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 ASSESSOR OF MARIKINA,
Respondent-Appellee,

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

R E S O L U T I O N

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Respondents-

Appellees on this Board’s Decision dated December 23, 1998, the dispositive

portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Municipality (now City) of Marikina, dismissing the Appeal of Petitioner-Appellant Lorenzo G. Timbol, is hereby set aside, the Schedule of Market Values prepared solely by the Municipal (now City) Assessor of Marikina, is hereby held illegal and null and void. X x x.”

This Board found for Petitioner-Appellant as follows:

“X x x the instant case hinges on whether the preparation of the Schedule of Market Values in the Metropolitan Manila Area is governed by the provisions of PDs 464/921, as alleged by Petitioner-Appellant, in which case, such schedule, prepared merely by the Municipal Assessor of Marikina (now City), is null and void, or the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), as held by Appellee, Local Board to have repealed said PDs 464/921, hence its dismissal of the herein case.

“X x x, the Supreme Court 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 December 1, 1995 declared:

“X x x. P.D. 921 is still a good law. X x x this Court’s ruling in the Mathay/Javier/Puyat-Reyes cases x x x is still the prevailing and applicable doctrine. X x x the schedule of values prepared solely by the respondent municipal assessor is illegal and void.”

Reference: Book VIII, pp. 189-194

According to the Supreme Court in Ty vs. Trampe, et al (supra):

“X x x, the two laws are not co-extensive and mutually inclusive in their scope and purpose. While R.A. 7160 covers almost all governmental functions delegated to local government units all over the country, P.D. 921 embraces only the Metropolitan Manila Area and is limited to the administration of financial services therein, especially the assessment and collection of real estate (and some other local) taxes.

“Sec. 9 of P.D. 921 requires that the schedule of values of real properties in the Metropolitan Manila Area shall be prepared jointly by the city assessors in the districts created therein; while Sec. 212 of R.A. 7160 states that the schedule shall be prepared ‘by the provincial, city and municipal assessors of the municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of real property situated in their respective local government units for enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned. x x x’

“It is obvious that harmony in these provisions is not only possible, but in fact desirable, necessary and consistent with the legislative intent and policy. By reading together and harmonizing these two provisions, we arrive at the following steps in the preparation of the said schedule 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.

“2. Then, the Local Treasury and Assessment District shall meet, per Sec. 9, P.D. 921. X x x. 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.”

In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Respondents-Appellees aver:

“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.

“X x x, Respondents-Appellants (sic) have complied with all the requirements of both Section 212 of Republic Act 7160 and Section 9 of PD 921.

“The schedule of values for Marikina was not solely prepared by the Municipal Assessor because it was duly submitted not only to the Assessors of Mandaluyong, Pasig City, San Juan and Quezon City which compose the district but also to all assessors in Metro Manila for discussion, comparison and harmonization of boundary values in the meetings twice held through the initiative of the Metro Manila Assessors Association and the assessors in the district, together with the rest of the assessors in Metro Manila which is more than enough compliance of the rules laid down in the x x x case.

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration included 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 VIII, pp. 189-194

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

By virtue of said Motion for Reconsideration, the herein case was heard

anew, but while Respondents-Appellees appeared or were represented at the

hearing, Petitioner-Appellant never showed up despite due notices.

Questioned at this new hearing, Respondents-Appellees declared that the

“documents x x x were not produced during the hearings of the Local Board”

because “the issues contained in these documents were never raised during

the hearings in the Local Board”, although “already in existence at that time”.

With RESOLUTION NO. 1-92 of the Metro Manila Assessors Association,

ORDINANCE NO. 135 of the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN of MARIKINA, supra,

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, supra, 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 bulleting 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.”

Petitioner-Appellant maintains “that Ordinance No. 135, which adopted a

new Schedule of fair market values for the Municipality of Marikina, was

approved by the Sangguniang Bayan only on December 27, 1993. Hence, the

revised assessments on appellant’s house and lot, as well as on the other

houses and lots as well located within Marikina, could only have been made

subsequent to January 1, 1994. Consequently, the proposed assessments

cannot take effect in the year 1994.”

Reference: Book VIII, pp. 189-194

Against Petitioner-Appellant’s claim, supra, this Board conforms with

Appellee Local Board’s findings, to wit:

“The General Revision of all Tax declaration of Real Properties started in 1992 and finished on December 1993. Section 5, Ordinance No. 4 shall be used for the 1992-1993 general revision of real property assessments whose effectivity is 1994 and to all other assessment of land the effectivity of which is 1994. Section 6 of both ordinances also state (sic) ‘(T)he schedule for fair market values for buildings other improvements shall be used for the 1992-1993 general revision of real property assessment whose effectivity is 1994.’ Further, Section 9 of the same ordinance states ‘(T)his ordinance shall take effect upon approval.’ Hence the law is clear with regards the effectivity of such assessments. Sec. 221, RA 7160, – All assessments or reassessments made after the first day of January of any year shall take effect on the first day of January of succeeding year”.

Petitioner-Appellant likewise contends that “assessors, in fixing the value

of the property, have to consider all the circumstances and elements of value

and must exercise a prudent discretion in reaching conclusions”, but that “this

was not done with regard to the schedule of values x x x because not all

relevant factors were taken into consideration. For one thing, the fact that the

house and lot in question are situated approximately less than one (1) kilometer

away from the Marikina Fault Line was not taken into consideration”. That “the

assessments x x x are unjust, excessive, oppressive, and confiscatory”.

This Board again finds Petitioner-Appellant’s above-contention untenable

against the validity of Appellee Local Board’s findings as follows”:

“Contrary to the claim of the protestant, the assessment made is reasonable because the same is based on the conservative estimate of market values, per Municipal (sic) of Marikina Schedule of Values -1992, a compilation of market value tabulation per street as well as the Statement of Sales per Deed of Sales and BIR Zonal values which is even higher than the Assessor’s market value. The only evidence adduced by the protestant is the 1981-1982 real property assessment made on his property without drawing the line between fair and reasonable 1981-1982 market value and the 1994 fair and reasonable market value.

“The allegation of the herein protestant that the Assessor’s Office of Marikina did not consider the element of value and did not exercise prudence of discretion in reaching conclusion in its assessments is without any basis, and a mere generalization unsupported by evidence x x x.”

It cannot be gainsaid therefore, in the light of the evidence above-

disclosed and the facts consequently revealed, that this Board’s former findings

in the case at bar must have to be overturned.

In view thereof and finding Respondents-Appellee’s Motion for

Reconsideration meritorious, this Board hereby sets aside the Decision it

Reference: Book VIII, pp. 189-194

previously rendered on this case, holding the Schedule of Market Values

prepared solely by the Municipal (now City) Assessor of Marikina illegal and null

and void. Said Schedule of Market Values erstwhile found to have violated the

precepts for its preparation was in fact done in accordance thereto.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

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. Respondent Municipal

(now City) Assessor of Marikina is hereby ordered to act accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, May 25, 2000.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) BENJAMIN M. KASALA
Member

Reference: Book VIII, pp. 189-194