G.R. No. L-19129. February 28, 1963.
CITY OF CABANATUAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The Manila Railroad Company, a government-owned corporation, owns parcels of land in Cabanatuan City. In 1948 and 1956, the City revised the assessment of these lots and demanded payment of real estate taxes for 1945-1949, totaling P41,806.68, threatening forfeiture. The company paid the amount under protest on November 27, 1959, claiming tax exemption under its charter. It subsequently filed a complaint for refund in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, arguing the assessment and collection were illegal. The City defended that the lands were not used for the company’s transportation business and thus not exempt. The CFI, based on a stipulation of facts, ruled in favor of the company and ordered the refund.
After the decision became final and a writ of execution was issued, the City of Cabanatuan filed a motion to quash, arguing for the first time that the CFI lacked jurisdiction. The City contended that the action was essentially an appeal from a real property tax assessment, which, under Republic Act No. 1125 , falls under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The respondent judge denied the motion, prompting the City to file this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over the complaint for refund of real estate taxes, or whether such jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Court of Tax Appeals under Republic Act No. 1125 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CFI had jurisdiction. The Court examined Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 , which defines the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA. This jurisdiction covers: (1) decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue on matters under the National Internal Revenue Code; (2) decisions of the Commissioner of Customs on matters under the Customs Law; and (3) decisions of provincial or city Boards of Assessment Appeals on matters involving real property assessment under the Assessment Law.
The legal logic is clear: the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies. The law specifically enumerates the matters within the CTA’s appellate jurisdiction. A complaint for the refund of real estate taxes, which have already been paid under protest, is not an appeal from a decision of a Board of Assessment Appeals. Rather, it is an original action for the recovery of a sum of money based on the alleged illegality of the tax collection. Such an action is not listed in Section 7 of RA 1125. Furthermore, once the tax is paid, recourse to the Board of Assessment Appeals becomes futile, as that body’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the reasonableness of the assessment, not ordering a refund. Therefore, the case properly falls within the general original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The petition was dismissed and the CFI’s decision affirmed.