Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

LORENZO G. TIMBOL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –

LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT

APPEALS OF MARIKINA, CBAA Case No. L-15 Appellee,

– and –

MUNICIPAL (CITY) ASSESSOR OF MARIKINA,
Respondent-Appellee,

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

R E S O L U T I O N

This Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Petitioner-Appellant,

Lorenzo G. Timbol against this Board’s May 25, 2000 Resolution, “declaring the

legality and validity of the Schedule of Market Values for the Municipality (now

City) of Marikina and upholding the assessment on the real properties of

Petitioner-Appellant, Lorenzo G. Timbol.”

Dismissed by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of

Marikina for “lack of merit”, this Board, on Appeal, set aside LBAA Resolution of

Dismissal, holding that the Schedule of Market Values prepared solely by the

Municipal (now City) Assessor of Marikina was illegal and null and void.

Respondents-Appellees moved for reconsideration, claiming that “THE

PREPARATION OF THE SCHEDULE OF FAIR MARKET VALUES WAS

MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 212 OF REPUBLIC ACT 7160

AND SECTION 9 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 921.”

This Board’s records on the case include the following:

1. RESOLUTION NO. 1-92, dated August 14, 1992, of the Metro Manila Assessors Association, “CONFIRMING THE DELIBERATIONS MADE ON THE FORTHCOMING GENERAL REVISION OF REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND THE PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF VALUES”. (Annex “A”).

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14

2. ORDINANCE NO. 135, Series of 1993, ADOPTING A NEW SCHEDULE OF MARKET VALUES FOR LANDS, BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES AND THE GENERAL REVISION OF ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARIKINA”, by the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MARIKINA. (Annex “B”).

3. The TINIG NG NAYON issue of January 31 – February 6, 1993, publishing ORDINANCE NO. 4 , of the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN NG MARIKINA, approved and took effect upon approval, on January 22, 1993: “ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW SCHEDULE OF FAIR MARKET VALUES FOR LANDS, BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES AND THE GENERAL REVISION OF ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARIKINA.” (ANNEX “B”)

4. The TINIG NG NAYON issue of December 31, 1993, publishing ORDINANCE NO. 135, of the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN NG MARIKINA, approved and enacted on December 27, 1993: ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW SCHEDULE OF FAIR MARKET VALUES FOR LANDS, BUILDINGS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES, AND THE GENERAL REVISION OF ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARIKINA”. (ANNEX “C”)

The instant case was heard anew, “but while Respondents-Appellees

appeared or represented at the hearing, Petitioner-Appellant never showed up

despite due notices”. At the hearing, “Respondents-Appellees declared that the

‘documents x x x were not produced during the hearings of the Local Board’,

although already in existence at the time’”.

Pursuant thereto, this Board declared:

“With RESOLUTION NO. 1-92 of the Metro Manila Assessors Association, ORDINANCE NO. 135 of the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MARIKINA, x x x , and the publication of said Ordinance in the “TINIG NG NAYON” issue of February 6, 1993, the steps in the preparation of the Schedule of Market Values for Marikina, in the case at bar, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ty vs. Trampe, x x x , is sufficiently complied with, hence determinedly legal and valid. ‘In addition, these schedules of fair market values had likewise been posted in the barangay halls and at the main bulletin board of the Marikina Townhall.’ Furthermore, ‘public hearings were held at Shoe Hall, Municipal Bldg. on November 15, 17 and 19, 1993 presided by Hon. Councilor Alfredo Fajardo.”

The bone contention hereabouts is in conformity with the Supreme

Court’s ruling in the case of ALEJANDRO B. TY and MVP PICTURE TUBE,

INC., Petitioners, vs. THE HON. AURELIO C. TRAMPE, in his capacity as

Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, et al., Respondents,

G.R. No. 117577, promulgated on December 1, 1995, particularly the steps in

the preparation of the Schedule of Market Value as follows:

“1. The assessor in each municipality or city in the Metropolitan Manila Area shall prepare his/her proposed schedule of values, in accordance with Sec. 212, R.A. 7160.

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14

“2. Then, the Local Treasury and Assessment District shall meet, per Sec. 9, P.D. 921. In the instant case, that district shall be composed of the assessors in Quezon City, Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong and San Juan, pursuant to Sec. 1 of said P.D. In this meeting the different assessors shall compare their individual assessments, discuss and thereafter jointly agree and produce a schedule of values for their district, taking into account the preamble of said P.D. that they should evolve a progressive revenue raising program that will not unduly burden the taxpayers’:

“3. The schedule jointly agreed upon by the assessors shall then be published in a newspaper of general circulation and submitted to the sanggunian concerned for enactment by ordinance, per Sec. 212, R.A. 7160.”

Further declared therein is the following:

“Since it is now clear that P.D. 921 is still good law, it is equally clear that this Court’s ruling in the Mathay/Javier/Puyat-Reyes cases x x x is still the prevailing and applicable doctrine. And x x x, it is x x x clear that the schedule of values prepared solely by the x x x municipal assessor is illegal and void.”

Disclosed in RESOLUTION NO. 1-92, of the METRO MANILA

ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION, dated August 14, 1992, supra, are the following:

“WHEREAS, all city and municipal assessors of Metropolitan Manila are aware of the issues raised in the cases of Ismael Mathay, Jr. vs. City Assessor of Quezon City, Rufino Javier vs. Municipal Assessor of Pasig and hereby decided to meet to discuss the general revision of real property assessments and the schedule of values;

“WHEREAS, on April 16, 1992, the Metro Manila City and Municipal Assessors met, x x x , to discuss the forthcoming general revision of real property assessments and the preparation of the schedule of values x x x ;

“WHEREAS, on August 7, 1992, the Metro Manila Assessors met for the second time x x x and discussed, compared proposed amendments, studied implications of schedules of values for land and building, and harmonized boundary values by districts and city and municipality on the basis of each assessor’s individual schedule of values and arrive at a consensus.

“NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVES AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Metro Manila Assessors to confirm the deliberations made on the forthcoming general revision of real property assessments and the preparation of the schedule of values.”

Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration adduced the following:

“The steps taken by the then Municipal Assessor of Marikina, as outlined by the Board in its subject Resolution, hardly complied with the steps mandated by the Supreme Court in its decision in the Ty case. By no stretch of imagination can the aforesaid steps taken by the Municipal Assessor be deemed as ‘sufficient’ compliance with the directive of the Supreme Court.

“With regard to the alleged meetings of the Metro Manila Assessors Association, it is conceded by respondent appellee that the same were for the purpose of ‘discussion, comparison and harmonization of boundary values’ x x x . In sharp contrast, the Supreme Court x x x clearly requires that the five (5) assessors must ‘jointly agree and produce a schedule of values for their district’. There is no claim respondent-appellee that in the afore-mentioned meetings of the Metro Manila Assessors Association, there was a joint agreement on a schedule of values.

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14

“As to the enactment of Ordinance No. 135 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Marikina and the publication of said ordinance in the “Tinig ng Nayon’ issue of February 6, 1993, this is also a far x x x cry from the requirements of the Suprme Court that ‘The schedule jointly agreed upon by the assessors shall then be published in a newspaper of general circulation and submitted to the sangguninan (sic) concerned for enactment by ordinance’. In the first place, no schedule was jointly agreed upon by the assessors, x x x . Perforce, what was published was not a ‘schedule jointly agreed upon’ but the schedule of values prepared solely by the Municipal Assessor of Marikina x x x. Moreover, what was submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan was not a ‘schedule jointly agreed upon’ but the schedule prepared solely by the Municipal Assessor x x x.

“X x x , this Honorable Board also overruled petitioner’s contention that the revised assessments were made subsequent to January 1, 1994 and hence, pursuant to Section 221 of the Local Government Code, the same shall take effect only on January 1, 1995. However, respondent-appellee himself admitted that the general revision of all tax declarations of real properties was finished only in December 1993 x x x. Indeed, he also admitted that as late as November 15, 17 and 19, 1993, public hearings were still being conducted x x x . In addition, respondent-appellee never presented evidence, that indeed, the revised assessments were made before January 1, 1994.”

While it is true that RESOLUTION NO. 1-92 (supra) was passed by the

METRO MANILA ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION, it was to have been deemed

that on their part, the Assessors of each Local Treasury and Assessment

District, which formed the composite subdivision of said Association, should

have constituted themselves and jointly prepared their respective Schedule of

Values therefor. In the instant case therefore, the Assessors of the Second

District of said Local Treasury and Assessment Districts of Metropolitan Manila,

comprising the cities of Quezon, Pasig, Marikina and Mandaluyong (then

municipalities of Marikina and Mandaluyong), and the municipality of San Juan

affirmed their participation in the preparation of said Schedule of Market

Values, by affixing their signatures in said Ordinance No. 135 of the

SANGGUNIANG BAYAN NG MARIKINA (supra), in terms officially vouched

as follows:

“Certified by the undersigned assessors that the foregoing schedule of values has been compared and discussed with other schedule of values in the district, and we jointly agree that it is part of the district schedule of values.” (ANNEX “B-2”)

ORDINANCE NO. 135 was passed on December 27, 1993 and

published in the TINIG NG NAYON issue of December 31, 1993; ORDINANCE

NO. 4, however, was published ahead, in the issue of January 31 – February 6,

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14

of the same TINIG NG NAYON publication, albeit the former is an exact copy of

the latter.

The final step in Ty vs. Trampe is for the Schedule of Market Values to

be published, then enacted by ordinance, “per Sec. 212, R.A. 7160” (supra)

Sec. 212, R.A. 7160 provides:

“Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values – X x x, there shall be prepared a schedule of fair market values x x x for enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned. The schedule of fair market values shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, city or municipality concerned, or in the absence thereof, shall be posted in the provincial capitol, city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous public places therein,”

Given the inability to anticipate the order or sequence of the steps, as

formulated in the Ty vs. Trampe case, would not Sec. 212, R.A. 7160 be read

either way as well, so that it could also be understood to mean-enactment by

ordinance first, before publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation,

as was adopted in the instant case?

From the above, it is clear that the steps in the preparation of the

Schedule of Market Values in the case at bar, has been in constant reckoning

with the steps pronounced in the Ty vs. Trampe case. Hence, the allegations of

Petitioner-Appellant assailing the legality and validity of the Schedule of Market

Values for the Municipality (now City) of Marikina is, as found by this Board,

baseless and untenable. As regards the other matters raised by Petitioner-

Appellant, this Board has already exhaustively dealt with them in its previous

Resolution.

WHEREFORE, said Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for lack

of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, November 28, 2000.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14

ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) BENJAMIN M. KASALA
Member

Reference: Book XI, pp. 9-14