CTA Case No. 704 (Resolution)

� �UU'UBLIC OP .THE PHILIPPI~' COURT OF TAX APP~ au.N.IJ..4 JOSE B. G l'tBOA t c.T. I � Petitioner , C SE NO. 704 - versus - J IME C. P RROCO , Respondent . X - - - - - -� - X RES 0 LUT I 0 N The petitioner is the owner of Hacienda Bala - bag in La Carlota , Neg ros Occidental. He failed to p2y the real property tax due on the said ha cienda for the year 1952 allegedly because his sug r planta- tion was dest r oyed by typhoon in that year. s real property taxes were condoned in certain provinces affected by said typhoon , petitioner believed that Congress �ould. also enact a law remitting the real pronerty tax in negros Oc cidental for the same year. /f~ the meantime , respondent , L~unicipal Treasurer of La Carlota , made various attempts to collect the tax from petitioner but the latter refused . Acc ording - ly , respondent distrained , sometime in 1958, 130 piculs � of sugar owned by pe titioner and deposit~d in the '.Ia rehouse of the i1la -ao Sugar Central . On January 9 , 1959 , petitioner filed with the Court of First In- stance of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No . 5137) a petition for 1Prohibition and Damages" , pe titioner alleging that t he right of the Muni cip al Treasurer of La Carlota to collect the delinquent tax had al- ready pres cribed. In an order of t he Court of First

RESOLUTION - C . T ; A. c,s~ NO ~ 704 - 2- Instcmce of lJegros Occidental dated September 5 , 1959 , the petition was dismissed for lack of juris - di ction and for failure of the retition to state fa ct sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 'n "cixception and Noti ce ~f ppeal" was filed by petitioner with the Court of first Instan ce of Negros Occidental and thereafter a oetition for re - view was filed with this Court in the above entitled case . When this c ase ~as called for hearing in Baco - lod City , the Court suggested to the parties that they first consider the question of the jurisdiction of this Court to take cognizance of the case , it appear- ing that it does not involve an appeal from a de ci - sion of the Board of ssessment Appeals of Negros Oc- cidenta l. The parties agreed to submit the case on the questi on of jurisdi ction after filing the i r re - spe cti ve memorandum. Viewed as an appeal from the order of the Court of First Ins t an ce of Negros Occidental dismiss i ng the petition for 1frohibition and Damages" , this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal .. Repub - li c ct No, 1125 c reating the Court of Tax Appeals does not empower said Court to review de c isions or orders of the Courts of First Instance . Moreover , the legality of the action of respondent in dis - training 130 pi culs of sugar belonging to pe t ition - er , 1vhich was raised in the petition for prohibi - tion in Civil Case No . 5137 of the Court bf First

RCS0LUTIOIJ - C. T. � � C.St NO . 704 - 3- Instance of Negros Oc cidental , hus become moot . respondent having paid the real property tax in question on September 20 , 1959 and the distrained sugar having been released. Hay this Court take cognizance of the case as an original action contesting the legality of the collection of the . real property tax in question and for recovery of the tax already paid? In cases arising under the ssessment Law (Com . Act no. 470 , as amended) the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to appeals from decisions of provincial Boards of ssessment fppeals . The per- tinent provisions of Section 7 of Republi c ct No. 1125 reads : "Sec. 7. Jurisdi c tion .- The Court of Tax ppeals shall exerc1se ex clusive appellate jurisdi ction to review by ap - peal , as herein provided- X X X X (3) Decisions of provincial or city Boards of ssessment ;ppeals in cases in - volving the assessment and taxation of r eal property or other matters arising under the ssessment Law , including rules and regulations relative thereto. " It will be observed that only appeals from the decisions of provincial or city Boards of ssess - ment ppeals are cognizable by this Court. But it is argued that there was , and until now , no Board of ssessment Appeals in l':egros Occidental , the mem - bers t hereof not having been appointed . The case of petitioner could not , therefore , have been appealed to said Board. To deny petitioner the right to ap-

RESOLUTION - C. I . A. C SE NO. 704 -4- peal to this Court would , it is alleged , be tanta - mount to depriving him of any judicial remedy. (There appears to be some misconception as to the nature and scope of the duties and functions of provincial and city Boards of ssessment J ppeals created under Commonwealth ct No. 470 and the var- ious charters of chartered cities. Under the ssess - ment Law (C. A. No. 470) , the sole function of pro - vi.ncial assessors relates to the listing and valua - t1.on of rea1 propert y 1. n the1. r respec t 1. ve prov1. nces 1 ~ and the only function of the provincial Board of s - sessment Appeals created in each province is to re - view , on appeal or motu oropri~, any action taken by the provincial assessor in regard to valuation of real property for purposes of taxation2� fter the assessed value of a piece of real property has been determined , the same is certified to the provincial treasurer for collection of the annual real property tax3� The same is true in cases involving assess - ment of real property in chartered cities. 4 ) CThe law does not confer upon the Board of 1 s - sessment ppeals , in cases ari sing under the , ssess - ment Law , the power to review any action of the pro - vincial treasurer in matters affecting collection 1 See Se cs.. 7 - 16 , Com. ct No. 470. 2 See Sees . 17- 19 , id. 3 See Sees. 18 , 21- 41 , id. 4 See , for instance , Sees. 53 - 77 , H. No � 409 (Ch~rter of City of 1-,~ C'l nj_ la )� �

RESOLUTION - C. I . A. C SE NO. 704 -5- of real pro;;erty taxes . Since the legality of the action taken by the provincial treasurer , or of his deputies (the municipal treasurers) , in the perform- ance of his duty to collect real property taxes is not subject to review by the Board of issessment p - peals , it follows that this Court has no jurisdic- tion over such cases . They remain cognizable by the courts of general jurisdiction as before the enact- ment of Republic 1 ct No . 1125. The allegation that to deny petitioner his right to ap~eal to this Court would be to refuse him judicial remedy is not Gor- rect; what has happened is that ~he case of petition - er has not been properly handled. ) The decision of the Supreme Court in Blaquera v . Rodriguez , G. H. No . L- 11192 , April 16 , 1958 , has been cited in support of the proposition that cases involving the validity of the collection of real property taxes come vvith the jurisdiction of the . -" Court of Tax ppeals . The portion of the de cision quoted hereunder has ap~arently been misunderstood : "It is true that plaintiff claims that it has alreedy fully paid the de - ficiency taxes demanded from it by the defendant , but this claim alone cannot take this case out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax ppeals , for the same still comes within the purview of the words disputed assessment . The correctness or incorrectness of a tax assessment is for that court to deter- mine and not for the regular courts of justice . Nor can this case be placed beyond the jurisdiction of that court simply because certain consequential or moral damages are demanded , for they are but incidental to the main case . This can be passed upon by that court if and when the evidence so warrants . "

RE OLUTION - C. T� � C SE NO. 704 -6- The case of laquera v . Rodriguez involvea deficiency internal revenue taxes , and the doctrine laid do vn therein must be i1eld to apply solely to internal revenue cases . It has no application what - soever to the collection of real property taxes by provincial treasurers and their deputies . Neither does ~ly to municipal taxes . Finding that this Court has no jurisdiction over the inst~nt care , the same is hereby dismissed . llo costs. / OriD.Cl D. ~anila , July 27 , 1960. --?e__-~- . RO,L\l'l M. UHALr----; ssociate Judge �