CTA Case No. 1787 (Decision)
~VICENTE DIEGO LOCSIN CTA CASE NO . 1787 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 DECI 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 P5 oOO per square meter on September 30 , 1963 under Tax Declaration Noo 14336 , effective 1964o On October 24 , 1963 , Lot 15 aforesaid was assessed at Pl2 o00 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 mete r 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
., > I� 11 1 I, t ' � ;. � ��� n~ t1 ��' �1ola �� c 01 t 0 11 � ... t ia ... ae1v .. 0 � ti � � h0 t 0 t I'J o. . 00 � era �~ o e f.4. 16 1' . t � �� 10 . 1 1� 1 t .... 3 � 3 �1 7 o.o 527
'/ ), 17 ? '' .f .. t7 73, � 19 5'1 Jlft 1 ion - 19 , , and. cont � ptuo tt} _to Lo 1 / ,, o� - hu '' ~.' / ... '1-, 528
( I t. ,' . . . . ,1. - ) ;:.' / per equat .. et~r ot Lot .N~. 16 ova 4 ab1o7fo0t7h�3()�uVp8rl'(t)o4t~r eta4t, Agu tin 1:_,. c i:Ot by Ta~ , clnratlon ,. the purpo$e oi' ehievtn& ti!"('},rlti. y aM rf!et tyi t. or r:tm 41 g .,. or -_fl:1' 1l'l3_uet1ce, as p~o 14 to jJ') '( SeotJ.on ~(4.} of 0~., Aot N~. 326, 8 �tah4eed~lertheortwi.....aaee knOV!'t as the CWu>~t� ol lod. In t'fl� A!. ht ot th1a o rcwut.a arut conaid rin that the re! pnn4ent 1. o ly eomplytrut. w1 b. biii dut:ie as p.resc 1 4 bf t � e. City Cht'rt-e:r:, tb eha r � or coot pt and . as nt '-�1n t b C1 ty A ae aor 11 ber�ll.v eon �1 _ re4 V1 t~ � . l'lt ss% In t 1a app-� l t>1t1 ners �re tha 1,.o mo.� 1' nd t6 1' ;QJr'f' .. onsly ~n ::?l!lessed; that Lot ' �� t 1. 00 per $QUa~ m. ~r as led Cedast.t J t t !~' o. 16 ehould a 6.00 per . quu , et~t 1o �t~� coxl3~ ~~ w:\th �r D c. No. t378i+J that the re.as&e� ant!' in qutt � ton te in violation ot l\ ol1ltlon ito. 83, se.r! a of 1963, of the ool City CoUilCil, layin own tte cl.t. � tb t ee1un::'f nto ot r 1 pr rper-t1tuw ahovl ,-o-~ or their 1962 a e�� ed values;
.' �, - � 111 �-. . if � � � r 0 1 � P n~ -~ t &l ' . 1 .r Q ta.. � to , ac ) Cl e t1 .. of v y ll t De ( if � � .,} t" 530
..' > .,. .., (" ~ � - .....; .<' :\-. .fl<� ' 1 0 ... �� r '', -~ () lo ty, 0� -f ' \ 'I' - ,�-' f r d '' h li c "'r �.. ). ' - 1 . ' ' n �,1 � 15 n atl at 531 �I
' ..~ ; 77 :1, ........... � !:1"�,:'-'~".' � / �- ' ��l4: "" .~_.I ,. 0 t ,"-. -, "...... �~ ~� "' "'~-~ 4. ~~4 {1 J <,'', �.1 .. ~\� '".,� 1 � '"' ~ 0 � 0 16 ;t �' r � : J! l1 )- � t\ '' 532
(11 y ~.. t!' .." ( .\ ,, � IJ ~ ' 1t ..-_ .:"( t .( a!lu .UJ tna � ttcn . 1 ntl '� ) � tr ,.�.I .o -�-~.;-~ \ ""' Jl ro t7 ot ta � 1.1,,,,., ,, 1 c���s.. 2771. 1 lo t �1 t t�r� � � ... t.a l � t I 16 � e e nd �� wit rut 311t.1t1. ( ~ o. 3 or t9 l� 1 I ol~ 0 '' � � t t �r t 533
' . ~ ~ :tf ... ' <' \ t' r �� 1 t-.oo. � ttt ,t � ... i 0 1� 1 �, ' ' ' 534 6,' '
.\ ' �' ..... ' .' . ,, ,, ''t '. ' ; '- \ ~ ~ .".'.~,...~. .. - - ~ 1 , , . ' ,; t .oo ' " �� 1 � 16 1-- re r 11 � .. ., 535
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.