Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

CJH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant,

-versus-

HON. ADELINA A. TABANGIN, in her CBAA CASE NO. L-37 capacity as CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
OF TAX (ASSESSMENT) APPEALS OF BAGUIO CITY,
Appellee,

-and-

HON. ESTRELLA B. TANO, in her capacity as the CITY ASSESSOR of the CITY OF BAGUIO,
Respondent-Appellee. x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

R E S O L U T I O N

Following are the essential and salient points of Petitioner-Appellant’s

Motion for Reconsideration to this Board’s Resolution on the above entitled

case:

“2. The dispositive portion of the 23 May 2003 Resolution of the Honorable Board reads as follows:

‘WHEREFORE, the Resolution appealed from is hereby Set Aside and the case Remanded to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Baguio City for further proceedings subject to a full and up-to-date payment of realty taxes on subject properties as assessed by the Respondent-Appellee, City Assessor of Baguio, either in cash or in bond as required.’

“3. We respectfully disagree with the denial by the Honorable Board of the Motion for Reconsideration and remanding the case ‘to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Baguio City for further proceedings subject to a full and up-to-date payment of realty taxes on subject properties as assessed by the Respondent-Appellee, City Assessor of Baguio.’ We submit that the denial has no legal basis.

“4. Under Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), the Petitioner-Appellant is not liable to pay real estate taxes to the City government of Baguio. In a Ruling (BIR No. 085-98) dated 2 June 1998, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (‘BIR’) ruled that ‘CJH Devco shall be liable for the payment of the preferential tax rate of 5% in lieu of national and local taxes.’ X x x.

“12. There is enough evidence before the Honorable Board to put an end to the controversy between the parties. Attached to this Motion are copies of the pertinent laws and regulations upon which this matter involving a question of law can be resolve: Is the petitioner a special tax entity under the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992? If so, the logically:

Reference: Book XII, pp. 9-11

“a. the petitioner is not liable to pay local taxes to the City of Baguio;

“b. the City Assessor of Baguio had no authority or legal basis to issue the subject assessments for real property taxation against a non-taxable entity, the petitioner; and

“c. the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Baguio City had no legal basis defer (sic) the special proceedings and force the Petitioner-Appellant, to a non-taxable person, to pay the alleged real property tax.” (Underlining supplied).

This case stemmed from the assessment made on Petitioner-Appellant’s

parcels of land and buildings leased from the Bases Conversion and

Development Authority which, claiming exemption, appealed the assessment

before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) of Baguio City. Citing

the provision under Section 7, Rule V of the RULES OF PROCEDURE

BEFORE THE LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS on the Effect of

appeal on Collection of Taxes, the Local Board “enjoined the Appellant

(Petitioner) to comply first with the x x x provision prior to the proper hearing of

the appeal” and subsequently “dismissed for lack of merit” Petitioner-

Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

In its appeal before this Board, Petitioner-Appellant not only questioned,

as without legal basis, Appellee Local Board’s deferment of the “hearing of the

appeal and require the Petitioner-Appellant to pay the alleged corresponding

taxes due on the real property”, but asserted that the Board of Tax Appeals

disregarded the position of the Petitioner-Appellant that the hearing on the

Appeal must proceed because appeals merely involving contested

assessments for real property taxation are not specifically subject to the

provisions of said Section 7, Rule V of the Rules of the Local Board.”

In its present Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner-Appellant presented

nothing more than its effete claim for exemption, this time attacking what it

described as “pertinent laws and regulations upon which this matter involving a

question of law can be resolved.”

Petitioner-Appellant is begging the question: such exemption has yet to

be resolved by the LBAA of Baguio City, before which it was appealed and of

Reference: Book XII, pp. 9-11

which it has original jurisdiction. (See Section 1, RULE IV, RULES OF

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE LOCAL BOARDS OF ASSESSMENT

APPEALS). This Board has to adhere to the provision of Par. 1, Sec. 230, R.A.

7160: “The Board shall have appellate jurisdiction over all assessment cases

decided by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals.” Evidently, said Local

Board has not decided the case on the merit. Besides under Sec. 229 (b), R.A.

7160, “the proceedings of the Board shall be conducted solely for the purpose

of ascertaining the facts; the Boards therefore, conduct proceedings of facts,

merely, not of law.

In fine, the points raised herein has already been definitively passed

upon by this Board in the Resolution herewith sought to be Reconsidered.

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, September 8, 2004.

(Signed) CESAR S. GUTIERREZ
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) RAFAEL O. CORTES
Member

Reference: Book XII, pp. 9-11