Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila
PANABO MEMORIAL PARK, INC. Petitioner-Appellant,
– versus –
CITY ASSESSOR AND TREASURER OF PANABO CITY,
Respondents-Appellees,
CBAA CASE NO. M-18
Re: LBAA Case No. 012002
– and –
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF DAVAO DEL NORTE,
Appellee. x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
D E C I S I O N
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
cemeteries.”
The dispositive portion of the LBAA’s decision dated April 20, 2003 states
thus:
“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.
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
Kind
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
Owner
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
values.
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
owners.
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
laws.
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.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, July 15, 2004.
(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman
(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member
(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES
Member
Reference: Book X, pp. 290-304