Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Manila

CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS, INC., Petitioner-Appellant,

– versus –

CBAA CASE NO. V-09 LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS OF BAIS CITY, Appellee,

– and –

CITY ASSESSOR OF BAIS CITY, Respondent-Appellee.
x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

RESOLUTION

This is a motion dated February 24, 1997 by Petitioner-Appellant seeking

reconsideration of this Board’s Decision dated November 7, 1996. Petitioner-

Appellant Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. alleged that it received the said

decision on February 19, 1997. This motion seeks the reconsideration of this

Board on the following matters, to wit:

1. The valuation of Lot No. 788-B-1-A under Tax Declaration No. 6-

323 and Lot No. 788-B-1-B under Tax Declaration No. 6-320; and

2. The non-exemption of the land converted to or utilized as Water

Treatment Facilities.

To recall, the assessment on Lot Nos. 788-B-1-A and 788-B-1-B

complained of by Petitioner-Appellant were as follows:

Lot No. 788-B-1-A, TD #6-326

Classification
————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Asphalt Road Gravel Road Ind-Recre’l. Ind-Medical

Totals

Class Area (Sq.M.)
———- ———-3-C 7,155 3-G 18,413 3-G 121,888 3-E 13,295
7,432 10,582
3-F 1,071 3-G 3,487
————-175,891

Unit
Value Adj. ——— ——–
P110 -40% 110 -85% 110 -85% 110 -70%
260 160
110 -80% 110 -85%

Market Ass. Assessed Value Lvl Value
———– ——– ————-
P 472,230 50% P236,115 303,815 50% 151,907
2,011,152 40% 804,460 438,735 20% 87,747
1,932,320 50% 966,160 504,000 50% 252,000
23,562 15% 3,534 57,536 15% 8,630
—————- ————–P 5,743,349 P2,510,555

Reference: Book IX, pp. 144-151

======= ========= ========

Lot No. 788-B-1-B, TD #6-320

Classification
————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Ind-Recre’l. Asphalt Road Gravel Road
Railroad Tracks

Totals

Class Area (Sq.M.)
———- ———-3-A 22,225 3-C 30,585 3-G 25,283 3-E 501 3-F 791
1,052 1,410 826
————-82,673
=======

Unit
Value Adj. ——— ——–
P110
110 -40% 110 -85% 110 -70% 110 -80%
260 160 160

Market Ass. Assessed Value Lvl Value
———– ——– —————P2,444,750 50% P1,222,375
2,018,610 50% 1,009,305 417,170 50% 208,585 16,533 20% 3,307
17,402 15% 2,610 273,520 50% 136,760 225,600 50% 112,800 132,160 50% 66,080
—————- —————–P 5,545,745 P 2,761,820 ========= =========

This Board, in its Decision dated November 7, 1996, ordered that the

assessments of the same lots be corrected as follows:

Lot No. 788-B-1-A, TD #6-236

Classification
————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Gravel Road Ind-Recre’l. Ind-Medical

Totals

Class Area (Sq.M.)
———- ———-3-C 7,155 3-G 18,413 3-G 121,888 3-E 13,295
10,582 3-F 1,071 3-G 3,487
————-175,891
=======

Unit
Value Adj. ——— ——–
P110 -40% 110 -85% 110 -85% 110 -70%
160
110 -80% 110 -85%

Market Ass. Assessed Value Lvl Value
———– ——– ————-
P 472,230 50% P236,115 303,815 50% 151,907
2,011,152 40% 804,460 438,735 20% 87,747
1,693,120 50% 846,560 23,562 15% 3,534
57,536 15% 8,630 —————- ————–P 5,000,149 P2,138,950 ========= ========

Lot No. 788-B-1-B, TD #6-320

Classification
————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Ind-Recre’l. Gravel Road
Railroad Tracks

Totals

Class Area (Sq.M.)
———- ———-3-A 22,225 3-C 30,585 3-G 25,283 3-E 501 3-F 791
2,462 826
————-82,673
=======

Unit
Value Adj. ——— ——–
P110
110 -40% 110 -85% 110 -70% 110 -80%
160 160

Market Ass. Assessed Value Lvl Value
———– ——– —————P2,444,750 50% P1,222,375
2,018,610 50% 1,009,305 417,170 50% 208,585 16,533 20% 3,307
17,402 15% 2,610 393,920 50% 196,960 132,160 50% 66,080
—————- —————–P 5,440,545 P 2,709,220 ========= =========

This Board was concerned only with the classification and unit valuation

of the portions of the parcels of land classified by Respondent-Appellee as

“asphalt roads”. Other matters affecting the same parcels of land were not in

issue.

Reference: Book IX, pp. 144-151

A re-examination of the records, however, reveals that the Local Board,

on page 17 of its decision dated February 24, 1995, stated that “On Lots 788-B-

1-A (TD No. 6-323) and 788-B-1-B (TD No. 6-320), the Board resolves to direct

the City Assessor “to make a re-assessment of these two parcels of land

based on the correct unit value considering that these lands do not adjoin

the national highway.” The records do not show that the City Assessor had

complied with this directive at the time the Central Board made its decision,

although the Local Board did not exactly define the correct unit values

applicable to the lots in question.

Respondent-Appellee City Assessor prepared on August 27, 1992 a

“Schedule of Market Values” (pp. 171-241, Records) which he submitted to the

City Council of Bais City for approval. It (Schedule of Market Values) states on

Page 5 thereof that “lands used or to be converted into industrial use which are

adjoining or abutting the National Highway xxx” shall have a market value of

P110 per square meter effective 1989-90 and “lands used or to be converted

into industrial use which are located within three (3) kilometers from the

National Highway xxx” shall have a market value of P80 per square meter, also

effective 1989-90.

On pages 7 and 8 of the same Schedule of Market Values the procedure

for the appraisal of industrial lands was laid down as follows:

“(a) All lands within the mill site occupied by and within 0 meters from the outside walls of the mill buildings of sugar centrals, lumber mill, or other industrial establishments shall be assessed at 100% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule of values. By mill buildings are meant those which house the power plant, the boiler and other mechanical instruments and devices which form parts of the main machine that runs the sugar, lumber and other industrial mills.

“(b) All lands within the mill site occupied by and within 20 meters from the outside walls of the electric plants, carpentry and foundry shops, etc., which form separate units of the main machine or the sugar, lumber and other industrial mills shall be assessed at 80% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule.

“(c) All lands within the mill site occupied by and within 20 meters from the outside walls of the administration buildings, bodegas, store and tool houses, etc., of sugar centrals, lumber mills and other industrial establishments, shall be assessed at 60% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule.

Reference: Book IX, pp. 144-151

“(d) All lands used as loading and unloading stations and yards where trains, railroad cars and rolling stock are kept and stored, shall be assessed at 40% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule.

“(e) All lands within the mill site occupied by or within 20 meters from residential buildings, shall be assessed at 30% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule.

“(f) All lands within the mill site used as caps, plaza or parks, shall be assessed at 20% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this scheduled.

“(g) All other industrial lands within the mill site not described above shall be assessed at 10% of the applicable rate of base market value prescribed in this schedule.

“(h) All lands used as railroad tracks or roads shall be valued at 30% of their total estimated cost per square meter.”

Under the same Schedule of Market Values, General Provision Nos. 4

and 5 thereof (p. 238, Records) state:

“4. Roads or streets in the urban sub-division or agricultural lands converted to sub-division, unless already donated and turned over to the government, shall be listed separately as taxable in the name of the sub-division owner and shall be value on the basis of the cost of cementing, asphalting and paving with gravel and sand. An estimate of such cost in square meter shall be appraised at 20% of their total estimated cost.

“5. Assessment level to be applied to the current market values shall be twenty per cent (20%) for residential lands, forty per cent (40%) for agricultural lands, fifty per cent (50%) for commercial, industrial, agro-industrial and mineral lands covered by leases, and twenty per cent (20%) for timberland.”

Thus, Respondent-Appellee City Assessor applied the assessment level

of twenty percent (20%) on the market values of the gravel-surfaced roads

located in Bgy. Calasga-an, Bais City under Tax Declaration Nos. 6-386 and 6-

342, both effective 1994. It is interesting to note that Lot Nos. 788-B-1-A and

788-B-1-B, under TD Nos. 6-326 and 6-320, respectively, where the

assessment level of fifty percent (50%) was originally applied by the City

Assessor to the market values of the road and railroad portions thereof, are

also located in Bgy. Calasga-an.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of this Board dated

November 7, 1997 is hereby MODIFIED such that the assessments on Lot Nos.

788-B-1-A and 788-B-1-B under Tax Declaration Nos. 6-326 and 6-320,

respectively, both effective January, 1994, be revised as follows:

Lot No. 788-B-1-A, (TD #6-326):

Class Classification

Area (Sq.M.)

Unit Market Value Adj. Value

Ass. Assessed Lvl Value

Reference: Book IX, pp. 144-151

————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Gravel Road Ind-Recre’l. Ind-Medical

Totals

———- ———-3-C 7,155 3-G 18,413 3-G 121,888 3-E 13,295
10,582 3-F 1,071 3-G 3,487
————-175,891
=======

——— ——–P110 -40%
110 -85% 110 -85% 110 -70% 160 -70% 110 -80% 110 -85%

———– ——– ————-
P 343,440 50% P171,720 220,956 50% 110,478
1,462,656 40% 585,062 319,080 20% 63,816 507,936 50% 101,587
17,136 15% 2,570 41,844 15% 6,277
—————- ————–P 2,913,048 P1,041,510 ========= ========

Lot No. 788-B-1-B, TD #6-320

Classification
————————Industrial Industrial
Ind-Agric’l. Ind-Resid’l. Ind-Recre’l. Gravel Road
Railroad Tracks

Totals

Class Area (Sq.M.)
———- ———-3-A 22,225 3-C 30,585 3-G 25,283 3-E 501 3-F 791
2,462 826
————-82,673
=======

Unit
Value Adj. ——— ——–
P110
110 -40% 110 -85% 110 -70% 110 -80% 160 -70% 160 -70%

Market Ass. Assessed Value Lvl Value
———– ——– —————P1,778,000 50% P 889,000
1,468,080 50% 734,040 303,396 50% 151,698
12,024 20% 2,405 12,656 15% 1,898
118,176 50% 23,635 39,648 50% 7,930
—————- —————–P 3,731,980 P 1,810,610 ========= =========

There appears no cogent or compelling reason to disturb our decision as

regards Ruling No. 8 of the Local Board.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, July 16, 1998.

(Signed) MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO
Chairman

(Signed)
ANGEL P. PALOMARES Member

(Signed) BENJAMIN M. KASALA
Member

Reference: Book IX, pp. 144-151