HIJO PLANTATION v CENTRAL BANK

G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988HIJO PLANTATION INC., DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION, TWIN RIVERS
PLANTATION, INC. and MARSMAN & CO., INC., for themselves and inbehalf of other persons and
entities similarly situated, petitioners,vs.CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Because of the difficulty in determining the peso-dollarexchange rate, Congress passed RA 6125 which
imposed a stabilizationtax on exports, which gradually decreases over four years. The lawenumerated
covered products such as logs, copra, centrifugal sugar and

copper. Under Section 1, as a last provision, ―

Any export product theaggregate annual F.O.B. value of which shall exceed five million United States
dollars in any one calendar year during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise be subject to the rates of
tax in force

during the fiscal years following its reaching the said aggregate value

During the first 9 months of 1971, the total banana export exceeded the USD5m limit in RA 6125. Thus,
the Central Bank issued aMonetary Board Resolution imposing a stabilization tax on exports of bananas.

The resolution provided a rate of 6% for the first half of 1971 and 4% from July 1971 to last until June
1972.
The petitioner corporations were all engaged in productionand exportation of bananas who paid the
stabilization taxes in protest and now assail the said resolution.Central Bank contends that the
stabilization tax should beimposed starting July 1971, the fiscal year following the calendar yearwhere
the industry reached USD 5m limit.

ISSUE

WON the Central Bank exceeded its powers in issuing the saidResolution

HELD

YES. There is no question that the export of bananas alreadyreached the limit, bringing it under the
coverage of RA 6125, and thusmaking the petitioners liable.However, the Central Bank, in issuing the
resolution, acted inoverzealous desire to carry out the provisions of RA 6125. It actedbeyond its
authority under the said law. Thus,

where there is adiscrepancy between the basic law and the regulation issued toimplement the said law,
the basic law prevails and the regulationcannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.

Francisco I. Chavez vs. National Housing Authority

G.R. No 164527. August 15, 2007.

Velasco, Jr., J.

Doctrine:

There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable
or disposable and open to disposition or concession.

Facts:
Petitioner Francisco Chavez in his capacity as taxpayer seeks to declare null and void the Joint Venture
Agreement (JVA) between the NHA and R-

II Builder’s Inc (RBI) for being unconstitutional