Republic of the Philippines


PANABO MEMORIAL PARK, INC. Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –



Re: LBAA Case No. 012002

– and –

Appellee. x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x


This is an appeal by Petitioner-Appellant Panabo Memorial Park, Inc. from

the decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Davao

del Norte dated April 20, 2003. Petitioner-Appellant admits that it received he

aforementioned decision on May 22, 2003. The package which contained the

instant appeal was postmarked as registered mail at the Davao City Post Office

on June 23, 2003.

Appeals from the decisions of the Local Boards of Assessment Appeals

are governed by the provisions of Section 229(c) of R.A. 7160, thus:

“x x x

“(c) . . . The owner of the property or person having legal interest therein or the assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision of said Board, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, as herein provided. . .” (Underscoring supplied.)

In Accordance with the aforequoted provisions of Section 229(c) of R.A.

7160, Petitioner-Appellant should have filed the instant appeal not later than

June 21, 2003 . . . PL67

The instant appeal could have been dismissed by this Board for lack of

jurisdiction. However, Respondents-Appellees may be estopped from raising this

issue: In Suarez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 80199, June 6, 1990, 186 SCRA

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

339) reiterated in Benguet Corporation vs. Central Board of Assessment

Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 100959, June 29, 1992 [In re CBAA Case No. 237, May

28, 1990]), the Supreme Court said:

“(a) x x x It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. The only exception is where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, reiterated in Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84811, August 29, 1989).

“While petitioner could have prevented the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by seasonably taking exception thereto, they instead invoked the very same jurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief from it. What is more, they participated in the trial of the case by cross-examining respondent. Upon the premises, petitioner cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, supra).”

Although Petitoner-Appellant’s failure to file instant appeal on time was

raised in their ANSWER dated August 1, 2003, Respondents-Appellees, in their

same ANSWER, also touched on the other aspects of the case.

In view thereof, if only for the purpose of ascertaining the facts of the case

without necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings,

this Board has decided to discuss the instant appeal on its merits.

The records show that, in an undated letter addressed to the Officer in

Charge, Board of Tax Assessment Appeals, Tagum City, thru the City Treasurer

of Panabo (a copy of which was received by the Provincial Assessor’s Office on

September 14, 2001), Appellant Panabo Memorial Park, Inc. complained that the

total realty tax of P526,451.40 imposed on its properties was exorbitant and

unimaginable. Appellant alleged that the said amount was recomputed and

reduced by the City Assessor’s Office to P47,000.00 and that, even with the

reduced amount, Appellant was having a hard time paying for the same because

it (Appellant) was also paying for the monthly taxes and business permits due for

the previous and present years.

In the same letter Appellant said that it should not be liable for realty taxes

on burial lots which were already sold; that its sales was adversely affected by

the operations of Vitorillo Private Cemetery which was illegally selling burial lots

at the back of the Panabo Public Cemetery; that the local authorities did not act

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

on Appellant’s complaint on the illegal activities of said private cemetery; that

taxes should be based on Appellant’s monthly sales; and that, in sum, Appellant

suggested that the realty taxes on its properties should be based on Appellant’s

capacity or ability to pay.

The records also show that, in separate and undated letters, Appellant

informed the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and the Vice

Mayor of Panabo city on the alleged illegal operations of the Vitorillo Private

Cemetery. In a letter dated September 24, 2001, the City Administrator of

Panabo city stated that “there were no applicants or Business Permits released

whatsoever in the name of VITORILLO and VILLARUBIA operating as private


The dispositive portion of the LBAA’s decision dated April 20, 2003 states


“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, except on the assessment of the portion of the sold burial lots beginning the year when it was conveyed, the appeal/protest is hereby dismissed with cost against the appellant. The appellant is hereby ordered to coordinate with the City Treasurer’s Office of Panabo City for the payment of the proper real property tax due.”

Appellant raised the following issues, to wit:

1. Whether or not the decision of the Provincial Board of Assessment

Appeals dated April 20, 2003 is in accordance with the Constitution, law and

prevailing jurisprudence;

2. Whether or not the assessment of the subject properties are

excessive, erroneous, unjust and unconscionable, tantamount to confiscation of

property in violation of the Constitution, law and jurisprudence;

3. Whether or not the first (1) assessment was regularly issued; and

4. Whether or not the second (2) assessment dated May 29, 2002 in

the amount of P1,003,286.04 inclusive of penalties and interest, valid and legal.

The “assessments” mentioned in the third and fourth issues are not really

assessments in the strict sense of the word. They are but summaries or

statements of taxes and penalties supposed to be due, as of a certain, from

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

Appellant based on the tax declarations. The first such “assessment” is a

handwritten, undated and unsigned statement of the realty taxes and penalties

due on appellant’s properties for the years 1999 and 2000 in the total amount of

P526,451.40. The second such “assessment” is a typewritten statement of realty

taxes and penalties due as of June 30, 2002 on the same properties from 1999

through 2002, inclusive, in the total amount of P1,003,286.04. We do not think

this matter merits further discussion.

The only real issue in this case is : Whether or not the questioned

assessments are excessive, erroneous, unjust and unconscionable as to amount

to confiscation of property without due process of law in violation of the

constitution. The Local Board’s decision state that “this appeal should have been

dismissed for failure to observe the provision of Section 252 of Republic Act No.

7160.” Said Section 252 provides as follows:

“SEC. 252. Payment Under Protest. – (a) No protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pays the tax. There shall be annotated on the tax receipts the words “paid under protest”. The protest in writing shall be filed within thirty (30) days from payment of the tax to the provincial, city treasurer or municipal treasurer in the case of a municipality within the Metropolitan manila Area, who shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days from receipt.

“(b) The tax, or portion thereof paid under protest, shall be held in trust by the treasurer concerned.

“(c) In the event that the protest is finally decided in favor of the taxpayer, the amount or portion of the tax protested shall be refunded to the protestant, or applied as tax credit against the existing or future tax liability.

“(d) In the event that the protest is denied or upon the lapse of the sixty-day period prescribed in subparagraph (a), the taxpayer may avail of the remedies as provided for in Chapter 3, Title II, Book II of this Code.”

We do not quite agree on the LBAA’s choice of law supposedly applicable

in this case. Protests filed with the treasurer under the provisions of Section 252

of R.A. 7160, as well as those filed under the provisions of Section 253 of the

same Code (Repayment of Excessive Collection), are necessarily actions for

refund of taxes already paid. The assessments, payments on which are sought to

be refunded, are not or should not be in dispute. If the protest is based on the

ground that the assessment is erroneous, the action should be governed by the

provisions of Section 226 of the Code, thus:

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

“SEC. 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declaration and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.”

The appeal before the Local Board is clearly predicated on the allegedly

wrongful assessments. The same assessments were made sometime in 1999. It

is presumed that the requirements on the service of the written notices of

assessment were duly complied with since this issue is not of those raised by the


Appellant sent its letter-protest on September 14, 2001 to the Local Board

thru the City Treasurer of Panabo. The Local Board, on the other hand, said in its

decision that Appellant filed its appeal on May 9, 2002. This apparent

controversy, although not made an issue in the Local Board, is explained by the

fact that, aside from the letter-protest received by the Provincial Assessor’s

Office on September 14, 2001, Appellant filed a formal “Appeal on Assessment”

which the Local Board acknowledged to have received on May 9, 2002.

Regardless, the appeal before the Local Board may have been filed out of

time and, therefore, the Local Board may not have the required jurisdiction over

the matter.

To allow an appellant to avail of the provisions of Section 252 because the

provision of Section 226 are not convenient to him would be to totally disregard

the provisions of Section 226. This is not allowed under the rules of statutory

construction. However, since the Local Board chose to discuss the merits of the

appeal before it, so would we with the instant appeal.

As can be gleaned from the decision of the Local Board, Republic Act No.

9015 (the Charter of the City of Panabo) was approved on February 28, 2001.

Before Panabo became a city, or sometime in 1999, the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan of Davao del Norte, pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160,

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

enacted Provincial Ordinance 99-003 approving the schedule of market values of

real properties in Davao del Norte effective year 2000.

Pursuant to said ordinance, a general revision of real property

assessments in Davao del Norte was conducted sometime in 1999. It was

discovered by the assessors that the subject properties were not declared for

taxation purpose in the name of the Appellant. So, the Provincial Assessor of

Davao del Norte, in coordination with the then Municipal Assessor of Panabo,

made the following assessments, to wit:

Eff TAX DEC. NO. Year Lot 188, TCT T-79516:
98-15003-01678 1999 99-06003-01697 2000 Guard House:
98-15003-01679 1999 99-06003-01698 2000 Lot 187, TCT T-79516:
98-15003-01680 1999 99-06003-01699 2000 Office (II-A):
98-05003-01681 1999 99-06003-01700 2000 Comfort Room:
98-15003-01682 1999 99-06003-01701 2000


Comm’l. Comm’l

Comm’l Comm’l

Unit Market Ass. Value Value Lvl

P700 P 9,331,700 50% P950 12,664,450 50%

P 4,140 30% 5,175 30%

P700 P 4,556,300 50% P950 P 6,183,550 50%

P 18,480 30% P 346,248 35%

P 291,125 30% P 16,800 30%

Assessed Value

P4,665,850 P6,332,230

P 1,240 P 1,550

P2,278,150 P3,091,780

P 5,540 P 121,190

P 87,340 P 5,040

The unit market value of P950.00 per square meter appearing on the Tax

Declaration Nos. 99-06003-01699 and 99-06003-01697 for Lots 187 and 188,

respectively, both effective January 1, 2000, is in accordance with the Schedule

of Market Values prescribed under Section 3 (a) of Provincial Ordinance no. 99-

003 of Davao del Norte.

Appellant says that the assessments on its property are excessive

compared with the corresponding assessments on properties in the vicinity.

Attached to its appeal as Annexes “E-1” to “E-5” are the following tax

declarations, to wit:

Eff. Tax Dec. No. Year
99-06003-01677 2000 99-06003-01657 2000 99-06003-01247 2000 99-06027-00014 2000 98-15029-04544 1999

E. Arguelles A. Taborada R. Cagape A. Villarubia E. Vitorillo

Barangay San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco New Visayas New Visayas

Unit Value
Kind /Sq.M. Agr’l P 2.80 Agr’l 2.55 Res’l 300.00 Agr’l 2.55 Agr’l 1.98

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

There is no basis for comparison, while Appellant’s properties were

classified as “commercial”, the properties covered by the above-listed tax

declarations were classified either as “agricultural” or “residential”. Two, in fact,

are located in a different barangay.

The City Assessor, in her comments dated May 31, 2002 addressed to the

Local Board stated that the parcels of land of Bernardino Vitorillo and Antonio

Villarubia (TD Nos. 98-15029-04544 and 99-06027-00014, respectively) are

“incidental burial lots, inasmuch as it is adjacent to the Public Cemetery” but

“coconut trees are still very evident in the area, so the rule on predominant use

still applies.”

Attached as Annex “AA” to Appellant’s appeal before the Local Board was

a copy of an Order promulgated by the HLURB on May 21, 2001 which contained

a list of violations allegedly committed by Mr. Antonio S. Villarubia, to wit:

“(1) Failure to secure Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearance (PALC) and Development Permit (DP) from the Sangguniang Panlunsod of Panabo prior to the conversion of your lot into a private cemetery; and

“(2) Failure to secure Certificate of Registration and License to Sell from this Office prior to your actual selling/leasing of plots within the above-cited cemetery.”

There is truth, therefore, to appellant’s allegation that the abovementioned

cemetery was operating illegally. However, this fact and/or the failure of the

Assessor’s to assess the said cemetery as “commercial” in nature do not, in any

way, affect the assessments on Appellant’s subject properties.

Appellant also attached to its appeal as Annex “G” Tax Declaration No. E-

01019-038996 for a cemetery located in Poblacion, Davao City and owned by the

Davao Chinese Progressive Association with a Unit Value of P100.00 per square

meter. Also attached to Appellant’s appeal with the Local Board as Annexes “JJ”,

“JJ-1” “JJ-2”, were copies of Tax Declaration Nos. E-9-9-49705, E-9-9-49707 and

E-9-9-49710, all of which pertain to parcels of land belonging to Davao Memorial

Park, Inc. and which are located in Talomo, Davao City and classified as

“Memorial Park” with a unit market value of P120.00 per square meter.

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

Again there is no basis for comparison as the said properties are in

localities different from that where Appellant’s properties are located. Besides

which, the real property tax on the property of Davao Chinese Cemetery was

made effective the year 1987 and those on the properties of Davao Memorial

Park were made effective 1994, while the taxes on Appellant’s properties were

made effective the years 1999 and 2000.

Appellant also submitted, as Annex “CC” to its Appeal on assessment with

the Local Board, a certification dated September 25, 2001 from the Bureau of

Internal Revenue which showed that the zonal value of the parcels of land in

question was only P500.00 per square meter.

We would like to inform that “zonal values” adopted by the Bureau of

Internal Revenue have no bearing whatsoever on the “fair market values” for real

property tax purposes. We often see instances where a “zonal value” adopted by

the BIR for a certain parcel of land is different from the “fair market value”

approved by the concerned City Council or Provincial Board for the same parcel

of land.

Appellant admits that it acquired the subject properties in April, 1992 and

alleges that “from the date of its purchase in 1992 the corresponding real

property tax on the property has been duly paid.”

The records show that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-79516 (for Lot No.

187 consisting of 6,509 square meters) and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-

79515 (for Lot No. 188 consisting of 13,331 square meters) were both issued in

the name of Appellant on January 15, 1993. No copies of Tax declarations for

said lots from the year 1992 to the year 1996 could be found in the records. On

file, however, are copies of Tax Declaration Nos. 96-15003-01866 for Lot No.

187 in the name of the Hrs. of Adriano Tano and Tax Declaration No. 96-15003-

00190 for Lot No. 188 in the name of Aldemita Avelino. Both lots were classified

as “agricultural”. The unit market value for Lot 187 was P19,300.00 per hectare

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

and that for Lot 188 was P20,530.00 per hectare. The taxes for both tax

declarations were made effective the year 1997.

Also on file are Real Property Tax Clearances for both lots issued

(purportedly for “transfer of title”) by the Municipal Treasurer of Panabo on

January 27, 2000 stating that the real property taxes thereon for the year 2000

were paid on January 27, 2000, thus:

For Lot No. 187, (Hrs. of Adriano Tano), OR 3873755-T (Basic) and OR 38717104-T (SEF), Jan. 25, 2000:

Tax Dec. No. Years 14279 94-96 14279 94-96
96-15003-01866 97-99 96-15003-01866 97-99 96-15003-01866 2000 96-15003-01866 2000

Basic P123.60 P123.60
149.10 149.10 49.70 49.70

Penalty P 88.99
88.99 73.55 73.55
( 4.97) ( 4.97)

Total Kind P212.59 Basic P212.59 SEF
222.65 Basic 222.65 SEF
44.73 Basic 44.73 SEF

For Lot No. 188 (Avelino Aldemia), OR 38773754-T (Basic) and OR 38717105-T (SEF), Jan. 25, 2000:

Tax Dec. No. Years 16774 94-96 16774 94-96
96-15003-00190 97-99 96-15003-00190 97-99 96-15003-00190 2000 96-15003-00190 2000

Basic P124.20 P124.20
503.70 503.70 167.90 167.90

Penalty P 89.42
89.42 248.49 248.49
( 16.79) ( 16.79)

Total Kind P213.62 Basic P213.62 SEF
752.19 Basic 752.19 SEF
151.11 Basic 151.11 SEF

Appellant, for one reason or another, neglected to report to the Municipal

Assessor its acquisition of Lot Nos. 187 and 188 as required under the provisions

of Section 203 of R.A. 7160. Also, the previous owners did not perform their

duties required of them under Section 208 of the same Code. Said Sections 203

and 208 are quoted hereunder, viz:

“SEC. 203. Duty of Person Acquiring Real Property for Making Improvement Thereon. – It shall be the duty of any person, or his authorized representative, acquire at anytime real property in any municipality or city or making any improvement on real property, to prepare, or caused to be prepared, and file with the provincial, city or municipal assessor, a sworn statement declaring the true value of subject property, within sixty (60) days after the acquisition of such property, or upon the completion or occupancy of the improvement, whichever comes earlier.”

“SEC. 208. Notification of Transfer of Real Property Ownership. – Any person who shall transfer real property ownership to another shall notify the provincial, city or municipal assessor concerned within sixty (60) days from the date of such transfer. The notification shall include the mode of transfer, the description of the property alienated, the name and address of the transferee.”

It is quite interesting and a bit surprising to note that Appellant never

presented, in any stage of the proceedings both before the Local Board and this

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

Board, the deeds of conveyance for the subject parcels of land. If appellant were

sincere enough, it could have at least mentioned the amounts of the acquisition

costs of said parcels of land in support of the true and fair market values of the

same lots. In any case, Appellant never gave any idea as to the said fair market


It is believed that Appellant made the payments for real property taxes on

subject properties from the year 1993, the year immediately following the year

(1992) when the same properties were acquired by Appellants, up to the y ear

2000. It would be inconceivable to assume that the former owners still paid for

such taxes after they had parted with their said properties. As previously stated,

said taxes were based on the tax declarations in the names of the former


What, then, is or are the implications of Appellant’s failure to advise the

Assessor on the acquisitions of subject properties as required under Section 203

of R.A. 7160?

Neither the parties hereto nor the Local Board concerned dwelt upon the

above question.

Appellant’s failure to report its acquisition of Lots 187 and 188, due to

simple negligence or otherwise, prompted the Assessor’s to assess the same

properties for the year 1999. This action by the Assessor’s must have been

based on the provisions of Sections 220 and 222 of R.A. 7160 which we quote

hereunder, thus:

“SEC. 220. Valuation of Real Property. – In cases where (a) real property is declared and listed for taxation purposes for the first time; (b) there is an ongoing general revision of property classification and assessment, or (c) a request is made by the person in whose name the property is declared, the provincial, city or municipal assessor or his duly authorized deputy shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, make a classification, appraisal and assessment of the real property listed and described in the valuation thereon: Provided, however, That the assessment of real property shall not be increased oftener than once every three (3) years except in case of new improvements substantially increasing the value of said property or of any change in its actual use.” (Underscoring supplied)

SEC. 222. Assessment of Real Property subject to Back Taxes. – Real Property declared for the first time shall be assessed for taxes for the period during which it would have been liable but in no case for more than ten (10) years prior to the date of initial assessment: Provided, however, That taxes shall

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

be computed on the basis of the applicable schedule of values in force during the corresponding period.

“x x x.”
however, That taxes shall be computed on the basis of the applicable schedule of values in force during the corresponding period.

“x x x.”

The City Assessor, for her part, was not so prudent, either. Lands, unlike

buildings or other improvements on the lands, are not made or manufactured or

constructed except, perhaps, by accession, a sufficiently reasonable mind would

have been curious as to necessitate a trace on the map or some other records of

landholdings in the municipality or city.

Be that as it may, the assessment for back taxes should have been based

on the applicable schedule of values in force during the corresponding

period as required under Section 222, supra. If no schedule of values was

applicable at the time, said assessment should have been based on the amounts

of the considerations or the purchase/sales values of the parcels of land as

reflected in the deeds of sale.

In answer to the Local Board’s contention that the taxes due should have

been paid first before the protest to the City Treasurer, Appellant says that, in

accordance with the provisions of Section 221 of R.A. 7160, the taxes subject of

this appeal were not yet due when the protest to the City Treasurer was made.

We disagree. The questioned assessments were made sometime in 1999.

The taxes due for the year 1999 were supposed to be for back taxes due to the

failure of Appellant to declare the subject properties prior and up to 1999. The

taxes due beginning the year 2000 are based on tax declarations made in 1999.

Appellant filed its first protest on September 14, 2001. We do not see any

violation of said Section 221. In any event, this matter is not important since, as

said earlier, this appeal should have been governed by the provisions of Section

226 – not 252 – of R.A. 7160.

The gist of Appellant’s protest is based on the Appellant’s capacity or

ability to pay the realty taxes. Appellant suggests that it should be taxed on the

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

basis of its income derived from the operations of the memorial park or on the

amounts generated through the sale of burial lots.

While we may sympathize with the plight of Appellant, the tax under Title

Two (Real Property Taxation) of Book II of R.A. 7160 is principally based on the

fair market values of the real properties subject to the tax, not on the income or

the amount of sales derived therefrom. Real property taxes are governed by the

Local Government Code of 1991; income and sales taxes are governed by other


On the matter of the burial lots already conveyed by deeds of sale, the

same fall within the scope of the term “non-profit burial grounds” and are,

therefore, exempt from the payment of the real property tax. Thus, in Rolling Hills

Memorial Park, In. v. BAA of Bacolod City and City Assessor of Bacolod City

(CBAA Case No. 259), this Board held:

“x x x, this Board is of the view that once the ownership of the burial lots has been conveyed to the purchasers by means of a Deed of Sale, said burial lots fall within the scope of the term “non-profit burial grounds” which are “exempt” from real property tax under Section 40(b) of P.D. 464, since the factor of profitability is not present as regards the purchaser. Accordingly, non-profit burial grounds shall likewise include burial lots sold on instalment basis. Thus, in the assessment of the developed portion of subject memorial park, the area covering the exempt burial park of the said developed portion, shall be excluded beginning with the year following the conveyance of ownership or sale of the burial lots.

“The unsold burial lots were classified correctly as commercial as they form part of the developed portion of the cemetery and are still in the category of profit burial grounds.”

The act of selling a burial lot, however, does not automatically exempt the

memorial park from the payment of the real property tax thereon. In order for the

memorial park – or any seller, for that matter – to be rid of the tax burden on the

alienated portions of the property, it must, in accordance with the provisions of

Section 220, supra, request the assessor for a re-assessment of subject

property. The effectivity of such re-assessment shall be made effective the

quarter next following the quarter during which the cause or ground for

cancellation or reduction has occurred in accordance with the provisions of

Section 4, paragraph 2 (c), No. 1, of Local Assessment Regulations No. 1-92 of

Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304

the Department of Finance promulgated pursuant to Section 201 and 219 of R.A.

7160 which provides thus:

“c. Effectivity of assessment under the foregoing cases shall be as follows:

“(1) Cancellation or reduction of assessment shall be made effective the quarter next following the quarter during which the cause or ground for cancellation or reduction has occurred.”

WHEREFORE, this Board, after due consideration of the premises, has

decided to AMEND the decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of

the Province of Davao del Norte dated April 20, 2003 to read ad follows:

1. Tax Declaration Nos. 98-15003-01680 (for Lot 187) and 98-15003-

01678 (for Lot 188) should be revised by using the amounts of the considerations

reflected in respective deeds of sale as the fair market values of said properties;

2. Tax Declaration Nos. 99-15003-01699 (for Lot 187) and 99-06003-

01697 (for Lot 188) should be revised in accordance with the provisions of

Section 220 of R.A. 7160 and Section 4 of Local Assessment Regulations No. 1-

92 as soon as the Panabo Memorial Park, Inc. requests for such revisions, which

requests for revision must be supported with deeds of conveyance for the

alienated burial lots;

3. The real property taxes already paid for the years 1999 and 2000 in

the names of the previous owners of Lots 187 and 188 should be deducted from

those due from Panabo Memorial Park, Inc. for the same periods.


Manila, Philippines, July 15, 2004.




Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304