This Supreme Court case clarifies that pension funds can claim tax refunds on properties held in trust, even if the title is under another entity’s name. The ruling emphasizes that a formal title isn’t the only determinant of ownership when a clear agreement shows the property is co-owned. This allows pension funds to protect their investments and ensure rightful tax exemptions, benefiting retirees and employees.
Hidden Ownership: Can a Pension Fund Reclaim Taxes on Trust Property?
The Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. (MJOPFI) sought to reclaim withheld taxes from the sale of a property. MJOPFI argued that as trustee of an employee’s trust fund, it co-owned a parcel of land, the Madrigal Business Park (MBP) lot, even though the title was registered under Victorias Milling Company, Inc. (VMC). The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) denied the refund, claiming MJOPFI was not the registered owner and thus not entitled to the tax exemption. The core legal question was whether MJOPFI could prove beneficial ownership of the MBP lot despite the title being in VMC’s name, and thereby claim a tax refund on its share of the sale proceeds. The Supreme Court addressed whether MJOPFI had sufficiently demonstrated its ownership stake and entitlement to the tax exemption.
The Supreme Court underscored that a co-owner can register their share under another co-owner’s name, creating a legal trust. This is supported by Article 1452 of the Civil Code, which states:
Art. 1452. If two or more persons agree to purchase a property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each.
This means that once “common consent” among co-owners is established, a trust is automatically created by law. The BIR is then obligated to recognize this trust and the actual owners’ beneficial ownership. The court emphasized that registration in one person’s name doesn’t definitively establish sole ownership. In this context, the critical point was whether MJOPFI could demonstrate a “common agreement” with VMC and VFC to jointly purchase the MBP lot, with the title held by VMC for the benefit of all three parties. The Court found that MJOPFI provided sufficient evidence of such an agreement.
While the Court generally respects the factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), it made an exception in this case. The Supreme Court can review the CTA’s factual findings when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. MJOPFI contended that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred by dismissing their documents as self-serving instead of recognizing them as legitimate public documents. These documents included notarized Memoranda of Agreement, Board Resolutions, and Citytrust Banking Corporation’s Portfolio Mix Analysis.
The Court highlighted the significance of the notarized Memorandum of Agreement, which explicitly acknowledged MJOPFI’s co-ownership of the MBP lot:
2. The said parcels of land are actually co-owned by the following:
Block 4, Lot 1 Covered by TCT No. 183907
The Court cited Cuizon v. Remoto to emphasize the evidentiary value of public documents:
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents and public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.
Since the BIR failed to present any compelling evidence to discredit the notarized agreement, it was considered valid. Additionally, VMC, the registered owner, did not dispute MJOPFI’s share in the property. The Court also noted that Citytrust, a reputable banking institution, had documented MJOPFI’s investment of P5,504,748.25 in the MBP lot, further supporting MJOPFI’s claim. The BIR’s argument that third parties dealing with registered property need not look beyond the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was also dismissed. The Court clarified that the trustor-beneficiary (MJOPFI) is not estopped from proving ownership, especially when the purpose isn’t to contest a transaction with an innocent third party. Here, the BIR was not a buyer or claimant relying on the title’s face, so there was no basis to claim estoppel.
The Court further clarified that the Torrens system doesn’t create or vest title; it merely serves as evidence of ownership. Registration doesn’t preclude the possibility of co-ownership or a trust arrangement. In this case, the Court emphasized the importance of Article 1452 of the Civil Code, which allows a person to purchase property and have it conveyed in another’s name. The Court then cited Tigno v. Court of Appeals:
An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes conveyance thereof in the name of another. In such a case, the property is held on resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer, unless a different intention or understanding appears. The trust which results under such circumstances does not arise from a contract or an agreement of the parties, but from the facts and circumstances; that is to say, the trust results because of equity and it arises by implication or operation of law.
The notarized Memorandum of Agreement and Citytrust’s records established that MJOPFI invested P5,504,748.25 of the Employees’ Trust Fund in the MBP lot. Thus, a resulting trust was created by operation of law. This resulting trust meant the Employees’ Trust Fund was considered the beneficial co-owner of the MBP lot. The absence of MJOPFI’s name on the TCT did not prevent it from claiming that the Employees’ Trust Fund was the beneficial owner of 49.59% of the MBP lot.
The Court reinforced the principle that income from Employees’ Trust Funds is exempt from income tax. Section 60(b) of the Tax Code provides:
SEC. 60. Imposition of Tax. –
(A) Application of Tax. – x x x
(B) Exception. – The tax imposed by this Title shall not apply to employee’s trust which forms part of a pension, stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of an employer for the benefit of some or all of his employees (1) if contributions are made to the trust by such employer, or employees, or both for the purpose of distributing to such employees the earnings and principal of the fund accumulated by the trust in accordance with such plan, and (2) if under the trust instrument it is impossible, at any time prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to employees under the trust, for any part of the corpus or income to be (within the taxable year or thereafter) used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of his employees: Provided, That any amount actually distributed to any employee or distributee shall be taxable to him in the year in which so distributed to the extent that it exceeds the amount contributed by such employee or distributee.
The Court cited Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, highlighting the rationale for tax exemption:
It is evident that tax-exemption is likewise to be enjoyed by the income of the pension trust. Otherwise, taxation of those earnings would result in a diminution of accumulated income and reduce whatever the trust beneficiaries would receive out of the trust fund. This would run afoul of the very intendment of the law.
The Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. was formed to administer the Employees’ Trust Fund, investing its funds, including P5,504,748.25 in the MBP lot. When the MBP lot was sold, the gross income attributable to the Employees’ Trust Fund was P40,500,000. Consequently, the Court ruled that MJOPFI was entitled to claim the tax refund of P3,037,500 erroneously paid on the sale of the MBP lot, affirming the right of pension funds to protect their tax-exempt status even when assets are held in trust under another entity’s name. This ensures that the benefits intended for employees and retirees are fully realized, aligning with the intent of tax laws designed to support such funds.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether a pension fund could claim a tax refund on the sale of a property it co-owned, even if the property title was under the name of another entity. The court needed to determine if the pension fund could prove beneficial ownership despite not being the registered owner. |
| What is a resulting trust? | A resulting trust is an implied trust created by operation of law when someone purchases property with their own money but the title is held in another’s name. This trust ensures that the beneficial ownership aligns with who provided the purchase consideration. |
| What evidence did the pension fund use to prove co-ownership? | The pension fund presented a notarized Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging the co-ownership and financial records from Citytrust showing their investment in the property. These documents, combined with the lack of repudiation from the registered owner, supported their claim. |
| Why is the income of an employee’s trust fund tax-exempt? | The income of an employee’s trust fund is tax-exempt to ensure that the funds accumulated for the benefit of employees are not diminished by taxes. This encourages the growth of the fund, which directly benefits the employees and retirees who depend on it. |
| What is the significance of Article 1452 of the Civil Code in this case? | Article 1452 of the Civil Code states that when two or more persons agree to purchase property, and the title is taken in the name of one for the benefit of all, a trust is created by law. This article supports the idea that registration isn’t the only basis for determining ownership. |
| Can a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) be considered the sole basis of ownership? | No, a TCT is merely evidence of ownership and doesn’t preclude the possibility of co-ownership or a trust arrangement. The Torrens system doesn’t create ownership but provides a record of it. |
| What did the Court rule about the BIR’s argument on estoppel? | The Court rejected the BIR’s argument that the pension fund was estopped from claiming ownership. Estoppel does not apply when the BIR isn’t a buyer or claimant relying on the title’s face for acquiring interest in the lot. |
| What previous rulings supported the Court’s decision? | The Court referenced previous cases, including Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals and prior CTA decisions, which recognized the tax-exempt status of employee’s trust funds and the authority of trustees like Citytrust to manage these funds. |
In conclusion, this landmark ruling safeguards the tax-exempt status of pension funds by recognizing beneficial ownership in trust arrangements. This decision enables pension funds to reclaim erroneously paid taxes, bolstering their financial stability and ensuring greater security for the beneficiaries. By acknowledging the validity of trust agreements and emphasizing the intent behind tax-exemption laws, the Supreme Court has reinforced the protection of employees’ retirement funds.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Miguel J. Ossorio Pension Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 162175, June 28, 2010
Leave a Reply