Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS M a n I l a

JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO,
Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –

PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF LEYTE and MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR OF PALO, LEYTE,
Respondents-Appellants,

– and –

LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF LEYTE,
Appellee. x——————————————————x

CBAA CASE NO. V-14

In Re: TD Nos. 9630034-724 9630027-299 9630027-300
9630027-301 9630027-304 9630027-305

LBAA CASE NO. 009

Province of Leyte

D E C I S I O N

On September 1, 1998 the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Leyte

rendered a decision in Tax Assessment Case No. 009, the dispositive portion of

which reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Provincial Board of Tax Assessment Appeals hereby renders decision:

“1. Ordering the Provincial Assessor of Leyte and the Municipal Assessor of Palo to make a correctional revision of the properties subject of the appeal applying the approved schedule of unit value of the property in question based on the findings of the filed inspection and investigation report of the Municipal Assessor of Palo, Leyte dated July 10, 1998;

“2. Ordering the Municipal Assessor of Palo to furnish the petitioner copies of tax declaration so revised; and thereafter to notify landowners on any ongoing revision of real property assessment and furnishing them copies of tax declarations/ARP immediately thereafter pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160.”

Both Petitioner-Appellant Juan P. Puertollano and Respondent-Appellant

Provincial Assessor of Leyte appealed.

It appears from the records that Mr. Juan P. Puertollano, Petitioner-

Appellant in the case at bar, filed an appeal with the Provincial Board of Tax

Assessment Appeals, Tacloban City (Local Board of Assessment Appeals of

Leyte) for “Reduction of Excessive Tax Assessments, etc. or Violation of Sec.

Nos. 213,218 and 223 and Wrong Determination of Rightful or Legal Owner,

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

Sec. No. 204, all of the Local Government Code of 1991. Tax Dec. Nos.

9630034-724, 9630027-299, 9630027-300, 9630027-301, 9630027-304,

9630027-305-Mun. of Palo, Leyte.” The records does not show, however, when

the said appeal – dated, subscribed and sworn to on March 13, 1998 – was

actually received by the local board concerned.

In his appeal to the LBAA, Mr. Juan P. Puertollano alleged that he was

either the landowner or administrator of the real properties covered by the said

tax declarations; that he only knew that a general revision of property

assessments was conducted in 1997 when he visited the Office of the

Municipal Assessor of Palo, Leyte on January 12, 1998 for the purpose of

securing duplicate landowner’s copies of the tax declarations; and that, instead

of giving him the said owner’s copies of the tax declarations, the Office of the

Municipal Assessor of Palo required him to secure certified true copies of said

declarations. Mr. Puertollano’s appeal was based on the following grounds:

“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

“a) As landowner, the undersigned appellant was never summoned by the Municipal Assessor in order to take evidence related to the general revision of assessments pursuant to Section No. 213 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

“b) Assessment Level of Agricultural Land with Fair Market Value of P300,000.00 and below is 25% only, not 40% as applied by the Municipal Assessor. The 40%, supra, is applicable to Agricultural lands with fair market value of over P750,000 to not over P1,000,000.

“c) The Municipal Assessor-Appellee failed to send Notification of Revised Assessment nor the duplicate landowner’s copies of the tax declarations to the undersigned Petitioner-Appellant, covering all the agricultural properties mentioned under paragraph 3, supra, pursuant to Section No. 223 of the Local Government Code of 1991, specifically, to furnish the landowner, the same 30 days or earlier after the revision of assessment.

“d) Respondent-Appellee Municipal Assessor Jose M. Pesario of Palo, Leyte, erred in declaring lot 1479, Case 2, Cadastral 407, in the name of Julian Puertollano of Sta. Cruz, Palo, Leyte, with a total area of Fifty-six ares and Twenty centares (0.5620 Ha.). The truth of the matter Lot 1479, Case 2, Cad. 407, Municipality of Palo, Province of Leyte, was surveyed under the name of Juan P. Puertollano and covered by OCT No. 38391 (xerox copy attached hereof and marked as Annex “J”) containing an area of only Twenty-ARES and Eighteen CENTARES (0.2818 Ha.), and purchased by the undersigned appellant from his uncle, late Narciso Puertollano on January 12, 1970, as per Deed of Sale, notarized by Municipal Judge Miguel V. Roca, Ex-Officio Notary Public, under Doc. No. 6, Page No. 52, Book No. 3, Series of 1970, xerox copy attached hereof and marked as Annex “K” (Fourth Parcel per Deed of Sales.)

“e) All the real properties abovementioned, paragraph 3 hereof, are with excessive and confiscatory tax assessments because of errors of the present classification of the land, production, area and increase in number of

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

permanent plants. What the undersigned appellant believes, the inspection/investigation made by the representative of the Municipal Assessor was only on the table revision of assessments.

Mr. Juan P. Puertollano’s “arguments” in his appeal before the local

board were basically reiterations of his “assignment of errors”.

In his “Answer to Summons” dated and filed with the local board on

March 30, 1998, the Provincial Assessor of Leyte stated thus:

“1. That there is no showing that the appeal to the LBAA was made within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the Notice of Assessment or revised assessment or tax declaration when he appealed to the Local Board concerned (Sec. 2, Rule 1, CBAA/LBAA Procedures);

“2. That the Municipal Assessor who made the alleged assessment is not included in the caption made by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals which is a violation of Section 4 (INFRA);

“3. That another requisite for the appeal is that the Notice of Assessment and also the tax declaration concerned should be attached (Section 5 INFRA);

“4. That another requisite is that the Real Property Taxes shall first be paid showing the receipt of payment to be attached to the petition (Sec. 7 INFRA and Sec. 229-252, 226 & 231 of RA 7160;

“5. That the Provincial Assessor deny all the allegations contained in the appeal to the LBAA for being erroneous and untruthful with regards to the ascertaining of the facts and the law;

“6. That the Provincial Assessor adopts in toto the answer of the Municipal Assessor, quoted,

“Sir, with reference to your Unnumbered Order dated March 25, 1998, the undersigned respectfully submitted an answer to unnumbered PBAA Case: Juan P. Puertollano, Petitioner-Appellant versus Jose M. Pesario, Municipal Assessor, Respondent-Appellee, as follows:

“-letter a, of item 4, page 2 of the same case, Under Section 219, of Local Government Code of 1991 General Revision of Assessment and Property Classification. The Office of the Provincial and Municipal Assessor are mandated by law to undertake a General Revision of real property within two (2) years after effectivity of this code and every three (3) years thereafter,

“-letter b of item 4, page 2, erroneous of assessment level, it is very clear under Section 218 of this Code assessment level applied to appraisal of agricultural land is 40%, may be the Petitioner-Appellant refer to the building and other structures use for agricultural purposes,

“-letter c of item 4, page 2, suggest to Petitioner-Appellant to furnish both Provincial and Municipal Assessor Office the correct/exact address, so the owners copy of Tax Declaration/Assessment of Real Property will be send accordingly,

“-letter d of item 4, page 3, this pertain to transfer of ownership, Under Section 218 of Local Government Code of 1991-Notification of transfer of Real Property Ownership, Petitioner-Appellant, shall notify the provincial, city or municipal

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

assessor concerned within sixty (60) from the date of such transfer, description of property alienated, the name and address of the transferee. This also enable the assessor concerned to update his records or assessment roll.

“-letter e of item 4, page 4 of the same case. Before a general revision of assessment and property classification, a schedule of unit values have been prepared and approved by Sangguniang Panlalawigan, this refer to Section 212 of Local Government Code of 1991.

“-letter e-I of page 4, land classification, under Section 202, Declaration of Real Property by the Owner or Administrator. It shall be the duty of the owner or administrator to file a sworn statement where his property is located within the time prescribed in the Office of the Provincial or Municipal Assessors Office, such sworn statement shall contained a description of the property sufficient in detail, to enable the assessor or his deputy to identify, classify the same for assessment purposes.”

The Provincial Assessor prayed that “the case be dismissed for being not

in consonance with form and substance which are mandatory requirement and

the LBAA has not required jurisdiction.”

The Municipal Assessor of Palo, Leyte, Mr. Jose M. Pesario, in his own

“Answer to Summons” dated and received by the local board on April 3, 1998,

repeatedly basically the contents of the Provincial Assessor’s “Answer to

Summons”.

In his “Reply to Answer to Summons and Opposition to the Motion to

Dismiss” dated May 18, 1998, Mr. Juan P. Puertollano stated as follows:

1. That he secured and was given, after payment of certification fees, certified true copies of the questioned tax declarations on January 13, 1998; that he received the Notice of Revision of Assessment dated April 8, 1998, together with copies of four (4) tax declarations (Nos. 9630027-00299 to 00301 and 9630027-00304), on April 17, 1998; and that he filed his appeal to the local board on March 13, 1998, exactly sixty (60) days from and after January 13, 1998;

2. That the exclusion of the Municipal Assessor in the caption of the case before the local board was a prerogative of the said local board, the Provincial Assessor being the approving officer and the Municipal Assessor, the subordinate;

3. That only certified true copies of the questioned tax declarations were attached to the appeal, the official Notice of Revision of Assessment (dated April 8, 1998 with owner’s copies of only 4 tax declarations) having been received only on April 17, 1998;

4. That, since no new tax declarations were received by hi, he paid the 1997 realty taxes on October 6, 1997 based on the old tax declarations, as shown by the Statement of Realty Tax Collections for Prov./Mun./Other Cities” prepared by the City Treasurer of Quezon City for the Municipal Treasurer of Palo, Leyte;

As stated in the decision appealed from, the Local Board, during the

hearing of the appeal on June 6, 1998, ordered the Municipal Assessor of Palo,

Leyte to conduct an ocular inspection of the subject properties, in the presence

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

of the petitioner or his representative, and to submit a report thereon before

July 17, 1998, the next hearing schedule of the case.

Pursuant to said order, the said Municipal Assessor submitted his report

dated July 10, 1998 to the Local Board on July 13, 1998, thus:

“Republic of the Philippines “Province of Leyte “Municipality of Palo
“Office of the Municipal Assessor

“July 10, 1998

“Atty. Peregrin G. Dingcong “Chairman
“Local Board of Assessment Appeals “Register of Deeds
“Tacloban City

“Sir:

“The undersigned respectfully submitted my field inspection reports regarding the properties of Mr. Juan P. Puertollano, under Tax assessment Appeal No. 009, to wit:

“Last July 10, 1998, around 8:00 in the morning, the undersigned respectfully submitted my field inspection reports regarding the properties undersigned conferred personally with Mr. Maximino, the authorized representative of the Petitioner-Appellant of the said case and said representative called the attention of his tenant to accompany the undersigned for ocular inspection of the mentioned properties.

“Findings;

“For lot#1, under Cadastral No. 1479, (see attached parcellary map, as marked as Annex 1) actual use of said property is nipa land with various nipa plants as improvements found thereon, while our assessment record shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP#30-027-00288
classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class with 73 fruit bearing coco trees. Market Value P7,230.00 Assessed Value P2,890

“Present ARP#30-027-00305
classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class with 73 fruit bearing coco trees. Market value P9,960.00 Assessed Value P3,980.00

For lot No. 2, under Cadastral lot #1486 (see attached parcellary map marked as Annex 1) actual use of said property is coco land planted with 70 fruit bearing coco trees as improvements found thereon, while assessment records shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP #30-027-00285
classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class with 63 fruit bearing coco trees. Market Value P5,840.00 Assessed value P2,340.00

“Present ARP #30-027-00285
Classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class with 63 fruit bearing coco trees. Market value P6,430.00 Assessed value P2,570.00

“For lot # 3 under Cadastral lot No. 1484 (see attached parcellary map, as marked as Annex 1) actual use of said property as coco land with 27 fruit bearing coco trees as improvement found thereon, while our assessment record shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP# 30-027-00283

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

Classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class, with 57 fruit bearing coco trees. Market value P5,180.00 Assessed value P2,070.00

“Present ARP # 30-027-00299
Classified as coco land as 1st class & nipa land as 2nd class, with 57 fruit bearing coco trees. Market Value P5,180.00 Assessed value P2,070.00

For lot #4 under Cadastral lot # 1580 (see attached parcellary map, as marked as Annex 1), actual use of said property is corn land with e clumps of bamboo and 5 groups of banana plant found thereon, while our assessment records shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP# 30-027-00406
Classified as coco land as 2nd class Market Value of P5,870.00 Assessed value P2,350.00

“Present ARP #30-027-00304
Classified as corn land as 2nd class Market Value P8,800.00 Assessed value P3,520.00

“For lot # 5 under Cadastral Lot # 1548 (see attached parcellary map, as marked as Annex 1), actual use of said property is residential land as 2nd class & coco land as 1st class, with old dilapidated building found thereon as improvement and 72 fruit bearing coco trees also found thereon, while assessment records shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP # 30-027-00291
classified as residential land as 2nd class & coco land as 2nd class with 36 fruit bearing coco trees Market value P21,390.00, Assessed value P5,880.00

“Present ARP# 30-0027-00301
classified as residential land as 2nd class & coco land as 2nd class with 36 fruit bearing coco trees. Market value P23,530.00 Assessed value P6,470.00

“For lot # 6 under Cadastral lot # 4152 (see parcellary map as marked as Annex 1) Actual use of said property is rice land unirrigated while our assessment record shows and covered by;

“Previous ARP # 30-027-00709
classified as corn land as 1st class with 10 clumps of bamboo trees. Market value P14,620.00, Assessed value P5.850.00

“Present ARP # 30-027-00724 as corn land as 1st class with 10 clumps of bamboo trees Market value P16,080.00, Assessed value P6,430.00

“The discrepancies of classification and the number of improvements of the above-mentioned properties resulted to the following reasons;

“1. That during the General Revision of Real Property under P.D. 464, where the owner or authorized representative of said property are required by law to file their Sworn Statement;

“2. That during the prosecution of RPTA/TM (Tax Mapping Operation), which the Provincial Assessor’s Office and Municipal Assessor’s Office conducted such activity, where we hired some casual personnel to indentify and do the counting of improvements found thereon;

“3. That during the prosecution of RPTA/LDAP project, a joint project of Provincial and Municipal Government to under take such activity and the unwillingness on the part of the owner or representative to give accurate info;

“4. That during the General revision of Real Property as embodied in Section 219 of Local Government Code 7160, where we also hired casual personnel and sometimes error were committed in copying such date from the previous records.

“With this report, I hereby recommend to the august body of this Board, also to Provincial Assessor’s Office, to have a correctional revision of the properties-mentioned,

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

applying the approved schedule of unit value of different classes of real property and once for all it could be corrected.

“Hope, this will clear the matters and will served as references.

“Respectfully yours,

SGD: “JOSE M. PESARIO “Municipal Assessor”

The Local Board said that “during the deliberation of said report, the

Petitioner’s representative, Miss Sarah Puertollano made some comments but

did not object to the findings of the Municipal Assessor”. So, on September 1,

1998, the Local Board rendered the questioned decision.

Mr. Juan P. Puertollano, on the other hand, in his “Appeal on the

Decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and Opposition to the

Appeal to Dismiss filed by the Provincial Assessor with Central Board of

Assessment Appeals” dated November 9, 1998 (and received by this Board on

November 12, 1998), virtually reproduced the “assignment of errors” embodied

in his petition before the local board, thus:

“A) As landowner, the undersigned was never summoned by the Municipal Assessor pursuant to Sec. 213 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Annex “A” hereof, Decision of the LBAA, Tacloban City, attached);

“B) The undersigned inadvertent error;

“C) Failure of the Municipal Assessor, Palo, Leyte to send Notification of the Revised Assessments within 30 days (Annex “A”, please see Decision, supra);

“D) Error of the Municipal Assessor in including the nipa land with only 2,018 square meters duly titled in the name of Petitioner-Appellant Juan P. Puertollano in the tax declaration of Julian Puertollano. (Please see copies of OCT No. 38391 of Juan P. Puertollano, and Tax Declaration No. 5630027-305 of Julian Puertollano, attached hereof, and marked as Annexes “C” and “D”;

“E) All the tax declarations, supra, are all with excessive, confiscatory assessments (For reference, annex “A”, attached hereof).”

In his “ARFUMENTS”, Mr. Juan P. Puertollano states:

“The undersigned Petitioner-Appellant maintains his arguments in his appeal to the LBAA, Tacloban City, for ERRORS A, C, D, and E, as contained in the Decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, promulgated on September 1, 1998, supra, while error “B” is the inadvertent error of the undersigned. The further error is the date of his filing of his LBAA Appeal, in the decision herein attached his date of filing was miscopied as March 31, instead of March 13, 1998. It is easy to know because in the incorporation of the answer of the Provincial Assessor relative to the undersigned’s appeal as summoned by LBAA, his date is March 30, 1998.”

“(2) That the Provincial Assessor cannot question him anent to the 60-days period of filing an Appeal starting from the receipt by the landowner of the Notification of Revised Assessments for the same was only received by the

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

undersigned landowner together with only four (4) of tax declarations out of seven declared in his name and his wife, Elena A. Puertollano, on April 17, 1998, (annex “B” hereof.

“(3) That no representative of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals attended to the ocular inspection, if any,

“(4) That the landowner’s authorized representatives who know the boundaries, his brother, Maximino P. Puertollano and his niece, Sarah P. Puertollano, were not available, the former was seriously sick, and his sickness relapsed which only a week ago, was released from Philippine General Hospital, Metro Manila; while the latter too, was/is busy during the weekdays because of her duty as Professor, University of the Philippines-Leyte Branch;

“(5) That the Municipal Assessor conducted alone thru his casual employees, the ocular inspection which was self-serving;

“(6) That the result of his investigation mentioned, or stated that the brother of the undersigned landowner called the tenant of the latter to accompany the casual employees of the Office of the Municipal Assessor in the ocular inspection,

“(7) That all the real properties of the undersigned landowner in Palo, Leyte, are not tenanted;

“(8) That the only persons who know the boundaries and monuments (temporary ones) during the survey are his two (2) living brothers, Simeon and Maximino, and his sister, Fortunata Puertollano-Tolibas;

“(9) That all the properties have adjoining lots planted with coconut trees;

“(10) That the landowner Petitioner-Appellant did not authorized his brother Maximino, and niece, Sarah to have the final decision, approval or rejection, of the result of the conference after the Municipal Assessor submitted the result of the ocular inspection conducted by his casual employees;

“(11) That the casual employees, supra, had included counting the number of trees belonging to the adjoining landowners because they are not well acquainted with the boundaries, so much so that the monuments are missing, hence the rapid increase in number; besides that they did not consider the status of the old plants which are only good as coconut lumber.

“ADVANCE REPLY AS OPPOSITION TO DISMISS FILED BY THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR WITH
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS —————————————————————————

“On October 28, 1998, the undersigned Petitioner-Appellant had received a copy of the Appeal of the Provincial Assessor Rafael Iriarte on the Decision of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, dated October 6, 1998, praying for the dismissal of this present appeal, before the undersigned filed it, today, November 9, 1998. The date of the LBAA Decision is September 1, 1998. The right for an appellant to appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of the action of LBAA, or CBAA, under the Local Government Code of 1991. His basis are as follows:

“(a) The appeal of the undersigned Petitioner-Appellant was beyond the 60-days period of filing, which is an inadvertent error of the typist as found in the copy of the LBAA Decision which was printed as March 31, 1998. The appeal dated March 12, 1998 was actually filed on March 13, 1998, hence numbers 1 and 3 was inverted. How can his reply to summons by LBAA be dated March 30, 1998? The Notice referred to by the Provincial Assessor relative to the Revised Assessment was only received by the undersigned on April 17, 1998, together with only four (4) tax declarations. This was committed many times, more without notices.

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

“(b) Non-inclusion of the Municipal Assessor in the Summons. Both of them were included in the Original Appeal.

“(c) The undersigned paid the taxes after filing the appeal, by money order to the Municipal Treasurer of Palo, Leyte.

“(d) LBAA had not acquired jurisdiction.

“P R A Y E R

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully pray that the Provincial and Municipal Assessor and LBAA, thus:

“1. The Municipal Assessor and Provincial Assessor conduct an ocular inspection in the presence of the representative of LBAA and representative of the landowner;

“2. The preparation of the tax declarations be uniform based on the approved ordinance by the Department of Finance, not by the Provincial Board of Leyte alone, and based on the National Classification by region. The Local Government Code of 1991 seems to be specific on Metro Manila alone. The layway there is the authority of the Secretary of Finance to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the classification, appraisal and assessment of real property pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Code, Sec. 201, LGCode.”

The Provincial Assessor’s appeal to this Board is a reproduction of his

“Answer to Summons” filed with the Local Board on March 30, 1998, which was

an answer to the appeal by Mr. Juan P. Puertollano. The Provincial Assessor

raised the following issues/errors:

“1. That there is no showing that the appeal to the LBAA was made within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the Notice of Assessment or revised assessment or tax declaration when he appealed to the Local Board concerned (Sec. 2, Rule 1, CBAA/LBAA Procedures);

“2. That the Municipal Assessor who made the alleged assessment is not included in the caption made by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals which is a violation of Section 4 (INFRA);

“3. That another requisite for the appeal is that the Notice of Assessment and also the tax declaration concerned should be attached (Section 5 INFRA);

“4. That another requisite is that the Real Property Taxes shall first be paid showing the receipt of payment to be attached to the petition (Sec. 7 INFRA and Sec. 229-252, 226 & 231 of RA 7160);

We agree with the findings of the Local Board on the first, second, third

and fourth issues/errors raised by the Provincial Assessor. Said the Local

Board:

“With regard to the infirmities of the appeal raised by the respondents, it was established that the appeal was made within (the) 60-day period from receipt of assessment as admitted by both respondents since there was really no notice of assessment sent to the petitioner but the latter knew only of the revised assessment when he asked for the latest tax declaration(s) of the properties involved in the appeal.

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

“As (to) the second issue raised by respondents, it was very clear that both the respondents, Municipal Assessor of Palo and the Provincial Assessor of Leyte, were sent an individual summons and in fact had filed their respective answer(s) establishing the fact that both of them were made as Respondents and the Board had acquired jurisdiction over them.

“As to the third and fourth issues, the respective tax declarations and evidence (of) payment of real property tax were attached to the original copy of the appeal.”

What remains to be revolved are Errors “D” and “E” assigned by

Petitioner-Appellant, which “errors” are as follows:

“D) Error of the Municipal Assessor in including the nipa land with only 2,018 square meters duly titled in the name of Petitioner-Appellant Juan P. Puertollano in the tax declaration of Julian Puertollano. (Please see copies of OCT No. 38391 of Juan P. Puertollano, and Tax Declaration No. 5630027-305 of Julian Puertollano, attached hereof, and marked as Annexes “C” and “D”;

“E) All the tax declarations, supra, are all with excessive, confiscatory assessments (For reference, annex “A”, attached hereof).”

This Board, through its Hearing Officer for the Visayas, ordered for a

clarificatory hearing of the case and subsequent ocular inspection of the

properties involved at Palo, Leyte starting at 2:30 in the afternoon of March 22,

1999. On March 18, 1999, however, the said Hearing Officer received a

telegram via Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) from

Petitioner-Appellant, the text of which telegram reads as follows:

“ATTY. CAMILO MONTENEGRO “CBAA VISAYAS FIELD OFFICE “CEBU CITY

“WITHDRAWING MY APPEAL INCLUDED IN ESTATE TAX PUERTOLLANO THANKS

1997 VALUATIONS REAL PROPERTIES RETURN OF MY WIFE LATE ELENA

“JUAN P. PUERTOLLANO”

The above-quoted telegram was confirmed by the Petitioner-Appellant

through a written notice of withdrawal dated March 22, 1999, a copy of which

was received by the Visayas Field Office of this Board on March 30, 1999.

With the withdrawal by Mr. Juan P. Puertollano of his instant appeal,

nothing remains to be resolved in this case.

WHEREFORE, the decision rendered on September 1, 1998 by the Local

Board of Assessment Appeals of Leyte in Tax Assessment Case No. 009 is

hereby AFFIRMED en toto.

SO ORDERED.

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234

Manila, Philippines, October 5, 1999.

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) BENJAMIN M. KASALA
Member

Reference: Book IX, pp. 220-234