Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

SPOUSES JUAN B. PUERTOLLANO AND ELENA A. PUERTOLLANO,
Petitioners-Appellants,

CBAA CASE NO. L-38 Versus

THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF QUEZON CITY,
Appellee,

And

CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY, Respondent-Appellee.
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

R E S O L U T I O N

Appealed before this Board is the Decision of the Local Board of

Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of Quezon City on the case entitled Spouses Juan

P. Puertollano & Elena A. Puertollano, Petitioners-Appellants versus The Local

Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City, Appellee, and the City Assessor

of Quezon City, Respondent-Appellee and docketed as CBAA CASE NO. L-38.

The dispositive Portion thereof is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, after careful deliberation, this Board finds that the market value of P301,590.00 as present value for the house of the Appellants as determined/reassessed by the Respondent City Assessor, in connection with the 1997 general revision pursuant to Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95, is reasonable valid and collectible.

SO ORDERED.”

Subject house was constructed in 1957 and occupied by Petitioners-

Appellants in March 1958. The property is declared as follows: Tax Declaration

(TD) No. B-112-00290, year 1985: Fair Market Value (FMV) = P160,830.00,

Assessed Value (AV) = P72,370.00; TD No. C-112-00290, year 1990: same as

in 1985; TD No. D-112-01833, year 1997: FMV = P696,760.00, AV =

P174,190.00 later replaced by TD No. D-11201977 also for the year 1997; FMV

= P301,590.00, AV = P60,320.00

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

The LBAA Decision reflecting the revision of the 1997 Tax Declaration

states: “The existing assessment as of 1996 of the subject property was revised

by the Respondent City Assessor of Quezon City as mandated by the City

Ordinance No. SP-375, S-96, dated December 19, 1995, enacted by the City

Council in pursuance to Section 212 and 219 of Republic Act No. 7160,

otherwise known as ‘The Local Government Code of 1991’. As a consequence,

the existing assessment of the subject house under Tax Declaration No. C112-

00373, with market value of P160,830.00 and assess value of P72,370.00, as

of the year 1996, was revised under Tax Declaration No. D112-01883, with the

market value of P696,760.00 and assessed value of P174,190.00, effective

1997 general revision in pursuance in Ordinance No. SP373, S-95.

Petitioners-Appellants assigned the following errors:

“I

THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF QUEZON CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT CITY ASSESSOR HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE EXISTING LAWS, ORDINANCE, RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF HEREIN APPELLANTS.

II

THE SAID LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT CITY ASSESSOR UNDER TAX DECLARATION NO. D-112-01977 WITH THE MARKET VALUE OF P301,590.00 AND ASSESSED VALUE OF P60,320.00, EFFECTIVE 1997, WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED SCHEDULE OF BASE UNIT CONSTRUCTION COST AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. SP-357-, S-95.

III

THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF QUEZON CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF P301,590.00 AS PRESENT VALUE FOR THE HOUSE OF THE APPELLANTS AS DETERMINED/REASSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT CITY ASSESSOR, IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1997 GENERAL REVISION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. SP-357, S-95, IS REASONABLE, VALID AND COLLECTIBLE.

IV

THE SAID LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING AND CONCLUDING THAT THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS HEREIN THAT THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE OF THEIR HOUSE IS LESS TAHTN P175,000.00 IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND THEY FAILED TO SHOW HOW THEY ARRIVED AT SUCH ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THEIR HOUSE.

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

V

THE SAID LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN STATING IN ITS DECISION THAT DURING THE INITIAL HEARING OF SAID APPEAL THE RESPONDENTS CITY ASSESSOR, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, ENGINEER FERNANDO V. PACAMPARA, ASKED THE PERMISSION OF THE BOARD THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT AN OCULAR INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE.”

This case was first heard on January 26, 2004. In that hearing

Petitioners-Appellants alleged that the basic issue therein is the legality of the

use of the replacement/reproduction cost approach. Respondent-Appellee

thereby interposed that the “main issue is technical”…

Pursuantly, the parties upon suggestion of this Board, deigned to resolve

the issue by a Compromise Agreement. This Board therefore issued the

following Order:

“By agreement of the parties to submit before this Board a proposal to settle this case amicably, the Board hereby grant the parties one (1) month from today within which to submit their proposed Amicable Settlement. However, failure to do so within the period granted to the parties, this case shall be considered submitted for decision. In the meantime, this Board is not precluded from conducting an Ocular Inspection I it so desires.

SO ORDERED.”

Thereafter, the parties submitted a joint REPORT dated July 04, 2005,

received by this Board on July 12, 2005, signed by Juan P. Puertollano,

Petitioner-Appellant and Atty. Ruben Joel A. Puertollano, Counsel for

Petitioners-Appellants, on the one hand and Fernando v. Pacampara, LAOO-V,

Representative of the City Assessor of Quezon City: noted and signed by

Teofisto LL. Pajara. DPA, Assessor of Quezon City, Respondent-Appellee. The

Report reads:

“REPORT

COMES NOW, the herein Petitioners-Appellants, through counsel and the herein Respondent-Appellee. The City Assessor of Quezon City through the undersigned Representative, unto this Honorable Central Board of Assessment Appeals, most respectfully submit the herein Report of the conducted (sic) by the herein parties in the above-entitled case to find solution for amicable settlement of the herein Appeal, as suggested by this Honorable Board, to wit:

1. That the appeal in the above-entitled case refers to the Decision, dated January 28, 2003, of the Honorable Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (QC-BAA for brevity) on QC-BAA CASE No. AF-130, S-97, the dispositive portion thereof reads as follows:

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

‘WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, after careful deliberations, this board finds that the market value of P301,590.00 as present value for the house of the Appellants as determined/assessed by the Respondent City Assessor, in connection with the 1997 general revision pursuant to Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95, is reasonable, valid and collectible.’

2, The Petitioners-Appellants alleged that the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City (LBAA-QC) had erred in finding the present value of his house at P301,590.00, in connection with the 1997 general revision pursuant to Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95, which in his estimate is less than P175,000.00. Whereas, the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor agrees with the decision of the LBAA-QC.

3. That the subject improvement of the appeal is the two-story residential house of the Petitioners-Appellants located at No. 60 Sicaba Street, Barangay Saint Peter, San Jose, Quezon City. It was constructed in 1957, renovated with additional floor area introduced in 1980, and since then no additional (sic) nor repair is ever introduced to the subject residential house. And, with the lapsed of time, the subject house, although still habitable, had greatly depreciated due to wear and tear and lack of proper maintenance and/or repair. That some wooden parts of the subject buildings were already destroyed by termites (anays). The G.I. roofings were corroded and falling down due to rust. Paints are also faded. Thus, it is greatly suffered in value.

4. That the material specifications of the subject improvement are as follows:

1. Foundation: Reinforce Concrete;

2. Columns/Posts: mixed reinforce concrete and wooden posts;

3. Beams: Mixed reinforced concrete and wooden posts;

4. Girts/Girders: all wood;

5. Floor/Joists: Reinforce Concrete slab on first floor and wood on the second floor;

6. Floorings: Crazy-cut marble finished on the first floor and T & G on the second floor;

7. Roofings/roof framing: G.I. corrugated sheets on wooden framing;

8. Partition Int. wall: CHB on first floor and Plywood board on wooden framing on the second floor;

9. Ceiling: Plywood board;

10. Walls: CHB plastered finished on first floor and CHB/T & G on the second floor;

11. Window/window frame: mixed Steel frame and wooden frame with glass jalousies;

12. Paints: Average;

13. Number of Toilet and Bath: one (1) on the first floor; and

14. Electrical Inst.: Concealed

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

5. That with the suggestion of this Honorable Board to find ways for an amicable settlement of the issues in the above entitled to which both parties has agreed, the herein Petitioners-Appellants and Respondent-Appellee City Assessor met twice in the Office of the latter to discuss the subject assessment in questioned (sic). It was agreed that the type of the subject building, as described in paragraph 4 hereof, can at least be classified as Type II-C-12, with a Base Unit Construction Costs (BUCC) of P3,900.00 per square meter, in accordance with the approved Schedule of Unit Construction Costs (BUCC) provided by Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95.

6. That in accordance with the Base Unit Construction Cost of P3,990.00 per square meter, the herein Respondent-Appellee City Assessor and Petitioners-Appellants submitted their respective computation/proposal for reassessment of the present market value and assessed value of his subject improvement in the above entitled case. The Petitioners-Appellants recommended that the value for the following items such as the porch, carport, Deck roof and fence, must not be included in the determination of the present value. The subject items were no longer existing as it had been already totally destroyed either by termites (anays) and wear and tear, due to old age and lack of proper maintenance and repair. Computations are shown hereunder as follows:

Revaluation by the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor

Revaluation by the Petitioners-Appellants

Main Floor:
291.00 x P3900.00 = Porch:
9.00 x 40% of P3900.00 = Terrace (upper)
62.5 x 35% of P3,900.00 = Carport:
28.50 x 30% of P3,900.00 = Deck Roof:
20.00 x 30% of P3,900.00 = Fence:
102.00 x P210.00 = Pavement:
43.00 x P210.00 =

P1,134,900.00

P 14,040.00

P 85,310.00

P 33,350.00

P 23,400.00

P 21,420.00

P 9,030.00

———–

Deduct

———–

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

———–

TOTAL (RCN) = P1,321,450.00 1,321,450.00 Less: P 92,210.00

P1,229,240.00 Less: 80% Depreciation P1,057,160.00 983,390.00

Present Market Value: P 264,290.00 P 245,850.00 Assessment Level 10% 10% Assessed Value P 26,430.00 P 24,590.00

Effective: 1997 General Revision pursuant to City Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95

7. A perusal of the Petitioners-Appellants revaluation/recommendation by the herein Respondent-Appellee City Assessor shows that the same to be fair and reasonable, and in accordance with the schedule of values as provided by Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the herein Petitioners-Appellants and Respondent-Appellee City Assessor, for justice and equity, hereby submit to this Honorable Central Board of Assessment Appeals the revaluation made by the Petitioners-Appellants for its consideration and approval that the subject improvements to be reassessed from the market value of P301,590.00/P60,320.00, respectively, to market value/assessed value of P245,850.00/P24,590.00, respectively, effective 1997 general revision pursuant to Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95.

QUEZON CITY, July 04, 2005.”

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

(SIGNED)
SPS. JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO AND ELENA A. PUERTOLLANO
(Petitioners-Appellants)

THE CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY
(Respondent-Appellee)

BY: BY: (SIGNED)
ATTY. RUBEN JOEL A. PUERTOLLANO (Counsel for Petitioners-Appellants)

(SIGNED) FERNANDO V. PACAMPARA
LAOO-V (Representative)

NOTED BY:

(SIGNED)
TEOFISTA LL. PAJARA, DPA City Assessor

In view thereof, this Board issued the following Order:

“O R D E R

Before this Board is a joint REPORT over a Compromise Agreement that the parties, Petitioners-Appellants, spouses Juan P. Puertollano and Elena A. Puertollano and Respondent-Appellee, the City Assessor of Quezon City, agreed to formulate. The parties arrived at the following computations:

Revaluation by the Respondent-Appellee City Assessor

Revaluation by the Petitioners-Appellants

Main Floor:
291.00 x P3,900.00 = Porch:
9.00 x 40% of P3,900.00 = Terrace (upper)
62.5 x 35% of P3,900.00 = Carport:
28.50 x 30% of P3,900.00 = Deck Roof:
20.00 x 30% of P3,900.00 = Fence:
102.00 x P210.00 = Pavement:
43.00 x P210.00 =

P1,134,900.00

P 14,040.00

P 85,310.00

P 33,350.00

P 23,400.00

P 21,420.00

P 9,030.00

———–

Deduct

———–

Deduct

Deduct

Deduct

———–

TOTAL (RCN) = P1,321,450.00 1,321,450.00 Less: P 92,210.00

P1,229,240.00 Less: 80% Depreciation P1,057,160.00 983,390.00

Present Market Value: P 264,290.00 P 245,850.00 Assessment Level 10% 10% Assessed Value P 26,430.00 P 24,590.00

Effective: 1997 General Revision pursuant to City Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95

Deemed fair and reasonable, the parties submitted for this Board’s consideration and approval ‘the subject improvement to be reassessed from the market value/assessed value of P301,590.00/P60,320.00, respectively, to market value/assessed value of 245,850.00/24,590.00, respectively, effective 1997 general revision pursuant to Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95’.

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

Finding the joint REPORT in accordance with law, not contrary to morals, good customs, public order, public policy, fair and equitable, not vitiated by fraud nor duress, the same is hereby approved.

WHEREFORE, having approved the joint REPORT, the parties are hereby enjoined to constitute a Compromise Agreement pursuant thereto.

SO ORDERED.”

The Compromise Agreement, presented before this Board on March 15, 2006, is part and parcel of the joint “MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON COMPROMISE” of the parties therein, dated February 15, 2006, rendered as follows:

“MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON COMPROMISE

COME NOW the herein Petitioners-Appellants, through the undersigned counsel, and the herein Respondent-Appellee, the City Assessor of Quezon City, through the undersigned representative, unto this Honorable Central Board of Assessment Appeals most respectfully submit the herein COMPROMISE AGREEMENT based on their AMICABLE SETTLEMENT contained in the joint REPORT dated July 4, 2005, which was submitted to this Honorable Board, in an effort to finally terminate the above-entitled case without further hearing, and ask that judgment of decision based thereon be made under the following terms and conditions:

1. That the present market value and assessed value of subject residential house be declared as P245,850.00 and P24,590.00, respectively, at 10% assessment level, based on their Amicable Settlement contained in said joint REPORT dated July 4, 2005, effective during the 1997 General Revision pursuant to Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95;

2. That the Assessor of Quezon City will issue the corresponding Tax Declaration for said residential house based on the present market value of P245,850.00 and assessed value of P24,590.00 at 10% assessment level, effective during the 1997 General Revision pursuant to Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-357, S-95;

3. That whether payments for the real estate tax for said residential house made by the petitioners-appellants herein starting in the year 1997 up to the present year in excess of said assessed value of P24,590.00 shall be applied as payment of said taxes for the succeeding years after 1997 until there will be no more overpayment made by the petitioners-appellants herein; and

4. That for purposes of determining whether petitioners-appellants have made overpayment for said taxes based on the agreed P24,590.00 assessed value for said residential house starting in the year 1997 up to the present time, the Treasurer of Quezon City be ordered to make the proper computation to determine what amount has been overpaid by the petitioners-appellants herein starting in the year 1997 up to the present time and to apply the excess payment for that year for the said taxes for the succeeding years after 1997 until there will no longer be any overpayment of said taxes.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Central Board of Assessment Appeals that a judgment or decision based on the above-mentioned Compromise Agreement made.

Quezon City for Manila February 15, 2006”

(SIGNED)
SPS. JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO AND TEOFISTA LL. PAJARA, DPA

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

ELENA A. PUERTOLLANO (Petitioners-Appellants)

ASSISTED BY:

(SIGNED)
ATTY. RUBEN JOEL A. PUERTOLLANO (Counsel for Petitioners-Appellants)

(Quezon City Assessor)

ASSISTED BY:

(SIGNED) FERNANDO V. PACAMPARA
LAOO-V (Representative)

While the parties maintained that their COMPROMISE AGREEMENT is

“based on their AMICABLE SETTLEMENT contained in the joint REPORT

dated July 4, 2005”, they also asked “that judgment or decision based thereon

be made” under four (4) terms and conditions, number 4 of which, although not

part of the REPORT is also extraneous to a Compromise Agreement.

A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT is a contract and as such contract, only

the parties thereto are bound therefor. This Board therefore, not being a party

to such COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, is bound to issue no Order to the

Treasurer of Quezon City. Besides he/she is not impleaded herein, hence, the

Quezon City Treasurer is without the jurisdiction of this Board.

No. 4 of the terms and conditions in the MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON

COMPROMISE viz: “That for purposes of determining whether petitioners-

appellants have made overpayment for said taxes based on the agreed

P24,590.00 assessed value for said residential house starting in the year 1997

up to the present time, the Treasurer of Quezon City be ordered to make the

proper computation to determine what amount has been overpaid by the

petitioners-appellants herein starting in the year 1997 up to the present time

and to apply the excess payment for that year for the said taxes for the

succeeding years after 1997 until there will no longer be any overpayment of

said taxes”, should be deleted and excluded as it is hereby deleted and

excluded from the COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. Hence, the COMPROMISE

AGREEMENT is correspondingly in accordance with law, not contrary to

morals, good customs, public order, public policy, fair and equitable, not vitiated

by fraud and duress.

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35

WHEREFORE, the herein Compromise Agreement is hereby approved

as corrected. Respondent-Appellee, Assessor of Quezon City is hereby

ordered to act accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, February 7, 2007.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES
Member

Reference: Book XII, pp. 25-35