WEEKLY TAX UPDATES [February 17, 2026]

Mar 6, 2026 | Tax Updates

Legarda slams ₱107B PDIC fund transfer as unconstitutional

Other Relevant Tax Updates:

  • TAX & BUSINESS-RELATED NEWS [DECEMBER 20-26]

  • BIR INCREASES “DE-MINIMIS” BENEFITS CEILING

  • BIR IMPLEMENTS THE ENHANCED VERSION OF THE ELECTRONIC DST

  • BIR STREAMLINES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF TAX EXEMPTION FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING PROJECTS

  • BIR RULINGS ON EXCISE TAX, SITUS OF TAXATION, CGT ON TRANSFER OF SHARES

I. TAX & BUSINESS-RELATED NEWS [FEBRUARY 11-17]

1. Mid-income condo market booms with 70% net demand, luxury segment to rise

2. Toyota Motor Philippines starts development of Antipolo dealership in Rizal

3. Revenue target tough but within reach, BIR chief says

4. Legarda slams ₱107B PDIC fund transfer as unconstitutional

5. Customs to breach P1 trillion revenue mark this year

6. Philippines eyes P25-trillion renewable energy investments

 

Mid-income condo market booms with 70% net demand, luxury segment to rise [The Manila Times, February 17, 2026]

During the media briefing on Feb. 3, Colliers Philippines’ Research Director Joey Bondoc credited this “renewed strength” in the mid-income condominium segment, priced between P3.6 million and P12 million, to increased developer competition, including new launches, stronger net take-up, and aggressive Ready-for-Occupancy (RFO) promotions.

 

Toyota Motor Philippines starts development of Antipolo dealership in Rizal [The Manila Times, February 17, 2026]

TOYOTA Motor Philippines (TMP), working with Toyota Taytay, Rizal Inc., has started development of a new dealership in Antipolo, expanding the brand’s network in Rizal as it continues to scale its customer support and after-sales footprint.

 

Revenue target tough but within reach, BIR chief says [The Manila Times, February 16, 2026]

The BIR has been tasked to collect P3.579 trillion this year under the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, 11.18-percent higher than last year’s goal of P3.219 trillion.

 

Legarda slams ₱107B PDIC fund transfer as unconstitutional [The Manila Times, February 14, 2026]

SEN. Loren Legarda said Friday that the remittance of P107.23 billion from the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) to the National Treasury should be scrutinized thoroughly.

 

Customs to breach P1 trillion revenue mark this year [The Philippine Star, February 14, 2026]

Nepomuceno identified petroleum and agricultural products as the top revenue drivers, noting that tighter enforcement and stronger coordination among agencies have reduced leakages.

 

Philippines eyes P25-trillion renewable energy investments [Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 14, 2026]

The country’s energy chief expects P25 trillion worth of investments to flow into the local renewable energy sector as the government sets a 10-year auction plan.

II. BIR CLARIFIES THE TAX TREATMENT, DOCUMENTATION & FILING/PAYMENT OF DONOR’S TAX FOR PURELY CASH DONATIONS

Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) 10-2026, issued on February 4, 2026, clarifies the tax treatment and compliance requirements for purely cash donations. It reiterates that the Donor’s Tax Return must be filed electronically through the eBIRForms Facility, Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS), or any Authorized Tax Software Provider (ATSP), while payment of the donor’s tax due may be made either manually through Authorized Agent Banks (AABs) or electronically via the available Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) ePayment channels. Within 30 days from the date of donation, the donor must submit the required documents to the proper Revenue District Office (RDO) or Large Taxpayers (LT) Division. The BIR further clarified that an Electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration (eCAR) is not required for purely cash donations, as cash is not a registrable property.

 

If you wish to get a copy of complete text of CTA cases, please e-mail us at taxseminars@dmdcpa.com.ph.

III.  SEC LEGAL OPINION

[BOD MUST CONSIST OF ELECTED NATURAL PERSONS HOLDING AT LEAST 1 SHARE EACH] [FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY SIT AS DIRECTORS BUT CANNOT SERVE AS CORPORATE OFFICERS IN PARTLY NATIONALIZED ACTIVITIES, EXCEPT AS NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN] [NOMINEE SHAREHOLDING IS VALID BUT MUST BE DISCLOSED UNDER THE REVISED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP RULES]

G Construction Philippines, Inc. (G Co.) is seeking an opinion on the composition of the Board of Directors (BOD), qualification of foreign representatives, and beneficial ownership disclosure of the corporation. In reply, on the composition of the BOD, the terms “Director” and “Member of the Board” are synonymous, and that no shareholder automatically becomes a director by virtue of share ownership. Directors must be formally elected in accordance with the Revised Corporation Code (RCC), the corporation’s bylaws, and voting procedures. The SEC reiterated that only natural persons may serve as directors, and a corporation‑shareholder must designate a natural person as its representative to sit on the Board. Further, each director must personally hold at least one qualifying share, although this may be held merely in legal title, allowing the validity of nominee directors, provided the assignment of at least one (1) share is properly recorded. A corporation may not itself sit as a director, but a duly designated nominee may do so. A corporation with three (3) directors, such as G Co., must have at least two (2) sitting directors to constitute a quorum and transact business. On the qualification of foreign representatives, while the RCC does not generally impose nationality requirements for directors, partially nationalized industries—such as those subject to the 60‑40 Filipino‑foreign equity rule—are governed by the Anti‑Dummy Law. Thus, foreigners may sit as directors only in proportion to the allowable foreign equity but may not serve as corporate officers in corporations engaged in partly nationalized activities. Specifically, foreigners cannot be appointed as Corporate Secretary or Treasurer, given statutory requirements that the Secretary be a Filipino citizen and resident, and the Treasurer a resident. A foreign national may serve as Chairman of the Board only if the position is non‑executive, meaning the Chairman merely presides on board meetings and does not perform management or executive functions. If the Chairman exercises executive authority, the position must be held by a Filipino. These rules continue to apply even if foreign equity eventually exceeds 40%, as long as the corporation operates in a partly nationalized sector. Finally, regarding beneficial ownership disclosure, the SEC stressed strict compliance under SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15 (Series of 2025), particularly the requirement that only natural persons may be recognized as beneficial owners, and that nominee arrangements must be mandatorily disclosed. If shares are held by a nominee, such as Mr. X, holding shares on behalf of CEGB, both the nominee and the natural-person beneficial owners of the corporate principal must be disclosed. Such disclosure must occur at the time of incorporation through Electronic Simplified Processing of Application for Registration of Company (eSPARC), or for existing corporations, through the Hierarchical and Applicable Relations and Beneficial Ownership Registry (HARBOR) registry and the next General Information Sheet (GIS) filing. Any subsequent change in beneficial ownership must be reported within seven (7) days. The SEC clarified that compliance may be achieved without transferring shares—the corporation may simply disclose the nominee arrangement and the beneficial owners, though the company may legally transfer/record shares if desired, provided this is properly entered in the Stock and Transfer Book. [SEC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL LEGAL OPINION NO. 26-03, FEBRUARY 9, 2026]

 

IV. SEC PRESS RELEASE

 

SEC IMPOSES FINE AGAINTS GLOBAL DOMINION FOR ABUSIVE DEBT COLLECTION

In a Press Release dated February 10, 2026, the SEC imposed a ₱50,000 administrative fine on Global Dominion Financing, Inc. for engaging in unfair and abusive debt collection practices in violation of SEC Memorandum Circular No. 18, Series of 2019 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11765. The case stemmed from a borrower’s complaint alleging that the company’s third-party collection agents intercepted him on the road to demand payment without lawful authority and sent multiple text messages pressuring him to immediately settle partial amounts while implying adverse consequences for non-cooperation. The SEC held that such acts constitute intimidation and coercion, are not legitimate collection practices, and undermine consumer protection mechanisms. It further ruled that the company cannot evade administrative liability by attributing the prohibited acts to its collection agents, emphasizing that under the Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act (FCPA) framework, regulated entities and their accredited third-party service providers are solidarily liable.

V. CTA CASES

[BILLING STATEMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE NOTICES OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE] [SECTION 196 & NOT SECTION 195 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS APPLICABLE, ON THE REFUND OF CLAIMS FOR LOCAL TAXES ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED] [DIVIDEND INCOME OF HOLDING COMPANIES IS NOT SUBJECT TO LOCAL BUSINESS TAX, ONLY BANKS & FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS]

Petitioner City Treasurer of Taguig filed a Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City’s earlier Decision and Order which granted and ordered the claim for refund of the Respondent Chrismon Investments, Inc. of previously paid Local Business Tax (LBT) on its dividend income plus legal interest. The Petitioner argued that the Billing Statements issued to the Respondent constituted valid Notices of Assessment under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC), thus requiring the Respondent to file a protest within sixty (60) days from receipt. Since it failed to protest within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the 60-day period, its subsequent claim for refund was already barred by prescription. Further, under Taguig City Ordinance No. 47, Series of 2006, holding companies are subject to LBT. On the other hand, the Respondent countered that the Billing Statements did not constitute formal Notices of Assessment because they failed to indicate any deficiency tax, surcharges, penalties, or legal basis for the imposition; hence, Section 195 of the LGC was inapplicable. Instead, the proper remedy was under Section 196, which allows refund of taxes erroneously collected within two (2) years from payment. Moreover, dividend income is taxable only for banks and financial institutions, not holding companies like itself. In ruling, the Court held that Billing Statements did not constitute the “Notices of Assessment” within the coverage and ambit of Section 195 of the LGC, but an actionable claim of refund of taxes erroneously or illegally collected under Section 196, instead. Also, the RTC-Taguig correctly ruled that the Respondent complied with the prescriptive period for filing refund claims of LBT, from the time of payment to the filing of administrative and judicial claims for refund. Likewise, since the Respondent is a holding company and not a bank or non-bank financial institution, it is not liable for LBT on its dividend income under Taguig Ordinance No. 43-17 and Section 143 (f) of the LGC. Thus, the Petition was DENIED, and the Assailed Decision and Order was AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award of legal interest of 6% per annum is DELETED. [CITY TREASURER OF TAGUIG VS. CHRISMON INVESTMENTS, INC., CTA AC NO. 323, FEBRUARY 4, 2026]

 

[ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS OF REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IS A FACTUAL ISSUE; THUS, EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS FIRST REQUIRED FOR ITS RESOLUTION] [FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES RENDERS ASSESSMENT FINAL & EXECUTORY]

Petitioner Mactan Electric Company, Inc. (MECO) filed a Petition for review seeking the reversal of the assailed decision issued by the Respondent, the Municipality of Cordova, the Municipal Assessor of Cordova, the Province of Cebu, and the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu, which declared the Notice of Assessment null and void, as well as the Resolution denying its Motion for Consideration. The Petitioner argues that it is not required to pay the assailed Real Property Taxes (RPT) under protest because the subject tax assessments are null and void, having been issued in violation of Sections 224 and 225 of the Local Government Code (LGC) and in breach of its right to due process. It further contends that it challenges the legality of the assessments rather than the reasonableness of the amounts imposed, that it was justified in not exhausting administrative remedies and in directly seeking judicial recourse, and that even assuming liability for the taxes on the subject properties, it cannot be held liable for back taxes dating back to 1992 pursuant to Section 222 of the LGC. On the other hand, the Respondent counters that the Notice of Assessment and Tax Declarations are valid, that the Petitioner is required to pay the assailed RPT under protest, that the Petitioner erred in immediately seeking judicial recourse, and is liable for back taxes starting from 1992. In ruling, the Court held that the Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in directly filing a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) without first complying with the administrative procedures under Sections 252, 226, and 229(c) of the LGC. The Court explained that challenges involving the reasonableness or correctness of RPT, including claims of exemption that require evaluation of evidence, raise factual issues that must first be addressed through payment under protest and appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) and then to the Court of tax Appeal (CTA) if still unfavorable. Since the Petitioner’s arguments involved a mix of factual and legal issues, particularly on whether its electrical poles and distribution transformers are subject to RPT, it was required to exhaust administrative remedies. Its failure to pay under protest and pursue the proper appeals rendered the assessment final and executory. Thus, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. [MACTAN ELECTRIC COMPANY INC VS THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORDOVA, THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF CORDOVA, THE PROVINCE OF CEBU & THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF CEBU, CTA EN BANC CASE NO. 2957, FEBRUARY 2, 2026]