Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

CAGAYAN ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CO.,
Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF CAGAYAN PROVINCE,
Appellee,

CBAA CASE NO. L-03 Tax Dec. No. 5514

– and –

THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF CAGAYAN PROVINCE,
Respondent-Appellee.

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

DECISION

Before us is an appeal of Petitioner-Appellant Cagayan Robina Sugar

Milling Co., filed on November 25, 1992, assailing the Resolution of Appellee

Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Cagayan Province, dated April 1, 1992,

which increased the market value subject to real property tax of its machineries

located at Piat, Cagayan, to Two Hundred Sixty Million Three Hundred Twenty-

Seven Thousand and Sixty Pesos (P260,327,060.00) under Tax Declaration

(TD) No. 5514.

Extant on records is the clear fact that Petitioner-Appellant filed this

appeal with this Board more than seven (7) months from the date of the subject

Resolution. Hence, the issue of whether or not this appeal was filed on time.

Petitioner-Appellant alleges that it filed this appeal within the

reglementary period of thirty (30) days from its receipt of the Resolution. To

prove its allegation, Petitioner-Appellant was given by this Board ample time for

postponement and extensions to submit evidence but Petitioner-Appellant

failed to do so.

On January 13, 1994, Respondent-Appellee Provincial Assessor of

Cagayan Province, filed with this Board a Motion to Dismiss this appeal on the

Reference: Book VII, pp. 29-32

ground of prescription, showing by evidence that the actual date of receipt of

the questioned Resolution by Petitioner-Appellant should be on or before April

18, 1992 or seven (7) months before this appeal was filed.

The evidence submitted by Respondent-Appellee is a document entitled

“Appeal on Assessment” from the Resolution in question, dated April 18, 1992

which has the same tenor as this present appeal. It was executed by Mr.

Renato Cabati in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President of

Petitioner-Appellant, which shows that as of April 18, 1992 the Petitioner-

Appellant had already received the Resolution.

That “appeal” was intended for transmittal to this Board by the Municipal

Treasurer but it never was transmitted. Nonetheless the said “appeal” has no

probative value in favor of Petitioner-Appellant, because it was filed on

December 15, 1992 (Expediente). Reckoning from April 18, 1992 to December

15, 1992, two hundred forty one (241) days had lapsed, or eight (8) months and

three (3) days from the date of receipt of the Resolution which is beyond the

reglementary period of thirty (30) days. (See Sec. 34, P.D. 464).

We, therefore find for Respondent-Appellee.

“Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal legally required has the effect of rendering final and executory the judgment of the court below and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.” (Director of Lands vs. Antonio, et al. 15 SCRA 119, Bello vs. Fernando, 1-16970, January 30, 1962, Caisip vs. Cabangon, L-14684, August 26, 1960).
WHEREFORE, the Resolution under appeal is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, the Resolution of the Local Board becomes final and executory.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, April 30, 1994.

(Signed) MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO
Chairman

(Signed) ELEANOR A. SANTOS
Member

(Signed) ALFONSO M. MEDADO
Member

Reference: Book VII, pp. 29-32