Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT

APPEALS OF LUCENA CITY, CBAA CASE NO. L-33 Appellee,

-and-

LUCENA CITY ASSESSOR and LUCENA CITY TREASURER,
Respondents-Appellees. x——————————————————-x

R E S O L U T I O N

This is a Motion for Reconsideration from the Decision to Dismiss the

Appeal before this Board of the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority

(PFDA), Petitioner-Appellant, for lack of merit. Petitioner-Appellant avers:

“WITH UTMOST RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPRECIATE THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS CASE AND APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW.”

The bone of Petitioner-Appellant’s contention to tax exemption is that the

Lucena Fishing Port Complex is property of the public domain and remains the

absolute property of the Republic of the Philippines.

Petitoner-Appellant reiterates its claim to wit:

“As repeatedly pointed out by appellant in its many pleadings filed before this Honorable Office, the subject real property transferred by the National Government to petitioner through P.D. 977 was only intended for appellant’s administration on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. There was merely a transfer of jurisdiction control, administration and supervision over CFPC (Sec. 11, P.D. 977), but definitely not ownership. Appellant cannot exercise the rights of enjoyment and disposition over the subject property as its powers are well-delineated by law. Such delineation of powers contradicts the very essence of ownership. The subject property thus remains the property of the Republic of the Philippines. Indeed, the subject property, therefore did not lose its non-taxability.

Likewise, the public use of said real property and the improvements introduced thereon are inseparable. The fish markets and fish landings cannot be separated from the fish port. There is no fish port without a fish market and a fish landing. Also, there is no fish port without factory buildings, warehouses, cold storage and ice plants, the building supervision and operation of which are

Reference: Book XI, pp. 206-209

all necessary and useful in the conduct of appellant’s mandate. Thus imbued with public interest.”

Did not this Board address the question of ownership of LFPC fully: that

“(t)he ownership of LFPC as passed on by the Republic of the Philippines to

PFDA is bourne by Direct evidence: P.D. 977, as amended? To reiterate

therefore:

“Petitioner-Appellant’s avowal that the LFPC property belongs to the Republic of the Philippines and its contentions that ‘(n)owhere in the appellant’s Charter (Presidential Decree No. 977 as amended by Executive Order 772) is it provided that ownership of the LFPC is transferred to appellant’ and its allegations that ‘(a)t most it only prescribes for the transfer to appellant of exclusive jurisdiction, control, administration and supervision over LFPC’, is quite incorrect. SEC. 11 of P.D. 977 (Charter of PFDA) reads:

‘SEC 11. The Navotas Fishing Port and Fish Market; Other Fish Markets Facilities/Infrastructure. – – The Navotas Fish Market x x x, including all lands, piers, wharves, quays, landings, anchorages, basin, breakwaters, markets and other infrastructure facilities therein, is hereby transferred to and placed under the exclusive jurisdiction, control, administration and supervision of the Authority.

Other fish markets and related facilities may be established by the Board, with the approval of the President of the Philippines, to the governed and operated by the Authority under this Decree.’

SECTION 5 of E.O. 772 amended SEC. 11 of P.D. 977 to wit:

‘SEC. 11. The Navotas Fishing Port Complex; Other Fishing Port Complexes. – The Navotas Fishing Port Complex x x x, including all lands, piers, wharves, quays, landings, anchorages, basin, breakwaters, markets and other infrastructure facilities therein, is hereby transferred to and placed under the exclusive jurisdiction, control, administration and supervision of the Authority.

Other fishing port complexes and related facilities may be established by the Board, with the approval of the President of the Philippines, to be governed and operated by the Authority.’”

To elucidate further: In the case of Monserrat v. Ceron, 58 Phil. 473, cited

in Federico Moreno’s Philippine Law Dictionary, Third Edition, TRANSFER is

defined as: The act by which the owner of a thing delivers it to another with the

intent of passing the right which he has in it to the latter.

The Philippine Fisheries Development Authority therefore, cannot lay

claim to the exemption inherent to the Republic of the Philippines, for the realty

tax imposed on the Lucena Fisheries Port Complex. Discernibly, Petitioner-

Appellant introduced nothing new, whether in evidentiary fact or in convincing

Reference: Book XI, pp. 206-209

argument of its claim for exemption, than what has already been passed upon

by this Board.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied with

finality for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, June 07, 2006.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES
Member

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

Reference: Book XI, pp. 206-209