Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila
MILA N. BUSCAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
– versus –
CBAA CASE NO. V-07 LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS OF THE ILOILO,
PROVINCE OF
Appellee,
– and –
PROVINCIAL ASSSESSOR OF ILOILO, Respondent-Appellee.
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x
DECISION
This is an appeal from the Decision rendered by the Appellee Local
Board on August 19, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the aforementioned re-assessment of the properties as agricultural lands, portion of which are residential, the assessment of the building and commercial lot being in consonance with schedule of market value as approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province of Iloilo under Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-002, and justified per report, Annex “C”, the re-assessment is hereby affirmed. The appeal relating to change in classification of the parcels of land from commercial to residential is hereby dismissed.”
In her Notice of Appeal, filed with this Board on September 8, 1994,
Petitioner-Appellant alleged that she received a copy of the Local Board’s
Decision on September 6, 1994. In her appeal, filed with this Board on October
6, 1994, Petitioner-Appellant made an assignment of errors, which we quote:
“I. The Local Board erred in affirming the reassessment made on:
“a. House on Cadastral Lot #20 covered by Tax Dec. #2337, per report marked as Annex “A”.
“b. Cad. Lot #4010 under TCT #84028 Agricultural Land with residential portion, with Tax Dec. #0182 marked as Annex “C”.
“c. Cad. Lot #4051-B under TCT No. T._______ Agricultural Land covered by Tax Dec. No. 0220 marked as Annex “C”.
“II. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals erred in dismissing the request to re-classify Commercial Lot No. 20 covered by TCT No. 17421 under Tax Dec. #2336.
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
“III. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals erred in ignoring other appeals dated 3/21/1994.”
Petitioner-Appellant states that, as far as Error No. I-a is concerned, the
Appellee Board “failed to consider the fact that some of the entries leading to
the total reassessed market value of the land are not in the schedule of market
values under Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-002 as approved by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan.” For Error No. I-b, Petitioner-Appellant alleges that,
in effect, the Local Board failed to consider Petitioner-Appellant’s own
computations for Lot No. 4010. For Error No. I-c, Petitioner-Appellant says that
the area classified as sugarland in Lot No. 4051-B should be under Class 3,
instead of Class 2, since Lot No. 4051-B is adjacent to Lot No. 4010, the
sugarland area of which is under Class 3.
For Error No. II, Petitioner-Appellant maintains that Lot No. 20, being
actually used as residential, should be classified as such, instead of
commercial.
The historical assessments of Lot No. 20, subject of Assignment of Error
No. II, follows:
T.D. Classification No.
2233 Res. 2336 Com. 2369 Com.
Effectivity
1990 1994 1995
Market Value
P163,800.00 P176,220.00
Assess. Level
50% 20%
Assessed Value
P13,950.00 P81,900.00 P35,240.00
Tax Declaration No. 2336, effective 1994, placed the location of Lot No.
20 at the corner of Crispin Salazar Street and Concepcion Street, while under
Tax Declaration No. 2369, effective 1995, its location is at the corner of Crispin
Salazar Street and Domitilo Abordo Street in Janiuay, Iloilo. Perhaps,
“Concepcion Street” may have been renamed to “Domitilo Street”.
At the hearing of this case on August 31, 1995, Respondent-Appellee
presented a copy of the Urban Zoning Map for the years 1990 to 2000 of the
Municipality of Janiuay, together with a copy of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991) of the Municipality of Janiuay,
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
which was approved by the Sangguniang Bayan of Janiuay on September 17,
1991 per Resolution No. 446, Series of 1991, and formally adopted by the
same Sangguniang Bayan on June 30, 1992. In accordance with the said
zoning map and ordinance, the property in question is located within the area
which is classified as Commercial Zone C-2 (Commercial-2). Thus Article V,
Section 3-B of the said ordinance states:
“B – COMMERCIAL ZONES
“x x x
“C – 2 A strip of 40-m. deep along Crispin Salazar St. from corner of Concepcion St. going towards the corner of Don Tiburcio Lutero St. up to corner of Capt. Tirador St. along Don Tiburcio Street.”
Contrary to the above, both Tax Declaration Nos. 2336 (1994) and 2369
(1995) classified the lot as Commercial-1 (C-1) with a unit value of P360.00 per
square meter. However, Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-002 (approved by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo on March 10, 1993 per Resolution No. 93-
059 to take effect on January 1, 1994) fixes, under Section 2 thereof, the
market value for commercial lands classified as C-1 in Janiuay at P360.00 per
square meter. There are no provisions for market values of commercial lands in
Janiuay under other classifications.
There appears to be a mathematical error in the computation of the
market value of Lot No. 20 for 1994. Tax Declaration No. 2336 states the area
of the lot was 445 square meters and the market value was P360 per square
meter. Therefore, the total market value should have been only P160,200.00,
instead of P163,800.00, or an overvaluation of P3,600.00. The market value for
1995 was also at P360.00 per square meter, or a total of P160,200.00, plus
10% thereof for corner influence.
Petitioner-Appellant’s letter-request dated February 17, 1994 to reclassify
Lot No. 20 from Commercial to Residential was received by the Respondent-
Appellee on February 18, 1994.
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
The real property tax for 1994 was paid under protest per Official Receipt
No. 1205952-Q, dated March 30, 1994, (Exh. “A-1”).
Petitioner-Appellant insists that, since the lot is actually used for
residential purposes, the same shall be classified, valued and assessed as
residential, in accordance with Section 217 of R.A. 7160, otherwise known as
Local Government Code of 1991, which we quote:
“SEC. 217. Actual Use of Property as Basis for Assessment. – Real property shall be classified, valued and assessed on the basis of its actual use regardless of where located, whoever owns its, and whoever uses it.”
Since the assessment in question was made in July of 1993, the law
applicable thereto is aforementioned Section 217 of R.A. 7160.
This Board, through its Hearing Officer, conducted an ocular inspection of
the subject parcel of land on January 25, 1995, in the presence of Mr. and Mrs.
Luis Buscar, the Respondent-Appellee and some personnel of the offices of the
Local Board, Provincial Engineer, Provincial Assessor, and Municipla Assessor
of Janiuay, all of the province of Iloilo.
There was no question that the subject lot was situated within the area
classified as Commercial Zone 2. Therefore, this lot should be classified and
valued as “Commercial” in accordance with Article VIII (C) of Assessment
Regulations No. 8-75, dated June 16, 1975, implementing P.D. 464, and/or with
Section 11(B) of Local Regulations No. 1-92, dated October 6, 1992,
implementing R.A. 7160, both of which provisions are identical, thus:
“In an area of mixed land uses, such as residential with commercial or industrial, the predominant use of the lands in that area shall govern the classification, valuation and assessment thereof. If the predominant use is residential, all lands in that area shall be classified, valued and assessed as residential; if the predominant use is commercial or industrial, all lands in that area shall be classified, valued and assessed as such.”
The assessment level, however, for the said parcel of land, for the year
1994, should only be thirty percent (30%), instead of fifty percent (50%) as used
in Tax Declaration No. 2336, pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII(B) of
Assessment Regulations No. 8-75, supra, and/or Section 11(C) of Assessment
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
Regulations No. 1-92, supra. Article VIII(B) of Assessment Regulations No. 8-
75 states:
“B. However, a lot or parcel of land classified and valued as commercial or industrial according to the schedule of base market values but occupied by a building or buildings principally or predominantly used for residential purposes shall be assessed as residential at 30% of its market value determined on the basis of that scheduled.”
Section 11(C) of Assessment Regulations No. 1-92 provides that:
“C. A lot or parcel of land classified and valued as commercial or industrial occupied by a building used both for residential and commercial or industrial purposes shall be assessed on the basis of the predominant use of the building. If residential, the assessment level fixed thereon for residential land shall be applied on the market value of the lot or parcel determined on the basis of the schedule of base market values; if industrial or commercial, the assessment level for industrial or commercial shall be applied on the market value of the lot or parcel determined on the basis of the schedule of base market values.”
Even before the effectivity of P.D. 464 and its implementing Assessment
Regulations No. 8-75, the policy on the assessment level of lands classified and
valued as commercial or industrial, but occupied by a building predominantly
used for residential purposes, had always been the same. Thus, in the case of
City Assessor of Manila vs. BAA of Manila & Leonardo H. Guison, CBAA Case
No. 82, this Board said:
“Records show that the subject land is located in a commercial area and that the bigger portion of the building built thereon is devoted to residential use. Pursuant to Department Order No. 3-74 of the Department of Finance implementing PD 76 we find that the actual use of the land is, although located in a commercial area, predominantly or principally residential. The rule on this point does not intend to produce a split categorization of the real property (Nos. 4-6, Department Order No. 3-74, supra.) The assessment level of residential land shall be applied to its market value arrived at in accordance with the schedule of market values for commercial lands.
“Consequently, x x x 30% assessment level for residential lands shall be applied to the market value of the land x x x.”
The residential building (subject of Assignment of Error No. I-a) on Lot
No. 20 was supposed to have been rendered habitable in the year 1984. The
real property taxes for 1991 through 1994 was paid under protest as shown by
Official Receipt No. 1205951-1, dated March 30, 1994 (Exh.”A”). The
assessments of said building from 1985 to 1994 were as follows:
T.D. Classi-No. fication 2117 Res. 2334 Res.
Effecti vity
1985 1990
Market Value
P327,380.00 P327,380.00
Assess. Level
65% 65%
Assessed Value
P212,800.00 P212,800.00
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
2337 Res. 1994 P650,920.00 25% P162,730.00
Attached to the Local Board’s decision dated August 19, 1994 as Annex
“A” is a report of “Findings Of Ocular Inspection Conducted on March 10-11,
1994” on the subject buildings, together with a sketch of the building and other
improvements, and computations of areas and values.
During the ocular inspection of January 25, 1995, this Board found the
abovementioned report to be substantially correct, except that the flooring of
the hallway leading to the bedroom were not wood tile-finished as reported, but
made of ordinary wood lumber. However, the discrepancy is not significant
enough as to affect the overall value reported. The unit market values used
were in accordance with the figures mandated under Provincial Tax Ordinance
No. 93-002. The adjusted total market value is net of an allowance for
depreciation of twenty percent (20%). The assessment level of 25% is likewise
in accordance with the said Provincial Tax Ordinance. There is no valid reason,
therefore, to disturb the assessment of the said residential building.
Lot Nos. 4010 and 4051-B, subject of Assignment of Error Nos. I-b and I-
c, respectively, were assessed for 1994 and 1995, as follows:
LOT NO. 4010
AREA (IN HA) CLASS UNIT VALUES ——————- ————— ——————–
T.D. Nos. 0182 0324 0182 0324 0182 0324 Eff. Yrs. 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
—————— —————- ——————–Agricultural Land:
Sugar 2.6955 6.0000 3 3 P51,500 P44,300 Rice Un. 2.0000 2.0000 2 2 37,800 37,000 Corn 5.3000 2.0000 2 2 19,390 19,390 Orchard 0.1000 0.1255 2 2 25,790 25,790 Bamboo 0.1790 0.1790 2 2 17,000 17,000 Coconut 0.3000 0.3000 2 2 17,000 17,000
——— ———10.5745 10.6045
Less: 6% Adjustment
Adjusted Market Values Res. Land 0.1000 0.0700 R-4 R-4 P 1,140,000
——— ——–Totals 10.6745 10.6745
———- ———-
MARKET VALUES —————————-
0182 0324 1994 1995
————————————
P138,818.25 P265,800.00 75,600.00 75,600.00
102,767.00 38,780.00 2,579.00 3,236.65 3,043.00 3,043.00 5,310.00 5,310.00
—————– —————-P328,117.25 P391,769.65
19,687.04 23,506.18 —————– —————-P308,430.22 P368,263.47
114,000.00 79,800.00 —————- —————-P422,430.22 P448,063.47 —————- —————-
Improvements: Kind
——————-
CLASS
—————-
UNIT VALUES ——————-
MARKET VALUES
————————————-
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
1994 1995 —— ——
1994 1995 —— ——
1994 1995 —— ——-
Banana Coffee Bamboo Coconut Mango
SUMMARY:
15 20 P 120 P 120 25 80
10 10 300 300 30 30 160 160 1 1,600
Less: 6% Adjustment
Adjusted Market Values
P 1,800.00 0.00
3,000.00 4,800.00 0.00
—————P 9,600.00
576.00 —————P 9,024.00 —————
P 2,400.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,800.00 1,600.00
————–P13,800.00
828.00 —————P12,972.00 —————
MARKET VALUES ————————–
1994 1995 —— ——
Agri. Land P308,430 P368,260 Land Imp. 9,020 12,970 Res. Land 114,000 79,800
Totals
ASST. LEVEL ——————1994 1995
—— ——40% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20%
ASSESSED VALUES
—————————————1994 1995
—— ——P123,370.00 P147,300.00
3,610.00 5,190.00 22,800.00 15,960.00
—————- —————-P149,780.00 P168,450.00 —————- —————-
LOT NO. 4051-B
AREA (IN HA) CLASS UNIT VALUES ——————- ————— ——————–
T.D. Nos. 0220 0325 0220 0325 0220 0325 Eff. Yrs. 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1995
—————— —————- ——————–Agricultural Land:
Sugar 8.0000 7.6000 2 23 P66,240 P57,000 Rice Un. 1.0000 2.0000 2 2 37,800 37,800 Rice Un. 1.0000 2 16,930
Orchard 0.1700 2 25,790 Bamboo 0.1000 2 17,000 Coconut 0.1000 2 17,700
——— ———10.0000 9.9700
Less: 15% Adjustment
Adjusted Market Values Res. Land 0.0300 R-5 540,000
——— ——–Totals 10.0000 10.0000
———- ———-
MARKET VALUES
—————————–0220 0325 1994 1995
————————————
P529,920.00 P433,200.00 37,800.00 75,600.00 16,930.00 0.00
0.00 4,384.30 0.00 1,700.00 0.00 1,770.00
—————– —————-P584,650.00 P516,654.30
87,697.50 77,498.14 —————– —————-P496,952.50 P439,156.16
0.00 16,200.00 —————- —————-P496,952.50 P455,356.16 —————- —————-
Improvements: Kind
——————-
CLASS
—————-1994 1995
—— ——
UNIT VALUES ——————-
1994 1995 —— ——
MARKET VALUES
————————————-1994 1995
—— ——-
Banana Bamboo Coconut
SUMMARY:
12 P 120 4 300 6 160
Less: 15% Adjustment
Adjusted Market Values
—————
0.00 —————
0.00 —————
P 1,440.00 1,200.00
960.00 ————–P 3,600.00
540.00 —————P 3,060.00 —————
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
Agri. Land Land Imp. Res. Land
Totals
MARKET VALUES ————————–
1994 1995 —— ——
496,950 439,160 3,060
16,200
ASST. LEVEL ——————1994 1995
—— ——40% 40% 40% 40% 20% 20%
ASSESSED VALUES
—————————————1994 1995
—— ——P198,780.00 P175,660.00
1,220.00 3,240.00
—————- —————-P198,780.00 P180,120.00 —————- —————-
Lot No. 4010 is primarily an agricultural land, with residential portions,
situated in Brgy. Dabong, Janiuay, Iloilo. It is bounded on the north by a
provincial road. The sugarland portion of this lot was classified as No. 3 in both
1994 and 1995. But the unit value per hectare for the same portion was
P51,500.00 in 1994 and P44,300.00 in 1995. Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-
002, supra, which took effect on January 1, 1994, places the unit market value
of Class 3 sugarland in Janiuay at P44,300.00 per hectare.
Lot No. 4051-B is also an agricultural land with residential portions and is
situated in the same barangay of Dabong, it is about two lots (Lot Nos. 4051-A
and 4038), to the south of the provincial road and about two lots away to the
southeast of Lot No. 4010.
The sugarland portion of Lot No. 4051-B was classified as No. 2 in both
1994 and 1995. But the unit value per hectare for the same portion was
P66,240.00 in 1994 and P57,000.00 in 1995. Provincial Ordinance No. 93-002,
supra, places the unit market value of Class 2 sugarland in Janiuay at
P57,000.00 per hectare.
The real property tax for 1994 on Lot No. 4010 was paid under protest
per Official Receipt No. 1205953-Q dated March 30, 1994 (Exh. “A-2”); and that
on Lot No. 4051-B for the same year was paid under protest per Official Receipt
No. 1205954-Q, dated March 30, 1994 (Annex “A-3”).
As mentioned, Lot No. 4010 is situated along the provincial road, while
Lot 4051-B is two lots away from the same road. Yet the sugarland portion of
Lot No. 4051-B, which has no access to the provincial road, is classified as No.
2, while that for Lot No. 4010, which is along the provincial road, is classified as
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
No. 3 with lower base market value. Petitioner-Appellant argues that the
sugarland portion of Lot No. 4051-B should at least be classified as Class 3, the
same classification as the sugarland portion of Lot 4010.
Respondent-Appellee contended that the classification for the sugarland
portion of Lot No. 4010 was an oversight since all the sugarlands in Brgy.
Dabong were classified as No. 2. In support of his contention, Respondent-
Appellee presented a Sketch Plan of Brgy. Dabong, together with the tax
declarations for some one hundred twelve (112) lots in the area. The tax
declarations show that all the sugarland portions of said lots were classified as
No. 2, except that for Lot No. 4010 which is classified as No. 3. There were no
appeals or petitions for review filed with the Appellee Board concerning the
assessments of the parcels of land in Brgy. Dabong, except the instant appeal.
Petitioner-Appellant states that the Rice-Unirrigated portion of Lot No.
4010 should have been classified as Class 3, instead of Class 2, since the
Riceland is not productive and that the residential portion of Lot No. 4010
should have been classified as Class R-5, instead of R-4, since the houses on
residential portion of Lot No. 4010 are worse than those on the residential
portion of Lot No. 4051-B which is classified as R-5.
Petitioner-Appellant may have been correct in her appreciation of the
condition of the Riceland at the time she inspected the same land, if indeed she
did inspect. But this is beside the point. There is not even an allegation on her
part, much less, proof, that the land is not suitable for rice, or that its
productivity is less than that of the Riceland classified as Class 2.
On the matter of the residential portions of Lot Nos. 4010 and 4051-B, it
is but proper that the residential portion of Lot No. 4010 should have a higher
classification and, consequently a higher valuation, that that of Lot No. 4051-B
since Lot No. 4010 is along the provincial road while Lot No. 4051-B is in the
interior. While it may be true that the condition of the houses on Lot No. 4010
are worse than that of the houses on Lot No. 4051-B, it is the residential
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
portions of the land – not the houses – which are the subjects of the
assessments. Besides which, the assessments being questioned are those for
1994, and the assessment for Lot No. 4051-B for that year does not show a
portion of the lot devoted for residential purposes.
Petitioner-Appellant claims that the market values used for the 1994
assessments were not in accordance with Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-
002, supra. As mentioned hereinbefore, the sugarland portions of both Lot Nos.
4010 and 4051-B were assigned the base market values P51,500.00 and
P66,240.00, respectively, per hectare effective 1994. Effective in 1995, the
base market values used were P44,300.00 and P57,000.00, respectively, per
hectare, which are in accordance with the said tax ordinance.
Petitioner-Appellant has a point, although Respondent-Appellee may say
that when the assessments for Lot Nos. 4010 and 4051-B (Tax Declaration
Nos. 0182 and 0220, respectively) were made in June of 1993, prior to the
enactment of Provincial Tax Ordinance No. 93-002. However, as shown above,
the market values used for the other portions of both lots, including the
improvements thereon, were the same in 1994 as in 1995. Everybody knows
that, barring any extraordinary forces affecting adversely the economic
conditions of a locality, lands in that locality continuously appreciate in value. It
is safe to assume that Respondent-Appellee considered just, fair and current
the schedule of market values he submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Iloilo, and which became the basis for the enactment of Provincial Tax
Ordinance No. 93-002, supra. Hence, the market values used for the
assessments of Lot Nos. 4010 and 4051-B effective 1994 were overstated.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Appellee Local Board of Assessment
Appeals of Iloilo dated August 9, 1994 is hereby AMENDED, thus:
1. There being no cogent reason to disturb the assessment of the
residential building on Lot No. 20, Tax Declaration No. 2337, the same is
hereby AFFIRMED;
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
2. Due to a mathematical error, the total market value for Lot No. 20,
Tax Declaration No. 2336, should be P160,200.00, instead of P163,800.00, and
the assessment level should be 30%, instead of 50%. Accordingly, the over
payment of real property taxes on said lot for 1994 in the amount of P541.44
resulting from the abovementioned errors shall be applied to current or future
real property taxes due on the said lot. The overpayment of P541.44 is arrived
at as follows:
As shown on O.R. #1205952-Q, March 30, 1994, Exh. “A-1”:
Market Value
————
Assmt Level
——–
Assessed Value
————
2% Tax
————
20% Disc.
————
Net Amount
————-
P163,800 50% P81,900 P1,638.00 (P327.60) P1,310.40
Should have been:
P160,200 30% P48,060 P 961.20 (P192.24) P 768.96
———— ——Net Overpayment
———- ————- ———— ————-P 541.44 ————-
3. The sugarland portions of Lot Nos. 4010 (T.D. #0182) and 4051-B
(T.D. #0220) should be valued at P44,300 and P57,000, respectively, the same
amounts effective 1995. Consequently, the overpayments in realty taxes for
1994 (P124.19 for T.D. #0182 and P473.12 for T.D. #0220) shall be applied to
current and/or future real property taxes dues on the respective lots.
Such overpayments are computed as follows:
Sugarland portion of Lot No. 4010, T.D. No. 0182:
As shown on O.R. #1205953-Q, March 30, 1994, Exh. “A-2”:
Market Value
————
Assmt Level
——–
Assessed Value
————
2% Tax
————
20% Disc.
————
Net Amount
————-
P308,430 40% P123,370 P2,467.40 (P493.48) P1,973.92
Should have been:
P289,020 40% P115,608 P2,312.61 (P462.43) P1,849.73
———— ——Net Overpayment
———— ————- ———— ————-P 124.19 ————-
Sugarland portion of Lot No. 4051-B, T.D. No. 0220:
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77
As shown on O.R. #1205954-Q, March 30, 1994, Exh. “A-3”:
Market Assmt Value Level
Assessed 2% Value Tax
20% Net Disc. Amount
————P496,950
——–40%
————P198,780
———— ———— ————-P3,975.60 (P795.12) P3,180.48
Should have been:
P423,030 40% ———— ——
P169,210 ————
P3,384.20 ————-
(P676.84) ————
P2,707.36 ————-
Net Overpayment P 473.12 ————-
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, July 17, 1996.
(Signed) MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO
Chairman
(Signed)
ELEANOR A. SANTOS VACANT Member Member
Reference: Book IX, pp. 60-77