. In case of breach by the withholding agent of his legal duty, he is assessed not for the collection of income tax but he is merely penalized for failure to comply with the withholding tax provision. From the foregoing circumstances, the prescriptive period to assess ~ 52 Docket, Vol. III, pp. 1162-1183.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 has no application since Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997 only applies to assessment and collection of taxes, but not to penalties. On the claim of petitioner that the Waivers are invalid, respondent submits that the Waivers are in the form prescribed by law, duly notarized, and executed by petitioner's duly authorized representative as shown in the Secretary's Certificate certifying the resolution of the Board of Directors appointing Cecilia R. Patricio as its authorized representative. Moreover, respondent avers that petitioner was fully aware of the execution of the Waiver and had every opportunity to deny it but failed to do so. Thus, petitioner should be estopped from assailing the existence and due execution of the Waiver. Respondent further asserts that the assessment issued against petitioner has bases in fact and law. He~e, petitioner is liable for the assessed deficiency income tax, VAT, wTt!, EWT, FBT, and DST for taxable year 2009. THE COURT'S RULING The Court has jurisdiction over the petition The Court shall first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the Petition for Review in relation to the assessment issued by respondent against petitioner. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action is fundamental for a court to act on a given controversy, and is conferred only by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court which, otherwise, would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of an action. Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties. If the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, its only jurisdiction is to dismiss the case. The court could not decide the case on the merits. 53 Jv 53 Nippon Express (Philippines) Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 185666, February 4, 2015.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, provides: "SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment - When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: XXX XXX XXX The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable." (Emphasis supplied) ?v

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 In relation thereto, Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended, provides: "SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of Agriculture or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. A Division of the CTA shall hear the appeal: Provided, however, That with respect to decisions or rulings of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA, which shall hear the case en bane." (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing provisions, petitioner has thirty (30) days either (1) from receipt of denial of the protest or (2) from the lapse of 180-day period fixed by law for the CIR to act upon the protest, within which to file an appeal before this Court. In the case of Lascona Land Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue\ the Supreme Court held that in case the CIR failed to act on the disputed assessment within the 180-day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180- day period; or (2) await the final decision of the CIR on the disputed}'-- 54 G.R. No. 171251, March 5, 2012.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 assessments and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after receipt of a copy of such decision, to wit: "Therefore, as in Section 228, when the law provided for the remedy to appeal the inaction of the CIR, it did not intend to limit it to a single remedy of filing of an appeal after the lapse of the 180-day prescribed period. Precisely, when a taxpayer protested an assessment, he naturally expects the CIR to decide either positively or negatively. A taxpayer cannot be prejudiced if he chooses to wait for the final decision of the CIR on the protested assessment. More so, because the law and jurisprudence have always contemplated a scenario where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment. It must be emphasized, however, that in case of the inaction of the CIR on the protested assessment, while we reiterate- the taxpayer has two options, either: (1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period; or (2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessment and appeal such final decision to the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a copy of such decision, these options are mutually exclusive and resort to one bars the application of the other." (Emphasis supplied) In this regard, a taxpayer can opt to wait for the final decision of the CIR on the protested assessment. The taxpayer has the right to appeal such final decision to the CTA by filing a Petition for Review within 30 days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, even if the 180-day period fixed by law for the CIR to act on the disputed assessments has already expired. In the case at bar, petitioner opted to wait for the decision of the CIR. Petitioner received the FLD/FAN on March 17, 2015 and filed a protest on April 16, 2015. On June 15, 2015, petitioner filed its letter with the BIR submitting the relevant supporting documents to its protest letter. A year after, on June 27, 2016, petitioner received the FDDA55 denying its protest letter dated April 16, 2015. Counting 30't-" 55 Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 963.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 days from June 27, 2016, petitioner had until July 27, 2016 within which to file its appeal before this Court. Petitioner filed its petition on July 27, 2016. Since the Petition for Review was filed on time, this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. Waivers of the Defense of Prescription executed by petitioner are valid and binding Petitioner argues that the assessment issued by respondent has already prescribed on the ground that the Waivers executed, extending the period to assess, are invalid and ineffective for failure to strictly comply with requirements in accordance with the provisions of Section 222{8) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO No. 5-2001. Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, mandates the government to assess internal revenue taxes within three years from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of filing of such return, whichever comes later. Hence, an assessment notice issued after the three-year prescriptive period is no longer valid and effective. 56 The said provision states: "SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. - Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day." However, Section 222(b) of the NIRC of 1997 provides an exception to this rule, allowing the extension of the period to assess and collect taxes through an execution of a written agreement before the expiration of the three-year period: fJv 56 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Kudos Metal Corporation, G.R. No. 178087, MayS, 2010.

DEQSION CfA CASE NO. 9396 "SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes. - XXX XXX XXX (b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the assessment of the tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreement made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon." In relation thereto, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Standard Chartered Ban~7, the Supreme Court outlined the procedure for the proper execution of a waiver under RMO No. 20- 90 and RDAO No. 05-01, to wit: "1. The waiver must be in the proper form prescribed by RMO 20-90. The phrase 'but not after_ 19 _', which indicates the expiry date of the period agreed upon to assess/collect the tax after the regular three-year period of prescription, should be filled up. 2. The waiver must be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized representative. In the case of a corporation, the waiver must be signed by any of its responsible officials. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, such delegation should be in writing and duly notarized. 3. The waiver should be duly notarized. 4. The CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must sign the waiver indicating that the BIR has accepted and agreed to the waiver. The date of such acceptance by the BIR should be indicated. However, before signing the it-- 57 G.R. No. 192173, July 29, 2015.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 waiver, the CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must make sure that the waiver is in the prescribed form, duly notarized, and executed by the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative. 5. Both the date of execution by the taxpayer and date of acceptance by the Bureau should be before the expiration of the period of prescription or before the lapse of the period agreed upon in case a subsequent agreement is executed. 6. The waiver must be executed in three copies, the original copy to be attached to the docket of the case, the second copy for the taxpayer and the third copy for the Office accepting the waiver. The fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his/her file copy must be indicated in the original copy to show that the taxpayer was notified of the acceptance of the BIR and the perfection of the agreement." The provisions of the RMO and RDAO explicitly show their mandatory nature, requiring strict compliance. Hence, failure to comply with any of the requisites renders a waiver defective and ineffectual. 58 Petitioner argues that the Waivers executed by Ms. Cecilia R. Patricio are invalid and ineffective for the following reasons: 1. the date of receipt by petitioner of the duly signed Waivers specifically the 2"ct, 4th, and 6th Waivers is not indicated therein; 2. the 2"ct, 3'ct, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Waivers do not show the date when respondent accepted such Waivers; and 3. the acknowledgment in the 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th Waivers indicates that Cecilia R. Patricio was acting as the authorized representative of Supplies Station, Inc. and not of SM Development Corporation. ')v 58 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 192173, July 29, 2015.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 The dates of receipt are indicated on the 2'd, 4'1' and t1" Waivers Petitioner claims that in its copy of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Waivers, the date of receipt by petitioner of the signed Waivers are not indicated therein. As earlier stated in the case of Commissioner oflnternal Revenue vs. Standard Chartered Banlf'9, the Supreme Court mentioned that, based on RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO No. 05-01, the waiver must be executed in three copies, the original copy to be attached to the docket of the case, the second copy for the taxpayer and the third copy for the Office accepting the waiver. The fact ofreceipt by the taxpayer of his/her file copy must be indicated in the original copy to show that the taxpayer was notified of the acceptance of the BIR and the perfection of the agreement. Based on the foregoing, the fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his copy of the signed and accepted waiver should be indicated in the original copy, which is attached to the docket of the case. Contrary to petitioner's claim, an examination of the original copy of the 2nd, 4th and 6th Waivers60 attached to the BIR Records shows that the Waivers were received by petitioner on September 3, 2012, on September 12, 2013, and on August 27, 2014, respectively. Waivers show the date of acceptance by respondent Petitioner asserts that the 2nd, 3'd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Waivers do not show the date when respondent accepted such Waivers. A perusal of the said Waivers shows that respondent properly indicated the date of acceptance when ore-Assistant Commissioners of the Large Taxpayers Service, Alfredo V. Misajon and Nestor S. Valeroso, signed the Waivers. The dates of acceptance, which were jJv 59 G.R. No. 192173, July 29, 2015. 60 Exhibits "R-4", "R-6", and "R-8", BIR Records, pp. 197, 201, and 429, respectively.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 indicated beside the signatures of the authorized signatories of respondent, are summarized as follows: Waiver Date of Last day of Date of BIR's 2"d Execution Period to Acceptance by 3rd Authorized 4th August 22, Assess the BIR Representative 5th 201261 March 31, 2013 August 31, 2012 6th Alfredo V. 7th January 19, December 31, January 25, 201362 2013 2013 Misajon, ore- August 29, April 30, 2014 September 6, Assistant 2013 63 2013 Commissioner, September 30, Large Taxpayers January 27, 2014 February 7, 201464 2014 Service December 31, August 6, 2014 August 18, 2014 Alfredo V. 201465 April 30, 2015 November 21, Misajon, ore- November 14, 2014 201466 Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayers Service Alfredo V. Misajon, ore- Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayers Service Alfredo V. Misajon, ore- Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayers Service Nestor S. Valeroso, ore- Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayers Service Nestor S. Valeroso, ore- Assistant Commissioner, Large Taxpayers Service 61 Exhibit "P-47", docket, Vol. III, p. 904. 62 Exhibit "R-5", BIR Records, p. 198. 63 Exhibit "P-49", docket, Vol. III, p. 905. 64 Exhibit "P-50", docket, Vol. III, p. 906. 65 Exhibit "P-51", docket, Vol. III, p. 907. 66 Exhibit "P-52", docket, Vol. III, p. 908.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Thus, the contention of petitioner on the non-indication of date of acceptance on the said Waivers is without merit. Waivers executed by petitioner's authorized representative are valid Petitioner contends that the acknowledgment in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Waivers indicate that Cecilia R. Patricio was acting as the authorized representative of Supplies Station, Inc. and not of SM Development Corporation, rendering the Waiver invalid. The Court has consistently held that a waiver of the statute of limitations must faithfully comply with the provisions of RMO No. 20- 90 and RDAO No. 05-01 in order to be valid and binding. However, an exception to this rule is when the circumstances warrant the application of the doctrine of estoppel. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Next Mobile, Inc. (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.jl, the taxpayer executed five (5) waivers and assailed the validity of the waivers on the basis that the signatory had no authority to sign such waivers. The Supreme Court ruled that the waivers were valid on the ground that both parties are in pari delicto or "in equal fault". The High Court further held that while the application of estoppel should be applied sparingly as an exception to the statute of limitation for assessment of taxes, the doctrine will be applied should the Court finds that it would promote the administration of the law, prevent injustice and avert the accomplishment of a wrong and undue advantage, particularly on highly suspicious situations where both parties are at fault: "Both parties knew the infirmities of the Waivers yet they continued dealing with each other on the strength of these documents without bothering to rectify these infirmities. In fact, in its Letter Protest to the BIR, respondent did not even question the validity of the Waivers or call attention to their alleged defects. In this case, respondent, after deliberately executing defective waivers, raised the very same deficiencies it ;..-- 67 G.R. No. 212825, December 7, 2015.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 caused to avoid the tax liability determined by the BIR during the extended assessment period. It must be remembered that by virtue of these Waivers, respondent was given the opportunity to gather and submit documents to substantiate its claims before the CIR during investigation. It was able to postpone the payment of taxes, as well as contest and negotiate the assessment against it. Yet, after enjoying these benefits, respondent challenged the validity of the Waivers when the consequences thereof were not in its favor. In other words, respondent's act of impugning these Waivers after benefiting therefrom and allowing petitioner to rely on the same is an act of bad faith. On the other hand, the stringent requirements in RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 are in place precisely because the BIR put them there. Yet, instead of strictly enforcing its provisions, the BIR defied the mandates of its very own issuances. Verily, if the BIR was truly determined to validly assess and collect taxes from respondent after the prescriptive period, it should have been prudent enough to make sure that all the requirements for the effectivity of the Waivers were followed not only by its revenue officers but also by respondent. The BIR stood to lose millions of pesos in case the Waivers were declared void, as they eventually were by the CTA, but it appears that it was too negligent to even comply with its most basic requirements. XXX XXX XXX The general rule is that when a waiver does not comply with the requisites for its validity specified under RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05, it is invalid and ineffective to extend the prescriptive period to assess taxes. However, due to its peculiar circumstances, We shall treat this case as an exception to this rule and find the Waivers valid for the reasons discussed below. First, the parties in this case are in pari delicto or 'in equal fault.' In pari delicto connotes that the two parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty and they shall have no action against each other. However, although the parties are in pari delicto, the Court may interfere and ;...-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 grant relief at the suit of one of them, where public policy requires its intervention, even though the result may be that a benefit will be derived by one party who is in equal guilt with the other. Here, to uphold the validity of the Waivers would be consistent with the public policy embodied in the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. Taxes are the nation's lifeblood through which government agencies continue to operate and which the State discharges its functions for the welfare of its constituents. As between the parties, it would be more equitable if petitioner's lapses were allowed to pass and consequently uphold the Waivers in order to support this principle and public policy. Second, the Court has repeatedly pronounced that parties must come to court with clean hands. Parties who do not come to court with clean hands cannot be allowed to benefit from their own wrongdoing. Following the foregoing principle, respondent should not be allowed to benefit from the flaws in its own Waivers and successfully insist on their invalidity in order to evade its responsibility to pay taxes. Third, respondent is estopped from questioning the validity of its Waivers. While it is true that the Court has repeatedly held that the doctrine of estoppel must be sparingly applied as an exception to the statute of limitations for assessment of taxes, the Court finds that the application of the doctrine is justified in this case. Verily, the application of estoppel in this case would promote the administration of the law, prevent injustice and avert the accomplishment of a wrong and undue advantage. Respondent executed five Waivers and delivered them to petitioner, one after the other. It allowed petitioner to rely on them and did not raise any objection against their validity until petitioner assessed taxes and penalties against it. Moreover, the application of estoppel is necessary to prevent the undue injury that the government would suffer?<--

DEOSION erA CASE NO. 9396 because of the cancellation of petitioner's assessment of respondent's tax liabilities. Finally, the Court cannot tolerate this highly suspicious situation. In this case, the taxpayer, on the one hand, after voluntarily executing waivers, insisted on their invalidity by raising the very same defects it caused. On the other hand, the BIR miserably failed to exact from respondent compliance with its rules. The SIR's negligence in the performance of its duties was so gross that it amounted to malice and bad faith. Moreover, the BIR was so lax such that it seemed that it consented to the mistakes in the Waivers. Such a situation is dangerous and open to abuse by unscrupulous taxpayers who intend to escape their responsibility to pay taxes by mere expedient of hiding behind technicalities." (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, petitioner executed eight (8) Waivers, with the last Waiver extending the period to assess until August 31, 2015. After benefiting from the extended period to assess, allowing it to submit documents to substantiate its position and postpone the issuance of assessment notices, petitioner now assails the validity of the Waivers, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Waivers on the basis that Ms. Cecilia R. Patricio was acting as the authorized representative of Supplies Station, Inc. and not of SM Development Corporation. The Court finds that the doctrine of estoppel is applicable in this case. Upon examination of the contested Waivers, it is undisputed that in the Acknowledgement portion, Ms. Cecilia R. Patricio appeared before the notary public in her capacity as the authorized representative of Supplies Station, Inc. However, the Court finds it worthy to emphasize that this detail was supplied by petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot now assail the validity of the said Waivers, as the defect was attributable to its own fault. On the part of the BIR, the same is also at fault when it failed to point out to petitioner the defect in the acknowledgment. Further, the validity of the Waivers was only raised by petitioner in its Petition for Review. It did not raise the issue at the earliest)'-

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 possible opportunity in its protest to the PAN and protest to the FLD/FAN. As a result, petitioner impliedly recognized the validity of the Waivers and the authority of its representative to execute them. In the case Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Transitions Optical Philippines_ Inc.68, the Supreme Court held that the issue on the validity of the Waivers should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, the taxpayer would impliedly recognize the Waivers' validity and its representatives' authority to execute them: "Estoppel similarly applies in this case. Indeed, the Bureau of Internal Revenue was at fault when it accepted respondent's Waivers despite their non- compliance with the requirements of RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO No. 05-01. Nonetheless, respondent's acts also show its implied admission of the validity of the waivers. First, respondent never raised the invalidity of the Waivers at the earliest opportunity, either in its Protest to the PAN, Protest to the FAN, or Supplemental Protest to the FAN. It thereby impliedly recognized these Waivers' validity and its representatives' authority to execute them. Respondent only raised the issue of these Waivers' validity in its Petition for Review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals. xxx XXX XXX XXX Second, respondent does not dispute petitioner's assertion that respondent repeatedly failed to comply with petitioner's notices, directing it to submit its books of accounts and related records for examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Respondent also ignored the Bureau of Internal Revenue's request for an Informal Conference to discuss other 'discrepancies' found in the partial documents submitted. The Waivers were necessary to give respondent time to fully comply with the Bureau of ~ 68 G.R. No. 227544, November 22, 2017.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Internal Revenue notices for audit examination and to respond to its Informal Conference request to discuss the discrepancies. Thus, having benefitted from the Waivers executed at its instance, respondent is estopped from claiming that they were invalid and that prescription had set in." (Emphasis supplied) Considering that both parties are at fault, the Court finds the Waivers valid and binding, thereby, extending the period to assess until August 31, 201569 � Since the FLD/FAN was issued on March 17, 2015, the tax assessment was issued well within the extended period to assess. Though the Court has ruled that the Waivers executed by petitioner are valid, upon examination of the evidence presented, the following taxes have already prescribed as the 1st Waiver was only executed on April 25, 2012 and was accepted by respondent on May 3, 2012: Tax Type Period Due Date As Filing Date 3-Year VAT Prescribed Prescriptive 1st Quarter 04/27/200970 04/22/200971 WTC 2009 by Period EWT 2/13/2009 Section 2/13/200972 January 2009 3/13/2009 4.114.l(A) 3/10/200973 04/27/2012 February 4/13/2009 of Revenue 4/8/200974 2009 2/13/2009 Regulations 2/12/200975 2/13/2012 3/13/2009 (RR) No. 3/10/200976 3/13/2012 March 2009 4/13/2009 16-05, as 4/8/200977 4/13/2012 January 2009 amended 2/13/2012 by RR No. 3/13/2012 February 04-07 4/13/2012 2009 Section 7 of March 2009 RR No. 09- 01 as amended by RR No. 26-02 69 8"' Waiver, Exhibit "P-S3", docket, Vol. III, p. 909. 70 April 25, 2009 fell on a Saturday. 71 Exhibit "P-17", docket, Vol. III, p. 856. 72 Exhibit "P-33", docket, Vol. III, p. 876. 73 Exhibit "P-34", docket, Vol. III, p. 878. 74 Exhibit "P-35", docket, Vol. III, p. 880. 75 Exhibit "P-21", docket, Vol. III, p. 864. 76 Exhibit "P-22", docket, Vol. III, p. 865. 77 Exhibit "P-23", docket, Vol. III, p. 866.

DEOSION erA CASE NO. 9396 However, petitioner failed to specify which portion of said deficiency tax assessments pertain to the prescribed quarter/months. In the absence of proof, the Court has no alternative but to consider the entire assessments as pertaining to the unprescribed portion of taxable year 2009.78 Period to assess for FBT and DSTis ten (10) years As regards the deficiency FBT and DST assessments, since the records are bereft of any evidence that petitioner filed FBT and DST returns for the subject period or for the subject transactions, the ten- year prescriptive period under Section 222(a) of the NIRC of 1997 applies, reckoned from the discovery of the omission or failure to file returns, viz. "SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes. - (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten {10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof." (Emphasis supplied) Such being the case, the date of issuance of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) which was on July 10, 201479 shall be considered as the date of discovery of the omission. Considering that the FLO/FAN assessing petitioner for deficiency FBT and DST, among others, for taxable year 2009 was issued on March 17, 201580, then the deficiency FBT and DST assessments were issued within the ten- jc-- year period to assess. 78 Liquigaz Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue, erA EB Nos. 1117 and 1119 (erA Case No. 8149), September 21, 2015. 79 Par. 8, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 668. 80 Par. 12, JSFI, docket, Vol. II, p. 669.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Further, petitioner already settled the deficiency WTC, EWT, FBT, and DST on various dates after the issuance of the FDDA, with details shown below:81 Tax Type Payment Basic Tax Surcharae Interest Compromise Total Deficiencv WTC Date 645 273.49 842 568.07 20 000.00 1 507 841.56 Deficiency EWT 399 987.81 - 522 285.46 16 000.00 712612016 7 216 065.59 - 10 102 491.83 25 000.00 938 273.27 Deficiency FBT 712612016 7.616 053.40 10 624 777.29 41000.00 17 343 557.42 Deficiency DST 111212017 1 498 580.71 - 1956 776.89 25 000.00 18281 830.69 211 671.37 297 499.76 20 000.00 Total 5 454 454.00 - 7 152 059.41 50 000.00 3 855 002.78 7/26/2016 5. 666125.37 7.449559.17 70000.00 529 171.13 1/12/2017 374 645.18 712612016 14 020 126.91 - 14549298.04 Total 1 363 613.50 1363613.50 With the above payments, it can be surmised that petitioner already waived the defense of prescription insofar as the deficiency WTC and EWT assessments for the months of January to March 2009 are concerned. Withholding Tax is not imprescriptible Even though the Court has ruled that the period to assess has not yet prescribed when the tax assessment was issued, it is worthy to discuss the contention of respondent on the alleged imprescriptibility of the withholding tax. Respondent argues that the prescriptive period under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997 is not applicable to withholding tax as it is not an internal revenue tax, but rather it is a penalty imposed against the withholding agent for failure to comply with the withholding tax provision, citing the case of National Development Company vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenucf32. Respondent's argument is misplaced. j-t-- 81 Exhibits "P-60" to "P-62" and "P-64" to "P-66", docket, Vol. III, pp. 978 to 991. 82 G.R. No. L-53961, June 30, 1987.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Systems Technology Institute, Inc.83, the Court of Tax Appeals En Bane made the following ruling: "Closer scrutiny of petitioner's cited case, NDC vs. CIR, will show that it dealt neither with prescription nor a tax assessment, but with a warrant of distraint and levy for failure to withhold tax on interest remitted to Japanese shipbuilders. Moreover, NDC vs. CIR was decided under a much older version of the NIRC, which was as amended by R.A. 2343 of June 20, 1959. More significantly, the CIR's key excerpt from NDC vs. CIR- 'In effect, therefore, the imposition of the deficiency taxes on the NDC is a penalty for its failure to withhold the same from the Japanese shipbuilders.'-- is clearly obiter dictum. XXX XXX XXX As withholding agent of the Government who failed to withhold, Section 80 mandates that an employer shall be liable to pay the tax together with the penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to withhold and remit. As agent of the taxpayer, the withholding agent is responsible for filing the necessary withholding tax return and remittance of the tax withheld. This dual role of a withholding agent is sui generis. Petitioner is splitting hairs when it seeks remedies under the umbrella of one role to the exclusion of the other. The deficiency payment the Government seeks is an internal revenue tax. As such, as with any taxpayer, Section 203 applies. The Government must issue an assessment in an effort to collect the tax within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for filing of the return, or in cases where the return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, from the day the return was filed. The rationale for 7-c- 83 erA EB No. 1050, March 24, 2015.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 this is further explained in Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which states that 'The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of taxes is for the protection of the taxpayer and, thus, shall be construed liberally in his favor.' Section 203 was instituted to benefit the taxpayer, the principal of the withholding agent. This Court sees no reason why a rule that applies to the principal should not apply to the agent as well. XXX XXX XXX It is noteworthy that Sec. 223 uses the clause 'any deficiency,' rather than 'any tax deficiency.' 'Any deficiency' is broad enough to encompass deficiency EWT, even if the deficiency is in the process of withholding by the agent rather than in the amount withheld from the taxpayer. The legal maxim that 'when the law does not distinguish, neither should the court,' applies in this case. However, it can also readily be seen that Sec. 223 applies to the assessment of 'any deficiency', rather than a penalty, which the petitioner considers deficiency Ewr to be." (Emphasis supplied) In view of the afore-quoted case, since withholding tax is covered under "any deficiency", the said tax is subject to prescription under Section 203 of the NIRC of 1997. Determination of whether or not the assessment has factual and legal bases The Court shall now proceed to resolve the issue on the propriety of the assessments issued by respondent against petitioner. I. Deficiency Expanded Withholding Tax- P17,506,411.73 II. Deficiency Fringe Benefits Tax- P3,834,474.28 Respondent's verification disclosed that petitioner failed to remit in full the expanded withholding tax on the latter's income payments ;t-

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 in violation of various provisions of RR No. 02-98, as amended.84 Hence, respondent assessed petitioner of deficiency EWT in the amount of P17,506,411.73, computed as follows: 85 Basic tax due p 7,616,053.41 20% interest p.a. (Sec. 248, NIRC) P9,840,358.32 Add: (01/16/10- 06/30/16) Compromise penalty 50,000.00 9,890,358.32 (RMO No. 19-2007) P17,506,411.73 Total amount due On the other hand, respondent found that petitioner's payment of allowances to executives and managers was not subjected to fringe benefits tax pursuant to Section 3386 of the NIRC of 1997, as implemented by RR No. 03-9887, as amended.88 Thus, respondent assessed petitioner of deficiency FBT in the amount of P3,834,474.28, computed as follows: 89 Frinqe benefits p 3,184 484.00 Monetary value p 3,184,484.00 Divide by Grossed-up monetary value 68% Multiply by rate p 4,683,064.71 Basic tax due Add: Surcharqe 32% p 1 498 580.71 20% Interest p.a. (Sec. 248, NIRC) (01/16/10- 06/30/16) p 374 645.18 Compromise penalty (RMO 19- 2007) 1,936,248.39 Total Amount Due 25,000.00 2,335 893.57 P3,834,474.28 As mentioned earlier, petitioner already settled both the deficiency EWT and FBT on the following dates as evidenced by BIR Forms No. 0605, with details of payment as follows: )z-- 84 Details of Discrepancy (DOD), FFDA, Exhibit "P-S9", docket, Vol. III, p. 966. 8s FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 964. 86 SEC. 33. Special Treatment ofFringe Benefit. - (A) Imposition of Tax.- A final tax of thirty-four percent (34%) effective January 1, 1998; thirty- three percent (33%) effective January 1, 1999; and thirty-two percent (32%) effective January 1, 2000 and thereafter, is hereby imposed on the grossed-up monetary value of fringe benefit furnished or granted to the employee (except rank and file employees as defined herein) by the employer, whether an individual or a corporation (unless the fringe benefit is required by the nature of, or necessary to the trade, business or profession of the employer, or when the fringe benefit is for the convenience or advantage of the employer). xxx 87 Implementing Section 33 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended by Republic Act No. 8424 Relative to the Special Treatment of Fringe Benefits. 88 DOD, FFDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 966. 89 FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 964 and 966.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Basic tax EWf!IO FBT-11 Surcharge p 1 498,580.71 Interest (computed up to July 26, 2016) p 7,616,053.40 Interest (computed up to January 12, 2017) - 374,645.18 Subtotal 1,956,776.89 Compromise 522,285.46 Total 10 102 491.83 - 1'18,240,830.69 1'3,830,002.78 41,000.00 25,000.00 P18,281,830.69 P3,855,002.78 However, the foregoing do not represent full payment of the deficiency taxes due. Pursuant to Sections 248(A)(3)92, 249(B) and (C)93 of the NIRC of 1997, petitioner is still liable to pay the corresponding 25% surcharge for the deficiency EWT and delinquency interest for both deficiency EWT and FBT. III. Deficiency Withholding Tax on Compensation P5,742,045.50 Respondent found that the discrepancy between the amount of salaries and wages reflected per petitioner's books and that of petitioner's Alphalist amounting to P10,858,895.61 was not subjected to WTC per Revenue Regulations No. 02-9894. Thus, respondent computed the withholding tax due of P2,494,288.32 using the composite rate of 22.97% which was arrived at after factoring the tax due per Alphalist of P17,114,673.09 divided by the total taxable ~ 90 Exhibits "P-60" to "P-61", docket, Vol. III, pp. 978 to 982. 91 Exhibits "P-64", docket, Vol. III, pp. 986 to 987. 92 SEC. 248. Civil Penalties. - (A) There shall be imposed, in addition to the tax required to be paid, a penalty equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount due, in the following cases: XXX (3) Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment; xxx 93 SEC. 249. Interest. - XXX (B) Deficiency Interest. - Any deficiency in the tax due, as the term is defined in this Code, shall be subject to the interest prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof, which interest shall be assessed and collected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof. (C) Delinquency Interest. - In case of failure to pay: (1) The amount of the tax due on any return to be filed, or (2) The amount of the tax due for which no return is required, or (3) A deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon on the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the Commissioner, there shall be assessed and collected on the unpaid amount, interest at the rate prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof until the amount is fully paid, which interest shall form part of the tax. 94 Implementing Republic Act No. 8424, "An Act Amending the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended" Relative to the Withholding on Income Subject to the Expanded Withholding Tax and Final Withholding Tax, Withholding of Income Tax on Compensation, Withholding of Creditable Value-Added Tax and Other Percentage Taxes.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 salaries of P74,504,065.87 also per Alphalist, citing as basis thereof CTA Case No. 6195, Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Further, respondent invokes Section 80(A)95 of the NIRC of 1997.96 A detailed computation of respondent's assessment is shown below: 97 Salaries and wages per ITR P97 ,528,452.00 Less: Salaries exempt from withholding tax on 7 795,404.22 P89,733,047.78 compensation 78,874,152.17 Retirement cost p 3,248 923.44 P10,858,895.61 2,400,486.11 Employee benefits 2 145 994.67 22.97% p 2,494,288.32 SSS Philhealth and HDMF contributions P3 533,152.37 73 843,838.39 3 247 757.18 Taxable salaries and wages 1 497,161.41 P5,742,045.50 Salaries and wages per returns P3 222,757.18 Sched. 7.1 p 3,302,407.11 25 000.00 Taxable Non taxable 230 745.26 Sched. 7.3 Taxable P69,779 626.74 Non taxable 4 064,211.65 Sched. 7.3 Taxable P1,422,032.02 Non taxable 75 129.39 Discrepancy Tax due x Composite rate Taxable compensation Basic 'NTC Tax Still Due Add: 20% Interest p.a. (Sec. 248, NIRC) (1/16/2010 -06/30/16) Compromise Penalty (RMO 19-2007) Total Amount Due Petitioner paid a portion of the assessment based on its own re- computation of the deficiency WTC as follows: 98 ~ 95 SEC. 80. Liability for Tax. - (A) Employer. - The employer shall be liable for the withholding and remittance of the correct amount of tax required to be deducted and withheld under this Chapter. If the employer fails to withhold and remit the correct amount of tax as required to be withheld under the provision of this Chapter, such tax shall be collected from the employer together with the penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to withhold and remit. 96 DOD, FFDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 966. 97 Schedule 5, Annex A.4, DOD, FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 964 and 971. 98 Par. 4.73, Petitioner's Memorandum, docket, Vol. III, pp. 1235-1236.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Salaries and waqes per ITR P97 528 452.00 Less: Adjustments P4,579,292.00 6,725-'286.67 Retirement cost 2'-145,994.67 P90 803,165.33 Mandatory contributions Taxable salaries and wages 78,874 152.17 Salaries and wages per return Pll 929 013.16 Salaries and waqes not subjected to WTC Less: Reconciling items P2,349,597.76 9 119 812.05 a) Expenses subjected to 2% EWT 2,425 688.36 P2,809,201.11 b) Services from GPPs 4,270,908.26 cl Salaries to emQioyees in Italy 14,212.50 22.97% d) De minimis 59 405.17 e) Others p 645,273.49 Salaries and wages not subjected to WTC Multiplied by: Composite rate Deficiency withholding tax Based on the foregoing re-computation, petitioner admitted its deficiency WTC liability on salaries and wages of only P2,809,201.11, and indicated the following adjustments and reconciling items as not subject to WTC: (a) retirement cost of P4,579,292.00; (b) mandatory contributions of P2,145,994.67; (c) expenses subject to 2% EWT of P2,349,597.76; (d) Services from GPPs of P2,425,688.36, (e) salaries to employees in Italy of P4,270,908.26, and (f) de minimis of P14,212.50. The Court partially upholds the assessment. First, petitioner did not present the general ledger of its Salaries and Wages account to prove that the reconciling items presented are indeed included as part of Salaries and Wages. Second, the Court examined the merits of each adjustment and reconciling item made by respondent and/or petitioner. Retirement cost- 1'4,579,292.00. The ICPA noted that per petitioner's Audited Financial Statements (AFS), Note 21, page 30, petitioner's pension contribution for the year amounted to P7,828,215.00. Its net pension expense for the year amounted to P3,248,923.00. Thus, there remains an amount of P4,579,292.00 in the Salaries and Allowances account pertaining to pension contribution. Since the BIR did not impose a withholding tax on ;.--

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 pension contribution as can be shown in BIR's computation, the ICPA recommended that this amount should be allowed as an adjustment.99 The Court agrees with the ICPA. In petitioner's 2009 Audited Financial Statements, the total salaries and wages amounted to P92,949,160.00. However, petitioner claimed a higher deduction for salaries and wages amounting to P97,528,452.00 in its 2009 Annual Income Tax Return (AITR). The difference amounted to P4,579,292.00, which was claimed as an additional deduction for income tax purposes as reflected in the Reconciliation of Net Income per Books Against Taxable Income in petitioner's 2009 AITR, 100 is computed below: Salaries and wages per AFS1o1 p 92,949 160.00 Salaries and wages per ITR102 97,528,452.00 Difference P4,579,292.00 The said amount can be accounted for as the difference between the pension contribution during 2009 amounting to P7,828,215.00 and the pension expense amounting to P3,248,923.00. 103 Only the pension expense amounting to P3,248,923.00 was included in the Salaries and Wages account in petitioner's 2009 AFS. Hence, it claimed the difference of P4,579,292.00 as an additional deduction for income tax purposes as explained above. Effectively, petitioner claimed the total pension contribution of P7,828,215.00 as a deduction for income tax purposes. Indeed, petitioner is entitled to claim as deduction the pension contributions during the year as provided in Section 34(J) of the NIRC of 1997, to wit: "SEC. 34. Deductions from Gross Income. - xxx XXX XXX XXX Jh- 99 !CPA Report, Exhibit "P-71.053", p. 25. 100 Line 123, Section E, Exhibit "P-8", docket, Vol. III, p. 839. 101 Exhibit "P-67", docket, Vol. III, p. 997. 102 Exhibit "R-19", BIR Records, p. 132. 103 Note 21, 2009 AFS, Exhibit "P-67", docket, Vol. III, pp. 1029 to 1030.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 (J) Pension Trusts. - An employer establishing or maintaining a pension trust to provide for the payment of reasonable pensions to his employees shall be allowed as a deduction (in addition to the contributions to such trust during the taxable year to cover the pension liability accruing during the year, allowed as a deduction under Subsection (A)(l) of this Section) a reasonable amount transferred or paid into such trust during the taxable year in excess of such contributions, but only if such amount (1) has not theretofore been allowed as a deduction, and (2) is apportioned in equal parts over a period of ten (10) consecutive years beginning with the year in which the transfer or payment is made." (Emphasis supplied) Since it was the entire pension contribution of P7,828,215.00 that was claimed as deduction in the AITR and the same did not form part of the salaries and wages per Alphalist, it is but proper to remove the amount of P7,828,215.00 from the salaries and wages per ITR in respondent's assessment computation, and not merely the pension expense of P3,248,923.00 or the reconciling item of P4,579,292.00. Employee benefits - 1'2,400,486.11. This amount was removed by respondent from the P97,528,452.00 salaries and wages per ITR for purposes of comparing it with the salaries and wages per alphalist. However, such removal is erroneous because the salaries and wages per alphalist included both taxable and nontaxable employees' compensation and benefits. Mandatory contributions- 1'2,145,994.67. Petitioner and respondent erroneously removed this amount from the salaries and wages per ITR. Said amount is a separate Line Item No. 100 in the 2009 AITR as SSS, GSIS, Philhealth, HDMF and Other Contributions in Section 7, Schedule of Itemized Deductions.104 Thus, said amount is not included in the P97,528,452.00 Salaries and Wages per 2009 AITR under Line Item No. 82 of the same Schedule 7. Since the amount of mandatory contributions amounting to P2,145,994.67 is not included in the salaries and wages per ITR amounting to P97,528,452.00, the former cannot be removed from the latter in computing the assessment. }L- 104 Exhibit "R-19", BIR Records, p. 132.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 With regard to the following reconciling items, the ICPA noted the following findings: 105 Expenses subjected to 2% EWT- ?2,349,597.76. This pertains to share of petitioner in the computer services, as well as the services of a manpower service provider. Supporting documents to prove that these expenses were incurred and paid not to employees but to suppliers but charged under the salaries and allowances account were presented as Exhibits P-70913 to P70963 and the details thereof were summarized in Annexes DD to FF of the ICPA report. Services from GPPs - ?2,425,688.36. This pertains to the retainer services of an accounting firm. The documents in support thereof were presented as Exhibits P-70964 to P-70983; P-71042 to P-71052 and summarized in Annex GG of the ICPA report. Salaries to emplovees in Italv - P4,270,908.26. These were payments of salaries to persons who worked in Italy which are not subject to withholding tax because employment was exercised abroad. Proof of payment to these persons were shown as Exhibits P-70984 to P-71018 and summarized in Annex HH of the ICPA report. De minimis- Pl4,212.50. This pertains to uniforms given to employees which are not subject to WTC. Proof of provision of uniforms to employees were presented as Exhibits P-71019 to P-71025 and summarized in Annex II of the ICPA report. Others - P59,405.17. This pertain to payments to BPO services. Proof of payments were presented as Exhibits P-71026 to P-71028 and the details thereof were presented in Annex JJ of the ICPA report. 106 The Court sustains the assessment on these items. Jc-- 105 Exhibit "P-71.053", ICPA Report, p. 25. 106 Exhibit "P-71.053", ICPA Report, pp. 25 to 26.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 First, petitioner did not explain why the expenses subjected to 2% EWT, services from GPPs, and others were lodged under the salaries and allowances account since payments made pursuant to these transactions are not in the nature of compensation to employees. Second, petitioner did not present the salaries and allowances general ledger to prove that the above expenditures were indeed included in the salaries and allowances. Finally, save for the amount of P94,431.39107 representing payment for computer services, the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner to support the expenses subjected to 2% EWT, salaries to employees in Italy, de minimis, and others were merely screenshots of journal entries (JEs) in petitioner's accounting system. These JEs merely prove how the transactions were entered in petitioner's books but do not in any way prove the existence or occurrence of the transaction. Absent the source documents to support the JEs, the Court cannot ascertain the nature of the transactions involved to properly assess their tax implications. As for the services from the general professional partnership (GPP), petitioner presented the official receipts (ORs) and Statement of Accounts (SOA) issued by Diaz Murillo Dalupan and Company (Certified Public Accountants). However, petitioner failed to present the Articles of Partnership (Articles) of the alleged GPP to prove that it was indeed formed and organized for the purpose of practicing a profession. The Articles ultimately prove the status of an entity as a GPP to be exempted from income tax, and consequently, withholding taxes. The ORs and SOAs are merely corroborative to support the amount of transactions with such GPP for a particular period. Considering the foregoing, petitioner is liable for basic deficiency WTC in the reduced amount of P2,486,751.69 as computed below: Salaries and wages_Q_er ITR p 97,528,452.00 Less: Salaries exempt from withholding tax on compensation p 7,828 215.00 7 828,215.00 p 89 700 237.00 Pension contribution - Employee benefits SSS, Philhealth and HDMF contributions - Taxable salaries and waqes Salaries and wages per returns 107 Exhibits "P-70913" to "P-70947".

DECISION p 3,533,152.37 78 874 152.17 CTA CASE NO. 9396 73,843,838.39 p 10,826,084.83 1 497,161.41 Page 48 of 88 22.97% Sched. 7.1 P2,486,751.69 Sched. 7.3 Sched. 7.3 Discrepancy x Composite rate Basic Deficiency WTC IV. Deficiency Income Tax- P1,813,900,422.46 Respondent's computation of the deficiency income tax assessment is reproduced hereunder: 108 Taxable income per return p 575 145 486.00 Add: Discrepancies per audit P2 164 465 567.65 2 695 884 861.13 Unreported aross profit on undeclared sales_(Sch. 1) 513 571 489.48 P3 271 030 347.13 Disallowed expenses due to non-withholding (Sch. 2) 17 847 804.00 Disallowed per allocation of expense (Sch. 3 Annex A.3) Adjusted taxable income p 981 309 104.14 Income tax due p 87 892 038.80 Less: Tax paid/Tax credits 84 651 607.00 Tax paid 172 543 645.80 Current vear's creditable withholdina tax Total tax paid/tax credits - 172 543 645.80 Less: Carried over to succeeding period P1 005 084 964.12 p 808 765 458.34 Disallowed prior year's CWT 50 000.00 Disallowed unsubstantiated CWT 1 005 134 964.12 Basic tax due Add: 20% interest p.a. (Sec. 248 NIRC)(04/16/10- 06/30/16) P1 813,900,422.46 Compromise penalty (RMO 19-2007) Total amount due To determine whether or not the assessment is sustainable, it is necessary to determine the propriety of the following items comprising the assessment: A. Unreported gross profit on undeclared sales P2,164,465,567.65 B. Disallowed expenses due to non-withholdinq 513 571,489.48 17,847,804.00 c. Disallowed per allocation of expense A. Unreported gross profit on undeclared sales f/#2,164,465,567.65 Undeclared sales (Deficiency VAT)- f/#447,351,295.21 ~ 108 FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. Ill, p. 963.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Respondent's verification disclosed that various sales of real property during the year with initial payments of more than 25%, deferred sales, were not reported for the purpose of computation of income tax due, in violation of Section 49(B) of the NIRC of 1997. Further, respondent's verification disclosed that for 2009, petitioner's collections on taxable cash, deferred, and installment sales of all its projects amounted to P1,654,202,025.28, while the VAT returns filed reflected P1,206,850,730.07 only. Allegedly, as a result, petitioner failed to include in its return the sale of real property amounting to P447,351,295.21 pursuant to Section 4.106-3 of RR No. 16-05, as amended. 109 As a result, respondent derived the assessed amounts from the following computation: 110 Sea Residences Taxable Sales Breeze p 1 008.764.647.56 Field Residences Filed Residences Bldq. 2 125,163,292.00 Grass Residences 18,407,319.82 Grass Residences Tower 3 399,656.23 Mezza Residences Tower 1 Mezza Residences Tower 2 319,523,153.12 Mezza Residences Tower 1&2 96,197,828.76 Mezza Residences Tower 3 128.068.646.54 Mezza Residences Tower 4 85,983,238.46 Princeton 10,559,373.55 Total taxable sales per audit 24.512.722.31 Less: VAT 33 614 636.59 Taxable sales per audit 1,511,753.38 Taxable sales per VAT return Undeclared sales P1,852,706,268.32 198,504 243.03 P1,654,202,025.28 1.206 850.730.07 p 447,351,295.21 VATable sales p 1 654 202.025.28 Exempt sales 6,821 443,653.66 Total sales Per IT return P8,475,645,678.94 Difference 3 966 342.413.00 Gross profit rate Unreported gross profit on undeclared P4,509,303,265.94 sales 48% P2,164,465,567 .65 109 DOD, FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 965 to 966. 110 Annex A.l, Formal Letter of Demand, Exhibit "P-56", docket, Vol. III, p. 942.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Since the two assessment items, namely, the P447,351,295.21 undeclared sales (included in the deficiency VAT assessment) and the P2,164,465,567.65 unreported gross profit on undeclared sales (included in the deficiency income tax assessment), came from the same computation, these shall be discussed simultaneously. In the Judicial Affidavit of petitioner's Assistant Vice-President for Accounting and Controllership, Ms. Gemma L. Mangaliman, she explained that: 111 "The alleged undeclared sales of the Company of P4,509,303,265.94 lacks basis as shown in the computation below: Total sales per VAT Return 8 475,645,678.95 Less: Sales per ITR 3 966,342,413.00 Difference 4 509,303,265.95 Erroneous inclusion of SM Synergy's VAT Exempt Collections (35,539_L_600.00) from its project in VAT Return of SMDC (5,107 ,125,305.38) Erroneous recording of VAT Exempt Installment sales as VAT 1,583,035,021.96 Exempt Deferred sales Sales which were included in the (117,676_Jl19.60) ITR but were excluded in the VAT (28,151,693.09) Returns 198 504,243.03 VAT Exempt Sales included in the VAT Return but excluded in the (705,617,339.46) ITR (97,202,256. 71) Cancelled sales (98 410,712.39) VAT component for VATable sales (30,317 819.27) VAT Exempt Sales erroneously included in the BIR's computation 78 351 577.53 Cost of Sales erroneously included in the BIR's computation VAT component erroneously included in the BIR's computation Other charges erroneously included in the BIR's computation Erroneous treatment by the BIR of the current year deferred sale as installment sale 111 Exhibit "P-70", Q&A No. 41, JA of Mangaliman, docket, Vol. II, pp. 350 to 354.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Erroneous treatment by the BIR of (26,676,910.48) the deferred sale from prior years 860 146.31 as installment sale Failure to include by the BIR of (118,236,489.22) installment sales Erroneous treatment by the BIR of 2'1_253,874.14 the installment sales as deferred (41,333 609.63) (4,521,283,792.27) sales for the current year Erroneous treatment by the BIR of (11,980,526.32) the installment sales as deferred sales for the priory_ear Difference in ITR and VAT return recognized in succeeding years Remaining balance Erroneous inclusion of SM Synergy's VAT Exempt Collections from its project in the VAT return ofSMDC SMDC mistakenly included in its VAT returns filed with the BIR the VAT exempt sales of SM Synergy from the latter's projects in the total amount of P35,539,600.00. Thus, this should be excluded from the computation of the discrepancy between the Sales per VAT returns and Sales per ITR since such sales are not the sales of SMDC. Erroneous recording of VAT Exempt Installment sales as VAT Exempt Deferred Sales SMDC's sales amounting to P5,107,125,305.38 were erroneously recorded as VAT Exempt deferred sales instead of VAT Exempt Installment sales. Thus, the sales per VAT return is overstated by P5,107,125,305.38 since the contract price of the sales was recorded during the year of sale instead of recording only the instalment collections as sales for the year. Sales which were included in the ITR but were excluded in the VAT returns Collections amounting to P1,583,035,021.96 were included as part of the sales per ITR. However, such collections were not reported as part of the sales per VAT return. Nevertheless, such sales are VAT exempt. And thus, there should be no deficiency for VAT. VAT Exempt Sales included in the VAT return but excluded in the ITR '7""

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Sales amounting to P117,676,919.60 were reported as VAT exempt sales in the VAT return but were not included in the ITR. Notwithstanding, such sales should not be subject to regular corporate tax since the same are under the Income Tax Holiday. Cancelled Sales The difference in the sales per ITR and sales per VAT return amounting to P28,151,693.09 is due to the cancellation of the sales. Sales during the year and from prior years were eventually cancelled in succeeding periods. Thus, such sales should be removed from the discrepancy since the amount recognized in either the VAT return or ITR were reversed during the year of cancellation. Erroneous inclusion of the VAT Component, VAT exempt sales, cost of sales and other charges in the BIR computation The BIR came up with his own computation of the Company's VATable sales. However, the BIR included VAT exempt sales, cost of sales and other charges. Thus, we recomputed the same by adding back the VAT component per the computation by the BIR, viz. VATable sales oer audit 1.654,202,025.29 VAT comoonent 198 504 243.03 Gross receipts subiect to VAT 1,852,706,268.32 The BIR should not have included VAT exempt sales, cost of sales and other charges amounting to P705,617,339.46, P97,202,256.71 and 30,317,819.27, respectively, in order to arrive at the total vatable sales. Nevertheless, the gross receipts subject to VAT amounting to P1,852,706,268.32 is gross of VAT. Thus, we deducted the actual VAT of the Vatable sales in the amount of P98,410,712.39 to compute for the Net Vatable sales and subsequently, to compare the same with the Vatable sales reported in the Vat return. Cft--

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Erroneous treatment by the BIR of the current year deferred sale as installment sale The BIR also classified sales amounting to P78,351,577.53 as installment and thus, included the collection for the current year in the computation of Vatable sales. However, the whole contract price of such sale should be treated as current year deferred sale since the initial payments thereof in the year of sale exceed 25% of the gross selling price. Erroneous treatment by the BIR of the deferred sale from prior years as installment sale The discrepancy also arose due to the erroneous inclusion in the BIR computation of the installment collections amounting to P26,676,91 0.48 as sales during the year although the same is a deferred sale from prior years. Thus, the whole contract price was already subjected to VAT and income tax during the year of sale (i.e. prior year). Failure to include by the BIR ofinstallment sales The BIR failed to include in his computation of Vatable sales units that are under installment payment amounting to P860, 146.31. Thus, said amount should be added back. Erroneous treatment by the BIR ofthe installment sales as deferred sales for the current year The BIR also classified sales in the amount of P118,236,489.22 as current year deferred and thus, included the whole contract price in the computation of the Vatable sales. However, as per the Buyer Subsidiary Ledger of the Company, such sales are on installment payment scheme since initial payments during the year of sale did not exceed 25% of the gross selling price. Erroneous treatment by the BIR ofthe installment sales as deferred sales for the prior year The Vatable sales in the FDDA are understated as to the amount of the collections in the current year since the$-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 BIR classified sales amounting to P24,253,87 4.14 as prior year deferred sales. However, based on the Buyer's Subsidiary Ledger, such sales are under installment because the collection on the year of sales (i.e. prior year) did not exceed 25% of the contract price. Difference in ITR and VAT return recognized in succeeding years Difference in the sales per ITR and VAT return amounting to P41,333,609.63 were recognized in the succeeding years. There were sales in the ITR which were not reported in the VAT return for the current taxable year but were subsequently reported in the VAT return in the succeeding years. Conversely, there were sales in the VAT return for the current taxable year which were not part of the ITR but were eventually reported as sales in the ITR for the succeeding period."112 The Court finds the inclusion of these assessment items improper for lack of factual and legal bases. Section 49(B) of the NIRC of 1997 provides for the taxation of income on installment basis, to wit: "SEC. 49. Installment Basis.- XXX XXX XXX (B) Sales ofRealty and Casual Sales ofPersonalty. - In the case (1) of a casual sale or other casual disposition of personal property (other than property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year), for a price exceeding One thousand pesos (P1,000), or (2) of a sale or other disposition of real property, if in either case the initial payments do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the selling price, the income may, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, be returned on the basis and in the manner above prescribed in this Section. J-c- 112 Pars. 4.17 to 4.33, Petitioner's Memorandum, docket, Vol. III, pp. 1205 to 1209.

DEOSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 As used in this Section, the term 'initial payments' means the payments received in cash or property other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable period in which the sale or other disposition is made." The above prov1s1on which was formerly Section 43(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 (Old Tax Code) has not been amended since then and is implemented by Sections 175 to 177 of RR No. 02- 40113, the relevant provisions of which are as follows: "SECTION 175. Sale of Real Property Involving Deferred Payments. - Under Section 43 deferred-payment sales of real property include (a) agreements to purchase and sale which contemplate that a conveyance is not to be made at the outset, but only after all or a substantial portion of the selling price has been paid, and (b) sales in which there is an immediate transfer of title, the vendor being protected by a mortgage or other lien as to deferred payments. Such sales either under (a) or (b), fall into two classes when considered with respect to the terms of sale, as follows: (1) Sales of property on the installment plan, that is, sales in which the payments received in cash or property other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable year in which the sale is made do not exceed 25 per cent of the selling price. (2) Deferred-payment sales not on the installment plan, that is, sales in which the payments received in cash or property other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable year in which the sale is made exceed 25 per cent of the selling price. In the sale of mortgaged property the amount of the mortgage, whether the property is merely taken subject to the mortgage or whether the mortgage is assumed by the purchaser, shall be included as a part of the 'selling price'~ 113 Income Tax Regulations.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 but the amount of the mortgage, to the extent that it does not exceed the basis to the vendor of the property sold, shall not be considered as a part of the 'initial payments' or of the 'total contract price', as those terms are used in Section 43 of the Code, in Sections 174 and 176 of these regulations, and in this section. The term "initial payments" does not include amounts received by the vendor in the year of sale from the disposition to a third person of notes given by the vendee as part of the purchase price which are due and payable in subsequent years. Commissions and other selling expenses paid or incurred by the vendor are not to be deducted or taken into account in determining the amount of the 'initial payments,' the 'total contract price', or 'the selling price'. The term 'initial payments' contemplates at least one other payment in addition to the initial payment. If the entire purchase price is to be paid in a lump sum in a later year, there being no payment during the first year, the income may not be returned on the installment basis. Income may not be returned on the installment basis where no payment in cash or property, other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser, is received during the first year, the purchaser having promised to make two or more payments, in later years. SECTION 176. Sale of Real Property on Installment Plan. - In transactions included in class (1) in the preceding section the vendor may return as income from such transactions in any taxable year that proportion of the installment payments actually received in that year which the total profit realized or to be realized when the property is paid for bears to the total contract price. XXX XXX XXX If the vendor chooses as a matter of consistent practice to turn the income from installment sales on the straight accrual or cash receipts and disbursements basis, such a course is permissible, and the sales will be treated as deferred-payment sales not on the installment plan. f'-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 SECTION 177. Deferred-Payment Sale of Real Property Not on Installment Plan. - In transactions included in class (2) in Section 175 of these regulations, the obligations of the purchaser received by the vendor are to be considered as the equivalent of cash." (Emphasis supplied) From the foregoing, there are two types of sales of real estate on installment basis, namely: (1) Sales ofproperty on the installment plan, that is, sales in which the payments received in cash or property other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable year in which the sale is made do not exceed 25 per cent of the selling price. (2) Deferred-payment sales not on the installment plan, that is, sales in which the payments received in cash or property other than evidences of indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable year in which the sale is made exceed 25 per cent of the selling price. For income tax purposes, the taxpayer selling real estate on installment plan may return as income from such transactions in any taxable year that proportion of the installment payments actually received in that year, which the total profit realized or to be realized when the property is paid for bears to the total contract price. Whereas for sale of real property not on installment plan, the whole selling price must already be declared as income during the taxable year, being equivalent to cash. Conversely stated, for sales of real property where the initial payments during the year of sale did not exceed 25% of the total selling price, the seller is required to declare as income only the payments received during the taxable year and not the whole selling price. Whereas if the initial payments during the year of sale exceeded 25% of the total selling price, the seller is already required to declare the whole selling price as gross income in its tax returns in the same year of sale. The latter is treated the same way as a cash sale. J<-

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 The same approach is adopted for VAT purposes as elaborated and implemented in Sections 4.106-3 and 4.106-4 of RR No. 16-05, as amended by RR No. 04-07, the relevant provisions of which state: "SEC. 4.106-3. Sale ofReal Properties.- Sale of real properties held primarily for sale to customers or held for lease in the ordinary course of trade or business of the seller shall be subject to VAT. XXX XXX XXX Sale of real property on installment plan means sale of real property by a real estate dealer, the initial payments of which in the year of sale do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of the gross selling price. In case of installment sale, the seller shall be subject to output VAT on the installment payments received, including the interests and penalties for late payment, actually and/or constructively received, subject to the provisions of Sec. 4.106-4 hereof. Correspondingly, the buyer of the property can claim the input tax in the same period as the seller recognized the output tax. Installment payments, including interests and penalties, actually and/or constructively received starting February 1, 2006 shall be subject to twelve percent (12%) output VAT. Sale of real property by a real estate dealer on a deferred payment basis not on the installment plan means sale of real property, the initial payments of which in the year of sale exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross selling price. 'Initial payments' means payment or payments which the seller receives before or upon execution of the instrument of sale and payments which he expects or is scheduled to receive in cash or property (other than Je-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 evidence of indebtedness of the purchaser) during the taxable year when the sale or disposition of the real property was made. It covers any down payment made and includes all payments actually or constructively received during the year of sale, the aggregate of which determines the limit set by law. Initial payments do not include the amount of mortgage on the real property sold except when such mortgage exceeds the cost or other basis of the property to the seller, in which case the excess shall be considered part of the initial payments. Also excluded from the initial payments are notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued by the purchaser to the seller at the time of the sale. In the case of sale of real properties on a deferred- payment basis not on the installment plan, the transaction shall be treated as cash sale which makes the entire selling price taxable in the month of sale. Output tax shall be recognized by the seller and input tax shall accrue to the buyer at the time of the execution of the instrument of sale. Payments subsequent to 'initial payments' shall no longer be subject to output VAT, in the case of sale on a deferred payment basis. XXX XXX XXX SEC. 4.106-4. Meaning of the Term 'Gross Selling Price: - The term 'gross selling price' means the total amount of money or its equivalent which the purchaser pays or is obligated to pay to the seller in consideration of the sale, barter or exchange of the goods or properties, excluding VAT. The excise tax, if any, on such goods or properties shall form part of the gross selling price. XXX XXX XXX }'c-

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 If the sale of real property is on installment plan where the zonal value/fair market value is higher than the consideration/selling price, exclusive of the VAT, the VAT shall be based on the ratio of actual collection of the consideration, exclusive of the VAT, against the agreed consideration, exclusive of the VAT, appearing in the Contract to Sell/Contract of Sale applied to the zonal value/fair market value of the property at the time of the execution of the Contract to Sell/Contract of Sale at the inception of the contract. Thus, since the output VAT is based on the market value of the property which is higher than the consideration/ selling price in the sales document, exclusive of the VAT, the input VAT that can be claimed by the buyer shall be the separately-billed output VAT in the sales document issued by the seller. Therefore, the output VAT which is based on the market value must be billed separately by the seller in the sales document with specific mention that the VAT billed separately is based on the market value of the property." (Emphases supplied) Conversely stated, for sales of real property where the initial payments during the year of sale did not exceed 25% of the gross selling price, the seller is required to pay output VAT corresponding only to the payments received during the taxable quarter and not the output VAT corresponding to the whole gross selling price. Whereas if the initial payments during the year of sale exceeded 25% of the gross selling price, the seller is already required to subject the whole gross selling price to output VAT in the quarter when the sale was made and payment of the balance of the gross selling price in the subsequent quarters therefrom is no longer subject to output VAT. Given that installment sales are treated in the same manner for both income tax and VAT purposes, it is thus expected that the gross income declared in the income tax returns is equal to the gross selling price declared in the VAT returns during the taxable year. In addition, petitioner enjoys two types of tax exemptions: 1. Income tax holiday (ITH) granted by the Board of Investments (BOI) for specific projects as hereunder summarized, for the sale of residential units where the selling price of each does not exceed P3 Million; and, Jt-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 2. VAT exemption on sales of residential dwellings with selling price not exceeding P2.5 Million as provided in Section 109(P) of the NIRC of 1997, as implemented by Section 4.109-1(B)(1)(p)(4) of RR No. 16-05. Based on the certifications issued by the BOI, only the following projects of petitioner are covered by ITH and their respective effectivity dates: Housing Proiect BOI Certificate Date of Effectivity of ITH Exhibit Sea Residences of Registration Registration four (4) years from No. Berkeley Residences August 14, 2008 December 2008 or actual Field Residences 2008-222 July 24, 2008 start of commercial P-71030 Grass Residences 2008-170 August 14, 2008 operations/selling, P-71031 2008-221 July 23, 2008 whichever is earlier but in P-71032 Mezza Residences 2008-168 no case earlier than the P-71033 July 23, 2008 date ofregistration 2008-169 three (3) years from July P-71034 2008 or actual start of commercial operations/selling, whichever is earlier but in no case earlier than the date ofreqistration Accordingly, for income tax purposes, the earliest period when petitioner may enjoy ITH incentives for sale of units with selling price not exceeding P3.0 Million begins (1) on July 23, 2008 as for the sales of real estate units from Grass Residences and Mezza Residences, (2) on July 24, 2008 for sales from Berkeley Residences, and (3) on August 14, 2008 for sales from Sea Residences and Field Residences. Prior to these dates, petitioner is not entitled to any tax exemption. However, for VAT purposes, petitioner's sales of residential dwellings not exceeding P2.5 Million per unit is entitled to VAT exemption from the date of effectivity of RR No. 16-05, providing guidelines for the exemption, which was on November 1, 2005. Based on the evidence presented, the gross income declared by petitioner in its 2009 AITR amounted to P3,966,342,413.00. However, the gross sales declared by petitioner in its 2009 Amended Quarterly VAT Returns amounted to P8,075,077,592.08. As a result, there arose;z...

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 a difference amounting to P4,108,735,179.08, which is computed as follows: 2009 AITR (Line 17)114 Exempt Sales Taxable Sales Total 2009 Amended Quarterly p 1 859 596,273.00 p 2,106,746,140.00 p 3,966,342,413.00 VAT Returns (Lines 15 and 18)115 6,821 443,653.56 1,253 633,938.52 8 075,077,592.08 P(4,961,847,380.56) p 853,112,201.48 P(4,108,735,179.08) Difference It must be noted, however, that the total taxable sales from real estate in the Amended Quarterly VAT Returns as found by the ICPA only amounted to P883,185,456.75. The difference allegedly pertains to Other Income amounting to P370,448,481.51. 116 As petitioner failed to submit its Summary List of Sales (SLS) for taxable year 2009, the Court cannot verify whether or not there were items in Other Income declared as VATable sales. Thus, the whole amount of VATable sales in the 2009 Amended Quarterly VAT Returns amounting to P1,253,633,938.52 shall be considered as pertaining to sales from real estate. As found by the ICPA in his audit, majority of the difference between the gross income per AITR and gross sales per VAT returns was due to petitioner's declaration of the whole gross selling price for VAT exempt transactions in the VAT returns even if the initial payments did not exceed 25% during 2009. In contrast, the gross income per ITR only reported the payments received during 2009 for tax-exempt sales of real estate with initial payments not exceeding 25% of the selling price. The Court finds petitioner's manner of reporting the VAT exempt sales erroneous. The guidelines provided in Sections 4.106-3 and 4.106-4 of RR No. 16-05, as amended by RR No. 04-07, did not make any qualification as to which type of sale shall the VAT reporting guidelines apply. The reporting guidelines for sale of real property on installment basis as provided in the RR is thus applicable to all types of sales, even to those which are VAT exempt. Further, there is nothing in the RR which specifies that VAT exempt sales of real property with initial payments not exceeding 25% of the gross selling 1Z-- 114 Exhibit "P-8", docket, Vol. III, p. 838. 115 Exhibits "P-17" to "P-20", docket, Vol. III, pp. 856 to 863. 116 Exhibit "P-71.053", !CPA Report, Annexes E and F.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 price shall nevertheless be reported at 100% gross selling price during the quarter when the sale was made. On this point, it was erroneous for respondent to make a straightforward comparison between the sales per VAT returns and gross income per AITR without considering the error made by petitioner in reporting VAT exempt sales. Nevertheless, petitioner's error in reporting VAT exempt sales will be set aside for purposes of computing whether or not there were indeed undeclared sales subject to deficiency VAT. To correct the amounts which should have been reported by petitioner in its VAT returns would result in a lower amount of sales and eventually lead to cancellation of the assessment since petitioner obviously overstated its sales. With this, the objective of determining whether or not there were undeclared sales subject to deficiency VAT assessment would be defeated. As such, separate computations for the purpose of determining undeclared sales subject to deficiency income tax and deficiency VAT. Petitioner's total selling price of real estate sales from the years 2006 to 2009 for the following projects per Buyers Subsidiary Ledger (BSL)117 amounted to Pl4,667,577,294.77. However, based on the !CPA's audit of petitioner's Contracts to Sell (CTS), Deeds of Absolute Sale (DOAS), and Account Summaries118, the total selling price only amounted to P14,648,623,005.56. There results a difference amounting to P18,954,289.21, as computed below: 119 Selling Price Selling Price oer BSL Proiect oer !CPA Audit Difference Berkelev Residences '" 2 029 068 222.30 Chateau Elysee p 2,032,959,455.82 '" (3,891,233.52) Residences 35 539 600.00 Field Residences 792 997 793.20 - 35 539 600.00 Grass Residences 4 900 295 040.81 Mezza Residences 3,054 115 550.07 797 950 391.43 (4 952 598.23) Princeton Residences 520 992 492.77 Sea Residences 3.334 568 595.62 4,898,180,860.82 2,114,179.99 P14,667,577,294.77 3,066,800,193.70 (12,684,643.63) 520,285,993.70 706 499.07 3 332 446 110.10 2.122 485.52 P14,648,623,005.56 P18,954,289.21 117 Exhibit "P-71035". 118 Exhibits "P-63025" to "P-70912". 119 ICPA Report, Exhibit "P-71.035", p. 13.

DEOSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 The ICPA explained that a significant portion of the above difference is due to the sales contracts amounting to P35,539,600.00 pertaining to the Chateau Elysee Residences project that was erroneously included in the BSL. The project is not owned by petitioner but is owned by another corporation, SM Synergy Corporation. This was already excluded by the BIR in its computation in FDDA. Thus, additional procedures will no longer be performed to verify this item. Excluding the sales to Chateau Elysee Residences, the remaining difference only amounts to P16,585,310.80, as computed below: Project Selling Price Selling Price Difference Berkeley Residences per BSL per ICPA Audit p (3,891,233.52) Field Residences p 2,032,959,455.82 Grass Residences p 2,029,068,222.30 (4,952,598.23) Mezza Residences 792,997,793.20 797,950,391.43 2,114,179.99 Princeton Residences 4,898,180,860.82 Sea Residences 4,900,295,040.81 3,066,800,193.70 (12 684,643.63) 3,054,115,550.07 706 499.07 520 285 993.70 520 992 492.77 3 332 446 110.10 2 122 485.52 3 334 568 595.62 P14,648,623,005.57 P(16,585,310.80) P14,632,037,694.77 This difference noted by the ICPA was generally due to differences in the amounts indicated in the supporting documents and the amounts entered in the BSL. 120 Nevertheless, the examination shall be confined to the amount as audited by the ICPA amounting to P14,648,623,005.57. The above sales amounting to P14,648,623,005.57 as audited by the ICPA were made by petitioner in the following years: Year of Sale Amount 2009 2008 p 9,311,986,056.67 2007 2006 3,025,198,215.23 Total 1,769,899,629.84 541,539,103.82 P14,6481623,005.56121 As discussed earlier, petitioner's entitlement to ITH only began on July 23 and 24, 2008 and August 14, 2008, and such entitlement is only limited to certain projects. Hence, sale of real estate during 2006, 2007, and January to July 22 and 23, 2008 and January to August 13, ?a- 120 !CPA Report, Exhibit "P-71-035", Annex D. 121 Difference of PO.Ol due to rounding off.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 2008, and the corresponding 2009 collections ansmg from the installment sales made in these years are not entitled to ITH. The !CPA's audit of petitioner's sale of real estate from 2006 to 2009 and the corresponding yearly collections is summarized in Annex A of his ICPA Report. Computation ofGross Income for Income Tax Purposes An examination and verification of the !CPA's audit of the documents supporting the sales of real estate from 2006 to 2009 for income tax purposes is summarized as follows: 122 Selling Price Initial Payments Initial Payments 2009 Collections Exceeding 25% Not Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% Year 2009: p 520 285 993.70 p 24 391 299.20 p 495 894 694.50 p 15 827 730.84 Sales of units from projects not covered by 316 890 288.25 122 334 300.00 194 555 988.25 19 143 535.35 ITH Sales of parking units 1416 298 211.76 365 769 917.23 1 050 528 294.53 85 284 972.99 (not residential dwellings subject to exemption) 7 058 511 562.96 1 306 807 784.55 5 751 703 778.41 416,427 007.79 Sales of units from projects covered by ITH 9 311 986. 056.67 1 819,303,300.98 7. 492,682,755.69 536,683,246.97 but exceeds P3.0M Sales of units from 1 851 451 523.83 107 025 921.15 1 744 425 602.68 391115 316.77 projects covered by ITH not exceeding P3.0M 125 812 000.00 32 023 000.00 93 789 000.00 22 613 973.16 Tota/2009 243 261 877.49 15 349 736.55 227 912 140.94 42 757 747.96 Year 2008: 804 672 813.91 3 823 428.93 800 849 384.98 140 232 925.90 Sales of units from projects not covered by 3,025,198,215.23 158,222,086.63 2,866,976,128.60 596,719,963.79 ITH Sales of parking units 1 735 909,629.84 45 054 085.56 1 690 855 544.28 794 533 273.98 (not residential dwellings subiect to exemotionl 33 990 000.00 3 366 000.00 30 624 000.00 12 024 426.26 Sales of units from projects covered by ITH 1 769 899 629.84 48. 420 085.56 1 721 479 544.28 806. 557. 700.24 but exceeds P3.0M Sales of units from projects covered by ITH not exceeding P3.0M Tota/2008 Year 2007: Sales of units from projects not covered by ITH Sales of parking units (not residential dwellings subject to exemotionl Tota/2007 Year 2006: 122 See details per Annex A of this Decision.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Selling Price Initial Payments Initial Payments 2009 Collections Exceeding 25% Not Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% Year 2009: S32 123 103.82 - S32 123 103.82 17S 832 S87.71 Sales of units from projects not covered by 9 416 000.00 - 9 416 000.00 2 2S4 242.S8 ITH 541539103.82 178. 086.830.29 Sales of parking units 1'14 648 623 005.56 - 541,539103.82 1'2 118 047 741.29 (not residential dwellings subiect to exemption) 1'2 025 945 473.17 1'12 622 677 532.38 Tota/2006 Grand Total Proceeding from the above information, petitioner's total gross income from real estate sales should have been P3,937,351,042.27, as shown below: Initial Payments 2009 Collections Gross Income to be Declared in AITR Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% Exempt Taxable Year 2009: p 24 391 299.20 p 1S 827 730.84 p - p 40 219 030.04 Sales of units from projects not covered by 122 334 300.00 19 143 S3S.3S - 141477 83S.3S ITH Sales of parking units (not 36S 769 917.23 8S 284,972.99 - 4S1 OS4 890.22 residential dwellings subject to exemption) 1 306 807 784.5S 416 427 007.79 1 723 234 792.34 - Sales of units from 1 819 303.300.98 projects covered by ITH 536. 683. 246.97 L723. 234 792.34 632.751 755.61 but exceeds P3.0M Sales of units from 39111S 316.77 - 39111S 316.77 projects covered by ITH 22 613 973.16 not exceeding P3.0M - 22 613 973.16 Tota/2009 42 7S7 747.96 - 42 7S7 747.96 Year 2008: 140 232 92S.90 140 232 92S.90 - Sales of units from 596. 719 963.79 140 232.925.90 projects not covered by 456. 487. 037.89 ITH Sales of parking units (not 794 S33 273.98 - 794 S33 273.98 residential dwellings subject to exemption) 12,024 426.26 - 12 024 426.26 Sales of units from 806,557,700.24 projects covered by ITH - 806,557,700.24 but exceeds P3 .OM Sales of units from projects covered by ITH not exceeding P3.0M Tota/2008 Year 2007: Sales of units from projects not covered by ITH Sales of parking units (not residential dwellings subiect to exemption) Tota/2007 Year 2006:

DEGSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Initial Payments 2009 Collections Gross Income to be Declared in AITR Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Sales of units from Not Exceeding projects not covered by ITH 25% Sales of parking units (not residential dwellings Exempt Taxable subject to exemption) 17S 832 587.71 - 17S 832 587.71 Tota/2006 2 254 242.58 - 2 254 242.58 178,086.830.29 - 178,086.830.29 Grand Total 1'1,81"'303,300.98 1'2,11~047,741.29 1'1,86~467,718.24 1'2 07~883 324.03 Total Gross Income for 2009 1'3,93~351,042.27 The audited total gross income for 2009 amounting to P3,937,351,042.27 is lower than the total gross income declared per 2009 AITR amounting to P3,966,342,413.00. As such, petitioner had no undeclared sales, and even overstated its gross income in the 2009 AITR. The following shows our comparison of the amounts determined per audit and the amounts declared in the AITR: Exempt Taxable Total Gross income_l)er audit P1,863 467,718.24 p 2 073 883 324.03 p 3 937 351 042.27 Gross income per 2009 AITR 1,859,596,273.00 2 106 74~140.00 3 966 342 413.00 Under(over)statement of gross income p 3,871,445.24 P(32,862,815.97) P(28,991,370.73) Computation ofGross Sales for VAT Purposes On the other hand, for VAT purposes, the following summarizes the Court's examination and verification of the ICPA's audit of the documents supporting the sales of real estate from 2006 to 2009: 123 Selling Price Initial Payments Initial Payments 2009 Collections Exceeding 25% Not Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% v..ar 200!1: p 1 737 753 686.03 p 399 189 272.61 f' 1 338 564 413.42 f' 106 004 756.19 Sales of residential 7 257 342 082.39 1 297 779 728.37 5 959 562 354.02 411 534 955.43 units with value 316 890 288.25 122 334 300.00 194 555 988.25 19 143 535.35 exceedinq P2.5million Sales of residential !Jd11,986.c_056.67 :t_819,303d00.98 7. 492 682 755.69 536. 683. 246.97 units with value not exceedinq P2.5million Sales of oarkinq units Tota/2009 Year 2008: 123 See details per Annex B of this Decision.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Selling Price Initial Payments Initial Payments 2009 Collections Exceeding 25% Not Exceeding 25% from Sales with Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% Sales of residential 451191 833.01 82 092 879.73 369 098 953.28 72 884 381.14 units with value exceeding P2.5million 2 448 194 382.22 44 106 206.90 2 404 088 175.32 501 221 609.49 Sales of residential 125 812 000.00 32 023 000.00 93 789 000.00 22 613 973.16 units with value not exceeding P2.5million .1 025.198. 215.23 158. 222,086.63 2,866,976,128.60 596,719,963.79 Sales of parking units 197 798 827.92 - 197 798 827.92 74 663 116.82 Tota/2008 1 538 110 801.92 45 054 085.56 1 493 056 716.36 719 870 157.16 33 990 000.00 3 366 000.00 30 624 000.00 12 024 426.26 Year 2007: Sales of residential 1 769 899. 629.84 48.420,085.56 1,721,479,544.28 806,557,700.24 units with value exceeding P2.5million 87 484 937.04 - 87,484 937.04 9 379 608.16 Sales of residential units with value not 444 638 166.78 - 444 638 166.78 166 452 979.55 exceeding P2.5million 9 416 000.00 9 416 000.00 2 254 242.58 - Sales of parking units 541,539,103.82 541,539,103.82 178.086.830.29 P14 648 623 005.56 - P12,622,677,532.39 P2,118,047,741.29 Tota/2007 P2,025,945,473.17 Year2006: Sales of residential units with value exceeding P2.5million Sales of residential units with value not exceeding P2.5million Sales of parking units Tota/2006 Grand Total Proceeding therefrom, petitioner's total gross sales from real estate should have been P6,736,665,567.10, as shown below: Initial Payments 2009 Collections Gross Sales to be Declared in VAT Exceeding 25% from Sales with Returns Initial Payments Not Exceeding 25% Exempt VATable v..... 200!1: p 106 004 756.19 I' - I' 505 194 028.80 399 189 272.61 p Sales of residential units with value exceeding - 3 016 213 091.53 3 016 213 091.53 - P2.5million 194,636,388.73 1 492 416 117.10 Sales of residential units 1,297, 779,728.37 - with value not 19 143 535.35 - exceeding P2.5million: 122 334 300.00 4,508,629,208.63 141 477 835.35 3,335. 997.771.80 Erroneously 1,819,303,300.98 646. 671,864.15 reported at 100% of selling price even if initial payments did not exceed 25% Correctly reported Sales of parking units Tota/2009 Year2008:

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Initial Payments 2009 Collections Gross Sales to be Declared in VAT Exceeding 2S% from Sales with Returns Initial Payments f'1 819 303 300.98 Not Exceeding 2S% Sales of residential units 72 884 381.14 - 72 884 381.14 with value exceeding P2.5million 501 221 609.49 501 221 609.49 - Sales of residential units 22 613 973.16 with value not - 22 613 973.16 exceeding P2.5million 596. 719 963.79 95.498,354.30 501 221 609.49 Sales of parking units 74 663 116.82 - 74 663 116.82 Tota/2008 719 870 157.16 719 870 157.16 - Year 2007: 12 024 426.26 Sales of residential units - 12 024 426.26 with value exceeding 806.557.700.24 86.687.543.08 P2.5million 719 87il 157.16 Sales of residential units with value not 9 379 608.16 - 9 379 608.16 exceeding P2.5million 166 452 979.55 166 452 979.55 - Sales of parking units 2 254 242.58 - 2 254 242.58 Tota/2007 11,633,850.74 17iMJ86,830.29 166,45;z_979.55 f'840 491 612.27 Year 2006: Sales of residential units f'4 917 362 266.12 f'S 896 173 9S4.83 with value exceeding P2.5million P6,736,665,567.10 Sales of residential units with value not exceedino P2.5million Sales of parkino units Tota/2006 Grand Total Total Gross Sales for 2009 The audited total gross sales for 2009 amounting to P6,736,665,567.10 is lower than the total gross sales declared per 2009 Quarterly VAT Returns amounting to P8,075,077,592.08. As such, petitioner had no undeclared sales as there is overstatement of gross sales in the 2009 Quarterly VAT Returns. The following shows our comparison of the amounts determined per audit and the amounts declared in the VAT Returns: Gross sales per audit Exempt VATable Total Gross sales per 2009 p 5 896 173 954.83 p 840 491 612.27 p 6,736 665 567.10 VAT Returns Overstatement of 6 821,443 653.56 1 253,633,938.52 8 075,077 592.08 _gross sales P(925,269,698.73) P(413,142,326.25) P(1,338,412,024.98) In summary, petitioner had no undeclared sales both for income tax and VAT purposes, and the corresponding deficiency income tax and VAT assessments arising therefrom must be cancelled. '1-

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 B. Disallowed expenses due to non-withholding 1'513,571,489.48 Respondent's comparison of expenses claimed as deduction per Income Tax Returns as against those subjected to withholding taxes per Alphalist disclosed that petitioner failed to withhold and remit fully to the government the corresponding taxes from income payments/expenses shown hereunder, hence, disallowed pursuant to Section 34(K)124 of the NIRC.125 Particulars PerFS Per Alphalist Discrepango Rate EWTDue Subject to: p 527 595 479.14 p 1371895 959.14 p 389 699 520.00 1% p 3,896 995.20 1% 95 643 051.73 2% 2% 1 866 893 602.82 1 771 250 551.09 1 383 899.14 15% 1 912 861.03 15% 239 521 942.00 15 986 123.00 10% 207 584.87 . 222 151 919.86 P502,712,593.87 1,598 612.30 TOTAL P2,634,011,023.96 P2,131,298,430.09 10 858 895.61 P7,616,053.41 Add: Salaries not subjected to WTC P513,S71,489.48 Disallowed expenses due to non-withholding Petitioner posits that since the deficiency WfC and EWf has already been paid,126 the corresponding income payments should be allowed as deduction from the taxable income. Section 2.58.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 02-1998, as amended, states that deduction will also be allowed in (certain cases) where no withholding of tax was made.127 The Court agrees with respondent with regard to this assessment item. Section 2.58.5 of RR No. 02-98, as amended by Section 6 of RR No. 14-02, states: Jt- 124 SEC. 34. Deductions from Gross Income. - Except for taxpayers earning compensation income arising from personal services rendered under an employer-employee relationship where no deductions shall be allowed under this Section other than under subsection (M) hereof, in computing taxable income subject to income tax under Sections 24(A); 25(A); 26; 27(A), (B) and (C); and 28(A)(1), there shall be allowed the following deductions from gross income; XXX (K) Additional Requirements for Deductibility ofCertain Payments. - Any amount paid or payable which is otherwise deductible from, or taken into account in computing gross income or for which depreciation or amortization may be allowed under this Section, shall be allowed as a deduction only if it is shown that the tax required to be deducted and withheld therefrom has been paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue in accordance with this Section, Sections 58 and 81 of this Code. 125 DOD, FFDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. Ill, p. 965. 126 Exhibits "P-60" to "P-62", docket, Vol. Ill, pp. 978 to 984. 127 Par. 4.44, Petitioner's Memorandum, docket, Vol. III, p. 1225.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 "Sec. 2.58.5. Requirements for Deductibility. -Any income payment which is otherwise deductible under the Code shall be allowed as a deduction from the payor's gross income only if it is shown that the income tax required to be withheld has been paid to the Bureau in accordance with Sees. 57 and 58 of the Code. A deduction will also be allowed in the following cases where no withholding of tax was made: (A) The payee reported the income and pays the tax due thereon and the withholding agent pays the tax including the interest incident to the failure to withhold the tax, and surcharges, if applicable, at the time of the audit investigation or reinvestigation/ reconsideration. (B) The recipient/payee failed to report the income on the due date thereof, but the withholding agent/taxpayer pays the tax, including the interest incident to the failure to withhold the tax, and surcharges, if applicable, at the time of the audit/investigation or reinvestigation/ reconsideration. (C) The withholding agent erroneously underwithheld the tax but pays the difference between the correct amount and the amount of tax withheld, including the interest, incident to such error, and surcharges, if applicable, at the time of the audit/investigation or reinvestigation/reconsideration." (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner paid the deficiency WTC and EWT with its penalties on July 26, 2016 and January 1, 2017, both of which were already after the audit investigation or reinvestigation/reconsideration, considering that the FDDA was issued by respondent on June 23, 2016 and was received by petitioner on June 27, 2016. Thus, pursuant to the above- mentioned provision, petitioner can no longer claim as deduction from gross income the disallowed expenses due to non-withholding amounting to P513,571,489.48 even after settling the corresponding deficiency WTC and EWT. Consequently, the assessment must be retained. g.v

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 C Disallowedper allocation ofexpense -1'17,847,804.00 Respondent's verification disclosed that per allocation of expense schedule it was revealed that operating expense attributable to taxable activity was overcharged by the amount of P17,847,804, hence, disallowed pursuant to Section 50 of the NIRC of 1997.128 Per Allocation Schedule Per ITR Difference Registered Non-registered Registered Non-registered Registered Non-registered Direct cost 111 667 853.00 122 094 818.00 103 986 663.00 129 776 008.00 7 681190.00 (7 681190.001 Marketing and sellino 114 692 454.00 120 832 429.00 108 893 942.00 126 630 941.00 5 798 512.00 rs 798 512.00\ Brokerage fees and 226.360 307.00 242 927.247.00 212 880 605.00 256.406.949.00 13 479 702.00 commission (13. 479 702.00) Allocated Salaries and waqes 46 489 234.00 46 459 926.00 44 323 904.00 53 204 548.00 - - Taxes and licenses 29 790 918.00 41 223 255.00 27 953 920.00 43 060 252.00 1836 998.00 (1836 997.001 4 978 545.00 33 449 783.00 3 255 627.00 35 172 701.00 1 722 918.00 (1 722 918.00\ Depredation 9 796 960.00 29 621 602.00 9 651 507.00 29 767 055.00 145 453.00 (145 453.00) Rental utilities 10 023 601.00 9 491 269.00 9 554 139.00 9 960 731.00 Entertainment, 1 745 538.00 1 638 454.00 1 625 247.00 1 758 745.00 469 462.00 (469 462.001 amusement and 120 291.00 (120 291.00\ recreation 1 584 347.00 1 204 928.00 1 511 366.00 1 277 909.00 72 981.00 (72 981.00) Transoortation Management and professional fees 104 409143.00 163.089217.00 97.875.710.00 174 201 941.00 436.8103.00 (436.8102.00) Disallowed expense 17,847 805.00 (17,847,804.00) Petitioner explains that the allocation schedule used by the BIR was the allocation schedule submitted to the BOI.l29 According to petitioner, the figures shown in the said schedule were the same amounts reported in the audited financial statements, which were based on the percentage of completion method. However, for tax purposes, the allocation of operating expense was based on the ratio of the net list price of the units sold per project under ITH and regular tax rate. Thus, petitioner maintains there is no basis for respondent to deny its claimed deductions. 130 The Court finds petitioner's argument untenable. There is no express legal basis in the NIRC of 1997 or any tax regulations which is applicable to petitioner's industry as to the method of allocation of operating expenses for tax purposes. ~ 128 DOD, FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. Ill, pp. 965 and 970. 129 Exhibit "P-63", docket, Vol. III, p. 985. 130 Pars. 4.53 to 4.54, Petitioner's Memorandum, docket, Vol. III, p. 1228.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 What is clear on the other hand is Section 43131 of the NIRC of 1997 which provides that the taxable income shall be computed upon the basis of the taxpayer's annual accounting period (fiscal year or calendar year, as the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer. Hence, when there are no other tax rules or regulations which apply to a particular transaction, the NIRC of 1997 allows the taxpayer's accounting method employed in determining its income and in keeping its books be also employed in determining its taxable income for tax purposes. In the instant case, since there are no specific tax rules or regulations which provide for the manner of allocation of expenses between exempt and taxable sales, it is but proper to adopt the accounting method employed by petitioner in keeping its books. As stated by petitioner, the method of allocation of expenses used in the schedule submitted to the BOI were the same amounts reported in the AFS, which were based on the percentage of completion method. This allocation method, as employed in petitioner's books and eventually reported in the AFS, shall thus likewise be the proper basis of allocating operating expenses for tax purposes in accordance with Section 43 of the NIRC of 1997. Based on the schedule submitted by petitioner to the BOI, the expenses allocated to registered activities amounted to P284,280,216.00, in contrast with the P266,432,411.00 of expenses allocated to exempt sales per its 2009 AITR. Petitioner indeed overstated its operating expenses claimed under taxable sales by P17,847,805.00, as shown below: ~ 131 SEC. 43. General Rule. -The taxable income shall be computed upon the basis of the taxpayer's annual accounting period (fiscal year or calendar year, as the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer, but if no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the method employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion of the Commissioner clearly reflects the income. If the taxpayer's annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year, as defined in Section 22(Q), or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period, or does not keep books, or if the taxpayer is an individual, the taxable income shall be computed on the basis of the calendar year.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Per Schedule Per 2009 AITR133 Difference Submitted to Direct cost '" 103,986,663.00 p 7,681 190.00 Marketing_and selling 801132 108L893,942.00 5,798 512.00 Brokerage fees and Commission '" 111 667,853.00 27,953,920.00 1836 998.00 114,692,454.00 3,255 627.00 1 722 918.00 Allocated 9 651 507.00 Taxes and licenses 29,790,918.00 145 453.00 Depreciation 4 978,545.00 Rental utilities 9 796,960.00 9,554,139.00 469 462.00 Entertainment, amusement 1,625 247.00 120 291.00 and recreation 10,023,601.00 1,511 366.00 72 981.00 Transportation 1 745,538.00 P266,432,411.00 P17,847,805.00 Management and professional fees 1 584,347.00 Total P284,280,216.00 Considering the foregoing disposition of disputed assessment items, petitioner's basic deficiency income tax must be reduced to P159,425,788.04, as computed below: Taxable Income per return p 575,145,486.00 Add: Discrepancies per audit - Unreported gross profit on undeclared sales P513,571,489.48 Disallowed expenses due to non- 17,847,804.00 531,419,293.48 withholding_ P1 106,564,779.48 Disallowed per allocation of expense Adjusted Taxable Income Income Tax Due P331,969,433.84 Less: Tax paid{fax credits p 87 892 038.80 Tax paid 84,651,607.00 Current year's creditable withholding tax 172,543 645.80 Total tax paid/tax credits Less: Carried over to succeeding period - 172,543,645.80 Disallowed prior year's CWf P159,425,788.04 Disallowed unsubstantiated CWf Basic Deficiency Income Tax V. Deficiency Value-added Tax- P951,851.65 Respondent computed the deficiency VAT assessment as follows: 134 ;t.- 132 Exhibit "P-63", docket, Vol. III, p. 985. 133 Exhibit "R-19", BIR Records, p. 132. 134 FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, pp. 963 to 964.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 Taxable sales per return 1'1 206,850,730.07 Add: Other income 1'447 351 295.21 806 188 091.21 Undeclared sales 211 670 368.00 2 013 038 821.28 Rent income 31 674 939.00 Manaoement income 29 869 930.00 12% Interest income 14 269 701.00 I' 241 564 658.55 Commission income 71 351 858.00 Miscellaneous income Total taxable income p 97 883 996.02 VAT rate 312 529 090.71 Output tax 410 413 086.73 Less: Input tax Carried over from previous period p 67 572 567.26 265 590 999.13 144 822 087.60 Excess input tax carried over 1'96 742 570.95 On current purchases - Total input available - Less: Carried over to succeedinq period 198 018 431.87 1'96 742 570.95 Excess input tax carried over (01/26/10- Capital ooods exceedino P1M 06/30/16) 124 466 606.34 Input tax allocable to exempt sales 50 000.00 VAT payable 124 516 606.34 Less: Tax oaid oer returns P221 259 177.29 Basic tax due Add: 20% interest p.a. (Sec. 248 NIRC) Compromise oenaltv (RMO 19-2007) Total amount due Based on the foregoing, the following items comprise the deficiency VAT assessment of petitioner: A. Undeclared sales P447,351,295.21 B. Rent income 211,670,368.00 31,674,939.00 c. Management income 29,869,930.00 14,269,701.00 D. Interest income 71,351,858.00 67,572,567.26 E. Commission income 312,529,090.71 F. Miscellaneous income P198,018,431.87 G. Excess input tax carried over H. Input tax on current purchases I. Input tax allocable to exempt sales A. Undeclared sales- 1'447,351,295.21 The assessment must be cancelled as discussed under the deficiency income tax assessment (see item IV.A). '}z--

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 B. Rent income- /#211,670,368.00 C. Management income- /#31,674,939.00 D. Interest income- 1'29,869,930.00 E. Commission income- 1'14,269,701.00 F. Miscellaneous income- 1'71,351,858.00 Respondent's verification disclosed that petitioner failed to include in its VAT returns the above items of Other Income amounting to P358,836,796.00, pursuant to Section 108135 of the NIRC of 1997 as implemented by Section 4.108-1 136 of RR No. 16-05, as amended.137 Rent income p 211.670,368.00 Manaqement income 31,674,939.00 Interest income 29,869,930.00 Commission income 14,269.701.00 Miscellaneous income 71.351.858.00 P358,836,796.00 Petitioner asserts that it duly reported the above income for VAT purposes as part of the total VATable Revenue per VAT returns in the amount of P1,253,633,938.52. On the other hand, the ICPA reported that the above income formed part of petitioner's taxable income per its annual ITR. For VAT purposes, petitioner reported VATable receipts of P370,448,481.51 in addition to its real estate sales of P7,704,629,110.57. The details and nature of the other income are presented in Exhibit "P-71036", which is an extract of petitioner's GL accounts on Other Income.138 The assessment must be upheld. The best evidence to verify the breakdown of the reported sales in the VAT returns is the SLS, being a prescribed attachment to VAT l- returns. As mentioned earlier, petitioner failed to present its SLS for 135 SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale ofServices and Use or Lease ofProperties. - (A) Rate and Base of Tax. - There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) [now 12%] of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services, including the use or lease of properties. 136 SEC. 4.108-1. VAT on the Sales ofServices and Use or Lease ofProperties.- Sale or exchange of services, as well as the use or lease of properties, as defined in Sec. 108(A) of the Tax Code shall be subject to VAT, equivalent to twelve percent (12%) of the gross receipts (excluding VAT) starting February 1, 2006. 137 DOD, FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 966. 138 Exhibit "P-71.053", !CPA Report, p. 23.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 the four (4) quarters of 2009. Hence, the Court cannot verify if it indeed reported the amount of P370,448,481.51 as Other Income, which was eventually included in the VATable sales reported in the 2009 Quarterly VAT Returns. An extract of the GL accounts on Other Income merely provides the summary of the transactions for a certain period but it does not translate to declaration in the VAT returns. Further, assuming that petitioner did declare as Other Income amounting to P370,448,481.51 in its 2009 VAT returns, the same does not reckon with the assessed amount of P358,836,796.00. Hence, it cannot be ascertained if the amount being assessed is indeed part of the amount allegedly declared in the 2009 VAT returns. Considering petitioner failed to sufficiently refute respondent's assessment, the same shall not be disturbed. G. Disallowed excess input tax carried over- 1'67,572,567.26 Petitioner has excess input tax credits for the year 2009 amounting to P64,078,349.66 as reflected in its Amended 4th Quarterly VAT Return,l39 as opposed to the amount of P67,572,567.26 noted by respondent which was based on the Original 4th Quarterly VAT Return. 140 The amount of P67,572,567.26 was deducted by respondent from the available input tax credits, thus, effectively disallowing the same. However, he did not provide factual and legal bases for such disallowance in the FLD or in the FDDA. Despite petitioner's failure to refute the same, the Court finds it improper to uphold this assessment item which is already void on its face. Failure to inform petitioner of the factual and legal bases for disallowing the input tax credits is in violation of petitioner's right to due process as accorded by Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides that the taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Hence, this assessment item should be cancelled. ?zr 139 Line 29, Exhibit "P-20", docket, Vol. III, p. 863. 140 Line 29, Exhibit "P-71029".

DEOSION CTA CASE NO. 9396 H. Input tax on current purchases -1'312,529,090.71 L Input tax allocable to exempt sales -1'198,018,431.87 It was noted that respondent only credited petitioner with input tax in the amount of P312,529,090.71 arising from current purchases and deducted therefrom input tax allocable to exempt sales only in the amount of P198,018,431.87. These amounts were all based on the Original 2009 Quarterly VAT Returns. However, respondent failed to consider that petitioner amended its 4th Quarterly VAT Return, thereby changing the total amount for taxable year 2009 as demonstrated below: Original VAT Amended VAT Returns141 Returns142 Input tax on current purchases p 51,313,878.90 p 51,313,878.90 (Lines 21F and 21J) 66,620,259.49 66,620,259.49 78,522,082.78 78 522 082.78 1st Quarter 121,858 260.97 2nd Quarter 116 072,869.53143 3rd Quarter P312,529,090.70 P318,314,482.14 4th Quarter Total Input tax allocable to exempt p 32,512,473.67 p 32,512 473.67 sales (Line 23C) 42,210,596.41 42 210,596.41 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 49,751,591.65 49,751,591.65 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 73,543,770.14 77,209,394.15 Total P198,018,431.87 P201,684,055.88 Summarizing all the foregoing findings, the Court holds that petitioner is not liable for any deficiency VAT for taxable year 2009, as determined below: Taxable sales per return p 1,206,850 730.07 Add: Other income p - Undeclared sales Rent income 211,670,368.00 Management income Interest income 31,674,939.00 Commission income 29,869 930.00 14,269,701.00 141 Exhibits "P-17" to "P-19", docket, Vol. III, pp. 856 to 861; Exhibit "P-71029". 142 Exhibits "P-17" to "P-20", docket, Vol. III, pp. 856 to 863. 143 Exhibit "P-71029".

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Miscellaneous income 71 351.858.00 358.836.796.00 Total taxable income p 1,565,687,526.07 VAT rate Output tax 12% Less: Input tax p 187.882.503.13 Excess input tax carried over from p 97,883,996.02 previous period 318 314 482.14 On current purchases Total available input tax p 416.198.478.16 Input tax allocable to 201 684 055.88 214.514.422.28 Less: exempt sales VAT payable P(26,631,919.15) Less: Tax paid per returns VAT Overpayment - P(26.631.919.15) VI. Deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax- P17,431,314.09 The following shows the computation of respondent's assessment for deficiency DST: 144 Basic tax due (01/06/10 - 06/30/16) P1 705 699.75 p 6,822,798.99 Add: Surcharqe 8 852 815.35 50,000.00 10 608 515.10 20% interest p.a. (Sec. 248, NIRC) P17.431.314.09 Compromise penalty (RMO 19-2007) Total amount due The basic tax due of P6,822,798.99 was computed by respondent as follows: Amount Rate Tax due p 211,672.00 Rent income p 211,670,368.00 1/1000+1 Advances for project 6.507 555.00 development 1.301.510.831.00 1/200 103 572.00 Sale of treasury shares 27,619,200.00 .75/200 P6,822,799.99 DST on Rental Income (Lease Contracts) P211,672.00- Section 194 - On each lease, agreement, memorandum, or contract for hire, use or rent of any lands or tenements, or portions thereof, there shall be collected a documentary stamp tax of Three pesos (P3.00) for the first Two thousand pesos (P2,000), or fractional part thereof, and an additional One peso (Pl.OO) for every One Thousand pesos (Pl,OOO) or fractional part thereof, in excess of the first Two ~ 144 FDDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 964.

DEOSION erA CASE NO. 9396 thousand pesos (P2,000) for each year of the term of said contract or agreement. Documentary Stamp Tax on Advances, P6,507,555.00 - Advances for Project Development to related parties amounting to P1,301,510,831.00 was subjected to documentary stamp tax at the rate of Pl.OO for each P200.00 pursuant to Section 179 of the NIRC of 1997. DST on Sale of Treasury Shares P103,572.00 - Sale of 27,619,146 treasury shares was subjected to DST at the rate of P0.75 for each P200.00 pursuant to Section 175 of the NIRC of 1997.145 Petitioner, through its witness Ms. Mangaliman, asserts that the DST on the sale of treasury shares amounting to P103,572.00 pertains to shares which are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange. Republic Act 9648146 exempts the sale, barter or exchange of shares of stocks listed and traded through the local stock exchange from DST. To quote: "Section 1. Section 199 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 9243, is hereby further amended to read as follows: 'SEC. 199. Documents and Papers Not Subject to Stamp Tax. - The provisions of Section 173 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following instruments, documents and papers shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax: XXX XXX XXX (e) Sale, barter or exchange of shares of rz-- stock listed and traded through the local stock exchange." 145 DOD, FFDA, Exhibit "P-59", docket, Vol. III, p. 967. 146 An Act Exempting From Documentary Stamp Tax Any Sale, Barter Or Exchange Of Shares Of Stock Listed And Traded Through The Stock Exchange, Further Amending For The Purpose Section 199 Of The National Internal Revenue Code Of 1997, As Amended By Republic Act No. 9243, And For Other Purposes.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 As regards the advances, petitioner contends that respondent should not impose DST on the beginning balance considering that such is beyond the scope of their authority. The current tax investigation of respondent refers to internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2009. However, contrary to the authority given by LOA No. 125-2010- 000121,147 respondent assessed petitioner for DST on the beginning balance of the advances which is a balance clearly representing the prior year. Thus, if respondent would want to subject petitioner to assessment prior to taxable year 2009, it should have issued another LOA covering taxable period 2008. Further, petitioner claims that it paid the DST due on rent income and advances for project development amounting to P14,549,298.04 with interest and penalty, computed as follows: 148149 Base Deficiency Tax Penalties Total Payment p 211,670,368.00 p 529 171.13 Rent income p 211 671.37 p 317,499.76 Advances for Project 1 090,890,779.49 14,020 126.81 Development P1 302 561147.49 5,454 453.90 8 565,672.91 P14,549,297.94 P5,666,125.27 P8 883 172.67 The Court finds petitioner's arguments meritorious. Sale of Treasury Shares- 1'103,572.00. Petitioner's shares of stock are listed in the Philippine Stocks Exchange. 150 Hence, the sale, barter, or trade of its shares of stocks are exempted from the imposition of DST pursuant to Section 199(e) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by RA No. 9648. With this, the deficiency DST assessed on the Sale of Treasury Shares for taxable year 2009 must be cancelled. Advances for Project Development- 1'6,507,555.00. As correctly argued by petitioner, respondent's power to assess the former only covers taxable year 2009 as clearly indicated in the LOA from which the current assessment is issued. Hence, respondent's assessment must not fully cover the 2009 ending balance of Advances 't-- for Project Development amounting to P1,301,510,831.00 as 147 Exhibit "P-45", docket, Vol. III, p. 900. 148 Exhibit "P-65" to "P-66", docket, Vol. III, pp. 988 to 991. 149 Pars. 4.94 to 4.98, Petitioner's Memorandum, docket, Vol. III, pp. 1243 to 1245. 150 Note 1, 2009 AFS, Exhibit "P-67", docket, Vol. III, p. 1001.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 presented in the 2009 AFS151 since this amount still includes the outstanding balance in 2008. What should be assessed must only be the advances made during taxable year 2009. Based on the Court's analysis of petitioner's 2009 AFS, the total amount of advances during 2009 amounted only to Pl,060,845,552.00, computed as follows: 2008 Balance, Advances for Project p 880,425,671.00 Development152 1 060 845 552.00 Add: Increase in advances per Statement of Cash Flowsls3 639,760,392.00 Less: Liquidated advancesls4 P1,301,510,831.00 2009 Balance, Advances for Project Development As stated earlier, petitioner already paid the corresponding deficiency DST over these advances on July 26, 2016, as summarized below: 155 Basic tax p 5,454,454.00 Surcharqe 1 363,613.50 Interest (computed up to July 26, 2016) 7,152,059.41 Compromise 50,000.00 Total P14,020,126.91 However, the base amount of Pl,090,890,779.49, as presented by petitioner above, is higher than the advances made during 2009 amounting to Pl,060,845,552.00. The difference of P30,045,227.49 was not explained by petitioner. Since petitioner used a higher base amount in computing its deficiency DST, the resulting DST is expectedly higher than the final assessed amount. Nevertheless, the amount so paid by petitioner shall be credited to the total final assessed deficiency DST. Rent income - P211.672.00. Petitioner had no objection over the matter and voluntarily settled the assessed deficiency DST 9-z.- 151 Exhibit "P-67", docket, Vol. III, p. 996. 152 Id. 153 Id. at p. 1000. 154 Note 20(e), Id. at p. 1028. 155 Exhibit "P-66", docket, Vol. III, pp. 990 to 991.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 amounting to P529,171.13 on January 12, 2017/56 as broken down below: Basic tax p 211,671.37 Surcharge Interest (computed up to January 12, 2017) - Compromise Total 297,499.76 20,000.00 P529,171.13 The Court also noted that petitioner paid other penalties imposed by law, such as the 25% surcharge under Section 248(A)(3)157 of the NIRC of 1997 for the deficiency DST on Rent Income and 20% delinquency interest under Section 249(C)158 of the NIRC of 1997 for both deficiency DST on Advances for Project Development and Rent Income. The payments made by petitioner on the deficiency DST are summarized as follows: Basic deficiency DST Assessed Less: Payment Balance as of Less: , Balance Payment on - Surcharge , Amount ,on 07/26/2016 ,07/26/2016 - Deficiency interest 5 515 900.00 5 454 454.00 61446.00 ,01)12/2017 (1/06/2010 to 15 361.50 61446.00 ,. 5 009.74 06/30/2016) 1 378 975.00 1 363 613.50 15 361.50 5.009.74 ,. 5 009.74 - {P5,515,900.00 X 20% 7 157 069.15 7 152 059.41 81817.24 - x 2 368/365days) 78 582.68 - Amountdue as of 1'14 051 944.15 1'13 970. 126.91 ,. 76. 807.50 June 30. 2016 5 723.74 Deficiency interest 78 582.68 - 78 582.68 {7/1/2016 to 7/26/2016) (P5,515,900.00 X 20% 5 723.74 - 5 723.74 x 26/365days) Deficiency interest on balance as of 7/26/2016 (7/27/2016 to 1/12/2017) (P61,446.00 X 20% X 170/365days) 156 Exhibit "P-65", docket, Vol. III, pp. 988 to 989. 157 SEC. 248. Civil Penalties. - (A) There shall be imposed, in addition to the tax required to be paid, a penalty equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount due, in the following cases: XXX (3) Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment; xxx 158 SEC. 249. Interest. - XXX (C) Delinquency Interest. - In case of failure to pay: (1) The amount of the tax due on any return to be filed, or (2) The amount of the tax due for which no return is required, or (3) A deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon on the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the Commissioner, there shall be assessed and collected on the unpaid amount, interest at the rate prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof until the amount is fully paid, which interest shall form part of the tax.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 Assessed Less: Payment Balance as of Less: Balance Amount on 07/26/2016 07/26/2016 Payment on 01/12/2017 200 192.08 - 200 192.08 Delinquency interest 348 057.21 (147 865.13) {7/1/2016 to 7/26/2016) 7 621.33 - 7 621.33 1>14,344,063.99 1>373,937.08 - 7 621.33 {P14,051,944.15 X 1>13,970,126.91 20% x 2G/365days) P509 171.13 1>(135,234.05) Delinquency interest on balance as of 7/26/2016 {7/27/2016 to 1/12/2017) (F'81,817.24 X 20% X 170t365davsl Total amount due as of December 31, 2017 Based on the computation above, there was an overpayment of the total amount due by petitioner in the amount of P135,234.05. Hence, with this payment, the assessment on DST is thus cancelled. VII. Compromise Penalties - P2SO,OOO.OO Respondent assessed petitioner of compromise penalties in the amount of P250,000.00 which the latter partially paid in the amount of P156,000.00, leaving an unpaid compromise penalty of P94,000.00, detailed below: Compromise Penalties Less: Remaining Per FDDA Payment159 Balance Deficiency Income Tax p 50 000.00 PSO,OOO.OO Deficiency VAT Deficiency WTC 50,000.00 50,000.00 Deficiency EWT Deficiency FBT 25,000.00 p 20 000.00 5,000.00 Deficiency DST 50,000.00 41 000.00 9,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 - 50,000.00 70,000.00 (20,000.00) P250,000.00 P156,000.00 P94 000.00 Nevertheless, the unpaid amount of P94,000.00 should no longer be enforced against petitioner. It must be stressed that a compromise penalty is imposed to avoid prosecution for violation of the provisions of the NIRC of 1997. It is well-settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel a taxpayer to pay the compromise penalty because by its very nature, it implies a mutual agreement between the parties in respect to the thing or subject matter that is so compromised, and the Pz, 159 Exhibits "P-60" to "P-62" and "P-64" to "P-66", docket, Vol. III, pp. 978 to 991.

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 choice of paying or not paying it distinctly belongs to the taxpayer. 160 The imposition of the same without the conformity of the taxpayer is illegal and unauthorized.161 Hence, absent the consent of herein petitioner to the compromise penalty, its imposition should not be allowed. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the assessment issued by respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2009 covering deficiency VAT is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE for lack of merit. Likewise, the deficiency DST assessment for taxable year 2009 is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE in view of petitioner's payment on July 26, 2016 and January 12, 2017. On the other hand, the deficiency income tax, WTC, EWT, and FBT assessments for taxable year 2009 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY respondent the amount of FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX MILLION ONE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT PESOS AND THIRTY-ONE CENTAVOS (P576,107,688.31), representing basic deficiency tax, twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge, twenty percent (20%) deficiency interest and 20% delinquency interest imposed on the basic deficiency income tax, WTC, EWT, and FBT, pursuant to Sections 248(A)(3), 249(8) and (C) of the NIRC of 1997, respectively, computed until December 31, 2017, as summarized below: Deficiency Income tax p 564,914,500.97 Deficiency WTC 6,872,022.15 Deficiency EWT 4,261,907.88 Deficiency FBT 59,257.30 Total P576,107,688.30 The above amounts are computed in detail as follows: Basic deficiency tax Income Tax (IT) WTC EWT FBT Total Surcharge (25%) P159 425 788.04 1'2,486,751.69 P7 616 053.41 1'1 498 580.71 P171 027 173.85 39 856 447.01 621,687.92 1904 013.35 374 645.18 42 756 793.46 160 The Philippines International Fair, Inc. vs. The Collector ofInternal Revenue, eta!., G.R. Nos. L-12928 and L-12932, March 31, 1962. 161 Commissioner ofInternal Revenue vs. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., eta!., G.R. No. L-35266, January 21, 1991.

DECISION erA CASE NO. 9396 'Tax (IT) WTC EWT FBT Total 2o~lo'' IOO.U' X ? >X ~--~~1~0AI1~?4~.760.~16______~------~~-----+~1~98,1?~4.~?<n.~16 ~~:.~~~~� itO (P2,486,751.69 X ~o;~R~' ~ ,.Ylb/LU10 to (P7,616,053.41 X 0 A4n ><0 >? 0 040 ><O >? ~o:~"x FBT~to (P1 11 X ? ,;: _, I from June 30. 2016 until r 31 ~nnn ..o., 26. ~n'""' � 12.2017 (P159,425,788.04 X 4' 0<~.771.31 ~~~oX WTC - 7/1/2016 to 35.427.70 527,722.25 ~~~~;~~~~;nd EWT- 7/1/2016 to ; ~~~~~~~~ and ~-~to (20%) from June 3 . 2016 until J1 140 ~4 21.349.64 , 12. 2017 � 31, ~n.-. ""''I 26, X 110 <48.734.45 110 <4 ~.734.45 WTC, 2 ~~�~;~",;)!,",; i2/31/2a1�7" and [(P6,321,459.05- P621,687.92- L_x~~~�~~~�~~~~-~-~~~;,;J~X~20:%~--------_l~l.~'n'~n~><.1~6________L_______l_________j~

DECISION CfA CASE NO. 9396 Income Tax (IT) WTC EWT FBT Total EWT, excluding 1 288 237.38 surcharge - 7/1/2016 to 7/26/2016, 248 694.08 1/12/2017 and 12/31/2017 1 540 166.33 1 788 860.41 [(P19,360,425.08- 54 330.45 54 330.45 !'1,904,013.35) X 20% x 26/365davsl [(P19,360,425.08 � P1,904,013.35- !'399,987.81 - P522,285.36) X 20% x 170/365days1 FBT- 7/1/2016 to 7/26/2016 (P3,813,579.98 X 20% x 26/365days) Delinquency Interest 20%) on Surcharge from June 30 2016 until December 31 2017/July 26 2016 wrc- 7/1/2016 to 12/31/2017 (P621,687.92 X 20% 187 017.35 187 017.35 x 549i365days EWT- 7/1/2016 to 12/31/2017 (P1,904,013.35 X 20%x 549/365davsl 572 768.95 572 768.95 Total 564,914,500.97 8,359,863.73 22,502,738.57 3,889,260.07 599,666,363.34 Less: Payments on July 26 2016 Basic Tax 645 273.49 399 987.81 1498 580.71 2 543 842.01 Surcharge 374 645.18 374 645.18 - - Interest 842,568.07 522,28S.46 1 956 776.89 3 321 630.42 Payments on January 12 2017 Basic Tax 7 216 065.59 7 216 065.59 Surcharge - - Interest 10 102 491.83 10 102 491.83 Total P564 914 500.97 P6 872 022.17 P4 261 907.88 P59 257.29 P576 107.688.31 In addition, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY delinquency interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) computed from January 1, 2018 until full payment thereof, pursuant to Section 249(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 10963, also known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) and as implemented by RR No. 21-2018, on the following amounts due as of June 30, 2016, as determined above: Income tax P397 ,406,995.21 WTC 6,321,459.05 EWT 19,360,425.08 FBT p 3,813,579.98

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 9396 SO ORDERED. Q.....a.....~ c.. M-ao-~; ;}. . J6ANITO C. CASTANED( JR. Associate Justice !CONCUR: C~'(/. //LeA.~-- cATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice 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. 2:� ~ (}.. .Q.d--,_.;-.,4., JtfANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 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

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A CTA t:s~e No. 9396- SM Development Corporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue Annex A - Computation ofGross Income fOr Income Tax Purposes -7066; 30�0ct�09 PRIN PR�1230 USENlZOFF. MA. JANETTE M. i70.527.00 .570.537.00 100% ~4.�1!!J!!l '.0>�1.640.00 100% '-70850 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2402 IRIVERA. IMELDA D. RIVERA & REYMOND R. '.006.685.00 100% 006.685.00 '-70826 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1902 ITIU, RODY S. i78.148.00 i78.448.00 00% .66 1.00 '.025.44 97% '-70691 21-Dec�09 PRIN PR-2224_ IFFRNANDF7...KRJSTI!lf_A. FFRNANDF7 EZFK!Fl. .218.400.00 63% 2.203.050.00 ..404.986.6; 52% IP-70654 11-Dec-09 PRIN _ PR-101; IDE!A CRU2.'l!NCENI_Il. DEl.A...Q!U2 &.t!f_RTA '.285.120.00 .. 140.174.99 39% .. 748.910.00 36% P-70893 6-0ct-09 Pll!_N _PR-3>l)L llillQSO,JQ!lP.THAJ'fV1NCEN' .� 7 7 9 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 882.310.22 34% ,779,950.00 626.692.77 32% IP~ 15-Seo-09 PRIN PR-120l IDELOS SANTOS. CHRISTINE .,722,487.20 603.205.28 27% .,812,000.00 568,595.14 26% -70685 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-203J INOEL JOHN P. 459,329.91 '75.760.00 473.535.99 -7065: Oct-09 PRIN PR 1009 :HU RENAl I A. CHUA .766.940.00 .738. 1,00 '-70802 '-Oct-09 PRIN PR�1507 ING. KATHERINE NEL K. . 773.650.00 .� 7 8 1 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 '-70670 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1707 I!BIAS. EMALYN T. .,713,936.00 PR-2706 .713.936.SQ '-70702 30-Seo-09 PRIN IDEL I TORRE. RICHH IVANN 0. d12.437.Q!) .706.100.00 '-70701 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-2705 IDEl.A TORRE. RENZZ IRVIN 0. .24' '20.00 'bvlTH ofth. . 706.100.00 S.le. of rmb hDm , _ . ,706,100.00 .,706,100.00 'S.'-td� 'l~NIIt__lh!"-_ 2,368.000.00 .,812,000.00 P-7~ 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR- 1305 IYABUT. JENNIFER D. .790 000.00 433.676.03 24% .700 050.00 35 1.388.00 20% ,P-]Q�l!Q_ 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1923 IPUA. lULIE U. PUA & GARRY Y. 2_!2,8SO,Q!) 34; 535.40 20% 2.347.000.00 119.294.44 12% -70896 i-Oct-09 PRIN PR-350J 5ALA2AR ANMAR . SALAZAR & JENNY .796.000.00 207.784.51 12% 773.650.00 161.393.65 9% -70709 30-5eo-09 PRIN PR-3226 ITARU . LORRAJNE ANN MARIE B. .74' .250.00 _161,393,65 9_% _140,55~9 ~% '-70679 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1832 IDELOS REYES. LOURDES M. 1.650.00 _99~51 _�_% 1.803.000. 130.942.00 6% '-70809 29-Dec-09 PRIN PR-1615 IMASTRIL , CARLOS S. MASTRILI & ATHENA Y. 2.707.044.00 6% 1.851.000.00 99.s; �.so 6% P-7066~ 29-Dec-~ !'R!N _PR-16~ IMI\SIRIL, Q\.RLOS S,_MASTRILll ATHENP. Y. 1,867,000.00 99,522.50 5% P-7~ 20-11&-09 _ffi!_N 1,794,000.00 92.413.76 5% _PR-= IRIVERA. IMELDA I)_.JID'ERA & REYMOND R. 2,360,000.00 121,583.32 5% 2,388,000.00 92,820.15 ..5_% ;P~ �-Oct-09 PRIN PR-263: IELFOH INC .790000.00 . 88,~:l2._51 _�_% .71J .850.00 . 82.7~55 _!;_% -7089 12-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3402 ELFOH BAl TERY SPEC LIS . 704.300.00 . 82,8&14 5% . 704.300.00 113.494.44 5% -7069; �Oct-09 PRIN PR-2630 IELFOH INC .704.300.00 84.000,44 5% .704.300.00 79.956.30 4% '-70699 �-Oct-09 PRIN PR-2632 IBATTERY KINGDOM CUBAO INC. 1.704.300.00 4% 1.704.300.00 1.034.70 4% P-70859_ 12-0ct-02_ P.ll!.N _PR-261L_ 'HE!!!!ERA. Ef.EEN 1,712,850.00 >.879. 4% P-7069~ ~0-Nov-~ ffi!_N 1.712.850.00 71.61 .10 4% _ PR-2_-g; cBIEN . 1,851.000.00 101.872.12 4% P-7068; JG-Dec,~ _P_B!_N _ PR-21]�_ ITEE. CHARMAINE HE~HEL M, 1,739,450.00 69.250.49 4% 1,743,250.00 69,591.67 4% P-7~ 30-Nov-09 PRIN _p~ 'ANDYI JOSEPH M. 1.7'!3,250.00 66,728.54 4% 30-Nov-09 PRIN 1.812.000.00 87,220. '[% p,IQZ2; _P.&llli 5ARMTFNTO. GFRAI DINF G. CATANAN & JOFI D. 87,500.67 1.650.00 --"-% p~ 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR- CAMARIL CATHERINE P. 1,80 1.000.00 . 64.421..24 4% 1,794,000.00 -~24 . 4% -70669 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-16c LA2ARO. VICTOR LA2ARO & MELISSA P. 1.794.000.00 4% .794.000.00 60.095 . 4% -70659 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR- 1206 ANoNUEVC. MARIEL . REYES & RUTHELMI< 5. �796.000.00 60.095.56 4% . 796.000.00 60.095.56 4% -70765 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2826 PUEYO. HERMIE M. PUEYO & JANUS P. 1.796.000.00 60.095.56 4% .. 799.000.00 60,095.56 4% '-70713 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3408 'CHEN. HUA WU & CHANG SHUANG . :.803.000.00 60,095.56 4% 1.810.000.00 60,286.52 3% '-70712 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3407 CHEN. HUA WU & CHANG SHUANG ..815.000.00 60.285.56 3% ,,81!i.OOO.OO 64.867.68 3% '-70830 zs-seo-09 PRIN PR-1911 CABRIA. ANTHONY S. CABRIA & MARITES . 1.819.000.00 60.876.68 _>_% .� 8 1 9 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 60,961.08 3% '-70865 21-Dec-09 PRIN PR-2729 CHAN, TERESITA V. CHAN & VICTOR C. "826.000.00 60,958.88 3% 1,835,000.00 . 63,11&,_66 3% P-70851 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2407 ALl.ADO, BERNARD A. ALl.ADO I MARY ANTONETTE P. .,828,000.00 61.636. .l.% .� 8~8.000.00 62.454.29 P-70886 12-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3207 UY-CHING, ROSSANA G. "8~8.000.00 62,088.92 _.l.% .,828,000.00 . 62,088~2 3% P-7!ll22_ 30-Nov-09 _I'!!!N _PRc!.lll_ .!i!!!f_GO, MA!!IE ELE<;;ffi C. J!>.S,OOOJlll. -~�8 3% .BJS.OOO.OO 3% P-707~ 25-seo-02_ pll!_N _PR-28QZ_ DE~TRO, EOELYN N. .. 835.000.00 136 . 3% _PR-3~:); .. 835.000.00 GJ :.36 3% P-7~ 5-0ct-09 ffi!N c!!\IZ. ALl.AJ'0. ..85' .000.00 62.133.32 3% -70791 Oct-09 PRIN PR- 131 .� 851.000.00 62.200.00 3% oor . NORA c. ..85: .. 000.00 62.288.88 3% .�85: .�000.00 62.444.44 3% -70734 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1025 DE LEON. RYAN JOSEPH ,867,000.00 3% .,867,000.00 ,,555.56 3% �-70667 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1634 V!Ll.AROSA MELBA M. .,867,000.00 '.555.56 3% 2, 9 3 6 , 4 5 0 . 0 0 62.644. 3% '-70668 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1635 V!Ll.AROSA. MELBI> M. 2.:U.9,000._Q_Q_ 62.644.44 3% 2,268,600.00 62.800.00 3% P-70806 1-0ct-69 PRIN PR-1533 FERNANDEZ, FELIX V. FERNANDEZ & ANALYN R. 2~8,600.QQ_ 63,099.27 3% 62,844.44 :l% P-70807 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1534 FERNANDEZ, FELIX V. FERNANDEZ & ANALYN R. 319.000.00 62,844.44 '.339.000.00 62,844.44 _.l.% P-70808_ 1-0ct-09_ Pll!_N _PR-1535. FERNANDEZ. FELIX V. FERNANDEZ & ANALYN R. ,,347.000.00 62,844.44 l% 2.360.000.00 - 63,004.'14 3% P-70812 5-0ct-09 Pll!_N PR-1633 V!Ll.ARDSA, MELBA M. 2.360,000.00 . 63,Q!)QJJO 3% 2,368,000.00 _ 63,Q!l<LOO 3% P-70790 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1122 'LORES, JENNY VI S. FLORES & ANGELO 2.368000.00 63.000.00 3% '.368.000.00 :.355.56 3% P-70~ )0-5eo-~ P!!!N _PR-10\Q_ DE!AEVA. MA.RIA REGINA UZA B. ,,388.000.00 6'1.355.56 3% .388.000.00 63.355.56 3% P-7084:) 13-0ct-09 PR!N PR-220J , TEDDORO C. BARRIENTOS & AURORA B. '.388.000.00 63.355.56 3% .706.200.00 63.71 .12 3% P-70714 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3427 ARUCAN, MARIA ClARA DANIELLE R. ARUCAN & HAZEL ABBIE R. 1.619.085.00 63,711.12 3% .704.300.00 63,711.12 3% ~ 25-Seo-09 PRIN -~ TIJLIAO. MARIA BE.illill.A � TI.!!Ji'.O & ~R B. .706.200.00 96,179.08 3% -70829 i-Oct-09 PRIN .706. :00.00 . 74,413.68 3% PR-190 LIOUFT IM, 72.635.88 3% >.850.00 . 72,635.56 3% �7086J 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-170 PANGAN. ANDRE '21.400.00 73.7" 56 3% 1.739.450.00 74.200.00 3% '-70771 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-3126 NORTH STAR BROS PROPERTIES 1.739.450.00 74, .76 3% 1,739.450.00 74.666.64 :)__% IP-70804 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1525 LOPEZ, DIONISIO A. LOPEZ & HONEYLEN T. 74.666.64 3% 74,844.44 3% IP-7!!!!1Z_ 30-Seo-09 J'!!!N _PR-1n:L UY, II{ILSON V. UY & MARY JANE A. _74,84"-.14 3% -70811 30-5eo-09 PRIN 74.844.40 PR- 134 UY. WILSON V. UY & MARY JANE 75.288.88 _l% 75.288.88 -7075: 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1835 TAN. ELl TAN & CHRIS OPHER PHILIP I _75.~8 3_% _s2,93UI 3% IP-70665 6-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1506 TAGUM. JEROME N. 49.901.41 3% 1.321.6> 3% IP-70781 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1003 I DE LEON, MARY GRACE A. .35: .32 3% .353.32 3% IP-70801 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1503 ICARAAN. ADRIAN A. 1.464.65 3% 51.606.6; 3% IP-70657 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-1128 IARCINUE, CHERYL MYLA A. 51.907.51 3% 51.907.51 3% IP-70731 6-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1016 I BADA. ROSALINDA A. 51.907.51 IP-70839 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2035 IBillCON. KIMBERLY B. IP-70844 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-2228 LAREZA, IMELDA M. IP-70848 14-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2327 I DE JESUS, MARIA RHEGEL F. IP-70761 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-2508 I CARLOS, ROMMEL T. PR-2725 IP-70763 30-5eo-09 PRIN c. IPARAS, CLAUDETTE '-70904 7-0ct-09 .J'!!!N _PR-~ IJY. SIJ<;AN U, -70805 30-Nov-09 PRIN _P~ Jm'fl. DJQ!'I!SIO A, I.QPEZ & HQ.NEYLEN -70719 '-Oct-09 PRIN PR-3703 ~.1\lli<EDO ABElARDO B. BENITE( & DOMINIQUE -70720 '-Oct-09 PRIN PR-3705 I BENITEZ. FREDO ABEl ARDO B. BENITEZ & OOMINIOIJF -70 '21 '-Oct-09 PRIN PR-l706 IBENn . ALFREDO ABEl ARDO B. BFNITE( & OOMINTOUF -70 '74 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3506 . MAHDI '-70725 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR� !710 I BENfill LFREDO ABEL . .DO B. BENITEZ & DOMINIQUE '-70723 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-l708 I BENITE> . ALFREDO ABELARDO B. BENITEZ & DOMINIQUE '-70724 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3709 IBENITEZ. ALFREDO ABELARD I B. BENITEZ & DOMINIQUE '-70776 30-seo-09 PRIN PR-3519 ITUNGOL EMMVLOU 5. IP-70688 30-5eo-09 PRIN PR-2126 ITAN. JUANITA ,P-7069_1_ 30-5eo-09 PRIN PR-2226 ICO, LOLITA S. INQZQ:j_ --Oct-09 J'!!!N _PR-2ZZ�_ IISIJ)_BO, ANTtl.ONY M. -Oct-09 ln!!81L -Oct-09 P.E!N _ PR-2326_ IPRINCIPE, DELFIN C. PRINCIPE & MA. .UTCHIE D. 30-Nov-09 p~ ffi!N _PR-37QZ IBENJIEZ, ALFREDO ABELARDO B. BENITEZ & DOMINIQUE . -70868 PRIN PR-280J IPURGANAN. IMMANUEL -70903 �-Oct-09 PRIN PR-360J IPAYBA. TRIELOO B. PAYBA & MARTF NEITE C. PR-2829 -708; 21-Dec-09 PRIN nu. MA. LY S. Till I RONAL! I DANIEL V. '-70744 6-0ct-09 PRIN PR� 137 STOVAL . ROWENA C. STOVALl. & JOHN W. '-70889 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR 1302 QUE. STEPHEN . QUE & VIVIAN 5. '-70907 Oct-09 PRIN PR-173: MEDINA. RAFAEL . MEDINI JR. & CECIL '-70813 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1702 LAD. CATHLEEN 0. P-70867 30-Seo-09 PRIN PR-2737 UNDA. NAURA 5. ; & ALNADER U. P-70664_ 14-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1502 'ENAJE, PATRICK E. ENAJE & LAURINA D. PR-1902 . RANIJI FQ 0. CAN.AFRANCA & ESTRELITA A. �-70705 1-0ct-09 PRIN -70768 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-29]; EPEDA. EDNA 0~ & MAY I UNSH!NE C. -70690 30-seo-09 PRIN PR- �zo; SY. JOY VERONICA '-70854 8-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2537 ONZALES. ODOFREDO P. P-70759 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2302 iMAGNAYE. NOREEN R. MAGNAYE & IRVIN PR-3702 1BENITEZ, ALFREDO ABELARDO B. BENITEZ & DOMINIQUE P-70718 7-0ct-09 PRIN P-70773 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3437 .UMACANG, BONIFACIO F. P-70884 30-Nov-09 PR!N PR-3102 LEE. JAMES C. LEE & LILY T. PR-1203 1GEALAN. JONATHAN '-70794 30-seo-09 PRIN '-70793 15-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1134 BERSON. NELITA B. BERBON & JONATHAN E. '-70823 15-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1834 ISHII. EDNA B. '-70655 4-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1103 'ESGUERRA. ROMEO I. ESGUERRA & ANA LIZA D. '-70787 4-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1105 ESGUERRA. ROMEO I. ESGUERRA & ANA UZA D. '-70674 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1811 HIZOl.A. JEANETTE A. '-70683 15-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2003 . NATALIE 8. '-70874 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2830 CHUA, SAMUEL N. CHIU CHUA & HELEN S. P-70875 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2831 CHUA, SAMUEL N. CHIU CHUA & HELEN 5. P-70879 9-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2930 IYAP, REYNALDO MA. C. YAP & ALEXANDRA PATRICIA A.

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A P�70883 9-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3030 CHUA GENEVIE C. I 739 450.00 51907.51 3% P-70730 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1006 CARMONA ALMA 5. 1 706 200.00 P-70810 30-Seo-09 PRIN PR-1626 TAN ALBERT L. TAN & SYLVIA T. 1 743 250.00 50 886.98 3% P-70785 5-0ct�09 PRIN PR�1021 GUILLAMON ANAOEL B. COODY & RALPH C. I 748 910.00 P-70732 25�5eD�09 PRIN PR-1018 CAUSAPIN CARlOAD B. 1 712 850.00 51 970.84 3% P�70876 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2835 ANG JOHN PAUL A. 1826 000.00 P-70739 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1033 DE FRANCIA, CHERILE P. I 794 000.00 52 065.16 3% P�70856 14-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2607 KANG AMYG. 1 795 470.00 P-70788 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1106 TUAZON DEANLY L. TUAZON & ELEANOR 5. I 796 000.00 50 913.97 3% P-70795 30.Qct-09 PRIN PR-1205 ADRIATICO MANUEL JOEY T. ADRIATICO & ASELA C. I 796 000.00 P-70814 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1703 ROSELL MA. CYNTHIA E. I 796 000.00 54 044.44 3% P-70827 3�0ec-09 PRIN PR-1903 FERNANDO FEROINAL M. 1 796 000.00 P-70828 3-0ec-09 PRIN PR-1905 FERNANDO FEROINAL M. I 796 000.00 52 904.59 3% P-70746 12-0ct-09 PRIN PR�1528 BAGO KATHLEEN MARGARET SERGIO & MAYUMI. I 799 000.00 P-70738 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�I032 MARTINE2 JOEL G. I 799 000.00 52 841.17 3% P-70754 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1930 AKIM ANDREA CECILLE A. I 799 000.00 P�70811 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1627 VALDECANAS CHRISTIAN ROAN A. VALDECANA5 OONNA GRACE A. & LLOD ERAS A. I 799 000.00 52 849.99 3% P�70820 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1825 AGCAOILI EMERITA S. AGCAOLI & CHARLIE T. I 803 000.00 P�70733 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1020 GUILLAMON ANADEL B. COODY & RALPH C. 1803 000.00 52 849.99 3% P-70837 10-0ec-09 PRIN PR-2006 ENRI UEZ ELDA G. ENRI UEZ & JONATHAN Y. 1 812 000.00 P-70852 30-Seo-09 PRIN PR-2506 TEJIOO JOSE MIGUEL T. TEJIOO & HARAYA CORAZON 0. I 812 000.00 52 849.99 3% P-70755 15-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2011 ROORIGUE2 LILIBETH D. PINEDA & EMERC!TO B. I 819 000.00 P-70767 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2828 KALMAN ELENA Y. I 831 000.00 52 849.99 3% P-70887 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3208 LAGA. CARLOS D. LACZA JR. & BERNADETTE P. I 835 000.00 P-70708 12�0ct�09 PRIN PR-3008 JIMENE2 DANTE A. JIMENE2 JR. & SHEILA D. 1835 000.00 52 849.99 3% P-70726 9-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3725 PINEDA JEFFREY L. I 835 000.00 P-70775 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3508 SANCHE2 DENNIS M. SANCHE2 & CECILIA C. I 835 000.00 52 900.03 3% P-70777 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3522 PELAYO WILHELMINO H. 1835 000.00 P-70872 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR�2825 LIM NOEL U. LIM & MARIVIC T. I 835 000.00 52 900.00 3% P-70881 12-0ct-09 PRIN PR�3025 CHUA. WILLIAM L. CHUA & MARY GRACE A. I 835 000.00 P-70888 30�NOV�09 PRIN PR�3225 SANCHE2 MELLANY U. I 835 000.00 52 900.00 3% P-70869 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR�2810 BARRETTO SEVERINA D. BARRETTO & AUGUSTO S. 1835 000.00 P�70838 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR�2026 IBE ELGIN I. IBE & MARIA LOURDES D. I 851 000.00 52 900.00 3% P�70858 3D-5eo-09 PRIN PR-2626 SEBANES ROSA T. I 851 000.00 P-70727 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-3726 DYCHINGCO JESUSAN G. I 867 000.00 52 966.77 3% P�70779 30-Seo-09 PRIN PR-3626 DULALIA JERIMECO 5. I 867 000.00 P�70880 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3007 YU RICARDO. I 867 000.00 52 966.66 3% P-70882 12-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3026 CHUA WILLIAM L. CHUA & MARY GRACE A. I 867 000.00 P-70890 6-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3307 SONG MARY JACQUELINE Y. 1 867 000.00 53 116.66 3% P-70800 2-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1501 CUI MARICAR A. 3 557 000.00 P-70700 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2701 MMT CAROLINA F. 3 689 000.00 53 116.66 3% P-70841 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2201 RABE IRENE E. 3 689 000.00 P-70717 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3701 BENITEZ ALFREDO ABELARDO B. BENITEZ & DOMINI UE L. 3 720 000.00 53 233.33 3% P-70819 3Q-Oct-09 PRIN PR-1737 GARCIA EFREN R. GARCIA & MA. CONSUELO Z. 2 249 430.00 P-70861 3-0ec-09 PRIN PR-2702 FRIGILLANA JOHN GLENN M. 2 249 600.00 53 433.31 3% P-70905 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3637 DOMINGO MARVIN T. DOMINGO & ANGELA 5. 2 268 600.00 P-70673 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1802 DELA CRUZ NAPOLEON C. 2 347 000.00 53 500.03 3% P-70855 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�2602 SUN MICHAEL ALLAN T. 2 339 000.00 P-70742 8-0ct-09 PRIN PR�1102 ACOSTA. WENDELINE V. ACOSTA & RICARDO M. 2 347 000.00 53 500.00 3% P�70757 7-0ct�09 PRIN PR-2102 CAl ALICIA D. 2 368 000.00 P-70758 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR�2237 BUENACOSA YVETTE U. 2 368 000.00 53 500.00 3% P�70760 6-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2337 AGUILAR. ELAINE M. 2 368 000.00 P�70885 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3137 FERNANDEZ ALLAN R. 2 388 000.00 53 500.00 3% P-70894 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3503 UY JENNER Y. I 828 000.00 P-70745 30.Qct-09 PRIN PR-1201 ALMONINIA. ROMILLO ALMONINIA & OFELIA 0. 4 095 840.00 53 500.00 3% P-70834 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1933 SORIANO DOMINGO R. SORIANO & ffiA Y. I 704 300.00 P-70689 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2127 HERNANDE2 ROSALIO M. I 724 250.00 53 500.00 3% P-70710 16-Dec-09 PRIN PR-3308 CHAN LOUIE M. I 743 250.00 P-70678 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1829 CASIO HENRY L. CASIO & ROSEMARIE P. 2 885 150.00 53 500.00 3% P-70676 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1823 ADAY RHOLAND C. P-70663 1-0ec-09 PRIN PR�1235 ASTORGA JOSEPH D. ASTORGA & CRISTINA D. 1 803 000.00 53 500.00 3% P�70798 1-0ec�09 PRIN PR�1234 ASTORGA JOSEPH D. ASTORGA &. CRISTINA D. I 794 000.00 P-70835 3D-Nov�09 PRIN PR-1934 ONG GLENN WILLIAM 5. 1 794 000.00 53 497.93 3% P�70836 3Q-Nov�09 PRIN PR-1935 ONG GERALD WILLIAM 5. P-70751 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1735 PILONES ELVIRA V. 1 794 000.00 53 766.70 3% P-708!6 30�NOV�09 PRIN PR-1728 SESQIR. ALEX D. I 794 000.00 P�70821 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR-1827 OOLATRE NENNETTE A. I 794 000.00 53 766.67 3% P-70822 PRIN PR�1828 OOLATRE NENNETTE A. 1 799 000.00 P-70833 30�NOV�09 PRIN PR-1932 ONG GARRY WILLIAM S. I 799 000.00 54 033.34 3% P-70671 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1715 PERE2 JENNYLYN G. PERE2 & JAY VINCE R. I 799 000.00 P-70675 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1820 CLAVERIA ZENY 0. I 799 000.00 54 033.34 3% P-70748 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1611 PINTO LOYD V. PINTO & PRECIOSA M. 1803 000.00 P-70803 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1512 ENCINARES EVELYN D. I 803 000.00 54 033.34 3% P-70831 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1924 SALAZAR. ANMAR A. SALAZAR & JENNY Z. I 803 000.00 P-70906 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR�3735 BARREDA EDSON ADRIENNE E. I 803 000.00 54 033.34 3% P-70684 3D-Nov�09 PRIN PR-2005 TAN ETHEL 0. I 803 000.00 P-70842 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2203 LEE TERESITA C. 1 842 000.00 54 033.34 3% P-70857 9-Dec-09 PRIN PR-2608 CASTRO FELICISIMO J. I 812 000.00 P-70866 30�NOv�09 PRIN PR-2730 SIMON HENRIETT F. I 812 000.00 101 266.68 3% P-70864 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR-2708 BLANCO JOSE ROMMEL A. BLANCO & DIANA JOY T. I 819 000.00 P-70770 PRIN PR-3003 MEDINA. PEARLIE BEATRIZ C. I 815 000.00 104 200.00 3% P-70778 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR�3531 DAGUIMO CHRISTOPHER D. 1819 000.00 P-70704 PRIN PR�2808 UY SIOK 00 C. I 828 000.00 104 200.00 3% P-70780 30�NOV�09 PRIN PR-3718 LANAS POTENCIANO E. 1831 000.00 P�70870 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2811 ONG LU TIFFANY U. I 835 000.00 104 888.88 3% P�70871 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR-2812 ONG LU TIFFANY U. I 835 000.00 P-70912 3D-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2809 UY ROBERTO C. I 835 000.00 60 407.17 3% P-70899 3D-Nov-09 PRIN PR-3527 BALAGBAGAN MAUREEN ANN C. BALAGBAGAN & EDUARDO M. I 835 000.00 P-70900 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-3528 BALAGBAGAN MAUREEN ANN C. BALAGBAGAN & EDUARDO M. I 835 000.00 60 409.99 3% P-70694 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR-2426 PERALTA. ELAINE MAE B. I 739 450.00 P�70863 3D-Oct�09 PRIN PR-2707 BLANCO JOSE ROMMEL A. BLANCO & DIANA JOY A. I 739 450.00 60 726.67 3% P-70711 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3326 TAN MARY WELLENE S. TAN & HEINTJE . 1 851 000.00 P-70661 3D-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1208 HO DENNIS ALVIN 0. I 851 000.00 62 118.58 3% P-70677 3D-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1826 BASILLA. MICHAEL 8. I 867 000.00 P-70895 3D-Nov�09 PRIN PR-3505 UY JENNER Y. I 803 000.00 61 900.00 3% P-70740 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1036 JONES GREGORY . I 835 000.00 P-70825 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1901 GERONIMO BENIGNO C. GER.ONIMO & MARIA CONCEPCION J. I 828 000.00 62 033.32 3% P-70652 1-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1007 HO DENNIS ALVIN Q. 3 474 150.00 P-70656 12�0ct�09 PRIN PR-1107 HO DENNIS ALVIN Q. 3 474 150.00 62 383.33 3% P-70660 9-0ct-09 PRIN PR�1207 HO DENNIS ALVIN 0, I 835 000.00 P-70747 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1607 ALMEREKHI CELSA C. I 835 000.00 62 383.33 3% P-70681 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1925 PAGULAYAN LUCIA MARILEN J. PAGULAYAN & JONATHAN OMAR D. 1835 000.00 P�70832 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1926 PAGULAYAN LUCIA MARILEN J. PAGULAYAN & JONATHAN OMAR D. I 835 000.00 62 383.30 3% P-70898 30-Sep-09 PRIN PR-3526 I 953 000.00 P�70672 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR�1736 u BENEDICT STEVEN C. 1953 000.00 62 716.66 3% P-70849 PRIN PR-2401 1 867 000.00 P-70910 30�NOV�09 PRIN PR-4007 ESPINOSA ALLAN M. 3 657 000.00 46 916.65 3% P-70911 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR�4008 TOPACIO CRIS MICHAEL 0. 3 689 000.00 P�70908 3D-Oct�09 PRIN PR�3837 SUPERA ROLAND T. 2 052 270.00 103 488.88 3% P-70799 9-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1237 SUPERA ROLAND T. 2 052 270.00 P-70752 30�Nov�09 PRIN PR-1808 GAMMAD LAZARO G. GAMMAD & MARY MARGARETTE 5. 2 268 600.00 42 547.76 2% P-70815 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1726 STA. ANA, RACHEL ROXANNE M. 2 319 000.00 P-70736 3D-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1028 1 721 865.00 42 990.90 2% P-70782 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1005 JADAONG LEONARDA A. I 836 796.50 P-70902 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-3602 AGUIRRE ROMIL M. AGUIRRE & SHARON G. I 799 000.00 42 980.56 2% P-70784 7�0ec-09 PRIN PR�1012 ARCEO AMELIA A. I 796 000.00 P-70707 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-3002 MEDRANO MELANIE A. MEDRANO & MARVIN C. 2 388 000.00 71002.51 2% P�70772 7-0ct-09 PRIN PR�3202 GAMPONG RANDAL P. 1 803 000.00 P-70860 5-0ct�09 PRIN PR-2637 UNDAYAG ROWENA MARIA SARRAH P. 2 388 000.00 43 771.30 2% P-70766 30-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2827 BONOOC MARIE ANNE 5. LOZADA & RANDY 5. 2 388 000.00 P-70728 1-0ec-09 PRIN PR-3902 ALMARIO RAYMUNDO E. 2 397 800.00 43 544.44 2% P-70743 3D-Nov�09 PRIN PR-1111 MAQUEDA AILEEN E. I 647 900.00 P-70786 4-Dec-09 PRIN PR-1027 DUMALAY MARIA LUZ M. DUMALAY & CORNELIO C. 2 490 000.00 43 544.44 2% P-70878 1-0ec-09 PRIN PR�2907 DELA CRUZ SOCORRO C. I 712 850.00 P-70909 7�0ec-09 PRIN PR�3907 CORTE2 BERLY Z. 1 691 959.50 43 544.44 2% 30-Nov-09 SUPERA ROLAND T. I 870 550.00 15-0ec�09 MUNJI EMMANUEL D. I 936 100.00 43 544.44 2% 21-Dec�09 MUNJI MARIA CECILIA P. MUNJI & SIDNEY D. 21-0ec-09 43 544.42 2% 43 600.62 2% 43 600.00 2% 43 600.00 2% 43 600.00 2% 43 644.44 2% 43 644.44 2% 43 644.44 2% 43 644.44 2% 43 644.44 2% 44 584.66 2% 43 744.44 2% 43 744.44 2% 43 882.22 2% 43 777.78 2% 43 822.22 2% 43 922.22 2% 43 955.56 2% 44 000.00 2% 44 000.00 2% 44 000.00 2% 44 000.00 2% 44 000.00 2% 41 549.44 2% 41 549.44 2% 44 177.78 2% 44 177.78 2% 44 355.56 2% 42 255.56 2% 42 844.86 2% 42 533.32 2% 80 819.17 2% 80 819.14 2% 42 611.12 2% 42 611.12 2% 42 611.12 2% 42 611.12 2% 45 311.10 2% 45 311.10 2% 42 966.65 2% 83 866.66 2% 84 400.00 2% 46 414.48 2% 46 414.48 2% 50 453.58 2% 50 809.57 2% 37 563.76 2% 39 264.97 2% 38 024.10 2% 37 883.32 2% 50 288.88 2% 37 941.64 2% 50 144.44 2% 50144.42 2% 50 253.34 2% 33 991.00 2% 51 277.78 2% 35 000.00 2% 33 706.01 2% 36 637.50 2% 37 074.00 2%

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex A -70686 29-Dec-09 PRIN PR-2105 IMANC.AI TMAN, EUGENlA 6. .� 81:'.000.00 34.372.2: 2% '-70840 29-Dec-09 PRIN PR-2103 .� 812.000.00 34,372.2: 2% '-70735 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1076 IBEL . BEL. A. I &WILLlAM R. .� 835,000.00 34,500.00 2% IP-70824 3()-()ct-09 PRIN PR-1837 '.249.430.00 41.661.94 2% IP-70845 PRIN PR- 129 IDIAZ DE RIVERJ . RAMON B. DIAZ DE RIVERA & JOSEPHINE B. 1,037,000.00 55,966.66 _1'l<>_ '-70897 -Dec-09 PRIN PR-3525 .835.000.00 33.805 56 2% -70853 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2507 IBAUTIST< . NOE . BAUTIS' l & AVEUNA .85 .000.00 2% -70749 13-0ct-09 PRIN PR-1630 .865. '24.00 !.894.44 2% -70750 PRIN PR-1631 IREGALADO. REJOICE .865. '24.00 !.976.24 2% -70716 1-Dec-09 PRIN PR-3608 .81:'.600.00 !.976.24 2% -70901 Dec-09 PRIN PR-3537 ISC :RYANS. .388.000.00 1.62S.07 2% IP-70715 .-Dec-09 PRIN PR-3501 1,720,000.00 42.816.6: 2% -70769 PRIN PR-3001 IFLORES. ELIZA MAE P. 1,720,000.00 64,944.44 -70729 3Q-Oct-09 PRIN PR- 002 ',319,000.00 64,944.44 2% -7068: 1-0.C-09 PRIN PR-2002 IDONATO, BRENDA T. �.249.600.00 '.188.89 2% '-70877 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2906 35.409.99 2% 'P-70737 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-1029 IDONATO, BRENDA T. 1.160.00 '.469 1% P-70696 5-0ct-09 PRIN PR-2605 1.037.000.00 43.8: 1% P-70762 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR-2606 IVAN, ARTURO C. .73:.550.00 24.203.06 1% 'P-70741 30-Nov-09 PRIN PR llOl .. 73: ,5SO.OO 24,203.06 1% -70756 29-Dec-09 PRIN PR-203: IPIRAMIDE. JERRY 3,657,000.00 44,622.22 0% 79-0.C-09 .� 815,000.00 9,058.50 '-670S8 30-0ct-09 IMUNJI. JASPER IAN D. '-681: 30-Nov-09 IMEDINA. PEARUE BEATRIZ 403 �83S IBAYANI, ELOISA D. P-1448� IFLOR. SHIRLEY ANNE I � P-1416 IPORNELOS, JUARIO R. PORNELOS &TERESITA CYNTHlA D. 41: '-64079 IGERONIMO, ABELLANOSA R. �-68746 IKOA. JACKSON . P-68251 IKOA. JACKSON . '-67148 '-66370 SARCIA. ESPERAN2A D. '-63519 IVICENTE. RONA B. '-653: '-67029 �25% '-6615< '-64751 runbwftl BERK BR-B26S IMAEDA. AUREA F. MAEDA & MASAAK . '-6759I 14-0ct-09 FEL FR-UPOl-B IFERNANDE<, GUILLERMO R. FERNANDEZ & TEOALA S. .-Mav-09 MZAI MR' -3LB05-P IVALERC. ALEXANDER P-63228 MZAI MR' -3LB4S-P SINGH SHAH. KULBIR K. SINGH SHAH & NANCY . '-64048 -Aor-09 15-Seo-09 . RODOLFO CAMARAO & ES'TELA 1969 . MAim I NELDA V. 1-Feb-09 MZAI :.500.00 ).00 100% 1969 18-Nov-09 GRAS MRT2-3LA20-P UM, EDUARD I G. LIM & .OUELLA S. 550,000.00 J.OO 100% M2AI GRPA-0448-P IFUSIONTEL 550,000.00 !74 -Seo-09 MZAI MR1 .-4L '-P IRUBION. OURDES M. RUBION & ORNELIO ERIXON . 550,000.00 55 ).00 100% -Mav-09 550.000.00 55 J.OO 100% P-67428 LAGMAN. AGAPITO LAGMAN & LAARNI ;RACE � 550.00 100% '-6695: 600,00 600.000.00 100% 1-Aor-09 BERK BR-B: UY, ROSE ANN THERESA 625,00 '-67551 1-Feb-09 GRAS GR-BF18-P IECHEVARRlA. NORMAN V. 625,00 100% SEAP-BP316 IALCANTARA. ZENAIDA P. ALCANTARA & .UIS M. 625.00 !00%. P-68245 ec- SEAR lEAl J70 100% P-64089 ;EA ES'TREL , A. BELTRAN & FERDINAND 000.00 100% '-66961 eb-1 RATION 100% ieo- 61 P-68850 �Jan- oEAI -EAP� IETA A. :OLA & GON2AL ) R. '-63ll4 4-Nov-09 :RA 6; BERK :R-U 1-P TEODORII N. '-66191 1-Feb-09 SEAR 600 GRAS BR-B267 lAD lAS, BERNADETH 55 .!'c6~ 1-Dec-09 sso. 55� P-6740 8-Dec-09 GRAS SEAP-BP123 IAN. WILl lAM W. :HIENG & lAC �UEUNE > �-64641 13-Nov-09 GRAS 35: 15-Seo-09 FEL GR- GF20-P IFERRER. RICARD 600 '-66035 BERK 616. Aor-09 GHAL & RAINE NICOLE D. 6H P-68947 P-6681 25-Sep-09 GRPA-OSSI-P IPUA . PUJI_pl;!' 60! P-68255 1-AuQ-09 60! '-68774 1-Aor-09 GRPA-0430-P IXU, SHU Z. 55( -Aor-09 '-63668 �eb-09 FR-LP02-B :ANDELARIC JESSICA JOY V. sso.ooo.oo 'eb- '-64I04 BR-B278 IMENZON. RHODORA 550,000.00 i!b� IP-70740 .-Mav- MF r4-3LC:04-P AN( ..y ANN H. 600.000.� IP-63625 i-Feb-09 125,00 . IP-65884 :RAS Gl!PA-0219-P ; t-!.ARIE P. LAPID- AND IlA 575,000.� 526.021.36 85% 1-Feb-09 :RAS 625.000.� 116.000.00 84% '-68299 1-Jan-09 :RAS 550.000.00 460.000.00 84% -Mav-09 M2AI IP-68009 .-Mar- MZAI :R-BFIL -P iYON2AI . ANNA MARIA . 550.000.00 IP-66740 M2AI :R-BFIJ-P IYON2AI ANNA MARIA 60 ).000.00 500,00 83% '-65935 M2AI '-67830 BERK MRT.-4L44-P lPEREl. ADRIAN 449,5S5.51 82% �-64 SEAR �-65668 MRl 1-P 'YAP. LWYI ODFREY ; YAP/ ANGEL< JOHN � . 1,00 . 67% BERK BERK SAL ADOR E. ABAD & :ASIANII A. 345.258.66 63% BERK IERK >.p IPUEYO MENTE :.oo . 6: MR' 8-P TA' ANNABELILE N. MRl 13-P PALAY, ' REGINALDO R. PALAYA & IRENE G. �.so . BR-B: CHUA. RODOLFC CHUA & ELEONORA A. 1.55 . 55 125.000.00 55 5EAP�BP301 WU. SPS. ROSALIA . WU & MING X. 282.500,04 55% 55% GR-BF03-P AN( FELISA 38:,291. _55% 30 139.25 53% BR-8245 l24, l75.03 52% 280.000.00 51% BR-PL137 HORNER. MIGUELA E. .04 BR-B276 AGUADC. GERARC ) B. AGUADC I & MARIA :ECIL: 'B. !�Apr-( IG, CENCIO LARANANG & ROSARJ 1-Mar-1 I G. 1-Feb-09 1-P .00 48% . -Feb-09 1-LGFII-P GA. M.' ELENA .35 48% :PA- ..p :ALOME. CHARRY S. 265, 00.00 47% -lui- !EYES. IREN I M. .80.000.00 47% 1-Mar- ERK IR-P ~ARIC, MA. LINA MARClANA . NARJO & NARCISO P. '.500.00 47% 1-Aor-> EAR 'AP-I 28 )E JESUS, 'DRJCK 47% -Aor� :EAR SEAP-BP329 DE JESUS. JUSTIN > 1,666.72 47% ;RAS ;R-BFOI-P ACORDA. RODEL P. 1,666. 280.� 00.00 1-Mar-1 ;RAS GRPB-0357-P FRANClA, LETIClA H. 550.- 00.00 250,979.68 46% .-Mar-- .-Mar-09 :EAR SEAP-BP066 MEGAWIDE ONSTRUC :ON 625.� 00.00 178.333.30 45% 1-Mar-09 :EAR :EAP-BP: M~NC~~~~~===========================+========~~~======~17~5-~+=~~~ I-Mar-09 1-Mar-09 :EAR :~::~~ ~~~~~~-F~UND~----------------------------------+---------~~~+-------~:~~~:~~r-~~~ -Aor-09 :EAR Seo :EAP-BPO ARENAS, MAim CARMENCITA F. 174,' 44 :EAR :EAP-BPO CALALIEC. BEATRIZ G. 174, 44 ,.p OL 550.000.00 138.333.30 43% JN( IUL , NIXON 600.000.00 000.1 1% !-Mar- :EAR '1-: ;AMAto ETH 550,000.00 000.1 1% !-Mar- SEAR r:J-: I S. OYA & PURJACACION E. 550,000.00 000.1 1% .-Mar-' :EAP-BP :AW. KAREN� ;AW & MACARIC 625.000.00 .250.1 1% -Mar-09 BERK SEAP-BP021 iAW. KAREN� SAW & MACARIC 650 .00 43 258.33:1,36 -Mar-09 MZAI BR-Bl35 ALBERT & CAROLINE 675 .00 258.33'1.36 43 GRAS 258,333.36 1-Feb-09 SEAR MRTl-3LB10-P CHUA, RICHARD 616 .00 258,33:1.36 42 1-Mav-09 SEAR GRPA-0210-P OUYAN( JENNIFER 550 .00 258.33' .28 41 1-Mav-09 SEAP-BP006 I RACASA. ORAZON V. 625.000.00 41% :-Mav-09 SEAR SEAP-BP09 SY. LAWRENCE SY & REMEDIOS . 625.000.00 41% SEAR 1-Mav-09 SEAR SEAP-BP298 ONG, SPS. SUNILYN ONG & BERKL' 625,000.00 41% 1-Mav-09 ;RAS 625,000.00 41% .-Aor-09 SEAP-BP30 CHNG, SPS. BOON CHNG & VILMA P. 625.000.00 41% .-Aor-09 :EAR SEAP-BP085 DELA ONCEPCION. GlAN PAOU JOSE MARIA V. <ar- 1-035�1-P I YAP. \ S. '-BP3 DAJ lR. >-6601: Sep- \P-BP089 IVC LAN VEN B. '-66020 .-MaV-' oEAP-BP31 '-66001 .-Mav-09 SEAR SEAP-BP163 IMASANGKJ OK. SARIN! CREECHIE 625.000.00 241.666.69 39% SEAR 625.000.00 241.666.69 39% SAMEl -~M. ;AMEZ & ELIZABETH R. IP-66145 1-Mav-09 GRAS GRPA-0354-P ISY, BYRON KES'TER S. 550,000.00 212,666.6: 39% 550.000.00 212.500.00 39% '-6814: 1-Aor-09 M2AI MRT4-3LG13-P IYAP, <ARL 'AN10NIC . YAP. KONRAD MARTIN . YAP & KERWIN THOMAS 550.000.00 212.500.00 39% ~�-~6;~;789l~=t~-~Aor�--~09=t=~M2At=I~~MR1T4~--~3U;~14--P~IYA~AIP~.A~RLL~O~ . YAP. KONRAD MARTIN . YAP & KERWIN THOMAS ~:~~ -Jan-09 GRAS GR-LGF07-P IALEGRE, A~"'D,;:GII~AN'Rc:,;M' -'2'ALOC=:NZO,_& J-"' A.S=TRl""'Al--"'---------------------------jr----------c:~~~;::~:~:~~t--------S~~~~~:::~~;c;;;;-�:~+--;~';S'~~---1 P-70825 -lun-09 MZAI MRT3-3LE18-P lVII LAROMAN, IOALVIN � 616,000.00 235.000.00 38% '-64175 -Jun-09 GRAS GRPA-0301-P IPARULAN. SPS. LAMBERTO G. PARULAN. SR. & ELIZABETH E. 550.000.00 204.680.00 !7% '-65499 -Feb-09 GRAS GR� GF44-P WILMER B. DEKl 'JASMIN .. DEKJ 600.000.00 161.200.00 l7%

CTA Case No. 9396 - Annex A '-6441 -lul-09 ~RAS iRPA-0326-P DUBON~ . EARL , _SSO> !lQJ!P 20 ;,666.70 37% P-680. GRAS GRPA-0456-P S50, 00.00 201.666.66 17% P-707. 1-Jun-09 IILLANUEVA: ROMUL lB. VILLANUEVA & JOCELYN G. 625.000.� !25 000,1 36% P-674 1-Jun-09 SEAR '-RPOl� 625.000.' >JoCOool 36% '-654 -lun-09 SEAR SAl I F. iALCEDO & ROBERTO B. SEAP-BPOS9 ~ !25.000.02 36% :14 =-lun- EAR SEAP-BP015 BABISTA. VIRG!UO V. !li\BISTA _62.>,> !lQ,I r.soo.oo 36% '-65 SEAP- 90 3S% '-660 1-Mav-f iR.' FR� SALCEDC, ROSANNA E. SALCED >& ROBERTO B. !,SOO,I 190.000,00 35% '-68: -Jun-e SEAR 9000 1-Jul-0 SEAR YA JAYNE liNE' . 5so.ooo.� "'" 110 -Mar- iEAR '06.66 ' 3S 138 -Ma.-09 iEAR OY. :ILLA P. 50.� 34 IP-657S -:-Ma.-09 iEAR .000.00 34 '-67306 -Mar- ;EAR 'NN liRFFN ~. 34 >-659� ~ iEAR _�!l!l._ 34% !-Mar- iEAR B- 18-P VIC NTOS, OSEPH RAYMOND , SANTOS & OFELIA S. _625, '-65660 l-Mar- iEAR iR-L iF14-P _62S. IP-66007 1-Mar- GRAS SEAP-BP32C ~EYEI , REYI I ALAN . IP-65907 -Mar- SEAR SEAP-BP395 62S. IP-6588: -Mar- SEAP-BP )URANTE. \NNAH MARGARITA G. IP-70678 1-Aor-09 EAR iEAP-BP 6: IP-67354 31-�0ct-09 JASON U. 6: IZA: '-68344 -09 RAS KO JASON U. _65 '-631 RAS _65 lul-0 RAS ILA:D PS, ELEONOR . HABLADO & TA:DEO P. _5SO, IP-63440 7-0ct-( RAS IP-65: 1-Mav-1 EAR iEAP-BP: JRANl ANNAH MARGARITA G, 625, -:-Aun-09 iEAR ,000.� I ;'-6: 179 iEAR iEAP-B~ . AL '-6636 :<;h. ;FAR >-636 1-Mav- iEAR iEAP-BP25 IBLAC , ELEONOR , HABLAD l & TADEO P. i36 1-Mav- iEAR 1-Aor-� ;EAR GRPA-0352-P IAN. AL \NDER .000.1 34% 1-Aar-1 iEAR 1.805. 34% 1-Aor- SEAR SEAP-BP; I PIZARRC. NORMANDIE B. 20 :33.35 33% 1-Anr- SEAR 1-Jun-� SEAR SEAP� I MOJARES. ALEJANDRC 1-Aor-1 1-Aor-1 GRAS IROSAN . MARLOWE JAMFS M. 1-Mav- SEAR SEAR IP!~EP. -Jun-� SEAR I BAGU!I EN, lGER <av-09 sso. GRAS MR 01-P RAS. ION/ THAN B. 1.000. .'.",;';:': GRAS 550,000.� MZA 1-P ON . EDDY 600. \'"?:''-" 3>% 1-Aor-( 1-Jun-C IRA . RRIA _55.!1. .166. 3''2"%" 25-Seo- 1.666. .-Aua . EDGARDC (\mMIAN & 1\!!lA. _5!ill. 1.500. 32% 7"<-S..n-09 1.500. 12% RPB-C VA .DEZ. THELMA R. _62S, 1<00 31% 1-Aor-09 625,00 31% 1-Mav-09 RPB-( IOCAMPC ME .LMON' 62S. I.SOO. -11% I. SOC -Jun-09 EAP-BPO 'BANAYNAL. RIZAMIE R. _62S, 1.500. 31% hm� _6~ I.SOO. 31% SEAP-BPOC TAMAYC�. SEBAS AN A. AMAYO & MILAGROS CARMELITA , _62S, 194 .00 31% '"" 194' 00 31% iEA '-BPC . ANDREW 62S, 31% 625, JOO. iFA 625. JOO. iEAP-BP: lUUC RICARC l M. _sso..m iEAP-BP: UC CARC l M. 62S, JOO. 62S.OOO. iEAP-BP� . JEAN 625.000.0 iEAP-BPC NGH. iPS. SUKHDEV SINGH & AMARIEET K 0,000.0 ),000.0� SEAP� 325 lHOKCHONC.. SPS. RDNG XUAN CHEN & V CENTA Y. 55 SEAP-1 194 IAN. JZANNE . _600,00( 60 1.000.() SEAP- 424 UY. JEAN ;,ooo.o GRPB-C S6-P I BA lOZ. ONCEPCION . 170. .00 -,3,1%% SEAP-1 Q20 IMACALMA. ELPIDIO M. ;,000.0> 192. .68 191.666.68 31% SEAP-BP260 IGHASEMI. JUL TAG. GHASEM: I FARHAC , GHASEMI & JEIRAN ~~ 19 IJ;fi6fiR 31% SEAP-BP405 ~ EMANUEL JOHANN P. MENDOZA & FEDELAINE Y ;]5,000.0 31% ;]5,0( J.OI 1.666.64 ,0% ~ .U!SA M. MARQUEZ !U<QLANDO S, 525.000.01 1~ .666.64 16 >.31 GRPB-0331-P I MARTIN. CECIUA . AYUBO & ROWENA A ~ 6Z>.ll!l MRT2-3LB16-P IPERITC MANUEL B S50,00 i2S.OOO.OL 1-P I LEE. KIMBERLY lOR P. so.ooo 1-P TIN. WIL .lAM I & MANUEL \ C _SSO.Jl!] :Jet-� T2-' !4-1 . PQUCARPIO & NANC _39L.Q!lfl SeD� _62S,OOO i38� . -Feb- T2-- 9-P 'BRION. 3ERNARC ;n >-Seo-( I,SOO. 75-Seo� iR.' iR-L iF45-P I BAL TIST � MEUS \ M. D.OOO.OC 30% IP-6545 75-Seo-09 GR.' S50,000.' 180.000.0[ ;<o99 i< S..n-09 SEAR GR-BF38-P LEE. HA-NA >9% SEAR sso.ooo. 18'4Q9.99 i9% '-63884 GRAS SEAP-BP390 IYAC>. RODOLf( . YAO & JEREMY ALAIN ,_.., 180 _168,Q!l!!.o 1Ri'4oo a< 10% SEAP� 89 IYAC IDDC�LFO . YAO & JEREMY AlAIN 72S,OOO. !8% iRPA� 1-P IHERNANDE. MARIA FE M, ~ !8% _6~ IP-6: 149 9-:Jct-09 GRAS SEAP-E 79 K30N .� WI JAM � K .ONG & .ORAZON . _625.000.' 200,0( 1% IP-6: 124 29� Seo-09 SEAR _625.000, 160A 5.66 IP-6' 29-Seo-09 SEAR SEAP-8 80 KION� . WILUAM . K30NG & :ORAZON 18 5.64 .1.%.. 31-Auo-09 SEAR 62S. 00. 18 1,64 ,_.., lls 'f-Aun-09 GRAS 625.000.0( 1% 1-Feb-09 GRAS SEAP-BP294 IARAL. RENATC . ARAL & BLANOUITA N. 6; '"' 16 1% >-63300 1-Mav-09 SEAR 1% P-645 15-Seo-09 GRAS GRPA-0346-P GAF JUDITH . ~ 78% P-632 15-Seo-09 SEAR 17% P-64024 , AB~ & GEQB�!' S. _S51 Q.OC �-6c �o1 -lun- 5SI 66.64 SEAP-BP397 LAN B._S!'RRANO IV.URORA . SSO.OOO.' 15< '''- 100.01 GRPA-0335-P ISANTOS. MARIA CRISED so.ooo.oc " ' ,-00 SEAP-BP200 IFERNANDE< HSAN ' _6l5,000J!! 62S.OOO.OO 103-P HUA. JIM' 0, CHL > & LUISi LEOFE R. 550.000.00 15-Qct- Gl '19-P , ERNE! I R. _616.000,QQ IS: >99.98 I~ 66.69 1-Jun-f ~-A , ALBER' YU & CARC UNE � _sso.OOO.i!!! 1.001.00 1-Jun-f 138 LEl 'HANIEL F. 5SO, Q.OC 145.000.00 625, Q.O< 1500' 30-Nov- MR >01-P OJANDRI <ARISSA A. ALEJANDRE & OSE VICENTE H. SSO. D.OC -Aua-1 "9 -Jul-09 FELD FR-UPOB-B ALAMPAY. CARL I ALAMPAY & FLDRDEUZA S. _5SO, :)J)I: GRAS P-65 ~RPA-0228-P BUKUHAN. A~ NA-LEE M. BUKUHAN & ALBEN sso. J.O( �-65405 9-Nov-09 GRAS GRPA-0314-P ADAPC)N. RC lENA M. 625.000. '-68831 75-S�m-09 ~RAS iRPA-OJ; -P CHU . MICHA ~ _5SO,OCK �-673Rc; frt-09 CRAS GRPA-030: -P NG. CARSON _625.00!), I46.661' .550,000.00 16! ' P-64078 1-Jun-09 SEAR SEAP-BP402 ANDRADA. REBECCA G. ANDRADA & IUUAN S. 14SOOO,OO sso.ooo.oc 144"0il<l,a6 P-63948 1-Aua-09 MZAI MRTI-4L39-P ANDRADA. NE .OR A. ooo.oc 76% 1.444.36 76% P-64121 -Jul-09 MZAI MRT2-3LB1 5-P MANEJA: ARMAND I M~ EMEUNDA V. 000.0( 4: .7SO.oo 181 .. 749.99 26% '-6321' -Anr-09 BERK BR-B269 TAYAG. VINCEN' DAVIS , ;& 000.0( 26% 26% �-6344R """-09 MZAI MRT4-41. 76% 1-Jun-09 FILD FR-US03-A YU, ALBER" S. YU & CAROLINE' 'P-65705 1-Am-09 BERK BR-PL IEUSEBIC . MA. CEUNIA M. SIIIM <lrt � exceedlntt 25% m. <lrt s.~Mm lun� ;% u.t:Prke �-6411- 15 133.34 2S% ~ 25% ~. IL~ 15 133,34 25% 2S% .78 75% tK. l.SOO.OO l .!U!YRNA B. 1.500.00 P-61054 lun� . !SON & EMIL A. 1S' 1.00 P-6 L19 Oct� ~BUGA. INC ; REV B. CABUGA & ~THERINE B. 1<;; 78 P-6 !23 Oct� iEAR iEAP-BP; )RRAL ~ER D. DRDULEZ I ELIZABET'H S. iFR D. IULEZ I EL ZABET'H P-6 31 Oct-09 EAR AP� ~ -707< ..V:09 RAS .RUDY PETINES&UNDAB. ~;i1i!B1~��~=t~~:lfr\u<~;Onn--C~t=~RRASAS~=t~~M~-O~~~ .333. 23% 333.7R 23% lun-C RAS PA-0 . RUDY PETINES & UNDA B. 174~; ?3% 10� Dec- RAS 141.666.67 i54' 1-Mav- SEAR PA-0445- I ABESAMI! iiTD R. 141.666.67 >lok i70; 16-Nnv-09 SEAR SEAP-B~60 I KHC JUDITH ANGEU Y. 141.666.67 <FAR 141.10\6.66 23% ~ :m:N<N SEAR SEAP-BPJ24 LAR07A. MA!LFFN C. 23% GRAS T<f1oo P-644< -Jui- ;R.O (VENTURES. l!'i(;. -],3.%, -M .7SO.OO '-645' ~ZJ SEAP-BP48 'DE LEON, ISMAEL G. 137.73: "'"23% =::h,j: iEA !2% '-"3' iR.' GRPA-( l24-P KARAAN. OSCAR . KARAAN & ROSEMARIE M. >.500.00 >7% 17-Nov- GRAS '10000 ,>.J,.%,. P-6531 1-Aua- GRAS iRPA l2S-P I KARAAN. CAR , KARAAN & ROSEMARIE M. 13R~ ")7% P-636; 1-Auo-09 GRA P-673: -=i<on-09 SEAR IRT TH!A ; !!<_ IUAR. ) R. 1nnnnn 22% IP-6733 MZA 22% '-65870 =:oa SEAR OU F. M_ORIL l & E!'HRAIM U. I.OOO.OC 71% '-641>0 FEl 1.34 !9-5eo-09 RT2-� 1-P IPALUNC )MINGO R. PAULINO & NORMA G. "21"%" IP-70416 IS-Seo-09 RFRK 100000 IP-69920 SEAP- lPI: IUABAN. 'AUGUSTO V. IUABAN & ERLINDA 1% -Nov-09 97.466.69 20% '-68" iRPA- 1338-P I MONZON. <ASITD B. 110.01:'.14 20% 98' =1-0rt� L2S.000.02 70% GRPA-0339-P I HUSSEIN. CAI:MFL \F. 110. J.OO ~ tto� \.oc GRPA-0340- CAl CALJf>1/\BI\N & MYB!>!.A GRPA- SEAP-BP09S IMl CARL . MU- : & MARCELY OANES. LYDII OANES & ARLOS F. SEAP- EBUS 'LIANCE UN & M.lliERVA~ �Dec� GRAS Gl 7-P f ELLEN A. ONTAC I WILFREC MZAI M' lS-P lRNEUC , ANANIAS lOB 30-Nav- MZA !STANEDA. LARRY M. ISS 11-Dec- SEAR SEAP-BP06S STEPHEN I. GO & DMNY GRACE >-6319 7-0.C-09 SEAR SEAP-BPIS9 ~NOS RICARDO B. DELOS TRINOS JR. & CORAZON D .s:;;. ~~;~:7~~1'J-+-,gc0:~~-Dec~~~-c;a.09!;-+-~~~~~+-~~~:'~:-BBPP~344�652~�.~~ N.�M=~QUE , JR. & GLORIA

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A P-67456 1-Aor�09 MZAI MRTI-4U7-P TAl.ACfA(._BENAN M~ 55� 100.� 109.l7S.03 20% �-63326 15-Seo-09 GRAS 55� 000. 104.500.00 19% �70841 BERK GRPA-0312-P OLOIRAS, IDA KARMEL 60 000 108.411 18 18% P�M_068 -lui� BERI 18% P-67L8< -lui� BR-B25: OYR PAWNSHOP & JEWELRY SlORE!NC 621 2_8,999.99 P-64734 MZA 55� ),00 18~ '-6451 1-Fetc!!2_ GRA BR- 1256 EYR PAWNSHC ' & JEWEI.RY STORE INC 616.000 !.000.04 29-Dec-09 GRA 600.000. 18%_ 193 SEAP-BP128 SY. BENEDIC . SY & M\RIETTE 18% '-656 .-Feb-09 SEAR 1.00 . 18% -Jul-09 MRT LD26-P . MA. DRl INA . 1 ROLANDO B. 139 �Feb-� SEA 550,00 '-63: SEAR MRI1:'L61 550,00 �-640 _1-."""' SEAR 550.00 . �-640 ~or-( SEAR GR-LGF39-P IILLANUEVA. -~ARIA ESA . 616.00 Dec- SRAS 600.00 '-63' SRAS GRPA-1 l36-P NGC . ROLAN! I A. REI I & SAU JAN N. 600. P-633 29-;eo-09 MZAI 625. P-68: un- GRAS 1-LG AU . HE :MINIA '-66 SEAR 550 �-64 I!!>" lEAR Ml '-P AS ER. WIL EFOR1 625. l,88 16 P-63i45 lay- :EAR 60 .29 16 P-64138 .-Mav- lEAR MR 'AN. oMON M. PAGAYATAN & VMEN IRENE E. �25.000.� '-63 -Aor-09 i25.00 1.944.45 15 -Aor-09 .LF!< ' D. MUTUC & ALIC 1A. i25 . 90. '49.46 15% <av-09 15% CRIS D. i25, � 00,1 ~or-09 i25, 5% P-B I B. MEUCOR & MARIA BLESIL])A W. 625, 154. 5% Jul-09 550, 00,1 15�/o_ Jul-09 5EAP-BP41 iARA. GRAI lELA 5. 550 15% 616.00 1.00 15% AUQ-09 Ml 12-3U 1-P :EUA CATHERINE� 550.000.00 14% 4-Nov-09 675.000,00 14% .-PL SERAFINO. JAYS. 625,00 . '-Nov-119 625,00 .-BF2 ITU CARlOS . MUTUC & MARCELY 625.000 30-Seo- 650.000 1-Jul-0 1\l':!lP .UA~ERl AP,JlP _550,00 30-Seo-1 AP-BP08' 1GC ARLENE M. 550.000 ;eo- SEAP-BP084 550.000 SEAP-BP091 1GC ARlENE M. 5EAP-BP025 00. GRPA-0345-P GC. SPS. ERIC S. GO & ULY G. >RPA-030< -P 625. MRT:-4L25-P .VILLASERAN. MARYCHI LE � . 625.00 ALUDINC. VIRGINIA P. ALUDINO & ALEXANDER P. GRPA_1)434-P _600,00 . SEAP-BP22: SIOSON. FREDERICK . 575,00 16.� SEAP-BP< SEAP-BPO . SHICAN i25, !.49 14% SEAP-BP4 ;p, i25, i.875.00 14% 625, ;,875.00 14% !l&!'l.25 AN. STEPHANIE !AN & SARA_H :IEL 550.00 ;,805.54 14% SEAP-BP3 616.00 ;,416.70 14% GC ~ESSIE ~El . GC 1RALPH MARTIN ' . 88.750.00 14% GRPA-030� �-P 616, 14% -P AS. SPS. RIOYNAU I F. CANLAS & MARIA LUISA . i.OO 1'!, ),1"!,_ ),000.� 1.50 13'&_ A~ DH. TA\\FIO. :;H .\WADH & FLORENCIA . 1.000.� 71.500.00 13% 13% OSEPH . DINO & MARYANNE G. i,OO 66.5< 13% DINI , FERDINAND NA IURDES . SIMANGAN & SERVAND I SERGIC 00.� !MANGAN. . BERNABE & MARITES R. 60 ),000.� 675.000.00 ;eo- 625.000.00 Oct- MB 550 00.00 60 ),000.00 3G-Seo- '-BP CHARI 55�1.000! 180 3G-Seo- iEAR SEAP-BP 179 JIMMY . �.105. 000,1 �-63: -Mar-09 SEAR SEAP-BP086 LAMPAYAN. RUBENTTO M. LAMPAYAN & DAISY ORA20N R. 78. 551),000.� I'P;;-P6:47,3;_;-!6980""1.50;;--+~!'271---'S-;:eJo"'-;ll"'l;..;'ul--~ 009~+-~ 55�1.000! 12S.06 % 550.000,1 !!B:I'.L254 'Nill_J!, 550.000.1 .:ooo:oo !l&!1106 50.000,1 P-702 1-Feb-09 GRAS GR-BF36-P ADRIANO, SUSANA E. 625.000.1 '-674 -lan-09 BERK BR-B203 MEND02A. ETHEL 625. 00.1 175.� 644. -Aor- IZAI MR1 -3LEC i-P IIOL . MARl! I AND LEA . i.555.50 % 575, P..c!i _1-M..i!!: !fB!<.. 575. 625.000.1 P-6 1-Mar- lERK_ BR ,1'!. 625,000.1 P-6 1-Jan-� iRAS GR !!f26 l'!AGNC , I!QNAL M.A(;NO & U.!lf!<- P-6 155 5-0ct-1 iEAR SEA'-BP4 SAUU FLORAN1 "-UU I & ORETA V. -Aor- iEAR SEA '-BP061 LAMPAYAN, NARC . LAMPAYAN, JR. & ROWENA E. '-664 -Seo-09 SEAR SEAP-BP166 ABSIN. DENNIS JAMES� 1 PATRIC (BRYAN E. \or-09 IZAI MRTI-4L --P BRANDES. DENNIS ~~i=E~'~ov-~E;~afj~-3u~-~ AI -3LI ~YAC.ALREOTMHEJOOY . CADERAO & EMERSON . 70.014. ,RO~- 1.666. unct N. :us, !!'MEl lR- CHING C_IEL TAG, <ov- ~R_ 'AJ'cBP Oct-� ~1\_ 'AJ'cBP !i_SON, cB. ltil! GERAR LP. 164 6-0ct-( ~R 'AP-BP GOZUN, AL fiN B. JZUN & DAR .ENE E. 20-Nov- iEAR iEAP-BP3 ABUYUAN, OMEC . ABUYUAN . YO LANDA R. 1,444.� 133. '-64: un-09 MZAI MR1 -3LBL-P MALAGAR. RODERICK V. '.499.9> De\- IZA MR1 -3LG33-P .DEJ EMMANUEL ALDEJ I MARY JANE P. 133.35 1% 1% FR� LPC . MENDOZA & OSCAR ).000.1 1% 1% . DY & \IDA F. 1.999.' lli_ !.499.' 1%_ P-6 . 1-l~b~ !lB!_GO Qtili_& Es:IliDJ,.I\ S. i.9i . 1% 1% P-6 lay-I lERI Bf.-B27 ORA INA, SOCORRC . MORAUNA & ROMEC ,285. 1% 00.03 o'\6 Oct-� iEAI SEA '-BP245 ANn OHN PAU 155.56 JJl"[,_ 10.50 10% 189 -Jan-09 :;RA : : : : -P A~~~~~ 'B AQUINO & ERUNDA A. 100.00 10% BERI � 00.00 0% 100.00 .0% P-6< 18 1-Mar-09 SEAl ;AfcBP400 Q!UA. SPS,l:!ENR' !;!JUA & 10% P-6: 6-Nov-09 GRA 55.000.00 10_%_ GRA GRPA-0528-P CHOA. ARLENE S. :HOA & CARLOS G. 55,000.00 0% '-6564: -Aor-09 MZAI 55.000,00 0% 9-Nov- iR-BF45-P , EDWARD REY 10% l'c�lli9 GRAS 62.500.00 10% P-64239 . 8-Q<;H MZAI MR1 I-4L202-P UMAI =UMALI& EDUARD '.500.00 10% P-67493 29-Dec- MZAI FR- LPC 0%_ '-66520 MZAI . NASS . 10% '-6635� i-Nov- MZAI 10% �-6514 29-Dec- MZAI GRPA-0341-P <ACOMA. , _ CRISTFTA 30-Seo-09 SEAR_ P-64! SEAR GRPA.,Q442-P QMINGC D.f GUZMAN, VANESSA V, P-63184 16-Dec-09_ SEAR '-64: 10-Dec-09 BERI MRT3-3LE01-P HANSLE' :HANSLEY & IRENE 5. 31-Auo-09 VILLANUE\ . NOEL M. -lui-� MRT4-4L214-P ANGULI � MA. 50 :ORRO P. MR1 -3LE32 ;At MRT� -3L ANDREW ' SEAPcBP2: SEAP-BP306 AMPARC. LUIS AMPARO & CHEREE M. SEAP- 39: CRUZ. MA. NENITA E. BR- PARAYNC. PHARES . MR P-6 10-Nov- BER~ BR-Jl !!AMOLmLt-IICHAI _PJLAMOLm_& GERALDINE ROSE .250.1 10% P-6 1-Mav-1 BERI BR-B UCAFOR1. EDWARI 'A. RICAFOR'. & :vRELLE .249.99 10% BR-B24 LAAAOZJ RESn . LARROZA & EVANGEUNE G. P-J 14 -Aor-C BERI SEAP-E P468 ASUNCION. NAIDA . ASUNCION & BENI P-63� Oct-09 SEAP- 176 MAoBAG. EMf ANUEL M. MAGBAG & HERIINA G. '-65653 Oct-09 SEA~ Oct-1 iASPI. ~ME JA D. LEGASPI & RENAlOA A. 81 SEAR ~7 6-Nov- iRA iR-BFI '-P 'NG, lAMf :HENG & :YNTHIA . 600. 00.1 55.670.00 9% 1-Jul-0 SEAR 5EAP-BP024 .LVA. EUMEUA P. 000.1 IP-1 -Mar-C SEAR SEAP-BP081 ABAC MEL DEO H. 000.1 116.70 9% IP-1 .-Aor-09 SEAR SEAP-BPOB: oOUINO. NORA . AOUII l & JOSE P. 000.1 .-Mar-09 SALAS. RD IDO . SAL ; & ELIZABETH D. 116.70 9% 165 -Mar-� SALAS. ROu .NDO . SAL i & ELIZABETH D. 173 116.70 9% E r IP-1 141 -Mar-0 625.000.1 9% SEAR SEAP-BP401 CHUA. HYUE BELUE . '.916.70 1539 -Mar- SEAR SEAP-BP300 JAM!SOLA. HENRY M. JAMISOLA & YOLANDA A. 650.000.1 000.00 9% ~~1~8694l==t=+~.-~Auorn-0l9--~09;=RAt:~FE~LGIR=-tB=F4~4F-PR-~~~~~ ~~'~Y. ~;===================================~========~~~6400=.0=0=0.0=0=====~3~1.-4~5.%336'1.o.366~9~~99%%~ r.::~1~~~--+-+11~-~~~~~:-+-~~~7-+-~~:fL~~'~041~2-B-P-r.:~~II~ER..~~CE~NL~I~E~N~N~~------------------------------------+---------~~.~0~00,.'~1 ~::::~---------~~~;�::~~:::~~~--~~~~ IP-6 �71: .-Aor-09 GRA GR-BF13-P IHUI. KEUN( HINC . & MARY JANE 00. 600 .-Aor-09 GRA GR-BF23-P HUI. KEUNG HIN( 00.1 .-Aor- iRAS RPA-0331-P YAP. JOEY & YVONNE . YAP/ SPS. ALEXIS 00.1 '-64176 1-Mav- JERK '-67292 ll-A\Ill: BR-B250 OHN t!-_ 00.01 . 1-AJ>Ici 'fl.~ 00.1 lf:�lli!_ 1-Aor-1 ~12-P. !il!I. KEUN..<; ~lNG 625.000.1 ~5 .-Aor- >Bi\S_ 000.1 IP-6<142 .-Aor-09 iEAR iEAP-BP02: REY. :ORAl INS. REY & JIS P. 53. 125.03 9% .-Mav-09 iEAR iEAP-BP02J '-64143 iEAR iEAP- PADERES. ORES . PADERES & MARCEL 125.03 9% '-63895 1-~ iEAR iEAP- '-64166 LEO IEL I SALES. INC IPIO, SANC '& IP-70046 1-Mav-09 iEAR iEAP-E UY, SAMUEL IP-63076 -Mar-09 iEAR iEAP-E .-Aor- ;AR EAP- e!ll I MANUEL. BER ~ARD M. 625 � 53. IP-63699 1-Mav- ;RK BR- 14 '-63606 REYES. ARCIE: . BAI ns- IENANTE . BAUns� I & MA. OURDES 65 1% _1-Mlli ;BI\_ ll-Auo- BUNAC. ROGELIC ABU; I & GL\OIOLA . l% 31-Auo- !""'- 1% 'R-L 13-B :VERAS, EUZA . HI:YEIW I MACAI 35 28. 1% 'R-U 15-B PASIVE. ORAZON . PASIVE t WILLINGER M. 35 28. l%

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A '-63905 30-NOV- 1ZAI MRT3-3LI)20-P LAMOSC. MELCHOR A. LAMOSO & MERL TAM. 550.000.00 4: 134. 8% 1':_65Z12.. .-Mav- iRAS SSQ.OO l.Qll ~ !AS !PA-030 --P LBA. REBECCA ALBA & WILLY 550,000.00 '\: ,>�_ l'c_&l(;~ 1-Mav-0 550.00 . 4: 133.36 _8'&_ -May-O iRAS H'A-030! -P LBA.~ ALBA & WILLY 5. 550.000.00 4: 133.36 8% P-6i 136 -Jun- iRAS 55 1.000 8% P-67335 av-O iRAS PEl ' & , MAE N. i33. 8% '-68885 av-O<; w; 55 100 B% '-67829 av- RAS GRPA-03' }P_ ONQ&. )S I . 55 \000 133. !!'&_ '-63348 av- 55� 1,00 133. !!'&_ GRPA-035 �-P cP. 55�1.00 8% P-69 un.:l 8% GRPA-03: 1-P OPE, LEOOOSIL . OPE & RENEE E, II ~UQ- GRPA-03' 1-P CHAVEZ. SAMUEL :HAVEZ II & lEMUEL P-68744 -Jun-( P-70745 -Aor-( RPA-03: -P CHAVEZ. SAMUEL CHAVEZ II & lEMUEL I-NOV-I '-68: -Auo- ,-0348-P LIEG . WILFRE LIEG I & LY . '-6307: 1-Aua-Q l-lun-0 ,-0349-P PERE< SPS. MJ . PEREZ & MA. CRISTINA 129! -Jun-O P_,6809 1-Nov-0' IERI FR-UP14-B 'REYES. ROBERTO . ~F. 1.000.00 25.133.35 7% P,6430 �-Nov LD P-6765< -Jun- GRPA-0327-P ,MARIA~~----------------------------~--------~~~~~-~~~00~--~�00~------~~~~~~~~~:.::6�9�~~~~~~ 1ZAI MRT4-4L258-P TAN. IHN 5. fAN & IARJBEL H. -------------------------------t---------~;;<).~OOOl.~OQf-------~3"'9�,.1~66..i69~t--c7';;;7-%-j P-642~ l-Jun-� LD ~0 ,-Jun,< SEAP-1 1392 >25,000.� 44.166.68 7% ,-Marc oRAS AP- i25. 00.00 139 5-Sep- 1ZAI . ROBERl 1& :ARMEN NATIVIDAD NANCY. 44�.66.66 7% l5-Seo- 15-Seo- 1ZA 1ARAY JEL 141. i-Seo- 1ZA -Aor- �EAR .JC _1-lul-0 iERI 1-P "!!;RCEI)fS 5. 1.00 . 41, >66.68 7% 1-Jul-0 iRA SEAP-BP11 lR. i.OOO. 1-Jul-0 FR-LPUi-A lR, 5~.000. 1.000.00 7% 31-Aua� 751).000! 1PIN MARIBETH ' . PILIMPINAS & ALEXANDER P. 09 BAYLAS. DANILO B. BAYLAS & MARIAN F. 551).000.� 31� ~uo- BERLIES. ELLEN LUZ A. 55�1.000. 550 FRc!i!'O '-B_ I,_S_IK LE\1!-!G w. 25, !33.35 6% BR,I>L DMJ. :ESAR!A M . PIEDAD & ANt! KATRI.!jA M. 41,o85.Bi 6% iRPA-~ 1-P :ADORES . . INC. 35.� 00.03 6% iRPA-0217-P PINEDA, SILVINO ENRIQUE B. 35.000.� 6% RPA- !-P RPA -P 1EDENI . ARIEL Y. ME JH 1B_ 2.4-;ec, IERK BR OMERC SUZEl fE A. ROME! I & MI IAEL ANTONIC 1.000! 39,999.95 6% 163 1-.lul-0 iEAR MANIO :ELSO G. MANIC . JR. & MELDA , 62S. .00 P-6 155 -Jul-0 �EAR BR- GARCES. LOURDES :RISTETA B. GARC i & SEVERIN[ 625. .00 iOO.I i% P-63: 13 i-Seo- IZA VfUG. HONOR I M. Vn i & PURn . M. P-63714 Oct- BR- 00 , 158. 1% '-68445 1-Dec-0' �EAR !i2~� OQ_ 1':�~ ZAI SEAP-BP37B 625.� .00 iOO.I 1% Pc_6439B !-Nov-~ iRAS SEAP-BP20S 550 00 1-Aua-0 iRAS MRl -3LB02 550.000.00 P~7541 iRAS 550,000.00 .-Aua-0' 550.000.00 iSS. i% P-67670 -Auo- 5~000.00_ 170 �Aua- SEAPcBP2B: BURGQS, RAYI OND JOSE S. SSO.� 00.00 iSS. 1% , MICHAEL RAY . SUSMIRAN & AGNES 550 00.00 GRPA-0308-P 600.000.00 136.< 1% GRPA- J319-P /ILLAMANTE. 'FREN B. LAO & ROLANDO 400.000.00 GRPA� !31-P ~NGJ .UISI I M. NIANGA & ROWENA R. 625.000.00 133.35 6% 62~000.00__ )JO 550,000.00 6% 300.1 00 6% 000.1 751 000.1 [33.35 6% l'c_6 174_ �Nov-J iRAS - R. 1,000.1 133.3S 6% 1':� -Seoc( iRAS P-6 i28 11-Aua- IRAS ill.LA R. \NOOS & REYNALDO 5~.000.1 133.35 6% P-66155 '-63599 Oct-� SEAR GR-LGF47-P LVES. 'ENIA LVESTRE & DELIO S. 550.000.00 32.916.65 5% l!':_64~ 31-Auo-0' ~EAR FR-UPL-B 5SO.OOO.OO IP-6989i ~-A~ GRAS SEAP-BP074 'ORRES. UA M. lRRES & RICARDO B. 136. 21.799.99 5% '-68201 21-Dec-0' 650.000.00 GRPA-~24-P DE GUZMAN. EVANGELINE E. 600.000.00 33.958.35 5% -Dec-O' FR-LPO; -8 5~.000.00 luo- l-PI ;&R~Rl 625.000.00 33,958.35 5% ORIANC LEC ~!LA V. ORIANC 'JESUS 625,000.00 29.861. 5% 650.000.00 DELOS SANlOS. MARl fA S. DELOS SANlOS & RAMON E. 550.)00.00 700. .00 KUMADA. 700. .00 1av- 51 CHUC �� oo 65 1.000. 1!!!):1 UA IDA ;25.00 oo lay- I DEL I DELOS SANTOS JOEY 1.00 00 QQ_ Oct_, IAL W 55. 1,00 00 50.01 \pr-1 IVEL ~RK CHONY R. 1,00 00 166.65 5% ,333.34 5% 1-AUQ- �ERK I EL 2A <IBA . EL JO ).00 25.000.00 5% 550. l.OO 26.666.68 5% l-May- 1-A fAPIA~EUG LAC LAC 26.666.68 5% 600 . P-67381 l-May- P02-8 JACKSON, , E. 625, l.OO 31.388.92 _5_%,_ 625, ).00 28. IP-67: 1-Nov- IRAS GRPA-0310-P RAMOS. RCCHELLE I . 550. 1.00 23.708. 5% 625. 1.00 5% '-64184 4-Nov-09 GRAS GRPA-0347-P SANDOVAL. ARRIS JOSEPH R. 29,166.67 5% 616, 1.00 30.000.00 1-67836 l-Mav-09 FE FR LP24-8 DELOS . DE OS ~NlOS & RAMON 625, ).00 25. 1.00 _5_%,_ 550,)00.00 IP1i39BB 1-lul-09_ !!ERK BR-I'_L261 PIEDAJ: :ESA!l!A M. P)EDAD/ GLENN . PIEDAD & ANN KATRINA M. 5% 55 JOO 5% IP-6538: 30-Nov-09 BERK BR-B2S: �LAS. RYAN R. 550.JOO.OO 5% 650.l00.00 IP-66095 l-Mav-09 'ELl FR-LP24-A TAPIA. EUGENIO LADISLAC SEAP-BP281 IMON~LFO M. 650,JOO.OO '-6362 25-Seo-0' OAR SEAP-BP161 IGOYENA. 650 )00.00 '-64356 -Auo-0' 'AR 625. 1.00 700. ).00 25 1 0 2 r.:::~:~~~::;;s<-~__f---;2~0~--NSeoo-0v'~--t-----;;!~~~-t--'S'=~~~~~-~~20617;,><-of:;~=~LASC",IO!::":RE'N?;'E' F.' R. CANLAS & ROSALINDA M. 16 '-64196 29-Dec-0' iRAS GRPA-~0-P fA . 40 I P-64297 1-0ct-09 oRK 55 BR-B121 MACAP: LAC ANUEL P. MACAPINLAC & LETICIA A. 55 55 ),000 '-6358: Oct-09 ERK BR-Bt: ANUEL 55 ),000 '-63556 1-0ct- .OL ,NDC . 550.000.00 1-6361: oRK BR-8: OREN< BR-PL ~ -Jl!H BMID'. i i!MPY ~~ PEDRC 1-oct-09 OAR SEAP-6 :ONIMC 174 . P-63967 P-64384 -Jul-( IERK BR- PL I RIVERA. LIO G. RIVERA & DAISY ANDREA B. 28. 1.36 4% '-63963 Dec-09 iEAR 5EAP-BP3~ EE NG BENG. SALVADOR LEE :HENG BENG & CRISTINA N. SEAP- JAF oED ' MR' -3L .-P I.DMAl . MAC GRPA- 1-P Blk!'l Ill.' LEA!'IDRC IP-63540 ieo� BERK BR-PL OREN , GILIBER" I P-67761 31� )ct- GRAS GRPA-031 1-P SY. FRANOS LAURENCE P. 4% 1-64492 Oct-09 iRAS GRPA-031.-P CRL . FEL I M. CRUZ & BABY ROSALIE R. 100.01 4% '-66311 29-Dec- 1ZAI MR' -3LF28-P TROY . 1-66925 24-0ct-09 IERK BR-B254 JABINE SE R. 23. '49.99 4% 1!'1i3~ _II-~ iEAK . ]'@,LA !!<.lENNY!'._ 24,175.01 4% iP-66388 31-0ct-09 lEAR SEAP-8P233 . AL . GC I ARMANC 24. 175.01 4% I P-68209 Dec-� iRAS GRPB-0210-P IESTIGO USTINA M. ES' :GOY & ISAAC 1.441 4% SEAP- IP425 IKIM. YOUN( i AE . 1.888. BR 264 1.140 BR-PL 113 ITA' 1!'1i563; _1-May,j 1ZA _MRT'!c; LF02L , EUGEMC 1,500 4% ,P-6306' 1-Dec-1 I P-67414 Dec-� lEAR SEAP-E 121 IHAF fRA.SPORl, INC 4% IP-1 ;RA5 3D- ieo- GRPA-0657-P IREF< AL :IA i.01 ROWENA IUNEL 1.00 4% ov-09 UNANANJ ;ERAI let- (-PI 1UNNEL IOEL ' JERE E. muSI IQ\t I B~SUMIGAMA & SeiRA B. lov- ~E p, ~STR<il>. JENN!EER !-Nov- l-Nov-� CASTILI O~A S. CASTIL I & ROLAND I S. 18. .34 3% 30-Nov-� 18. .34 3% iRA ;RPA- 17-P :ASTANEDA. EDWARC 21 1.01 3% 1-Dec-0 IERK BR-PL 10 l'l>_ P-65858 30-Nov-0 BR- :RJSOSTOMC. HANNAH CARLA D. 20 1.40 3% '-66796 'RK 20 3% -Mav-09 SEAP- 128 IDEL �UERl MAR!J ' E. 18. 1.98 ~ Dec- lEAR BR-1 20.8' .34 3% iP-63064 IERK ! A. ' MA. I;U'NA M, 3% P-63584 '-Novcl FR-US01-B , EM!!.Y S, i.O< .00 3% P-68~6 Dec-" LD FR-UP!l-A l& i.5L :rliL LD IRAOUEL. HENRY R. DE .OS SANl OS & AGNES MAR!J 15,5! i.56 3% '-68836 !-Nov-� lAS GRPA-0443-P 15,5! i.56 3% 1':_6885: 1-Nov-1 lRAS. GRPB-0203-P 'ENRIQUE: JOSE .. ENRIQUE;: JR. & NELILY P. 15.5! i.56 3% J'ji5414_ 14-Dec- iRAS GRPA-~; -P 15.5! i.54 3% .P-6691: iRAS !JACKSON. MYRA E. 14. ;,6: 3% P-66490 Dec-O iRAS RPA-0 ,.p '�6490: Dec-O<; PA- -P IBANi � BELEN 5. BANA & ARNOL P-1 45 lee- Q_NIA . I & MARCELINO JUOYJ!, IBUHJ , EDGAROC PEREIRA. MIRIAM ROSE IVAN IMAGI INC. ERMIL R. IVILLAIIN FELINO MA. N. DE J~ ORDELIZA R. :KANEKC IZABElCH P. ~ov- IMUl'JAJj' )U ITA p, MUfiANGPILI & MEL �UIADES Dec- MENDOZA, MAR!J CRISTINA P. MENDOZA & YVETTE MARGAL : P. 55 1,000 -.750.00 3%

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A P-67451 1-Jun-09 FJ'LD FR . NQBM_AN !:L 8. P-64224 I�Jun-09 BERK BR-PL!75 30�Nov-09 BERK TUBAL, ALMON! TUBAL & JADE R. ;3o P�67413 Dec- AR AGCAO!Ll DIC lAC I E. AGCAO!L JR. & MARY GRACE B. '-68216 �R ~ay-J :AS I tr:NA SEE !MEL 61 14, 7583 61 14, lun-( LD VIC :00 ;AVIC ONNALYN G. 55�1.000.� sm.-.. Dec- EAR 168.� .00 1-Mar-0 >HE , VAl IERAMA & MARK ANlliONY 1-Mav- lD 04. 30-Nov- GRAS I DELOS .NlOS OEY 3. 00 2% �Mar-09 FEL ~ 1,5\ 2% 36,� 2% '19�, 1'&_ FR-Ci09-A GRPA- 136-P BERL , EL 1%_ FR-UP!: 1JBAL. All lAL & JADE R. 1%_ , MANUEL 1% �25% P-6: Heb-09 SEAR SEJA-1: _ANl JNlO PUEQ 1,800.' 4.020. '.00 P-63785 1-Feb-09 M2AI MR''2-3508 1�1 lar-09 M:'AI MR"2�2705 ;TEP I P. GREEN WQQD & QHNNA_!l. 1.443.1 1,924,859.39 i445 M'AI MR' -3706-A 4, 1,655 .. 4. !20,507. �-63786 la�-09 M: GARCIA. RAUL � G~ :JA & AIDA V. '-63770 lct- M:'AI 08 134 .. ~ un� IRT4 WONG, VILMA F. WONG & NESTOR LIMWEL S. .290.91 tl37~ !l!RK IRT: 05 1.489.659.01 P�63841 ~ov- BERK .NON. MADELILE AGANON & MARK VALEN 1.65: 171.46 P�6400 BERI BR:! 1.685.848.41 1-Ma��l MZA BR-: IESTLAKE PIONEER INC. 1,876, 136.34 ;.Dec-09 BR- 1.9: 1,585.4< .�Mar-09 SEAl IRT: 508 INGH SHAH. ILBIR K. SINGH SHAH & NANCY ' 4.123.459. GRA 5.175.596.25 I�Mar-09 GRAS .701 LA . DELA CRU ' & ARMINDA V. 6. 124.00 I�Aor-09 oRAS EAC 18 iEAA�l AG!, )1', 4,452.423.36 1.685.8' 1.41 100% �lUI� ~EAR ;R-2()( I�A 4.047.936.85 1,851 ;,34 . 100%_ ;.seo- LEON, RENAl 1.9:1,51 >.4j 1!-Decc �25( 125. 56 100% YABUT, CESAR ANlliONY PALAC IDS YABU I ANNIE D. 4.123.4~ 100% 100% SY. VLADIMIR HENRY N. 5.175.5\ .25 100% 6. 124.00 99% WESTLAKE PIONEER INC. 99% 4,400,91 .. 52 99% ESTREL . BELTRAN 1.997.936.85 9% _WESTlAKE PIOJ'JEER IOC. llBO-ON, DINAH . lAMOS. IRMEI TA . iiEW.lliEI . BELTRAN &SIMP. 1-lui�O SEAR ~-: ~IRAN!lA. FINO I;,MIRANJ)A & AN.JCETA:;, 1-Ma�-1 SEAR EAA�I , MARn ;381 1-Jun- BERK BR�O' DURANTE, ERTC oURANTE & ORES F. P-6 ~ov-09 Gl AS GR�1921�B MUNOZ, MIA 1.68 1,637. 794 eb-09 Gl AS GR-021 !�B GUBAl, SPS. PLARJDEL . GUBAT & EVELYN . 1.51 .290.1 1.00 99 4- ov-09 BE BR� RAMOLETE. MICHAEL P. RAMOLETE & GERALDINE ROSE 1.94 .261 158.95 98% >eo- rl�l AGUILAit ELEAZAR OUILAR & MARJNA 163, 1.00 3, 080.00 98% >ua- TAN. BETTY A. CHIENG 1.05<. 00 1,00 .740.00 98% lee- 'ELI.EN. ONGTAO & WI FREOO 1.65 .366.164.64 >.84 & Heb�l Heb-C S�AJ .�.!SA' I~P.~---667~3301816~7098635 --+-~91--~-.C1lc-tMJu~altv��~�-009909~+-G~R~A~SEA~RR~G~R~-~19~1~0��:B~,~G~;U8ER~R~E~R~C0TUIS~ANB(E~L.~~. G~~U~E~R-R~ER~OF.&~MMIILCACG~RHOM~SL~HA~~U~NGi&~t~E~~A----------------------~-------4~.12~9.;,8:7~;~�~:.4ooS~-------c~,_~64~%~ IP~0637 .1:Janc!l2. .JlERK Jl!l.:l2: KHC, MAR' JEAN P. . 4,056~41.23 !,015,089.98 60% IP-69064 I�Feb-09 SEAR HERAMI , WILMA . HERAMIL & HILARJON V. 1.454,439.96 t71.349. 59%_ IP-70634 1-Aor-09 BERK SEAB-09: 1,893,7411.54 58% GRAS BR-201 � RC IUALOO ;,479.902.66 1.075. 1.66 58% IP�6 Clct-09 GRAS GR-2629-B MAMn . BEVERLY LOU. 56% ~ .-Feb-09 ;R-0910-B l.: 940.� 193. ~ ;RAS IULLIR: . VINA B. .-Jul-09 �3429� IP�7 22-Sep-09 GRAS ;R-1~9-A UNA, ~UC 'B, ,131;. 54 IP�6 I�Jan-09 SEAR iEAA~11 ARUGI\Y, DSE!'HINE REBEC:A A. ARUGA'' & EDMUND IP-69903 I�Feb�09 GRAS CAGARA. MERCY G. 54 .�Mar-09 SEAR ;R-2721-A CAMARJ. MARJCAR P. CAMARA I MARlA OREN P. :AMARA & JOSI DAVID P. 19Q; .�Jan- ,EAJ �1031 3,: 1,63: 53 '0632 EAR EAJ �101: MONTENEGRO. VICENTE 4,. 1.524. L!':;'O!Th. I cfeb�� !.451. 51 I P�l >083 I�Mar�l if)IR . 4,' IP�I 185 Heb�l illAS �EAA~6: -LA]'!IE, JO~N B. 4, I P�l 7201 �Mar�� iEJIR 4. 304. i084 iEAR iR�IZOI�B J>UE, ]QSEFA U, 1206 �Jun� EAB� I : 1.986. ).69 J;l :AS SEAA�0911 llM. BETTY P,21691 1:Feb�! MRl :06- 4,1 !',J;165�_ .1: lUI-~ AR SEAE 141: LAGDAN. PERCIVAL R. 3.30 1,045. P�6 ;71 1�Mar�! RK GR:l !9�1 4,9; ..445. P�671 GRAS LIL~'M�ARlA KAREN B. 1.8( '�68660 .�Dec� iRAS SEAJ 135. '-68676 �Mar- BR� JC . TO SUI PENG & JE LIE F. 4 .. \.8: [Pc�8689_ 1�Mar� ZAI . 6, i.4: _l:Mar� iEJIR � R. 4,1 1.45 38% ll'c2717~_ _1:Feb, ;EAR 4. 1-Jun� MZAI lELA CRUZ, LAN M. CRUZ & ILUMINADA M. I P�68670 1�Feb� GRAS :RUZ, TEOC IRJC CRUZ & MARlA ::ARMEN A. 1,916, 1,10 IP-6868: 1-Feb-09 SEAR IMOS. Bl ANDC 1.454, 170. I�Jun-09 EAR 4.8< ).00 '�67178 �Jan-09 TRC ERDN . CASTRO & HENRY I P�6165: I.OJ lun� OVEL >MAR IS. RJ'VELI!!, MARLYN N. �36 �Jun� ~-C )HOKCHONG, ONG XUAN CHEN & VICENTA Y. l!'cl 90_ l!'cl ~ SEAB-1631 IKC JASON U. KO & IHNSON IP�I �79 MRT2�0706�A I RABENA. ALEXANDER � 1.10 34 IP�l 92 c,615, 1.95 33 GR�3901�B SY, KU 33% 178.66 .76 33 5EAB� LE"' ARlliL 1.94 33 :.65 3l SEAB� HOI LAME <TO '.85 3t .�Aua-09 ;BAS GR-167 . SP~ m'.Rl'. ENB!llUEZ !!,)OSEFI\.G. 1,52 I�Mav-09 iEAR GR�J!! ;KE~ , VERC :A S. ONGKEKO & MARGARET S. 31 _1:Apr,Q2. SEAA�1 GHASEM JUL I G. GHASEMI 'FARHAC GHASEMI & JEIRAN .340.491.5: 31 SEAl 5EAB� .61 SERRAN� . FRC LAN B. SERRANO & AURORA A. l�Mar�09 ..!i.AA ,160,050.90 N �Aua-09 EAB� Ill: II'. 019,176.91 30 lar�09 SEAl 'A!.A!I'I ..411.458.30 30 lua� GRA: SEAA-; 999. '.19 29 SEA GR�O: 1�B TAN, PI() U. JR. & VICKY . SEAA� 31 I FRANC JAN AUL H. GRTl� CSAMANA. IEL LACSAMANA & MARY GRACE A. IMA. FERNAND . RJMA JR. & TERESITA B. ieo�� iEA SEAfcl 08 , RAY GO.J'JZALES~ ALMA . )ct-1 iRA GR-161 I�A LAluYA. FELIX RAINIER . VILLAlUYA & MARJEL D. ',824. .,546, ;,66 IAWADH. TAWFIO l.GH AWADH & FLORENCIA 4. '.700 ).00 '191 D-5eo- iEAR 5EAE�0807 'exceedino 25% ' 4.207, .24 S.'- o' �nA '"'"" ""'lecD c:ove1 od bv mt. 4.058, '95.54 bul. 178. 2~- IP�6 li�Aua�O SEJIR SEAA-081: DIA< LARENCIC DIA< JR. & MILDRED B. ,058, 1�Ao��09 GRAS GR�0101�A I PASCUAL OSCAR PASCUAL & REMIE A. .. 018, 25% iP-67188 25-5eo� MZAI MRl �2808 25% CUP, SOCORRO R. 273.91 !.0: 25% �7181 Nov� 105 IRJVE~ MA :EMEI OS . RJVERA & ALEXANDER N. ~ Clct�� .18 ~ IMAGBAC P-65570 �Auo-� FR�1 !�B LAUSA, RAMIL . LAUSA & PINKY P. 148. 179. '�65088 1�Feb�09 BERK BR-351 DE LEON. MARII .OURDES BERNADEl TE M. & RUEL G. .769. �.15 '74.89 84 1% I�Dec� SEAl iEM� 430 [MAC .ID. ON I A. 1.00 20% Feb� MZA OR IELIO JR. <ANIAS 1-Nov� <ZA I MAC . MACARI 70% _4, 1.00 20% �Jan�( iRA iR� I�A IMO 'NC ~ARl DEE . 4, 1.59 '70, 05 19% �AUO� ;RA iR�I �B [TUN� iiMONEl TE R. TUNG & EUGENE A. 1.00 598, .75 19% �509: :-5eo� iRAS oR�: ��B KE. ::ARMEN M. TORRES &ALLAN . 4.170. 1.56 792.410.89 19% �5588 Qct� >EAR SEAl !18 IHIDETAKA. WAKITA 5.68: ;28.95 .. 077.649.50 19% ~~50~588~==+=~~Fe~bu� l�~+=SiEJBIRE~RR~SEKA+A=�0~63B1~~15~AN6T1OS0.~M~~~~~ ~~ - ~~~~~==========================4=====4=.82=1.~5~0.0~0~4======8=36~.12~8.~79~~+1~7%~~ P�6J 58: 1�Jui�O BERK BR-1910 OYR PAWNS! ' & LRY STORE INC 4,328, 194.60 741.,182.46 17% P�61 085 29,Dec� 12AI MRT2cl50 IBACAS, MAR ANN . BACAS & DANIEL 1,64; 0.90 99,9; !.49 17% ,P-6< 106 I�Mar�l GRAS GR�< !1�B 5ILLA. FEDE CO B. SILLA & GRACE G. 4.059,041.00 680,6; 1.50 17% P�6' 1�Mar� SEAR SEAA-0911 'VISPERAS. :ELYN R. ROBREDILLO & LEONARDO R. 4. .298.00 664.148.06 16% 8921 l�Feb-09 SEAR SEAB�041 !VERGARA. FORTUNATA B. SARJLE. GRACIELA S. VERGARA & MAl THEW AGUSTINES S. 4. '.450.76 698.81 .53 16% �945: l�Mar�09 BERK BR�081' IVER. MARK ANlliONY B. VER & 16% P�Ei9856 10 Feb-09_ ~R 5EA!l:!!315 liNG~. JOS!;!'H EMMl\NUEL . ANGEkES & TH B. 1,489,840.29 548,476. 16% P-69901 I�Feb�09 SEAR SEAA-1129 [HOLDEN. KEVIN. 4.868,00 75< ,244.49 16% �P-6: 1�Feb�09 BERK BR-171 [SERAFINO JAY . :.541.257.60 541.089.60 15% I�Feb�09 SEAR SEAA-0411 � MANUEL B. 4.337.450.76 652.426.15 15% �7280 �or-09 GRAS GR-2010-B SHUAIB � ; & JASMINE ;.990.324. 898.549. 5% ,P�&l!T Jun�09_ !;BAS GR. . SU JR. &_LEAH LA~ D~ . 4,525~66.49 . 678,824.99 15% P-6869: 1�Jun�09 GRAS GR-22: I�B ZAMORA. ANITA ,794,956.59 569,243.50 15%

CfA Case No. 93% -Annex A 123S [3-; 636 UZMA. LEILA LEE F. !.639 ;,962.56 IS% 418 IRDSALES-MC CABE. ROSEANA ')469~ 4,3_34, �.so 1s% PIA.~ERINE B. MOPIA & SARAH ANNE B. 4,306, !'-� 4, l.4: �.3S IP-6906S 1-Auo- M< iALVACQR E. .� 26.[.81 l444 1-Feb-1 SEAR r,o: ;,a; 1-lun-1 SEAR SEA , EDILBERTO A. . JR, & ANt-I_ALIZA_p. -70l 29-0ct-0 SEAR 108.181.98 '641 S-lct-� GRAS .68 '-676S! 1-09 BER~ SEAB-!03: :RU . MA. NEN!Tn E. 1-09 IP-6 ;RAS SEAB-03: DELA CRUZ. BERDIA � '18 Ia r- '19 81 GRT.I-111 ORREA. MICHAEL ORREA & GEMMI Ial: '-67286 IFLORE . FREDERICK R. FLORES & MARY JUDITH. '-676S: ~av- -28: -B IBE< � ELMO . BEGASO & CRESENCIA D. 5, .08 '-6.8] 1-Feb- "A INil OR. ERIBE I 5. NICANOR & MARY ~NN GENE" 1.01 -.14 "69C -Feb- !.96 'c69C 1-A IPU' AN. M M. >UTI-AN & VALENTIN HOPE M. 4. .781 1.4: 1.56 30-Seo- '26: an- 1\A:! 141,25; ;,09_1.5: 12% '25� 4,: ',700 ;,064.99 Nove IMD '.ADA, PAU INE MICHELLE R. MONCADA & JESUS A. 4< ;,091.9: !IT. ~UQc 186,50: .151 0-NDV� BR-161 ON , BERNARC 4. 515. 12'& 9-Dec- 4. 12% Nov- SEAC-1407 iGC UN, ALVIN . GOZUN & DARLENE E. 12% 21 Dec- ;R-1929-B DEL CRUZ. EMIL PAOU . MENC IZA & MARICAR PIEDAD 1% BR- SPS. FR. ; & SONIA P. J29-A oM. ;R-1621-A IINAN ORlAN! INANTE & NATHALIE_� IEAE-1408 DA SAl OA . 4, -A 4.508. 1.6; LAUI DHN DAVID LAUDE & GRACE .24::.398.90 . ERO lUNG & ANALYN 4.204.007.00 348.6: 1.6S I% 1.484.141.14 4: ;34.91 11% IS.ERLINDA , i,.131,lli!.OO 365.8' II% 1,569,241.60 10'1] l-~ LIA SOCORRO . AGUADO & GERARDO B. 6. 159.352.00 ~S.6!�.6; 10% 10% 'eb-1 _ GI t-O_!; 1-B_ .BAl. ~y . 168. 1.00 369,424 1-.lan-1 M !16 c-Mar- rt-: :IA, EDU IRC _GI Feb- _G! 1-B 1ZALES. ISEPHINE M. _l:_Mar: Bl SE 129 SAHIKC Jan, Bl 1-Aor-� GRA , SHERWIN ' � MALONZO & ASTRl I A. 4, 1.59 28 1-Feb- SEAR , MARIA VIC ORIA .68 -Feb- SEAR SAR M. 4, .45, �,74 IDUL , RICARDO M. \.62S.04 'eb-09 GR- !29-B :AMINC, V!CENTl CAMINO & NORALYN 4.188, l.OO 4' 1.625.04 'eb-09 SEM-I ~ELlS! i!b- SEAA- 4.Bl .250.00 10% YRENCE Y. 10% 4. 121.2SO.OO 5. .251 :0. LEN Oct- 1\SSRI;!'N F. 1-Feb-1 1-lun-1 ,AS, 1.44 31-Auo- 134. .31 .-Feb-09 39 JSE . 4. .31. 1.00 !11.691.99 10 ;R-2S: �-B GRAS ;R-24l -A ANI LMC OCELYN 4. 121.2SII,OO !76.219.78 1% GRAS .200.110.44 IRT UNA 392.264.60 4,094,930.00 '-61 13S Feb-09 SEAR SEAA-141; 'AVEDANC SPS. GRACIANO FIDEL V. AVEDANO & BEVERLY ~NN l,S98, !74.96 4SS.489.51 9% 67239 .-Mar-09 BERK BR-1439 LAND. ESTER 1.484.90 9% 1-Feb-0 _GRAS_ .29S.OO P-6869S 1-Jun-0 FEL GR- t o-11. 1~ CHAL , ll!.CTDRIA .II . ;,98t.S; .2'&. -70234 -ADr-� BERK DY, CATHE!UNE Y. 1,691.06 '-69035 .-Mar- FR-06888 ;,024.60 9% 78 lAS �UE, INATHAN . �UE & MINDA S. ,34:.60 9% �or-� AS BR-121: NARITC NIA 9% P-6 .-Mar- -B ;TA. MARl FAL flNC 9% 6889! IRA 'PACENO. 1AN iON 690 .-l-Iar- MZAI .-31 -A d'la!c GRAS '-698� I-Dee- �~ I@ 16 1-Aor-1 _S~ .-Auo-09 ;R-1 1-A RAMOS, :HELLE . G. 779, .15 ;79. 8% 144� .-Mar- GRAS MR1 l70l MAUL , ERIC B. 6. '-68705 SEAR ;R- �-A 4. 15'. ;86. 8% ).J')ay,Q FELD oNG , SPS. MARY :LEMENTINE R. ARENG I & ANWNIO AL'-IN B. 4.51 1.641 '-6J 130 1-Aor-o 121-B ~ELA ~IDA M. BANELA & 726E 1-Aor-0 FEL 4,9< ,781 GRA �,141. 748. 8% l'o6944j lav- FELD P,6891 lor-� SEAR GR-0 1-B , PAleVIRGINIA B. DELA PAZ & NDRBERTO E. ~ '-69041 eb-� SEAR SEAA-05: '-6984.! i!b- FR- )16-8 ~AYNAL, RIZAM!E R. 158. 8% '-690: _5~ H~ lay, -Q71 :KSON, MYAA E. 136 8% P-68: lav- SEAR -151 '-6948( \or-1 BERK .BERLIE .EN 160.48 8% 1-Mar- GRAS 2Sl 1-Mav- FELD DE� 1.531.10 7% 26! 1-Mav-09 IRA Feb-09 VEG l'RES. 1',7 .-Fi!b-09 _GRA. P-7 H~ar~ <BE!lliARQ l_P. 1-Jun-09 _SEA! '-6944: 1-Jul-09 FEL RAMO OS & NO EMI P. 31-Auo-09 SRA IP-6724: -lul-09 SEAR FR- AMORA , Au IN :RU <RACHEL A. '-6724 un-09 GR- 1-B 725! _SEAR FR-07 BAUTl TA, CATALINA A. 4, '24, 1.55 !70 H <-Q SEAR SEAB- �as, DEU ; SAr SEAB- 131 JAIME & MARY RUTH DELOS SANTOS OEY 4, 178, ,00 !70 t-;un-02 SEAR l70 lav-09 'AR SEAB- CHU 4. 1.80 .76 '-690 un-09 BR-1 -70: ~R CH IDE' C. 4. ),80 .76 7% '-6724l 1-lun-0 GR-l 1G-B 1-lun-09 FEL FR-0616-8 lth �.441 .72 7% P-67646 GRA GR- 121 '-B '-6; !25 lun-09 SRAS 80 REYNAUOO V. BOLOR & NERIZA 4, .24 ,78�).49 7%_ lun-09 BERK ;47 luo- SU ITO , ARNElL � SURAWS & OVERNA A. 4, 15. .05 ,7911.62 7%_ ;9a SEAR 194 1c_Feb-l SEAR SA Wl , BENED!C -B. SARZABA & MERCEDITAS P. 6, 174. .00 ;,861 .23 7% ~av- SEAR l!'cl l2!l 15, .00 1.9611.36 6% 1-Feb-1 IP-1 !31 1-Jul-1 TAN. :HINA . .3S ,00 '.06 137 -Jun- -lui- AI'!�, LETI_CIA . :19,; 1.4S '-67263 '-6765 1-Jul-0 FR-0716-B RQA. MAB!SSA__A .76 .00 :06, 1.98 1-lul-0 GR- ;21-B IIULANUEVA. DJOANNA . VILLANUEVH & MARLON M. SEAB-0531 MUNCAL DENNIS A. 101.74 .24 '4S, 1.9S lui- SANCHEl . RAYMOND SANCHEZ & ARCEL 4.011.50 .26 .71: .71 6% ~��- 4. .768.90 1.41.49 6% SEAB-1: SAN: OS, FRANCISC 4,1_80.14'. ,,SS_Il_.09 6%_ SEAB-1: SEAB-08 MEN OZA. I P. MENDOZA & FEDELAINE Y. 4,180 14'. 1,55Q.09 6%_ SEAA-OS31 BR- 1234-B S!NC lEN~ IFER . 4, .24 135.73 6% BABI TA. :RGIL l V. BASISTA & ASUNCION 5. 4,6< 1.69:.19 I,56S.39 6% <DEL . REMORC 1 & MELOD!E GRAC ' M. _FR-lru6-A_ ._!;<<VA!!DO M~ ROM~RO &_CRISTINA A. ;36. 1,48 .oo.ss 1.98 SEAB-10 101.74 .24 1.83 '.04 FR-0916-B ) 5~ GR-20; 1-B 4, �09.4' i.93 GR- 121- , GINA LYNDA P. 4, '.45 .76 ON, JHN W. AARON & ROSALINA M. 4. '.45 .76 BR-2110 RE IALA. NARC!SA 5. REGALA & AGUSTIN F. 106- L!NTAC JOHN W. L!NTAG & MARIA DIANA V. .398.00 lARAOUEL. ROSALIE F. SEAB-1: 6, ;74,651.00 SEAB-06: FELIX. I E. FELIX & DANICA KRYSSIA E. 4.' OS,Oll .20 .22 ..38 SEAB-C ;,6: 1.56 GR- . SALAH 5. !24.754.99 1,6l 56 4.795.680.00 1.620 01 DULNUAN, MARIA LOL I P. DUUNUAN & ROSE MARIE P. '139.920.00 SALISE. OEMEC!LO M. SAL!SE & JOSEPHINE M. 1.81! 31-Auo- GIW GR-2� IQ-A SANTOS, EDUARDC 104. '.482 52 1-Aor-C BR-1 30-Nov- BER' DAPUL ANTI M. DAPUL & ROSANNA R. �69,' ,254.61 5~ 29-seo- GRA! GRl 1-3036 4, li-Aua- SEAl' SEAC-1SO RAMBUY )N, NERW!N 1.897.58 s~ FEU FR- 1715-B 4, 64.441 IOr-09 PINEDA. ROLANDO V. PINEDA JR. & MARIA :IELO HERMINIA . 6. :71.21E '.585.76 S% AR ESTREL TA �,65l I.45S.OO 5% 3,; 50, ANI I M. CANLAS & MARIA :ARL 1 5. 086.40 TRC IHEM � . 3.706.65: 3blua- FEU l-41 '-A MICHAEL JJELLfRA & DORIS_B. ,71: 4% :Jct-1 ;RAS -19; lAR 1 V. IGGS & MICHAEL V. 388 4% lRINC LEILANI 000 4% 1-Aar-C "B :ARAGA. IEL . :ARAGA & JACINTA F. 12S .1'&_ 31-Auo-11. iAYSON. lEY V. �YSON & 4% IR-O; '9-A �ANLICMC APRIL CECIL 368 4% .-Feb-09 IR-0521-A 4% -Mar-09 FR-0816-8 'lMC!!fZ. ..434. 4% GR-2521-B .388.49 _H>!ar, <IGOR, JUl 'V. 5-Nov� TA. ANA, IPS. ANTHONY E. STA. ANA & MARY GRACE H. 1-Feb-09 BOC JAMES M. WEL :H & ANCEL R. 1-Mav-09 OPEl. FLORENCID . SARMIENTO & ANNILEE . 1-09

CTA Case No. 93%- Annex A E-~ 1 II. MICHAEL 1.901.740.24 150.891.36 4% ~~~i~--+-2~1~~~~NOct~~:�~+--~G~~~~~~~~~~C NN 4.125.131.45 158,341.04 4% 4. 1.928.24 .164.28 4% 4. ,50 1.41 1% 1 II. IUD!L~NE M~ 1% 3-Dec- FEI lA, 1% �69' I�Jul-( SE.I INGKING, UC ""' 70.20 5764! 30 Qct-1 FEU FR� PENAFIEL LENN 'ENAFIEL II. Mil UE RUTH 1 4, 1% 4. 196. 1.63 Seo- .UL . GARGAL Ill. OLIVIA B. 15) 1,01 1% Aua- URC . MORENO JR. II. DONNA MARIE A. 1.5� !.440,1 1% 1,660.1 1% HEL lNDE II. ADELLE HELLANE 1% ~ lun-C 1\!'N 0IH E~US N._ 4, I%_ J-Nov- _M J!EI ~RI 4, l% -!41 JRPU , ROLAND �67 4-Nov-1 ORPUZ I MA. OURDE5 D. 4. 1.601.49 3% �67651 1-0ct-O<J GR- 121-B TAFALLA. NE~ 68. i.9J .16 3% lav-a! !AS �28 1�B ABU SEP I A. 94 lov-e! 18 lB. Jec- IUEZ II. JOSEFA lar-� TA. 'D!LBERTO 1 A. 07 >:A_ l ll._jJ'ONA_ED Alill'S P. 26 5eo- l-01 45.� 06,1 !,May-J 1-1\_ : VI\LERl Ill. CATHERINE M. 4. 164.441.00 .26 3% 10-0ct-1 C-1�128 DRC, GE IIMC 4. .241 1.6S ;,99 0-Seo- BERK BR- 135- DE VERA. CHRI 5TIE B. .311. i.48 .28 31-Aua- SAMONTE. JC � B. SAMONTE II. :ARLIZA '.661 156 25-Seo- REYES. MELODY DY REYES .. 6< .24 ,AYSIA_!B_ 3. 1,921 ,79 .24 III.Pl!!SC LA . 001 1,41 1271 29c0ec-Q ~ZA! SAKI\GL CHI. IRMINA N. 4, 108, !21.00 120.738.24 3% 31-Aua-0 ;RAS r:J-: YAP, ELIZABETH R. 1,533.710.00 94.686.36 3% '-68715 lor-()<] iEAR 'ANEI . MARIA LINDA M. PANER II. RENATOP. 4.337.450.76 14L91 3% ~'-69849 lun- 'I'Ll CRU JEANNIE Y. ~ 2% !'!:! ~ P~A, l/I_RR" F~DELAJ'ENA GERALDINE H. 2% ;Jl,'l: .75< 120.00 3.75 125.62 2% !fBI !!!! OJ.GA M, ~~~~~~~~--+-~~~;~+-~::~-r~B~R~3~6 ~;~u~~~~~TH~AC~NEIC~crS~L.UA~~----------------------------------~--------~~~~--------- ,_-+,~~ -701 Dec� ;RA: ;Rl ;36 'UM � Mi UC ' R. '-66101 Jet- �-66102 �ov� iEAR DA! OG II. ZENAIDA '-66104 Jct- GRAS SEAR ',325.96 '-66027 IOV-1 8ERK ~ G~ ,795.34 E-65~ �ov- GRAS >-65747 1-Jul-0 GRAS OAN Lll. O~EPH M. .20. 1.402.00 2% '-6S693 11-Aua- BERK ' AN ' A. CARMONA II. RONALDO A. i00,1i40. '-6569: 1-Dec-0 -~ ~A. !)UL_B. 4.04S.42 1.15 .799 74 2% '-6S931 6-Nov-0! G.MS ~lA '-6592 1-Nov-0! GRAS 1.560. 1.340 2% l!'-6S22! 7.cDec-~ GRAS '.32 I P-65921 30-Nov-0 GRAS 'RZC , RC . GUERZON II. PERL! 4. �.355. '-6574l �-NOV-1 GRAS .049. '-65! Dec� SEAR IFA IRC PRIM� . FABRO II. SOLEDAD A. !;, ;Jll 4, '-651 1-Jui-C SEAB-101 IHA;EQ JRN. PATRIC :ALEX M. 4, JO<J.49LOO 1-66099 1-Mar-1 ;R-2801-A 164.S57.00 '-6592: 1-Jan- SEAC 118 I REYNO. EMILY E. REYNO II. FELIPE MICHAEL 182. 1.00 '-6610S 1-Mar-0 BR-2310 GRT3cl7S7 INUALI . ENER S. DE. IN. 4, 180,14' -Feb-O<J GRT3-3336 102.4: 1.00 .-Mar- ;RT.I-06S: TlENZA. f_M_A, !lWA : BR-0526 4. 1.671 IR. 1.886.07 2% ;R-J 129-B ;,ss; ;R-1 11-B IBOTOCABE. OSELITO V. BOTOCABE II. MARIA SOCORO E. ;_sso.6: 2% GR� 110-B ;R-3229-B IBUHAY. EDGAROC 1083.86 2% SEAB�143: TlNDOY. MERSCHEWE . I,\!!Q.78 2';1>_ . R_l!!'ERl lll. LAQY CHil!STIAN. 1.668.26 IIDJ OG...JQEL!!. !.956.89 DELJS REYES. NOEL P. DELOS REYES II. ARSENIA 179 ISALINA, SALVAC ION IVAI~ CES. CHONA IFORONDA. MERLYN . IPINTAC JAJME H. AN~. ROWENA "66020 ic_Feb-1 ;R- GSON, SPS. RENE .. PENGSON II. EDITHA . ~ ~ov, lcJui-C !UEL LANDA SANGALANG GABRIEL I EDWIN A. 1.82S.9: 1.4: ;.8: t% iEA JA. REBI CA JABINAL II. 4, .96 ()<], '-6572S 8-Dec- iRT TA. JUANITA B. 1.861�.31 1-6S686 8-Dec� �.39 .O<J GRA GRT -285: IREMO � NENITH GREFALDEC '-65691 9-Dec-09 GRAS GRT3�195: 'MANARANG. AWANDRO MAN=ARANGI;I. ERLJNDA . 1-6610: 14-Dec-09 GRAS GRT.I-0936 ONYEA. ORAZON P. REYES r._ . . P. 4, ;,49' .96 02. ~::::~ 3~-;:: ~~~K F::2-~~88 YU, LIFFORD .. S" 11. MARY JEAN G.lli=lii..._"-""DAlli"""-ELs.,.._.""-------------------j---------741,.~4481'7.:�.:4J''!-':.M5'::-+0---------~39��1~011.5~1--+.1:;% ' --i 1-66109 25-SeD-09 SEAR SEAE-0830 ISElUNGA, ELSA B. 4. .700.00 26.126.65 1% S.h!o~"".,. odbviTHbut-P3,0Hwfth. .mNet u.t Prl<:e '-""- 'lLITH!!!!t � exctltld/llq 25% mNet u.t Pl'iu _GRAS_ _GR-1227-B_ ;l!;RRA. 'l!CENTI 1'.6~ 1.466.792.80 1.567.541.16 108% P-6681 11-Auo-0! GRAS GRT3-!939 IUMA''Ol. ERL IDA . DUMATC .II. CESAR L44< 1.00 1.540.790.20 106 '-66036 lar-09 FELil -10 1-B FERNANDEJ GUI .UERMO R. FERNANDEZ II. TEOFI~I S. .26;' 10.00 lQ� '-69321 lor-� MJ fAN. ~K '-66526 31� �ua GR .-30: SAG FEI ..5.85.~.08 1,671 179.30 105 1'.~ .l:li!llc _51; DO ORES A. .,156.433.S6 125, '.41 103' _f'!Z 1.S75.1Sl.9J 1.575.151. 103' 1'.636; 3-(le<:- SEJ IEAC-1� LARH TV, PETER 991. P-65016 1-Aua- BEl BR-34: HIPO . HARRY B. '-64804 -Jun- BERK BR- 13S� Al RE. VAl CHUN MAN DOMINIC II. AMPARO M. '-64803 lun-0 BERK i-B Al RE. YAI iUN MAN OMINIC II. AMPARO M. '�6326S ~ar-O<J SEAR IEAA- 130 INC. i6451 30-Nov- ==:;RAS -20: IAR IEPHINE R. ;J5 31-Aua- -40; 'ANI IAL I aYN.!!. IRAS _k_Fe.l>cQ iiU2l :l:!ll MAl< .74 'iPJ W!f I.S79. 1.64 1.61 !02'A i64J 1-Mar-0 ;RAS iR-16; OPE. 43.1 1.69 !OJ 1363 15-Seo-C SEAR SEAE-050 IARCIA. RES' TTUTO M. GARCIA II. VALERIE . '-6339 -Mar-� SEAR ;EAB- 136 AVI LADY MAl ONNA B. AVILA II. LUIS A. 39.1 1.43 ~~::~B9~=t=2~5i5�-Seo~-=t~SEAR~=t~;EA.~<A~-~~26~-COR. LAN 8. ill.lf!!RY 101 .00 !00 1.34 IS8. 1.04 100 !'c65. 0� :12:Deccl FEll 12-~ ~-A TAL J V. RASING II. NORMA R. i.648. 1.488. '44.01 10 P-63 15-Seo-1 SEAR ;EAC-C .34 HUN". BRUC 'HAROU CHARLES w .301. l.92 '-6: 9-0ct- SEAR SEAE-0930 ADEJ MAR CRISTINA A. ADEA II. MAYNAR I E. '-67500 lui- ;Rl -1045 � M I VIC ORIH H. 1>8.� j45 . 10 -65035 i,681, IS0.46 10 ~av- BEl BR -70S73 IUD� M2 .700,1;54.00 IQi ll'c�>!l!l2. ~<!'l: _BE! . BE \5_ GAlli I MA. ~ICTOB H. GARAYBLAS II. HEIDI ANNE M. 832 .. 832.32S 100% ll'c6467_!; lay- BEl BR- 39-A MAN RA . MANUEL II. GERARD F. .7L.89S.SO ,71..895 !OO'A l!'c6942� ~ay- MZ MR' 3414 TEH, JRGE TEH II. JENNIE '.64 IP-68261 1-Aor-1 GRA GR-: 5-B LARANANG. !NO :ENCIO LARANANG II. ROSARIC 1.68 '-68829 I�Jun- MZI MRl 2506-B DELA CRUZ. ROG LIO S. DELA '�6S733 1-09 FR IOC ZAMC . RAYMOND RYAN F. lee- FRB -A RASII CATAL IV. 1,00 lov-� TEl IUD� . ~NCAMJNO !!<1\RMI\!'!DO A~ ,.430,1 1.00 1.65'1.00 100% 'OV-' _MR ARRC , ANTC I P. ARROBIO II. :ARMEL: 1B. '20.8: lay-( MR UY, )BERT B. 158.66 lay-1 GRA GR� 125-A IMALICDEM. IMELilA 146.80 IP-6: 1-Feb-0 ;RAS :;R- 128-A IECHEVARRIA. NORMAN V. 37..2. '-63S4 -Jul-09 GRAS GR-2611k-A i79.78 579.78 10 '-6' '24 lun-O<J GRAS GR-0725-B I MARASIGA> 1.84 1.84 ll'c61!W; :,!un-1!2. GAA>. _GR-28!6-B LARANANG, INC :ENCIC . LARANANG II. ROSARIO G. ;.90 i29. i26.90 100% IP-640S: 1-Mar-O<J MZAJ MRT4-3301 IHOFER. LAWRENCE .756.S8 i34.756.S8 IQI!'l'> '-6: 1-Aua- GRAS -20C 1-A SAGUN. RE ;INE P. .!!l!'l'> ;049 .-Aor- i-B <TO. MARIA ISABEL. 1,854.5: i69,8S4.SI 100% .-Aor- .� 149 .� 149. 00% i404 .149 .� 149. 100% Hu<l:! IMAGNO, RAMON � MAGNO II. ~A MARIEN. .700. 100. I.S6 1070 I�Auo-1 MZA LIM, ALEXANDER V. LIM II. OROTHY CECILE N. �00.1 �00. 1.99 1504 14-Dec� GRA 1-A UY. IRAH JE 'MY . UYPECKCUA'"II. JENNILYN P-65006 lar-O<J W "J7, '97, 1.94 1-65001 lar-09 RK -3S 108, 19 -70049 lui- ).56 1�63389 .� 864.249.20 un- 164, 1.20 00% =~:t~~~�u~~~I-CL4~~~:j~~~~~~~~~~"E~NELL~~EgjiT~A~LE~~AP~CiLlINlARiIlO~~. ~BULL:A=U=f ='N=I=I. =O=Y=M=.=+=======~~~~~,~�.,~,<I.~~~,=.�=,,=,,=.====L.~868~.8.8~~l3.S~.S~Jt=1~0000%%~ INL CAR I S. 1.898.541.18 1.89 S41.18 00% P-6804: 5eo- iRT JIDILI . MARIL I M. QQ'll> 1-69439 1-Feb-09 DO-"" SEAR SEAA-0807 IYU. ALBER' . YU II. CAROLINE . -70415 ,-Feb-O<J SEAR SEAA-0808 IYU. ALBERT . YU II. CAROLINE 1,Q2: ,284. 1,02 284. 00% 1':6!;!!J; .1:}ulcll2_ _B~ 1,0'l1.878. 1,0<J 178. 00%

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A P-6 134 3D-Nov-09 M7AI �M. 14.� ,00 175.00 1no% '64 O.C-09 BERK ,267.69 100% SF 'R RO LAI . JUANCHC ..,- 165.407.04 100% P-68045 ,.;:_, 160.nno,' .184.750.00 100% P-69364 515-A MORELOS. JONNEL S. MORELOS 6S. ,114 100% '.Ol . -68948 'OS SANNE. JEAN PAU . G. M; .nn 00% -66945 -6S945 .UGAN� . FATIMA B. >7R.I P-65765 I.SM.I P-65684 HARl . HERBERT MICHAEL HARTUNG & ERNA P-66344 TRc1m.n.'i:lJrm\n -66269 Jct-1 RFAMJN, -65547 '.914,., .20 '-69365 ~ov ABAD 'LCIBIAD IS.I .'0 i3974 ;eo- SAUU , FLORANl V. 1.66 . 153,00 1() i3975 i-Seo- l.MQ .351 ,,no 100% i706; SANNE. JEAN PAU 'i;M'tiiiilnn 100% '-68645 Dct-09 ..sss.sc .30 100% '-63f'ls n.c~ 131<-B ABAD AC:IBIADES P. '.500.00 : 100% P-63108 .-0902-B .SOO.no >.no P-63205 Oct-09 <ANNE. JFAN P. 00% P-63206 �Mar-09 1-A �.sn 1.00 .nn )% >-64141 28 o.c:09. 7-A _MACEREN. 11'1 'r>v 1 !39-B ~.nn 10 Dct-09. CRUZ, ORO H. -63> -Mav-09 -3125 44 -63062 NAZARENO LYNN ' . -" <lrt:no -31 .361.84 . P-63075 IUY. RC IER.. B. .35 1.51 P-643C JIWA. lOSE E. JIWA &ROSAITA-N. '.90S, 1706 'lO I.SM:i li01 '!ARRET . AMANDC . RUBIN & MARIASHFTI A P-63705 <iill;n'i/ill P-64389 "1JFR. INCEPCIO P-6649; '.3( .750,00 i3604 5-Seo- OBAL :11 '.399.19R,40 1.4 99% l-Jun-l .20' 775 19 99% P-68; .-Feb-( no.4ni.nn 19% '-631 ~ .99.8~ . Oct-( 7~ 13S.Ol .21 133 Oct-( 1.890 148.48 D-Oct- FAR :d _AU.Or ;ATA , MOTCOKA & ERINA R. 175.1S5. O.C-09 :-t: -Ton-09 FwAR: ALMOf , MOTC DKA & ERINA R. >.40S, 1-Mav-09 --38; =LEONI! 1.4~'-�n 1-Feb-09 ;o.6.s iEAA-0741 IAHA I MELECIO & AURORA . 1-Feb-09 <FAR ANE H( LAMINATION SERVICES INC 174.4-,;: 1-Feb-09 CAN DING & MFIRONG , Tri' l.f'' 1,451 -F<>b-09 SEAR CHEL RUTH .450.0( .00 FPMiQ SFAR SFAR , HANNAH 1,450,0[ .00 98% 1-Feb-09 SFAR URANTE lll. UAN MARIA HANS F. 1,450,0l .00 OR% 1-Feb-09 URANTE lll. UAN MARTA HANS F. 98% 1-Mar-09 "" 450,1 ,00 98% 1-Mar-09 'ERRERAS. ALBINO 138.0! ,00 98% 75-Sen~09 � SFAR 98% SFAR SPS. LAWRENC . SY & REMEDIOS 5. '.5' ,42 nrt~ FEll 98% .SFAR 18 LAWRENCE I ' & REMEDIOS 5. 1,8j 1.54 9R% ~ 98% ITN� OSEPHINE I ,26;',905.00 98% 2511,579.25 18% . EMIL' 260.604. 98 SAILER ANAC LETI ,,251. .00 98 ,,346, i.4; 98% CHHAN1ARA. RONA JANFP' <AVFnRU; CO' '29.4( .00 11-Aua-09 SEAR FR-0315-B GARCIA. AMADEO P. GARCIA & RODELLA '29.4( .00 30-Nov-09 SFAR FABIA, CANDIDA M. FABM & DENNIS JOSFPH M. FFI <i' ,ONG lULIE 148,4! 1.81 -Seo-09 '24,5~ .00 JS:S..n-09 """ SEAE- CHARLES , 11-0ct-09 SEAR 1,446.74 25-Seo-09 GRAS ,ARCEC , ROSALINDA B. ARCEO & LEAH PATRTCIA M. ,183,41 '.90 1-Mar-09 25-Seo-09 -:sFA . 'AC-1215 IGC. EMIL 174,476. 9- lct-09 1s: .361l.6s SF ADEA. MARIA CRISTINA A. ADEA & MAYNARD F. 31 Oct� ABDU 1AH. ARLENE P. 01 OTFO & RAHARIImNR Jet� ;ARCIA. ARCHIE E. ;ARC >8. DlVTNA lar- 1-Mar-� ~SYLVIA: 1-Mar-� l-Aor- ARCEC . ROSALINDA B. ARCEO & LEAH PATRICIA M. -F<>b-09 an-09 14 TAN, OYD JASON !M:09 Pt>:09 HERCE. ROLANDO G. ,:4ns: 1R4.4n<.3n UCASAl . U> , YU MTIY , :IR4,40ii'lO 134,� 1.30 UY. PO 1mii4;- >'"00 134.- �. 30 HERCE. 'NC 34,4{ .30 98% 17<' ii4 98% CRiNdR. 26.: 80 98% �.97 98% 144.97 so.: 00 QR% .R4497 98% i7n�~ 25. ,iO 98% 98% PEZ & ELIZABETH ' . ....-.c'74:M 98% 1-Jun-09 :HING, JU ITA 7rn<TI~ii> 97 �� 1-Jun-09 1.667,50 98% 1387 IFAR :HING. JU ITA .97 98% -63388 -Tun- SFAR 16. >.64 98 -63486 ~ :HING. JU ITA nn.11 .91 98 <476 _F,.P;;t;>::l 18% P-65550 <FAR 139 HABLADO. SPS. ELEONOR I HARI AD I &-i'Ji.i'iFOP Ci1 iAA,1Q :20.: I, 90 18% P-63368 11-0.C- P-69254 1-Feb-1 SEAR M_,TIR. I lGAYA M. ~RRO. no '.1C .08 IR% 1-Mav- M7AT 18% ;s3 -..;.;- Jll >.086. '�"" 18% _c;; ,... RFOK 18% 145 RFiii( 725 LAYUG, SPS. MANNY LAYL ; & MAR" M. ''"' "" 17% 99 1-Fe -2015 17% 1-Fe SEAR TAN, DANIC TAN & MIMI , 1.84; i.50 1,066, '.64 17% '3491 1-Fe 1.84< 1.50 ,065. i.SO 17% �3504 1-Mar-0 ......SFAR BRETANA. MA. OMENF D. BRFTANA & MA. nF'<TRFF 1.830. iR6 so 1.061. 1.19 17% '-64154 -Mar-09 SFAR 91% >01' ,TAN. TAN & RFYNFII vNii: I,SJR: 1M) 7% P-63197 3-0.C-� "" P-66505 1-Aor-1 UCAR'A 7% 1-Aor-1 ..SRAS 7% �P-66570 _ZAMORA, MAR 1% -An<- iFAR 7% P-65043 ..h-09 HR ZAMORA. MAR 7% 'Ph-09 IFAo 97% P-63494 --FAo SAMONTE et. . RAOUEL SAMONTE JR. & 01 TA s ',5! 97% P-63497 21-Dec-09 I,St 97% IP-64289 1-Aor-09 lAS <I SAMONTE et. . RAOUEL SAMONTE JR. & iOi TA"<: 126.8' 97% 1-Jul-09 'RK 160.' 97% 650 25-Seo-09 IRAS OF, DY. ;ALVl STFR 97% 125 149,: 97% ,.:-oF;epb.-09 ""' .v. 'B. 149,: 91% >"& ARI FFN A. ..849.: '.92 1-Aor-1 I FAR J)RDUNA. INIS 5. JRDUNA & 1-Aor-1 ORE IN. 1,86 l-Aor- .....SFAR 78-De<-09 , MARLON . �� s~ -l.in-09 ;FAR CHUA. IILIIAM H. "�"-�-09 CHUA. ITLJ !AM H. ..830,: .00 - ..805.66 .84 �31;] o-B 1.805.66 "' -3905- ,79< ,24 i.SO r:J-06: .792,24 i.SO " ' 134 .780.S8 i.S4 '778,61 ..60 1-35 1-Jun-09 , ED :HING & GERALD ERWIN . 28-Feb-09 568; ;R., r.J-214 CHUA, ELIZAI i G. .76 56874 '-Nov-09 r:l-2151 .76 '-66955 18-Nov-09 r.o:As CHUA. ERWIN . SY & IMELDA G. ,76741:Ciii; 1.9~ '-68498 54; 1-Nnv-09 ~ 141 I NG VlCT OR IAN S. 76i4.,-o;; ,711<.4!;'.95 97% P-6' 005 6-NnV-09 r3-lB49 .71::.412.95 97% P-6 002 1-Jun-09 ""BERK ICHOA. ARI ENE S. CHOAI!; CARl ns .745.418.78 .703.891.19 97% P-70556 30-Nov-09 1-~906 .6R1.149. 97% IP-6' 014 1-Jun-09 GRAS 'AN :HUN .,695,<!.!8. 97% 1-lun-09 M; 1-~019 ~ ""�"'=~ .� 631.149. 97% SOl RFRK -A ISADA & JOSE GALli P. .,619.64':.36 97% 6875 -F<>b-09 56 .� 638.:168.80 .618.638.40 97 IR-Nnv-1 ""="" LEGASPI, CRISTINA F. .600.; '40.no 07 �6939 .63S. lno.oo .,588,'l_68.81 97' 156 8-0ct-09 IRAS MELVlN I ,634;\<Ul4 ,551.3~6.10 97' 123 -Aua-0' ,585.400.00 91' ....IRAS LEE. HA- ... ~ ,584,519.04 97 �6802 25-Seo-l 8039 . J,n-1 ,IOAS CHUA. IWTN I iY & TMFI DA ' >F:F: .33 97% �6960 97% P-64920 ,.:.;;;;;:1 ~ PILAND LETICIA S.(transferred CHARISSE P. AGBANLOG\. 1,597, 147.85 1,56 97% P-66836 97% IP-6651: 1-Feb-0 BERK DIMAYU RAU M. DIMAYUGA & OCELYN . A. 1,55 91% IP-6 816 31-Aua-l GRAS 1,55 97% 1-Mar-- DJNO. F! DJNAND I !NO & MARYANNF r.. 1.55: 174.51 503 1-Tun-09 ........GRAS MALLILLIN. EYMARD JOA0111N H. MALL!IIii\i'OAiiFFiiff' .75 .50 -Nov-09 MiA� UMAI CHAl HA7FI MAW � IIY& MA~ ~ 549.530.no I""~"� -,; -.,._ 040 TIEN ffil 1,547,847.85 Dec-� ""' -3426 :ARL l U. -Nov- IEUFE~ , EDSON . EUFEM!O & MARIA NELDA V �Nov-1 GRA 'GR l-B GRA I FLORE , MARY JUDITH . FLORES & FREDERICK R: T3- ALDAY. 1RGILIO M. OF .DAY & ELFANOR P- MIRC CHARD S. , VIC IAN S. T3-2 OA, ARL ~E 5. CHOA & CARLOS G.

CIA case No. 9396 - Annex A P-68_167 ~NQv~ ABAGA'TNAN. RA . ABAGA'TNAN JR. & NENJTA . 1,591 '.61 P-68' 1-Feb-09 1,590 1.40 '-669 1-Aua-09 >RAS ilf� I S. 1,540 164.40 97% B-Oct-09 >RAS I S. 189.9! .20 1,539,985.20 97% P-61 320 B-Oct-09 >RAS PllANC TIDFI >89. .00 l.S39. 97% �-67158 -Aua- >RAS PILANDO TEOFI JOCELYN A. 1.539. ..00 97% '-666 >85,30 . '-6) 1:5e_!l: iRA lAC JEm ;36.130.00 17% '-68C 5-5ep- >RJ\ DHN ;.so >RA [,535"300.� 'll% '-69761 1cNOV- iRA .580 1.50 1-Aua- 1.s: ;.so 97% ;RA l.SS: 97% Oct- l.SSI 178. L530 379.50 .-Nov-09 GRAS LA. ;29. '.56 4-Nov-09 GRAS .76L ;2s. >.41 1-Dec-09 TERESITA S. (transterced CHARJSSU'. AGJll,NLQ�l 1.481. 1.89 . Oct-09 1-40 !-B ORE! , MAR IUC TH .. FLORES & FREDEB!I ( R._ lee- 1-0928-A '.9: t-4002-A MERC , PJ I A. MERCADO & ELISA A. SEJ l.48LS: .20 XU. SHU 1.475. 1.9J LIZBETH S. XU. SHU URAN. )NIL . DURAN & NARCISSUS OUINTO. :CHARD 1.501. .. 83 l.490. Aua- 1.481 1.95 1.480. 5eo- 1,11!!, 1,929, .-Aua- 141 T1EN2A. 1.41 MRT4� 1.4: ;39. 1-Feb� IZAI GR PRENDA, FERNAND . PRENDA & ::AROLINA B. 1.425.219. ~b-09 AGU LTC REYNAI.DO S. let- TERESI 1S. (transferred LETIC 1S. PILANDOl 97% 97% GWEN UAN. HL TSOI & CHARISI I C. 14!: 11-Aua- IRA ONG, ZHEFNE . T1NG & BENGAL ;,st l.957,0f . '-6<i61: !-Dec- ;RAS .-0141 'UA PHEE, ROBER"' S. PUA PHEE & MA. CECILIA E. 1.951 1.96 089.' 96% ,261. .00 96 6618 18-Dec-09 IRAS GR �-014 1PHEE ROBERTS. PUA PHEE & MA. CECILIA E. I.BBJ 89.96 96 1,616. .35 100 .-Mar-09 LD FR .003� JE SICA lOY V. 1.589,4J .28 .21: 08.95 _2!; 95 m 29-Dec-09 >RAS -3J JINTO. CHARD . 1B.Bi L.640. 26.10 95 !;!!30 . !1:Au!I:Q2 �~ .JiB :2!1 . ;n. >.60 ~~ 4QJ!l! 5476 1-May-09 �ERK BR :539 LATA, !EN ::ATHLEEN � . GINETE & ANTONIO FLORENTINO L.6S 1,541, 66.3S 1.41 8414 13-Nov-09 >RAS GR IGOAG, THEUNE I . DAGDAG & lN. 1,514,. 29.28 1,85 ,304. P-63873 1-llar-09 EAR SEAA-06 IN D!, W!LFREOC 1.815.801.30 '.01 .14 .741.8' .20 >-6S769 �o-09 FRBJ:-04: 1-A INON. LBERT ON B. .313. 1.00 1.495.118 . .719.. .20 40 11 ~�~-~8~41__+-~~~+-~~~~~;R~-~3~079;-B~--B~~~~~l~D�D~EL ,A.AL~ANDRE& H. 1,678, .10 , EWA I & SYLVIA �795, .33 12% 12% P-64140 1-Jun-1 EAR ;EAA-1410 lUll , MARIVI> : B. 179.460.00 11% '6940 28-Feb- IZAI MRT. 121: 1.279.460.00 91% '-69: 1-Jul-09 ZftJ MR" -31: :HIN( EDITHA CHING & GERALD ERWIN . 1.654.384.24 90% '-6SB61 31-Aua-09 FRBJ 1703-B 1,449.200.00 105.841.96 89% '-668 RAS ;Rl -19c .UCES. ELINORE R. ; & NELSON P. .31! ,780.00 184.834. ~% .-Auo-09 ~ ..�R-:l!!n:! ;25.833.00 87% IP:li!!JSI RAS GR-3418-1 RGAN. OSEPH '.92 86% IP-67974 _Uan:!!2_ MRT4-360 .� 6~6!'1,Th 83% 1-Jun-09 'Ell FL 1-0512-J MATC , ERLINDA . DUMATOL & CESAR ,,454,138.74 ~"!._ 1-69836 1-Aua-09 'ELD FLD-0510- 1.538.686 . ..l!l% '-65665 !7-Feb-09 UYOT, NANC 'S. DETTE M. 82% ~61;1_ Feb-09 'Ell 'IENC . GIL S. 066.216.70 81% LP~2 >EAR ONA . PERlA JANE I P-65B6J _lclo8l2_ UGONA . WILHEM . MillS IP-6435: 31-Aua-09 >-66S48 9-Nov-09 FRB2-070S,B ORGAI OSEPH .OPEZJ LIEAH . LOPEZ & BEN A. ,MhO= �-66556 SEAE-061: , NELSON A. 184,834. lav�09 GR� IDe- TINA lun- 1.869.848.20 340.: lar- ~PATBJCIA~ i>lt 'eb- , F. 1-Feb- IS9 1-Feb- EAR EAI -15 [ARENA , MARIJ CARMI TA F. '.560.1 ,25: 71% IP-6 21-Dec-0 �RAS 174.018.45 .242.812.91 70% .-Aor-09 ;RAS -3610c-B DASS. USAN DASS .'lAC UELINE SUNJTA DASS 'IRENE .. 639.504.80 136.323.48 69% '-681 6-Nov-09 ;RAS 1.81:'.95: .28 >7% '-669 SEAR GR� 1318-B IJIMENE; JAIME 0. JIMENEZ & CHARINA E. 326.249.80 .21: >7% 1-Feb-09_ SEAR ,704,542.88 .795 IP-63: 1-Apr-09 GRAS ;RTJ- DB [ROLDAN. ROSARIO P. ROLDAN & NELO R. .. 945,209.55 ,166. >6% IP-664 1-Aor-09 MZJ 1.481.404.00 >S% IP-69431 25�5eo-09 FELl r.s<:UAL. SERGIO .704.542.88 >.4l 6!1% -Mar-09 GRAS �.495.490.00 '-65770 FELD SI'/IB-09� [R~ LWA" REAL .� DB: >% >-68214 1-09 ..li~ .. 84: >,091. 1%_ '-651 Han,Q'L _liRAS_ GR,24DB KAMPITAN, ESTEBAN R. KAMPITAN JR. & MAR' JEAN A. 126.249.80 .. 107.952.89 1'!,_ lcAor-~ GRAS 965.83: .28 1% [P-~Il! 1-Mar-09 RAS MRTJ-3503 [VANSCOY, EDNARIZA E. VANSCOY & MARK .,53:1,046.00 J)Zb91L2!! 1% EAR .291.719. .� ~544_,& IP-66188 -Jun-09 FRB2-04J 0-A ISADERNAS. CRES DARYL ,,568.848.62 031.370. ~%_ IP-67899 Feb-09 .. 688.014.15 164.853.4: GR-2405-B TlNIC ONG. ANA MELANIE . .460.185.15 6:.% '-66345 '.69 ~DB~ 6:.% '-6: 195 FRB2-0709-A IBAIPJL WILFREDO M. 939, !.BJ 60% 1.05 ,397,931.01 60% .JiR-242Q:!. L<STR..wA ~c 475.884. 1,33 lO 987.810.01 <:i&-DBlHI I r-1, 169. 1.98 19.1( 1.16 GR- 118-A CASTILLC. MARILOU P. 91. 1.00 GR-3910a- >AR. CELYN A. 510N & ALEXANDER 5. EAB-090: IRC LWAY REALTY :ORPORATION IP-65815 31-Aua-09 FRB2-021B-B [MJ MITAG, FILOMENA M. ::ASTANEDA & MA. :ORAZON CHRISliNA M. IP-63402 31-Aua-09 IP-66229 1-Feb-09 EAR SEAB-091 . Nl . ESTC .ON!NG & ITA F. '-66582 -Jan-09 RAS GR� !309-J , ELISEO U. '-665 lan-09 Feb-09 �RAS GR� 120- IAB INGAN. BELLA 5eo-09 Auo-09 oR� l719� lAB oM lEU 1-0703� DEL t82-0B09 .LEN tB2-0601 � M. lun-C >.EM-0~ c'l!'R . l,i\CSON_& MlC~ELLE Y. .6-Nov-09 rl-J 125 IN . CISA & JOSEPHINE P. '-6: 19 1-Jan-09 EAR SEA/' 1419 IMJ ::ALM.'. ELPI[ I M. 596.545.56 �-65015 04: .565.8; '-67005 -Jan-09 ERK BR�3421 ENG E'' AL W FREDO M. 892.086.70 1~004- .21h19_~ I P-66699 .-Auo-09 RAS GRT. �285: SPS. ERIC 888.520.00 51 '-66698 988,914.98 51Wo '-67688 ..>l:A!!ll:!l2 �~ . E!ill' ll!liB V, ill! 'A. 430. ..36 �-63BJ .04; .76 >-68158 1-Aua-09 RAS GR1 1-1156 IEC .RMA. RAQU ~!CfORlA M. ~'-628'2\84_ ll-Aua-09 RAS GR1 ISS IEC.RMA, RAOU VICTORIA M. 'eb-09 <AS GR-0525-J IBA 5IG MARIL lar-09 OAR SEA 083: �MATC. MACAORAC . lun- oR� DE:. MUNDO. JEL DEL MUNDO & MARlA ELIZABETH E. � ! ' e b -~~CA~~ Blilli f, .& LARRIZA E. >-66920 Oct- GRAS >RT. 'RGARA. ERL TA MARlA ..596. ).00 841.438 . 1% I P-66834 5eo� GRAS GR� '28-A LA CRUZ, JE IUSA F. DEL CRUZ & JERRY 579. 1.48 s: 3.042.50 53% ,P-66835 '5-5ep- GRAS 861.955.80 53% IP-66294 1-Feb-09 ;RAS BR- 338 CRUZ. JE'USA F. DELA CRU : & JERRY D. .. 82!.911.65 1.028. 145.8' 12% �lan-09 IERK GRT. -3945 IPAN. ORRETA M. 1.95'1.470.01 888,890.05 �-65001 28-Dec-09 >RAS G&3307-6 IBAGAS!N. SAMUEL B. .79:,10:.10 .253.504.64 52% '-67634 I-Feb-09_ ;RAS SEAA-1626 ISUGAWARA. TlNALYN '.410.585.80 750.908.69 52% I P-665A7 1-Mav-09 >EAR GR-1605-B ONISHI, HIDEAKJ ONISHI & PAMElA GRACE .451.988.55 52% P-64165 -Aor-09 >RAS ;R1 !20 IYLANAN. ALLAN 5. YLANAN & NANCY .804.795.20 .� 22l.913.1!>_ 52% '-664 ~-seo-09 ;RAS ZACARIAS.�N10NIETTA H. ZACARIAS & PILARDO ~402,B15.Bc ,253,635.70 '-670 IFRANCISC . PERPETUA SOCORRO A. 1,486,550 907.5: !.68 il% l,cFeb-~ >EAR ..805.66 ;,68 1.00'�.142.48 IP-6c 3D-Nov-09 ;RAS S.EAA-11Ul I)I_M, llC ,I(ANG, TIM . KANG, ALFONSC TAN, I'IKYEE LAM l.996.BO .. 28 790.740.00 so% P-670 30-Nov-09 RAS ~3BQJl!l SO% '-670 25-5eo- RAS GRTJ-3505 IJAYANKURA. CYNTHIA JAYANKURA & PONGMAHIP R. 58:.481.00 939,320 SO% 868,01!.51 50% -633 31 ��o� RAS GRT. -3501 IJAYANKURA, ::VNTHU JAYANKURA & PONGMAHIP R. !78,64 1.00 829.670.73 IZAI 736,02 .14 l.4: l.S! .70 _2!1% 25-5ep- RAS �253> 'VERA. MARIL J V. DE VERH & !SAGAN! l.659,34!.SB 50% 29~Dec- >EAR 05. 50% 1-Feb-1 SEAR rl-253! [EQ QSIQ . ~.854.744.68 50% 1-Feb-1 SEAR 'VERA, MARII : V. DE VER/1 & !SAGAN! 49% ;.46' 45 eb-09 IT4-2S; 1VEGA. EXEOUIEL A. DEL 1VEGA & 015 A. lar- -2827-1 liZA1A. MELA~ IE M. .� 56: l.OO '20. 1.60 AA-1441 ISSEl , EDWA I A. SEI l-Os: ISO. SPS. OIME B. SO & HELENS. .ERAS. ROLEN OMON & BE TY K. APOLON!O �P-6 109 -Nov-� FEL F> 32-C 11-B IGALIN, JOYCE 5. L24 . '% '-64726 .-Aua- BERK BR-1934-B ,TIUSTEZA. FILIMONA 5. llUSTEZi> & HENRY H. .03 .25c 47%

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A -~ �LBA & WILLY S. 1.690.�124 . 788,677.94 47% GRAS .. 190.00 81 1.00 47% IP-669> 3Q-5eJ>-09 GRAS GRT3-}626 '-66298 l-Aor-09 BERK GR�33l(lc-A I AUlA. .LBA & Will '~. .91 '.08 6SS+ SEAR 5340< ~ar-09 EAR BR�3; ONG, i ANDREW .92 SEAB-0920 i.84 1347 'eb-09 w; iEAJI-0836 CHNG. ON CHNG & VILMA P. 1.81: ,380.83 178 'eb-01 001 !15 'eb- SEAR -3() GAW. MACARI '.841 oRAS T4- '08 1.84' 1211 lun- BAUTISl DOES 1M. l81 v ,22� 'ell: ABRAHAM. EDMUND . ABRAHAM & ESPERAN2A P. .7S 1262 Fell: 1,07� 1.674. ABRAHAM. ~MU . ABRAHAM & ESPERAN2A P. i8S.738.00 46% '�66314 Aua- 168.0L.3S 096.36 46% '-6631S 1-Feb-C DULCE JR IELINA . DULCE & VALENTIN H. 362.8S 46% '-63180 2S-5eo-� 162,916.97 362.8: 46% 1!'�63415 SALCEDO. 1 E. 198.945. _1>'l! ,P-6303! �Mar-� 908. 4S% -7030( utiG, Sll' . R" UNG_& EU~ENEA 1.40: 968.1S 4S% '-67941 '.911 o.49S.76 4S% IAOUINC LIN 1G. OUE2DRA & REYNALI l 5. .210.39 4S% '-~ '7S. 14% '-66343 SEAE-OSOS LEE. DORl ; JC f G. OI9.02 .24 ',0~.00 '-6344J1 .768.161.6: !,683.50 44"/o> '-63039 !ASUNCION. ABELARDO 055.535.8S 44% '�63040 ~.402.84S.8: 44% '-63100 I MAYUGBA. ARMANDC 167.299.78 197.3S '-63070 �. 396.60 1c.Jan-l G~ _GR-ru IGAW, KAREN' GAW & MACARI( i.96 �. 44 14641,; 1-Mav� SEAR SEAA-08� TAB LAS. JINDC 1.76 P-63436 1-Mar-1 SEAR SEAB-071 GA~ . KAREN ' ;AW MACARIC . 1.00 OM-1841 5Al/ADO : et.al. JAIM SALVADOR/ HONORA. '.74 ~74 1av-OI EAR EAB� 125 .75 EAR RE' REMENT Fl 115. ;,64 <106 ~ar� . SP! . BOON C. '-634: '�6405 �.2S "649~ aJ:i lEt-!_ !.4' lct- '-6403: oRA oR-3 .Ob-A llON, RANK 115.8S 13% '�65934 �Jun�l oRAS GR-3S10c-. IUN. JA~ ON 874.909.6: 43'!l> 1-Mav-� SEAR SEAA� 119 CHUN. JA~ ON B'6,2J);.36 43% ~ .�Mav-01 _SEA!l:l41!L SALCEDO. ROS NNI� E. Q<I0,96~.19 43% - SEI\R SEAA-0309 .� 040.438.26 43% 146S7~ -Feb-09 SEAR MRT3-0918 CAP!RAL APD ONI l A. 938.244. P-634l M2Al TAN, REMEDIOS' . 566. i.4l 12% Heb-Q'l 7IS 1.31 679: 1-Feb-09 � SPS. MA. 7)2. 1,09 63: lul-09 660 129. 1.50 '�634 DES . ABAYAN & ROMEO A. 988, 514, i.44 '-64934 :-as �=IV.M 9: ',70 P-64933 382S TORIBIC ANGELINE OREJOLA. ANNIE MICHELLE & VICTOR V. '-63446 I.Fel 51 A-0 , MA. MIRA 17431 1-Mar- SEAA�O 139E 1-Mar- N CENTRE 'BU INC I�Feb-09 'AA-0125 '-665 I�Mar- SEAR 'AA� IPR IPERTY CENTRE o:EBU INC _l:fg!): EAR '-6: EAR lTC TA & SC :ORRO P. Heb- IP-1 1-Feb- SEAR OH IENI & ARlANE JOE . BRYAN . '�631 L-Feb- SEAR '-6311E ,-Mar- IEU<IE! IV. ~ES & MAYBELLE S. 1.84 4l SEAR .24 .94 42% 1!',631~ .lllcFe.ll: SEAR EAB-1 03 IUILAl INIC . & IONATHAN Y. 774.80 �.941 .99 42% IP-63145 iEAR SEAA� 43S .784.26 Heb-1 SEAA� DEL :ON� :EI" lN. SIAN PAOLC lOSE MARIJI V. :,]J; 12~.91 .783.65 42% '-6314E 1�Mar-l lAS 1.01 42% 355 1-Mar�l SEAB.cl ,DE JZMA . Rll ARJX DE GUZMAN & LORNA 1.402.145.8: 1.01 .74 42% 1-Mar-09 ;RAS SEAB-C 1.84! 1.51 'P-6405 SEAR SEAB-08 .\l!lliA!'- ��42% 298 an� SEAR iEAA-1 130 '.04 1.0911.92 lav-01 l'lART!!'!fZ ~ 0\!U'. M~IN.fl_& LQ!JRJ)<S_R. 1.94!. 9! i63.98 41 FEL .-32 -A 1.91� 1.0: 198.29 an:!l GRAS iEAA� IMARTINEZ ERNI STOP. .1] ;RAS i,9; .63 41 H'lav-o GRAS 'PUEYC. FLI IRENI 'P. 41 1-Mav-09 _FEU i.60 41% SEAR IPUEYO, FLOREN> : P. ).49 1�Feb-09 GRAS -54. 1.50 1% IDr-1 GRAS :HL AK. TOM~ I 0. CHUATAK & VICKY Y. '98. '.55 1% Dr-� i.92 CRU FREDELY!I l.49 1.86 av- 1.69: IKHC UDTTH ANGELl Y. o!lc l.S61 .00 iR�28J'l�B 1NEG_RANZJ . MARMC V. .391 eb-� iR-05117-B 'UERA. FEL: I B. ERA & URBINA M. 1-Feb- EAB�I029�A DELA ROSJ. SPS. AURORA P. DELAROSA & AMAD IS. 1.86 7-Nov- SEAA-0634 �94, 1.8> . -Feb-09 'AA- �UROY. HANNA GAY F. 'AA� JNG. \NDF ,.91 -lan-09 EAB- l38 -Jun-09 EAB- l39 -64.� 00 3\oAuQ-~ 1-Mar-09 BR-3 JNQR S. :oo. .00 .66 40 -Jun� SEAA- 1A. SP: . MACARI( � ABELLA & MARlA 1.49 40% -Jan� RB2� 124�A IRPU . MARY JOY 5. 35E oR- 151 -B NEE-ES UYE. NATHAN KIR E. NEE-ESTUYE & GEMMA R. '.90 GR- 1902-B SY. KL l48.83 1.50 DRUZ AL S99. :-311Da-B AVJJA M_MTA ,70 . SEAB-10l , 5AMANTHA A. MIRAVALLES & OFELl 1A. 'lB. oR- 1028-A NG. CARSCN G. GR�2411 OVIEDC I!STACION M. 0! .36 39 Heb-� SEAR SEAA-103> S'V, SPS. ENED . SY & MARLEl TE. 91 ~.61 39 1-Aor-1 FELl FR�0312�B !-Feb-� SEAR SEAB�1440 YU, ALIBE . 5. IU & CAROLINE I 4E 1.9i 39 ua-09 RK HABLAOC. SPS. ELEONOR' . HABLAD I & TADEO P. eb- AR un� AR ARl ES. 110 . PAREDES JR. & ROSANNA D. lay, AS lAN. . GAWARAN &. JACQUELINE lc!lar-� SEAR !-Feb-' 1RY . 1ARGA Y. SUI JOHN PAU 1-Mav- iEAR ;RAS 0!!.1 >\_N' I V. ALCALA JR.& AlLEE lav- GRAS SEAB�1521 _l:)li!1 GRAS . we .742 174. �71.74 1.66 39 _FE!J i.6~ 18. 6' 1% Jcbor�J SEAR LLC. MA. OSARIC . EVANGELISTA. JEFFREY & JOHN .ORIN E. 1.0( 1% 1-.lul-( SEAR 1-Aor-1 CAMAL!GA . ROESHOLM 1-Feb-09 31-Aua-0! TINP. B. ~0 & !jEll. R. -64, 1.91 06. 1.49 1'"%' .24 .28 Aua-0! 142 1.19 1% ..LA!lr-~ 916.910.84 38% 1-Feb-09 SEAB-1: YBI' , ELPID!O 1.4< '.00 38% 1-Feb-09 GR-241 UMULAK. PAMELA 60S.ot: .78 38% 1�Feb-09 .. 601.507.15 38% 7_1!3,98~ 38'l1> 'eb-09 GRl I DIMAYUG ,UL . !3.~~.00 38% 'eb� _FR-Q2!! ,35S.536.00 l;i6, 1,46 37% SEAB-0 I RUEDA. OSE . RUEDA & DRAZON S. .269,51:1.00 37% SEAA�O DE SUS TIN S06.178 . CARl . ALMA . .260. 839.416.50 1% !71.-B :UEI . ROLANDO R. 61 186 EAB- LEC . -~ ~~~-~K:TALMA~Y~Ol& ~MI&LA�GR~O~S~CA~REME~LI~TA~5~. ~~~-----------------+--------~~~~--------~�.6~4 ~~-e~~ >THANIEL . 1,591.68 '.863.84 36% l-Feb- 5E.' 170 lVII IAN MICHAEL .364.075.00 85 1.691.65 36% . �Mav-� 5EAA-0803 SEAR 5EA!i�081: UY. EAN' ~ Feb- SEAR �Feb� 5EAA.c0905 DIZC DIA B. DEL 'CRL : & LEONOR D. 3~ Heb,Q _SEAR SEAA-0906 Heb-Q _SEAR_ SEAA-0 Til-lAD. ,364,07S.OO 85 1.691.64 36% 1-Feb-0 SEAR 5EAA� 28 �Feb- SEAR SEAS� TEO OSIC, RAMIL B. ~.364,075 .00 85 1.691.64 36% Feb- SEAR .-Mav� SEAR SEAB,J TEDDOSIC, RAMIL B. .364.075.00 85 1.691.64 36% Hebe SEAR_ SEAA-0 Heb- SEAR_ SEAA-0 ITORRES VI LARA2A AND SCNS REALTY. INC 164.075.00 .69l.64 36% !-Mar- SEAR SEAA� 707 1�Mar- SEAR ITORRES VI LARA2A AND . INC -~ -Mar� SEAR IVILAL. JAN MICHAEL ~ 'eb-09 AR 104,07 i.OO 1,69 1.64 36% 'lar-09 AR IRAM_OS, JQSE V._RAMOS & VI ORlA H. 164,07 i.OO 1.69�1.94 36% UA._ SPS. ELIZABETH G. :uA & ALBER. .241.9: 1.5911.65 36% CAYETANC, NICANDR A. :AYETANO & AMADITA . 5.03l 29 865.345.81 36% IRONOUILI . EDEN' 1.4: 176 88 874.39l .. 30 36% IRONOUII . EC 874.39l .30 ON OHNSON U. :AL _!!20,5_1�,80 f2~~-+~_l:;"';:l~ulcl~t-';!!'f~t-~~ ~~~.~I.M~00~., ~~Q~t ~~.u~C~JA~LsRA.Y~f.I.U~ND~G~.K~O~A~&L~Y~LY~B~EL-.G-.----------------1-------~~~~s9.~1.46~--------�~ ~-e~~ 1.59 36% �n� 'P-64: 'un� SEIA-11 'ANc AYI LAIN 1.44S.I63.8; 880.2SB: 36% I�Feb- GRA GR�2309�B . VANESSA . 170.8: 1.94 5+0,109.36 36%

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A ~~~~~~~1~40o=~~H::~eb:~-:09:=+~:i:~=+~;~~:~~zs~~~~~ ~- 1&. NEMES! �707,500.00 969,166 . 16% 1.4: �.00 868,098.85 16% 1-Jul-09 IRAS ;R-40 1ACEBEDC CHill I &.ANNIE A. 1.944. 694.476.9: 1% DEL R-QSARl l&. MA_R-EG!ill' R. 852.984.65 1% [.659, 69l .106.44 -Mav-09 lEAR iEAB- ,ASAYO . A!. I ESTER 1.420 ~7~ ,i%,._ 1.698. 846.533.35 '-Feb- tZA MR JASON .490.01 563,8; i% 1.967.4~ 86: .99.80 i% ES. RAYMOND A. ..458.6' 679. '70.- % so: 198 . 3Q-Oct- , NORMANDIE B. 1,364.0; % .757.0! ~-;)!!,' % \,Mar-l ;- . EDWIN A. % 106.4! 1.6: 8: P-6 ~~~~:1 :: ;,--- . RJCHELLE M_. ;<185 '-65B Oct- FELD FRBl 1-B INZJ ES, LANCE ANlONIC tar-09 AS GR-0724-A TIE , MARJO F. 'eb-09 ~R SEAB- 1707 lNG. SP . SUNILYN ONG &. BERKI ~~~~=t=�~~~c-~t=~~tJ~~-48~2-00LB~~1 IUE I~RRJYOR.ANTONJI&.JUDYR. ._MJA..IlQJ', un-1 ;;!_5 lB-' ~., 1-Mar-1 :All i3_8 ._WU S.M!NG: 1161 1-Aor-1 iRA 1-B . MOSO/ ROMEO M. MOSO &. MARK EMMANUEL . �-63030 tar-09 lN. CARLl I M.TECSON &. rAUNA M. lEAR iEAA- 138 �-67801 tav-1 iRAS ;R-1812-, ON. EULALIA .74 104. 1,81 .� 84 115. 1.031 iRAS iRT. T1S' IRNEL M. BAL 11STA &. SALVE REGINA M. 70l 168.58 .3811.00 'cM178 .74: '-64179 '-6410l 1-Mar-0 lEAR IEAA-1 'GAl DE P-6410: 1-Feb-0 lEAR iEAB-0 '-63339 1-Mav- lEAR iEAA- DIL I W. RAM IND : &. :ARL TA S. '-6315: 1-Feb-09 SEAR SEAA-1019 '-63161 SEAR SEAA-1018 'NANAN. ENRJOUE G. !UNANAN l BLI '-64100 Feb-09 SEAR SEAA-0623 .-Feb-09 SEAR SEAB-04Jl; MORA. MARJO D. ',364. 1.80�. 13% 53081 1-Mar-09 SEAR SEAA-0720 1.364. 175.00 791.800.� 13% P-641 1-Mav-09 1ZAI MRT. -OS I MORA. MARl I D. 1.396.03; 801.566.91 13% P-631 -Jul-09 lEAR SEAB-092 ~%- '-69( IZAJ iPS. RJCHARC DEL CUESTA&. MARlS l!; l.06.Mi 13% -Jul-09 8: 1.063.43 13% P-6300: _l:Joi:Q'L lEAR OR.ES. i &.M--IELIA_N. ;!4,855.30 �-64060 _.l::_MaBJ2. �EAR 799.656.44 13% '-63360 lEAR , RJZAUN, . BUNYI &. NELSON 609.149.5; 13% 1-Aua-09 i78.228.45 ~ UMAL CHr UMALI &. ED JARD .. 54' 776. lul-09 :.39:1.9' 8: ,783-li .ua- ,ASAYO. ESTER . ASAYO &. lOSE 1.8: 1,4' 1.5: 782.455.94 .ua- .73-1.6! i.26 814.441.8; CHIT l D. UMAL I C. 799.648. 726.84j.21 SEAA-0629-A ERBUYQS, :EllA A. 1,34 .78 SEAA-07l , MARK :HRJSTOPHAER G. KUA/ MAX H. KUA &. :ONCHJTA G. .19 SEAB-o; 1.44 i.59 SE! ~-070 AP. TE� ORO B. AYAP &. NATALIA BR l34- tAGA' � RODRJGO A. BUMAGAT &. ZENAIDA S. :.398.945. 'NCIO SARAH J~E ' . .. 180.541.65 NC 1.8l luo-1 1-Jul-1 1-B 11-Aua- EAR 28 NEW YU &. IILEEN '-662 1-Feb-09 iRAS GR-2619-A lRJA. :ENAIDA B. l.65: 61.06 35 '.950.84 12% �-66l 1-Feb-09 lAS GR-2618-A BULLAN. :AMILLIE 734. 84.28 175.848.20 12% '-665 .-Mar- lAS .-35l UTIS . FLORENTINO S. BAUTISTA&. ROSITA B. .-35 P-68: 3cDec- iRAS_ r3-! .LGU P-68; 3,oec- iRAS_ D-1 -GU P-66546 l�Jun-1 iRAS iR-32: iTRO FERNAND I R, CASTRO&. ROSARJO �-6400; !-Feb-� �EAR �EAA-1 DAtA. 5PS. CESAR VICENTE B. CUDAL 1 &. GLORJA S. -Acr-09 FELD FR-0607-B CHERRY ANN . '&. JANETH B. .28 18.� 157. 31-Aua- iRA 123 ARJOlA. lESn . ARJOLA &. NOEL D. 1.048.54: 64 .705. �EAI Sf< 1021 DELA ROS ALFRI'DC 1.4: 176.88 75; 176. 26-0ct- tZA MR ENCIO. LC 'PHIUP 258. 1.48 31 i.4! 546. .35 31 1-Jul-0 iRA GR 38Q C_BIS1 'Oil/l M~E HEL,hE i& ~ ,J> 1-Jul-0 iRA GR 11Q @LLEGC ISI.!NC ON_ � GAU.EGOS_& ROBl;R" M. .�] i,2Q '-64181 �EAR iEAB-1415-A CUNANAN. GUCER IS. UNAN~ &. NELIA G. 1,0: 74: 1.59 �-61 -Mav-09 lAS GR-2810c-A HONG. MILl P. 559, '.43 31 100 -Mav-09 lAS ;R-1811 IRONEL. MA. :ELESTE B. 1.974.00 5: '.531.95 31% P~SO_ I A. RELUCIO &. SAl I JAN N. 1.061.980.16 639.213.82 31% P-63344 1-Mar-09 �EAR SEAB-061.5 !JAN, _!'_HIL!P_ANTHQtiY A. �-6346j 1-Aor-09 EAR SEAB-1228~i&.CHEN :AI t,4; 11M2.1. 1%. ~~~~t==t=~l-=M=arr~--09~=t=~:~~~=tJ;~~�~l~7171~5-l}~ ~-M~�ARM~ci~C~~~~~~~~L~_~&.~�~~~~O~M~~~~~-M~.=======================~========j~:~~~~~l.:~~~l::~l68~~========~8743~55:�.:~:,1~7~6l.i~.:!~~~t=~~ti~~~ -Aor- ;R- . SEVILILA &. MYRI ;56.. .34 t:l\llr:l iRA ;R-: D!INCEL _VNI IV. 1-Mav-1 P-6 1458 ll:Aua- iRA iEAB- t: 14 (;!)AN~ . RA 1fCES , GUANAO t;._DIANA_ll. 1.8~ . �-64293 1-Mav-1 iEAB-15 .OPE; EDISC .OPEl &. ERl 25-Sec- ~~ YAC. R( .OU . YAO &. JEREMY ALAIN . iEAR Seo-09 ~ , BRll TE rAN&. CHARLES Y. 1.45: 173. 1,65: 10% -Dec- ~ .00 UA. LE "'ARJE . 653. '.86 �.ll' 00 586, 10.6l \,May-1 'M IM. 35_, 1-Jun-( 1-Mav- IRA ,-3627-B RRAN � EDU,,RDO . SERRANC JR.&. ITHERJNE R. OL 1-Mar-09 P-66134 iRAS iR-: 13-A IGUTIN. O!C , M. l.98 56. .9% �-66280 -Jun-09 l.861 �.58 175. 19% '-665 lav-09 iRAS .-3009-A iALEON. JOSE 541 163. 19% tar- '.00 1.063.54 29% '-67: 26 GR-3628-B SERRANC. EDUARDC 5ERRANC JR.&. ATHERJNE R. .916,9~ 1.40 559. 29% �-66909 an- 185. .24 P-�ZQBO Sf< 141 REYNO , RJCHi I P. �.o; P-6~64 "' "::><!: P-66<76 IV. 1.543. 1.00 �-66670 lul-l .793.239.00 1-Mav- DUMAPL FRl . M. PASCUAl. &. JOSEPHINE 1.019,095.10 25-Sec-09 1,594,195.00 IV. 1.654.900.00 i-Seo-09 kSe~ I R. M >TOT� JR. t;. ORBEL REA5 >l,Auo~ 31-Aua-09 IERK 3R- KAN. MARVIN G. iRAS GR' -37; i-Sec-09 :;R- -23: . MANUEL R. I &. GRACE 44 i,506. '9% lAS 511 176.84 29% ii!AS_ _�B1 1YAO. HANS UKAAS S. TAYAO &. JOSEPHINE: 583.294.18 29% ~T3-l!ll 516.982.00 29% jRAS_ GRT3-170 , I~L ~/ EB!I\A i!UlliRJSilli.E S, 460,545.24 29% ;RAS GR' .-102 lNESA. ARSENIO . ONESA &. EMELINA R. 478,082.24 29% iRAS INGC , RUBEN A. .Ql 15-Seo- IRA r.l-. DINC. FERC 1~0 � DINO &. MARYANNE� . .200.1 ,79 19% �35 15-Seo- i,969. '-66; IRA r3-l ALBA. REBEl 1.800.9( 1.50 1,61 19% .-Aua-09 1.825. �98 .-Aua- ~S GR 19 ORES. LIFREDO A. LORE! 1REB :A G. 5l '.51 1% '-669 1.455,� l!:Auq, lAS -101 PEREZ. JOSEPH . PEl ! &. lOSE EMMANUEL '.455. 145. '.36 1% 93 11-Aua- 1.584. �-64181 11-Aua- 1.598.8~ 1.91 '-66j 31-.lua-09 ...783. IP~OO_ 1.48 IP-~59 lua-09 1,80 IP-66978 'AIL lE-l!i . AM!. 'BlA! QU!IA N. '75. 1,40 1% IP-66923 ieo-� 'AR IE-I: .009,1 1.00 '-685 iep- iEAR �EAE- I AM BULl !HELLE B. IMBU I &. ANTHONY E. 009. 150.00 1,40 1% '-68l 1-Aua- IRAS GR -16: >89.0~ 00 �-694 11-Aua- �BULl , Rl :HELLE B. AMBULO &. ~ON" E. 160.' 50 1.40 19% '-68l .-Aua- iEAR s~ .-Aua- EAR 'RVANO LS< � SEF �~a &. MYRNA ;18, 00 45: 1.90 _ll:Ayg:(! RAS ;R1 .61: �93. 00 MD MMI _M. V!D &. MA. ROSALIE A. 1.961 :.so 46 1.00 ilcAuo:!! IRAS 98.8( '.64 iRAS ADEI ,D. LIT� . MADERA2D &. RJCARDO M. 84.9( .70 25-Seo-o 31-Aua-0 ~s NG! LA!< QS!'PH [llJ t;.l'ffi�NE_ 1-Aua- IMEI .A. ISCUA &. SIMON Sl lor-09 TRC NIC ON~ 51 ~av-09 OM lBEF I A. VERA&. HEDILIZA M. 60 '9% Aua LING. PHILIP H. LING&. LESLEY . 60 :.so l% � PHILIP H. LING&. LESLEY . 603. i03. ~VANC :ELSO P. SERV~O t;. MYRNA '29. .~ ,p~ 21. ',I�_ GRl !641 ~ i9!U�. GRl ZHANG NIAN XI AKA JOSEPH TIU t;. MYLENE . 46 ;18.64 GRT3- 135 GR 128-1 DINA. REYNAL . MEDINA. lli &. \MALIA S. 51 146.75 MR -350 MENDOZA. JAIME S. MENDOZA&. IGA' 1S. 56 1.358. '9% LE. ISE VIN IFR RMA~ IV. 564.!40.15 /IN . TEVES &. MARJE . lun- P-66598 lun- . KARAAli&. ROSEMARJE M.

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A P�64224 1-lul-09 SEAR S~B-0[1] JUSON, UZA IUSON_& GEMRD IJ', !.490.000.00 697,200.01 28% >-63591 25�5eo-09 SEAR DO 01~5. !.455,645 .50 687,S80.74 28% GRAS SEAC-1116 JAPZON, ELEC JR E. 499.: 28% P-68149 �Jun-09 GRAS GR-40 17-B TINIO, LEAN 'Rl . �Jun�09 SEAR GR-3210c-A 16. .71 P-6~9S 2S-5eo-09 SEAC-0810 � MARY ANNE MARGA . SU/ IOHN PAU _GEOFF 13.1 '.16 'AR SEAl .-1638 BARRANC :ELERJNO ELMO . P-670 ,.,_<av-09 SEAB-0629-A 'UA. HARRY BOYD Y. PUA & DONABELLE B. . SU � �-65873 AR WU. SPS. ROSAL: . WU & MING '-64' Jec BR-33: CARJ JESSIC ,-ANN S. CARJ 1& EDWIN S. AS '-Oct-09 TAN. . i,645.50 6: >75. !8% -Jun- iEAR 1.876.80 590.696.68 28% EAR GB..TJ-3U.6 LAVEB.!II. J!; 1L !7% IZA: FRBl-0822-B 10.00 5il!L'29.J!l [7% SEAC 10 1ATANC . MAF VN ARTATES & KAZUYUKJ 56.462.31 607,318.90 !7% 03,540.50 51 '.801.98 !7% TAULIN. R.' OND B. 478. .36 !7% 1.9' 451 !7% DRADA. REI I S. [7% q; [7% 'RCIA. FRED . !7% !7% ~~~5~69--~~~~-N~~--r~EA~R-r~~~~eo .GO .RA~HMAB..TIN '-6674i 31-Auo- IRAS 1'3-154� CHING, JESSIE. CHIN' i & TERESITA G. �-66749 31-Auo- iRAS -1551 CHING, JESSIE. CHING & TERESlTA G. I P�63665 5-Seo- EA1 EAE-1 LA CRU , MELANIE . FLORES & ERJ : R. .39 !7% 429.146. !7% 57026 25-Seo-09 iRAS GRl -30 UA. MICHAEL 1.609. 1.00 4i '.191.99 !7% 170. 1.00 .Il% >-66989 25-Seo-09 .RAS ;Rl 128 'MOS. LEONARDO . -ru..574J!!l. !7% .761,9' 1.04 469,850.66 !7% IP-66578 1-Jul-09_ IRAS Gil.:: >1~ \YABYA!J, MA_RIANQl'. . & !'-1.YRNA 1.629.250.00 434.466.65 '7% .959.0!:�.00 i21. 1.00 _1�%_ IP-68,:40 1-Jul-09 iRAS GR-3709-B WABYAB, MARJANO P. ::AYABYAB JR.&. MYRNA 1.955,898.70 J!2,25_Ul! .1�% '-66943 25-Seo-09 iRAS GRl -251 I MARTINE<. RAFAEL . MARTINEZ II. VENUS S. 179,055.66 7L 716~ 26% 1 ~~~*16;'~08=t=tl:_~-MJu~arcl!2_11--~09+=@;RAS~+~;R~l-~16;35~: 1~~~ ITAN. EMMJ1 B. MALAPITAN 11. REV . .230.600.00 26% I P-63_139 iEAR_ S~-Q2li,B tlli._ELJ-!A�, .396.888.36 !,94:1.80 26% 43i.263.88 26% IP-68190 Heb-09 iRAS GR-2023-8 IBAu ONDA. ADELAIDA A. DAVID II. NARAIDA G. '.649.95 >-68276 l-Feb-09 iRAS GR-3015-8 LAGARE. TERESITA B. 61: 1.84 >-61 129 .-Aor-09 FELl FR 1702-B LEE. MENI �-6' 174 .-ADr-09 SEAR .06 I MONl ERC , AJ l09 _NOfL]'. 123 A-0 . MP,ROUE~ II. ADB!ANN mE N. i15 -~ l-Feb-1 EAA-0 . Nl I II. OSE P. 59: 5-Seo- 3-1: lZA 41 1515 1-Jun- iEAR iEAB� AMALIGAN, ROE5HOLM CAMALIGAN & MA. FATIMA 5i ,234. i% '-66685 15-Seo-o iRAS TJ-1: 18 ONG, IZA A. ..876, J.OO �-68042 li-Auo- iRAS l-4016-A I MENDOZA. FELINO S. MENDOZA & TERESITA S. .,998, i0.96 49' ,740. !5% �-680 -Jul-09 GRAS GR-3923-A IPINKIHAN. APPIN D. 104.641.60 526.!60.4: 25% >-649 -Jun- BERK -3139-A IPIN( ;ENEVIEVE YSIS M. ..805.67 25% I~ ;RAS l7m SANTIA1 , CONSUEl .. 805. 25% I~ cJY!cl '.061.98 25% IP-634 1-Jun- SEAR iEAB-15 CAMAL GAN, RO.ESH< LM 004,' Z!;% IP-635 1-lun- SEAR iEAB-1 CAMAL GAN, ROESHI LM 004, .,18 25% �-63501 lun- SEAR iEAB� 24 ::AMAL GAN. ROESHI LM '.004. .� 18 25% '-63502 lun-09 SEAR SEAB- ~G~~-~OESHOLIM D. 004. i.60 501.183.88 25% IP.:�Jl!J: .30S. .15 568.94'1.19 25% 1� nu~ IP-7!12.91 l:_May-!12_ J'IZAJ MB..Dc~ I G,_S!OSQ!i_& = R . .540. 1.00 119.l42.88 25% IP-63664 30-Clct-09 SEAR SEAE-0 DURAl IOHN PAUL "499,9ll.OO 61: 110.~ 2'1% '-63568 30-0ct-09 SEAR SEAC-0 IEU . PRECil: TAD. EUL Ill. CHRJSTIAN S. P. J.OO 53: .� 366.00 24% -70, 29-0ct-09 MR BARREl � SEVERJNA . BARRETTO & AUGUSl IS. ,706,91 i.88 41: .265.90 24% 14-0ct- 134 RNANDEZ. MARTHA CECIL . FERNANDEZ II. '.8! 405. ;,64 JOEL M. 1.35 455. l.46 Jct- J34 IRA' JOHN PAU 1.01 Jul-1 l9 1-lun- il4 .SlTRC OIDA R. DE CASTRO & DANIEL 1.31 i07 lul-l ~-41 �-B )SC . FREDERJC 1,62 '-656 1-Jun-0 R-0201-A OSARJC 'UEENIE S. DEL ROSARJO II. REGINAL I P. '.419,67 1.90 1.081 >-679 Jul-09 �RAS -30 1-A IURAD ROSELYN .. 816,558.38 i,974. !4% �-66 lul-09 ;RAS :;R-31: 1-8 IMADRJD. FE A. 867.719.00 ~- 1.56 IP�--66:~ <Aauroc-!l029_ i<RZAS& _!o1RB_T31~-A IMED~;~ Ci-~.YM~EDC~ENILI~,&,~,CA~lTH~ERJ~NE~======================~=======t~'88-1~.44202..15~4t========18~~1~85~. ~~6.~~~~ ~~~~:~~~48~==t=1f-:tJ:~~:t=t=~:~~~~K=t~FJ!!!;~BR~~-:2~~~~~Q,B~A:::t )~LIVEl!) II. JOCE~ B. 979,976.70 !~ 138 ~ ZENAJDA S. RAMOS & ROBERT D. . 1-K 138 lEAR SEAB-01 15-8 126,249.80 54 '49. -Jul-09 !-A TERESITA . SANTOS II. JUANn . SAN"OS I MARlA REGINA .. 85: 43 1<2] FAR 'All- -B JIC .US ER!CO R. INDICIO II. MAYLENE E. '.Oi 1.93 564. l:_Feb-!12_ iRA_S_ ;&; 1:!l !147 lk.N~-!!2 iEAR_ ~E Wl )!Hi 1'(,_ 167; lEAR 'AA-1 19-B '.821, ).00 l50 1% i76 15-Seo-09 lEAR IEAC IDE! . NIKOLAS . MODESTO II. JHOANNA MARlA ROXANNE S. !.45S, ;.so �-666 -N~-09 ;RAS l-4009-B I FLORES, MARY JUDITH . FLORES II. FREDERJCK R. ..667. 1.991 1% '-684 28-0ct-09 GR' -1611 IBADIL LOUEL ' S. l.OO 515.984.88 '-648 lul-09 BR 435- IFLORES. NOEL ORE ; & PAMEL , ANGELlE A. 1184. .25 485.842.S9 un- SEJ .611 lOSEPH. RJC iARI RA 1,18 lun- 5ALVADO l II. AILEEN KIRSTEN 0. 1 lun-! !NORIUA. JERW RO!lf_Rl cVI lM'IIL & 9SEFc Sea- '4-' i-8 1NG, ARTE~ 'S. -Jun-09 115 23-0ct-09 IERI -10 ISUELIL AL . SUI HLI'N . IP�64 lEAR i-N~-09 lEAR �B-141 i-8 'ULONG, IBRAHIM S. .ONG & SIRJKJ . M. !.41' 1.07 54' ',781 I% '-63 16oN~-Il't_ iEAR !.42 176.88 ss: 131. FA!< SEAS- I ABUEG. LARJSA . ABUEG & lOSE LITO .289.290.85 1% ,P-63� \c]ul-09_ lEAR '.490.000.00 IP-641 iEAR SEAC-142 IMANALAC NORMA !,490,0QO.OO i19.705.31 1% '-634S9 :)an-.!!2_ lEAR 1-Jul-09 lEAR IRODRJGU ALOYSIUS M. RODRIGUF' & SENEN; 1,516.29 564.400.00 I% '-63460 iEAR !.389.029.46 '-64; 17-N~-09 iRA�_ S~C lf.R02A & MARI_BEL :.389.029.46 l% P-�1!! ~~- , P-69539 <2AI SEI\A-I!.il IUA, .!(; 'ANTQINETE_M. :.161.0< I% '-63556 ::' lEAR '-6424c SEAS- -A IAN JEl l K. 219,3SS.OO 138.939.30 1% '.490,000 ~ SEAB-l21! -8 IAN REG NA K. 538.939.30 l% SEAB-081! -B YARC BERNANC I E. I% ..l>&2W1:1 ~VAB!!Q, llAMlRO..S, l% MRT4-091 � ASA. ARMANDO . 497.804.64 1% SEA 080: IBUSINESS ' :OMPLIANCE AND PROPERlY MANAGMENT SERVICES INC 554,266. 1% lEA oo; IHERNANDEi , ALBERTO ANTONIO . V. >.85 IAROCENA. IAN THAI 'NA .71 ORENA B. ISAC ~~~-r~7.~�N~~-~~~~~~~~~-~C-~0 ~;~&.C~EL~~~ ClP~CY-N-TH-IA--------------~--~------~r-------~~~~r--------7,~~~~~_, 1-1~-1 ,!l\.!SINE_SS' INCE AND !'ROPEKI 'MA~AGMENT SERVICES INC :, 14' . �Oct- IMENDOlA, PABU 1,99: 44 ,746.: 1% 184 1-N~� lEAR 'MOJn I PROPERlY VENlURES INC. !.490, 55 1% '-6359; 16-N~-09 lEAR SEAC TAN(. MAN KWONG HENRY .490.000. 55 -Auo- lEAR SEAE- AFANAN . .EAH P. !.468. 170. l:J\uQ� ;RAS_ �&33; UMJ\!!II,N SQfRON!Q cru.IMARAN & M'(RNA 1.490 % O.cN~- lEAR 1.4: iEAR % .-Mar-l 18.016.70 2-Seo- LD SE, 10Y, WEI UN_ 1.589.!76.35 .% 30-Seo-0 LD SEAA-1 c-Mar-0' MZAI FRB -0617-8 AKANI, ODORJ DORJS H. L55 . % 25-Seo-09 lEAR FR-041 2-8 .36 1ZAI MRT3- ill ERRON, ROSARJO R. .193. 1% 30-N~-09 SEA -04: ),00 . P-6 IFAR MRl 1�08; ERRON, ROSARJO R. ),00 286. i25.38 �-69 7-Dec-09 lEAR 635 7-Dec-09 ::ASIS. FE ESPERANZA M. ::ASIS & RACHEL M. !60 l51.18 702 CASTIL LVA OR M. CASTILI l II. MA. TERESITJ 5; .38 636 ESTELLA JOHN ' :DL M. 39. .20 64: SEA -142; TABAR. NAR:ISA . 2!�.' ~ 518, .00 518.75 .

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

erA case No. 9396- Annex A

crA case No. 9396- Annex A Page17of58

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A P~ge 23 of 58

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA Case No. 9396 �Annex A Page 2S of SS

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex A Page 26 of sa

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A Page 2.7 of 58

CTA case No. 9396 �Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A Page :29 of 58

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA Case No. 9396 - Annex A Page 3:2 of 58

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex A

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

erA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 93%- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

ITA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

GA case No. 9396 �Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396- Annex A

erA case No. 9396- Annex A

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B CTA t:ase No.. 9396- SN Deu!lopment C'orporation vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue Am.e.rS- Computation ofGross Sales lbr VATPmposes

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 �Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 93% - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA Case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex a

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA Case No. 9396 - Annex B f>age 20 of 59

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 93% - Annex 8

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex a

CfA case No. 9396 �Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex 8

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

case CTA No. 9396- Annex B P~ge 32 of 59

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex 8

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex a

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 93% - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex a

CTA case No. 9396- Annex a Page40 of 59

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 � Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B Page <13 of 59

CTA case No. 9396- Annex a

CTA case No. 93% - Annex a

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 93% - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B Page SO of 59

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex a

CTA Case No. 9396 - Annex B Page 5:2 of 59

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

erA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 �Annex a

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B

CTA case No. 9396- Annex B

CTA case No. 9396 - Annex B