Court of Tax Appeals
0~Vicente Diego Locsin and Gustin T. Locsin vs. Cirilo B. Gallos, et al.
~VICENTE DIEGO LOCSIN
and
GUSTIN T. LOCSIN ,
Petitioners ,
- versus
CIRILO B. GALLOS , in
his capacity as Baco~od
City Assessor , and
Bacolod City Board of
ssessment (Tax) Appeals ,
Respondents .
X -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
CTA CASE NO . 1787
D E C I S I 0 N
Petitioner Vicente Diego Locsin purchased on
September 6, 1963 , Lot Noo 15, Bloci No. 3 , with an
area of 600 square meters at PlOoOO per square
meter, or for P6 , ooo. oo from the Capitol Subdivision,
Inc . of Bacolod Cityo This lot is a portion of
Cadastral Lot 1205 pt . which was assessed at P5oOO
per square meter on September 30 , 1963 under Tax
Declaration Noo 14336 , effective 1964o
On October
24 , 1963 , Lot 15 aforesaid was assessed at Pl2o00
per square meter or a total of P7,200 by Tax Dec-
laration No o 14528, effective 1964, cancelling Tax Dec .
laration No . 14336 as far as said lot is con'cerned o
The assessment at Pl2 o00 per square meter of said lot
is P2 . 00 more than its purchase price per square
meter .
On March 5, 1964, petitioner requested for
the reconsideration of the said assessment but same
was denied by respondent City Assessor Cirilo Bo
Gallas in a letter dated March 13 , 1964 (Exhs . 8, 9 ,
526
ee a ee ee a in Ft le ed a ee
4 :
DECISION «
CTA CasE NO, 1767
2
Ppe 3 & 5, respectively, Board of Assessuent Appeals
ree.). On March 18, 1964, petitioner Vicente Diego
Leesin appealed the assessment to the Soard of
Assessment Appeals on the ground that it violated
Resolution No. 53, series of 1963, of the Bacolod
City Couneil which declared a policy that reassess~
ments of lots should not exceed 50% of their 1962
values and that at any rate the assessment is ex-
cessive.
The other petitioner herein, Agustin 7, Loesin,
who is the counsel for petitioner Vicente Diego
Loesin, is the owner of Lot No, 16, Block No. 3, with
en area of 600 square meters adjacent to Lot flo. 15
aforesaid. This Lot 16 was acquired by petitioner
Agustin T. Loesin from the same Capitol Subdivision,
Ine., for the same price of £10.00 per square meter.
It also is a part of Cadastral Lot 1205 pt. It
was formerly assessed at #2,400.00 under Tax Dec-
Isration No, 11424. This eaesessment was raised by
the City Assessor to °7,200 in Tex Declaration 6698
dated October 5, 1962 effective 1963. Petitioner
Agustin T, Locsin protested the assessment of his
lot and same wes reduced to #3,600.90 under Tax Dec.
Ho. 1378% dated April 30, 1963, or gt 96.00 per ,
square meter. On March 30, 1965, during the pendency
of the appeal of petitioner Vicente Diego Losin, :
the respondent City Assessor again reassessed Lot “7
No. 16 and raised its valuation to ®7,200.00 under
DECT SION
CTA GASE 0, 1787
3
fax Dee. Be. 17973, retroactive as of the year 1963.
On April 1%, 1965, petitioner Agustin T. Loesin, in
his own dehalf, protested and appealed this re-
esacesment urging the cancellation thereof and the
maintenance of the assessment at 3,600.09 or at
$6.00 per square weter (Exh. 55 De 20, Board of
Assezanent Appeals rec.). Aad in the same letter of
April 14, 1965, he charged that the reassesement was
malicious and contemptuous te the respondent Foard
of Assessment Appeals because (t was intended as a
measure te cooree and compel him fiot tor proeeba with
the appeal of his client, Vicente Diege Loesin, there-
by interfering with and obstructing the proceedings
Aeting on the appeals of petitioners Jicente
Diego Locsin and Agustin Locsin, respondent Seard of
Assesswent Appeals denie@ the same, holding thus =
"As the issues were already square-
ly wet by the memoranda submitted by the
protestant and the respondent, City
Assessor, it was found ent that both —
en Nos. 19, in the name of Vicente
go Loesin, and 16, ey on
igestin T, Locsin, both of oe oe °
Cadastral ‘ot ho. 1205-pt.
Cadastre sdjecest lots oy uoeel
on 16th Street. Capitol Subdivision,
Exe
Bibat Noe $) af” he wen Re €
Assessor, all lote listed on both
ef 16th street ere assessed .. the vate
of £12.00 per oqgere meter, and above,
is mye at the “ity < mouse
e worse as covered x Dec-
per agua *
out that in Pa A. the assessed
valuation at the rate of 76.00 te #12.00
528
DECISION ~
CTA CASE SO. 1787
m
r square neter of Let Ne. 16, owned
y the protestant, Agustin i. Locsin,
ae ha = Tax ney yr No.
1 s for the purpose of &
uniforrity and rertitying or amending
errors or injustice, as provided for in
Seetion 27(4) of Com. Act Mo. 326, as
amended, otherwise known as the Charter
of the City of Becelod. In the light
ef thie circumstance and considering that
the respondent is only complying with
his duties as prescribed the City
Charter, the charge of contempt and
harrassment against the City Assessor
is hereby considered without seritea
xxx
“WHEREPORR, the Board of Assessaent
(Tax) Appeals, after having carefully
Geliberated on the salient issues as
raised in said petition, hereby resolves,
as it is hereby resolved, that the here~
in protests of Vicente Diese Loesin end
Agustin T. Loesin over the assessed
Valuation of Lote Nos. 1§ and 16, Block
Boe 3, Cadsstral Lot No. 1205-pt., Soe
olod éadastre Fonpoateveny are hereby
denied. The City /esessor is also ad-
vised te saintain hig records witheut
— fron the present assessed val-
(pps 199-160, Board of Assesament Ap-
ree., Yol. I.)
In this appeal petitioners urges that lots Nos.
1$ and 16 were erroneously reacsessed; that Lot Ne.
19 should be assessed at °5.00 per square meter as
its mother lot, Cadastral [ot “No. 1205-pt., Sac-
elod Cadastre; that lot No. 16 should he assessed
at 96.00 per square meter in accordance with Tax
Dee. No. 13764, that the reassesaments in question
were in violation of Resolution No. 83, series of
1963, of the Bacolod City Council, laying down the
poliey that reassessments of real properties shovlé
not be sore than 50% of their 1962 assessed values;
529
DECISION ~
CTA CASE BO. 4787
2
and that respondent City Assessor should be dec-
lared in eontempt of respondent Soard of Assessment
Appeals.
On the other hand, respondents contend that
the lots in question are adjacent te each other
and loeated along 16th Street and are classified as
3rd class residential lots under the Schedule of
Values approved by the Department of Finance on
December 21, 1962 and assessed at the rate of
72,90 per square meter; that the mother let (Let
No. 1295-pt.) referred te by petitioners which
was assessed at ©§,00 per square meter in the same
subdivision belongs to the tith clese in said
schedule; that the Pacclod City Couneil’s resolution
adverted to is not binding on the City ‘sseasor; and
that the City Assecsor has comritted no contemptucus
act.
( It is not eontroverted that petitioner Diego
Leesin purchased Lot No. 15 from the Capitol Sub-
division at #19.00 per square meter on September 6,
1963, and petitioner Agustin T, “oesin bought Let
No. 16 for the same price and from the same source.
The purchases were arn’a length transactions. Mo
evidenge has been presented te show that these two
lots eonld command better prices. ‘or is there
evidence te show that the other lote in the block
commanded better pricea than #19.00 per square
meter. The law requires that real property shall
530
;
+ we phe Oe
7 oe ha — es ee > -o ee _ wy o when, a aan ak Lt TTT ear
DRCISION «
CTA CASE NO. 1787
6
be assessed at its true and full value, or cash
value, or fair market value (GC, N. lodges v. Board
of Assessment Appesis of Ilefilo City, CTA Case Nos.
361 and 362, Nov. 21, 1958).
"The lew reouires that all real
property should be assessed for tax~-
ation purposes: (a) at ite true and
full value ay (bh) in sceordanece with
the schedule of valves in force in the
municipality or te i ay district
wherein the prop is si pe ght
supplied «)
i me norket value of the property is the price the
o_ Ae
property will bring in a fair market after e fair
and reasonable efforts have been made to find e pur-
chaser who will give the highest price for it (Mac-
ondray & Co, v. Selliners, 33 Pail. 370). In the
light of these rules it cannot be gainsaid that
#10,00 per square meter represents the fair sartet
valve-or the full value of the lots in question,
sinee no reason hee been edvanced for s change in
the warket price of the lots.
"06 oie similer property is
commonly bought and sold, the price
which it brings is the best test of
the sarket va of the land under
ecustbesethins and the assessor need
leek no further. . ." (Castillo,
The Law on Loesl Texation, p. 255
quoting R. ©, b.) )
Lote Sos. 15 and 16 should be assessed at 710,00
531
DECISION
CTA GASBR NO. 1787 7 per square meter and not more. The sesesement at £12.00 per square meter of lot do. 15 of Vicente Diego Loesin effective 1964 in Tax Declaration ‘io.
14336 should be redmeed to #10.00 per square seter. ‘With respect to Lot Bo. 16 of Agustin T. Locsin, the assessment at #12.0° per equare weter effective 1963 in Tax Declaration “©. 17073 dated Nerch 3°, 1965 should be reduced to 10.00 per square meter effective 1966 and not retroactive to 1963. on “arch 30, 1963, this lot was assessed at 76.59 per square meter effective 1963 and the City Assessor cannot correet this assessment in 1965 with retro- active effect on the strength of Section 27(d4) of the Charter of Becolod efted by him. Section 27(a) \ of said Cherter provides tiat the City Assessor should | ecress the real oreperties of the city annually. Seetion 27(4) provides that the list of assessments should be published; that a day, which shall not be later than the tenth of Jenuary, be fixed to hear all compleints by persons agsinst whom taxes have been assessed as owners of real estate and if the City Assessor finds that injustice or error has been committed he may amend the list in secordsnce with his findings. These provisions ere no authority for a correction of errors with retroactive effect two years efter the alleged error har been committed in @isreyard of the procedure provided by lew. There was m complaint or hearing with the reassessment in question
532 P
DECISION =
CTA CASE "0, 4787 Indeed it seens unjustifiable to burden landowners with the ervrers of assessors cecesioned by their lack of rudimentary diligence sueh as the failure to conduct a necessary inspection of the land whieh is what happened here. )
Petitioners, however, insist that their lots ~ should be assessed at 5,00 per squere meters whieh is the assessment of the mother let No. 1205 follow ing the rule of uniformity of texetien. In this respect, it appears in Exhibit 6 that Lote Nos, 15 end 16 in question are in Block 3, C.PsOeSe = 2771, adjecent to Block 2, ©.P.C.S= 2771. The residential lots in these two blocks and in two adjoining blocks are assessed at #10,00 to #13,00 per square meters (Rxhs. 5 & 6) because as explained by respondent Assessor, they are a newly developed portion clas- sified as jrd class in the Schedule of Yalues tut the balance of the mother lot of lots los. 15 and 16 are beyond this newly developed portion. Mo evidence haa been adduced to disprove this claim and we take it te be correct. It atands to reason that a more developed subdivision land costs more than the less developed ones and « difference in their assesenent is not without justification, ( Seso1ution No. 83 of 1963 of the Bacolod City Couneil manifesting a policy for reassesanents to the effect that increases in the eseessed value of lands showld be 50% of their previous assessment en TO
DECIGION «
CTA CASE WO, 91787 9 has no binding foree or effeet on respondent City Assessor of Bacolod, Under the Charter of the cat | ef Bacolod the duty to assess is vested on the City } Assessor who must use his own judgment fer this purpose (Section 27Zb7 Com. set No. 326 as amended). And as adverted to further above, by express mandate of the law, property should be assessed at the true and full walve of the property. We find no provision in the Charter of the City of Bacolod that authorises the city council thereof te control the juodgzent of the City Assessor in connection with the assessments of real property fer purposes of anthers W ith respect to the contempt charge, it should be regalled that the assesenent of petitioner Agustin Te Loesin's Let No. 16 was raised to #12,00, then reduced to 96.00, and later raised again te #12.00 per square weter, The charge is predicated on the pretense that respondent raised the assessment fron #6,00 te $12,900 per square meter with the intention of compelling petitioner Agustin T. Locsin not to proceed with petitioner Vicente Diego Locsin's ap- peal before the Board of Tax Appeals. This preten- sion is not substantiated by evidence and, on the other hand, the feet that the true value or market valine of said lot is #19.00 and the neighboring lots are assessed at 710,00 to P12.00 militate ageinst it, 534
DECISION ~
CTA CASE HO. 1787 40
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby modified. The assessment in Tax Declaratica ‘o. 14928 of Lot No. 15 is hereby reduced from ?12.00 te #79.00 per square meter; and the assessuent in Tax Declaration No. 17073 ef Lot Be. 16 is hereby reduced from °12.00 te £10.00, without retroactive effect. The motion te declare respondent City Assessor Gallos in contempt is hereby dented. Withent pronouncement as to costa.
60 ORDERTD.
RAMON L. AVANCEIA
Associate Judge
WR COHCUR:
ROMAN M. OMALI _ Presiding pres Ze.
fe Gaee Leo & Cf: he
Associate Judge
939