STAR TOLLWAY CORPORATION v. THE CITY TREASURER, ASSISTANT CITY TREASURER, AND THE CITY ASSESSOR OF THE CITY OF BATANGAS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC EB CASE NO. 2943 (CBAA Case No. L-145-2020) STAR TOLLWAY CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellan0 -versus- Present: Ringpis-Liban, P.J., Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes- Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, ]]. THE CITY TREASURER, ASSISTANT Promulgated: CITY TREASURER, AND THE CITY ASSESSOR OF THE CITY OF BATANGAS, FEB 0 4 2026 h '3 :ao Respondents-Appellants. X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~=-----X ~ ~ , DECISION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J.: Before this Court is the Petition for Review flied by petitioner on June 28, 20241 assailing the D ecision2 dated O ctober 9, 2023, and Resolution3 dated May 3, 2024, promulgated by the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in CBAA Case No. L-145-2020, entitled Star Tol/wqy Corporation v. The Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Ci!J of Batangas and the Ci!J Treasurer and Assistant Ci!J Treasurer ofBatangas Ci!J and the Ci!J Assessor ofBatangas Ci!J. The dispositive portion o f the D ecision reads: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner-Appellant's Appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision dated 20 March 2019 o f the Local Board of Assessment Appeals ofBatangas City is AFFIRMED. I Rollo, CT t\ I�:R No. 2943, pp. 1-57 with Anncxc,;. 2 lbitl., pp 70-85. 3 Ibid., pp. 86-87.

DECISIO~ CL\ EB '-iO. 29.\3 (CB.\.\ C.\SE 0'0. L-1-15-2020) SO ORDERED." The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED." THE PARTIES Petitioner-Appellant is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal office address at Barangay Tambo, Lipa City, Batangas4 Respondents-Appellants City Treasurer and Assistant City Treasurer arc the local government officials of the City of Batangas responsible for collecting Real Property Tax (RPT) over real properties located in the City of Batangas. Respondent City Assessor is the local government official of the City ofBatangas responsible for the appraisal and assessment of real properties for taxation purposes under Republic /\ct No. 7610, or the Local Government Code (LGC). Respondents may be served with summons and other court processes through their counsel of record in the C:Bc\.A, ;-\.tty. Tedulfo A. Deguito, at the City Legal Office, City Hall, Batangas City.' THE FACTS The facts as found by the C:BAA are as follows: "On June 18, 1998, the Republic of the Philippines ("Government") through the Department of Public \Vorks and Highways ("DP\VH") and the Star Infrastructure Development Corporation ("SIDC") entered into a Toll Concession i\.greemem ("TC.:-\.") where the latter as grantee, was given the exclusive right, privilege and authority to operate and maintain the Southern Tagalog Arterial Road Project ("STAR") or ("Project"), extending from Sto. Tomas to Batangas City, throughout a concession period of thirty (30) years. In order to implement the Project the Government utilized the "Build Transfer and Operate" scheme, a variant recognized under R.i\ 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718, the Build-Operate-Transfer or BOT Law. ~ Pctinon for lkvicw, p. S. -1 Ibid., pp. 5-6.

Page 3 of16 DECISIO"' CT.\ EB i\0. 29~3 (ClH.\ C\SE '-:0. L-l�b-2020) The provisions of the TCA and as embodied in a separate Operation and Maintenance Agreement ("OMN'), SIDC was required to set up a single purpose corporation, the herein Pctitioner-J\ppellant, through which it shall perform its obligations to operate and maintain said project. Meanwhile, under the same OMA, the SIDC assigned, transferred and ceded to Petitioneh�\ppellant all its rights, prerogatives, duties and responsibilities under the TCA. On 13 November 2015, Respondent-Appellee City Assessor sent by registered mail a Notice of Assessment No. 132-140706 for the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 0102-02564, registered under the name of the Petitioner-Appellant and classified as commercial with an assessed value of One Hundred Eight 1\Iillion Nine Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand and Five Hundred Sixty Pesos (P1 08,984,560.00) The Petitioner-Appellant did not object to the said assessment nor take any other action thereon as it claimed non- receipt of the assessment. Thereafter, Respondent-Appellee City ;\ssessor declared said property delinquent for real property taxes in the total amount of Five Million Four Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Eight (ric) (P5,449,228.00) computed for the year 2015-2016. The Respondent-Appellee City Assessor issued two or more Notices of Real Tax Delinquency dated 01 1\pril2016 and 23 J\Iay 2016 on separate occasions. The Petitioner-;\ppellant raised objection over said assessment claiming exemption from paying realty taxes due thereon. It posited that the subject property is part of the S'L\R project, and the Government is the real owner thereof. It asked for the immediate correction of the tax declaration to reflect the name of the Governmentas (si1) the owner thereof, the cancellation of all assessments on s�L\R, and the removal of the Concrete Road from the City Treasurer's assessmentroll. (sir) Subsequently, Respondent-Appellant (sir) City Treasurer issued a Warrant of Levy dated 19 July 2016, and Notice of Publication and "�\uction Sale dated 07 September 2016 against the Petitioner-Appellant. On 25 November 2016, the Petitioner-.\ppellant filed a Petition for Reviewbcfore (Jir) the LR-\,\ Batangas City which was denied by the same Office on 20 :\larch 2019."

DECISIO" CT\ EB '\0. 29~3 (CB.\.\ CISE NO. L-l~S-2020) Records show that on 1\lay 21, 2019, Petitioner-Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration6 before the LBAA Batangas City, which was denied by the latter in an Order7 dated December 4, 2019. Aggrieved, Petitioner-Appellant filed before the CBAA on January 15, 2020, a Memorandum of "-\ppeal" assailing the LB-''L-\'s Decision and Resolution. On October 9, 2023, the CBAA issued a Decision9 denying for lack of merit the Petitioner-Appellant's AppeaL Petitioner-Appellant filed a 1\Iotion for Reconsideration 1" to the CR-\Ns Decision on November 22, 2023. Said motion was denied by the CB.:\A in the Resolution11 dated May 3, 2024. Hence, this "Petition for Review" was ftled by Petitioner-Appellant on November 28, 2024. On "-\ugust 16, 2024, the Court issued a i\Iinute Resolution ordering: 1) Respondents-Appellees to file comment on Petitioner-Appellants Motion for Suspension as incorporated in its Petition for Review; and 2) Petitioner- Appellants to submit the original or certified true copy of the Decision appealed from. 12 On September 4, 2024, the Court En Bane received Petitioneh-\ppellants "Compliance," 13 submitting the certified true copies of the appealed Decision and Resolution of the CB-'\A On October 1, 2024, Respondents--'\ppellees filed by registered mail their "Manifestation" 1 ~ stating that they cannot comment on a Motion for Suspension pursuant to the order of the Court En Bane in the i\Iinutc Resolution dated August 16, 2024, since there was no Motion for Suspension incorporated in the Petition for Review. In the Minute Resolution" dated November 26, 2024, the Court En Bane noted the Compliance filed by Petitioner-,\ppellants, Deemed the Manifestation ofRespondents-I\ppellees as not flied for failure to provide the required number of copies and the e-mail/ of copy of the said Manifestation within twenty-four r. Docket, CH_\_\ C.\SI�: !'-.:()_ 1-1-S-2020, !;older 5, pp. 262-269, with .\nncxc:;. 7 Ibid., pp. 302-303. :-:Ibid., hJkkr L pp. S-2L "�irh .\nncxc~. ''Ibid., hlldn 2, pp. 3""'-1--389. 111 Ibid., hJldcr 3, pp. 390-398. II Ibid., pp. -1-19--1<20. 12 Ibid .. p. 6-t. n Ibid., pp. 65-69. I~ Ibid., pp. 90-91 1' lbid., P� 9-1-.

DECISION CL\ EB l\0. 29-13 (CB.\.1 C.\SE l\0. L-145-2020) (24) hours from filing of paper copy thereof, and directed Respondents- .c\ppellees to ftle their Comment on the Petition for Review, within ten (10) days from notice. On December 5, 2024, the Court En Bane received Petitioner-Appellant's "Manifestation and Submission (re: Surety Bond)." 16 On December 11, 2024, the Court En Bane issued a Minute Resolution'' noting the "J\fanifestation and Submission (re: Surety Bond)." On January 23, 2025, the Court received respondent's "Comment to the Petition for Rcview." 18 On February 5, 2025, the Court issued a Minute Resolution which noted the "Comment to the Petition for Review," and ordered the instant case submitted for decision. THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS Petitioner-Appellant raises the following errors of the CBAA, viz: 1. The Cl't\A erred in ruling that the Subject Property is not exempt from RPT considering that the property is owned by the Republic and is classified as property of public dominion. 2. The C:K\"''1. erred in ruling that the beneficial usc over the Subject Property has been transferred to Petitioner. 3. The CBA,-\ erred in ruling that Respondenk\ppellee City ,'\.ssessor of Batangas correctly listed, valued, and assessed the Subject Property in the name of the Petitioner. THE ARGUMENTS Petitioner-"'l.ppellant claims that the Government is the actual owner of the subject property; that the subject property is devoted to public use and is, considered as property of public dominion; that it does not have any ownership rights (whether legal or beneficial) over the toll roads and ancillary facilities that comprise the ST"�\R Project; that all activities of Petitioner-Appellant in relation to the ST"\R Project arc regulated by the Government; and that since the 1'' I bid., pp. 9(J-%-\ U6. 1 Ibid., P- 10-:-. - 1 ~ Ibid., pp. 109-1-i-3, with .\1l1lL'.\c;;.

P~ge 6 of 16 DECISIO::-.: CT~\ EB '-'0. 2943 (CB.\.\ C\SE ?\0. L~HS-2020) ownership of all the Subject Property belongs to the Republic, the subject property is exempt from RPT pursuant to Section 234 (a) of the LGC. Petitioner-,\ppellant claims that the beneficial use of the Subject Property has not been transferred to them, and remains with the public in general; that it was not Petitioner-.Appellant who imposed the requirement for the payment of toll fees for the use of the toll roads; that the obligation to collect toll fees was imposed by the Government through the TCA, where the Government granted SIDC the privilege to collect toll revenues from the operation of the STAR Project as a tollway facility during the concession period; that the collection of toll fees allows SIDC: (through Petitioner-Appellant) to recoup the costs that it has incurred in financing the STAR Project and in operating and maintaining the same, for the benefit of the public and on behalf of the Government. Furthermore, Respondent City Assessor erred when it issued the tax declaration over the subject property under the name of Petitioner-Appellant; and that there is no basis for the issuance of a tax declaration under its name since Petitioner-Appellant is neither the owner nor the beneficial user of the subject property. Conversely, Respondents-Appellees submit that Petitioner-Appellant is a private corporation engaged in toll operations for the purpose of operating for profit; that being a private entity, it was assigned with rights by SIDC under the Oi\L-\ and TCA; that there is no law, charter, or provision in the Ol\L-\ and TCA that provides for a tacit exemption from real property taxes. Petitioner-Appellant did not enter into TC\ and OJ\L-\ with the government only for the purpose of constructing the toll road facilities~ Their agreement was entered into to recuperate the cost of construction and operating the toll road, and to earn income through operation of the toll road facilities. Respondents-"�\ppellants claims that since Petitioner-Appellant is not a government instrumentality, it cannot enjoy the same exemption allowed by law to Light Rail Transport 1\uthority (LRT"�\) and Manila International Airport Authority (l\JIAA)~ Petitioner-Appellant has beneficial use of the subject property, for its authority to control access to, and derive revenue from the property, through collection of toll fees. ,\!though its business is operating the toll facilities to the public, the same docs not automatically exempt itself from payment of real property taxes. There must be a law expressly granting tax exemption from real property taxes. Respondents-Appellants further claims that the C:BAA correctly affirmed the issuance of Tax Declaration No. 0103-02564 under the name of Petitioner- Appellant. The actions of the City A.ssessor, in listing and assessing the property

DECISION CL\ Ell i\:0. 2943 (ClH.I C\SE ~0. J..J.\5.2020) in the name of Petitioner-c\ppellant is consistent with the principles governing real property taxation. THE RULING OF THE COURT EN BANC Timeliness ofthe Petition for Review On November 8, 2023, the Petitioner-Appellant received the Decision of the CBAA On November 22, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision. On May 3, 2024, the CBA"-\ issued the assailed Resolution denying Petitioner- Appellant's motion. Said Resolution was received by Petitioner-Appellant through its counsel on iviay 29, 2024. From receipt of the said Resolution on May 29,2024, Petitioner-Appellant had until June 28, 2024 within which to file the Petition for Review before the Court En Ball<', pursuant to Sections 3 (c) and 4 (c), Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax "\ppeals, as amended provides: SEC. 3. Wlio may appeal,� period to file petition.- XXX (c) a party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by filing before it's a petition for review within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the questioned decision or ruling. SEC. 4- Where to appeal; mode of appeal.- XXX (c) An appeal from a decision or ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals or the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court m ba11c shall act on the appeal. The instant "Petition for Review" was flled on June 28, 2024. Hence, this Petition for Review was timely filed.

DECISIO'-' CT\ Ell '-JO. 2943 (Cll.-1.\ C\SE ;,;o. L-115-2020) Whether Petitioner-Appellant Js liable for RPT on the Subject Property Petitioner-Appellant has beneficial usc over the subject property After due consideration of the facts, assigned errors and arguments raised by Petitioner-Appellant, the Court En Bane finds that the Petition for Review should be denied for lack of merit. Thus, the Petitioner-Appellant's claims were correctly denied by the CK\A. Section 234 of the LGC provides: "SEC 234. E.Yemptlom from Rea! Property Ta)<: ~ The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: (a) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. xxx (Emphasis s11pp!ied) In Philippine Hemt Center 11. Lora! Govemment ofQmzon City, 19 it was held that it is the taxable person with beneficial usc/possession who shall be responsibk for the payment of RPT due on government properties. The "Beneficial Use Principle" in taxation means that the person or entity who actually enjoys the use or possession of a property, rather than just the legal owner, is responsible for paying the taxes, especially when government-owned properties are leased or granted for a fee to private taxable entities, making the user liable for taxes. The tax burden is shifted from the exempt government owner to the taxable private party benefitting from the property. The application of the "Beneficial Cse Principle" is not limited to acquisition, held for resale or lease. Under the Built-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement, if the private sector proponent goes into business for itself, assuming risks and incurring costs for its account in undertaking the project, and subsequently, managing the same for the agreed period to allow it to recover its basic costs and earn profits, the owner-manager-operator for the same is the actual, direct, and immediate user of the propcrt:y.c" 19 ( ;_]\_ ?'\o. ~25-109, .\brch 11 . :2U20. _:_r, Xr:!POC.DR I'J. Cn�-L�l C.R. No. 1-1-f:'O. 30Jlmur~� ~(109.

DECISIO"i CT\ EB "iO. 2943 (CB.\.\ C.\SE NO. L-145-2020) In this case, it is Petitioner-Appellant who has beneficial use over the subject property, because it actually uses, possesses, and enjoys such property, through generation of toll revenues from the public users. The nature of business of Pctitioner-"-\ppellant, which is operating the toll facilities for the public, does not exempt itself from payment of RPT. Plaintiff-Appellant's argument that the motorists and commuters are the actual users of the subject property is totally misplaced. _\s aptly discussed in the assailed Decision:21 "Notably, it is the "taxable person" with beneficial use who shall be responsible for payment of real property taxes due on government properties. "\ny remedy for the collection of taxes should then be directed against the "taxable person," the same being an action in personam. The Decision of the LR-\_A is apt and correct as to who enjoy the beneficial use of the property and consequently liable on real property tax thereon, thus: "Petitioner argues that the public enjoys the beneficial use of the subject Property. It "submits that the beneficial use of the property docs not pertain to it but to the public in general. Petitioner has no freedom of use and control over the property. The beneficial use of the property is expressly reserved for the public, as toll road users, as provided in Section 8.05(d) of the TCA, and as replicatedin (Ji.c) Section 6.01 of the Oi\L\, which states: "Upon being authorized to operate, the GRANTEE Operations Company, shall keep the STAR open to all road users continually and w-ithout interruption." Petitioner is grasping at straws. It is clear from the cited provision that the public they claim to benefit from the subject Property is not the public in general, as contemplated by the law. The term used is "toll road users." This palpably refers to road users. This palpably refers to road users who go through the toll ways, and thus pay for the use of the subject Property. Such that, if a member of the general public wishes to usc the STAR but is not willing to pay the toll fees, Petitioner can deny access top him. Hence, this provision, in relation to the Grant of Privilege provision of 21 Decision, pp. 7-13. Citations omitted.

DECISJO~ CL\ EB '-JO. 2943 (CB.\.\ C.\SE ~0. L-1 15-2020) the TCA, even bolsters the actuality that it is the Petitioner who has complete possession and control, and uses the subject Property for its revenue-generating benefit." XXX XXX XXX Petitioner postulates that by the grant of the right to inspection and supervision to Toll Regulatory Board (TRB), the Government has complete ownership of the STAR ProJect, including all other Improvements thereon. However, upon perusal of the TCA and the OMA, it is blatant that the Grantee and its Operator, herein Petitioner corporation, has complete control of the subject Property. Any form of supervision and exercise of inspection is a necessary corollary of the requirements under existing laws and as a safeguard to ensure compliance by the Grantee or his assigns of its obligations under the TCA The public, even more, cannot demand to use the STAR without paying for the toll fees, which goes straight into the coffers of the Petition[er] Corporation or its principal. The TC-\ provides that: "10.03 Toll and Toll Collection g. The Toll [Revenue collected] from the operation of the STAR as a tollway facility is the property of the GRANTEE. (emphasis supplied) The case of LRTA V CBAA is enlightening, to wit: Through the creation of the LRT\ was impelled by public service- to provide mass transportation to alleviate the traffic and transportation situation in I\fetro J\Ianila - its operation undeniably partakes of ordinary business. Petitioner is clothed with corporate status and corporate powers in the furtherance of its proprietary objectives. Indeed, it operates much like any private corporation engaged in the mass transport industry. Given that it is engaged in a service-oriented commercial endeavor, its carriageways and terminal stations are patrimonial property subject to tax, notwithstanding its claim of being a government-owned or controlled corporation.

DECIS!Ol'-i CL\ Ell l\0. 29-13 (CB.-1.-1 C.-\SE l\0. L-1-15-2020) True, petitioner's carriageways and terminal stations are anchored, at certain points, on public roads. However, it must be emphasized that these structures do not form part of such roads, since the former have been constructed over the latter in such a way that the flow of vehicular traffic would not be impeded. These carriageways and terminal stations serve a function different from that if the public roads. The former is part and parcel of the light rail transit (LRT) system which, unlike the latter, are not open to use by the general public. The carriageways are accessible only to the LRT trains, while the terminal stations have been built for the convenience of LHTA itself and its customers who pay the required fare. Unlike public roads which are open for use by everyone, the LRT is accessible only to those who pay the required fare. It is thus apparent that petitioner does not exist solely for public service, and that the LRT carriageways and terminal stations are not exclusively for public use. Although petitioner is a public utility, it is nonetheless profit- earning. It actually uses those carriageways and terminal stations in lts public utilitT business and earns money therefrom." No law, rule or regulation grantmg exempuon from pannent of taxes Petitioner-Appellant failed to state any law, rule or regulation granting it exemption from pavment of RPT The Supreme Court has always applied the doctrine of strict interpretation in construing tax exemptions. In Commissiomr ojf11temal Revmm vs. Forttlne Tobatco C01poration, "" the High Court held: "Tax exemption is a result of legislative grace. .-\.nd he who claims an exemption from the burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be mistaken. The rule is that tax exemptions must be strictly construed such that the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention.

l\1ge 12 of 16 DECISIO~ CT\ EB 'CO. 2943 (CB.'�' C\SE "'0. L-1-l'i-2020) A claim for tax refund may be based on statutes granting tax exemption or tax refund. In such case, the rule of strict intetvretation against the taxpayer is applicable as the claim for refund partakes of the nature of an exemption, a legislative grace, which cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and categorical language. The taxpayer must show that the legislature intended to exempt him from the tax by words too plain to be mistaken." In the assailed Decision,"3 the CK\c-\ ruled as follows: "xxx Respondents correctly pointed out that "[TJhere is no law exempting the PetitioneL�\ppellant or its principal, SIDC from the payment of taxes. As a matter of fact, it is very clear in the provisions of the [Build Transfer Operate Agreement] and the Ol\L\ that the Government and SIDC shall be jointly liable for the payment o f taxes." The Agreement (l'CA) provides: 3.02 BY THE GRANTEE b. Obligations of the GR.c\NTEE In general, the Grantee shall: (9) Unless, otherwise exempted therefrom, pay all taxes due and collectible therefrom in accordance with Philippine tax laws, the amounts of which, if allowed or required by law or regulations to be passed on to motorist end-users, shall be added on to toll collectible thcrcfronL 8.05 Obligations under the Franchise e. Without prqudicc to any other provision of this Agreement, all costs and expenses in respect or undertaking the Operation and Maintenance of the toll facilities, including without limitation taxes and other obligations arising therefrom accruing at any time during the Concession Period, shall be the joint responsibility of the GU1\RANTEE and the Operations - " ( ~ompany. ~' Dcci:-;ion, pp. l:l-lS.

DECIS!Ol\; CT\ EB );0_ 2943 (Cll.\.\ CISE 1\;()_ L-145-2020) The Operations and i\Iaintenance Agreement (OM,-\) likewise provides for the liability of Petitioner for taxes, to \vit: 4.01 OPERATOR Obligations In general, the OPEl"L-\TOR shall: 1) Unless otherwise exempted therefrom, pay all taxes due and collectible therefrom in accordance with Philippine tax laws, the amounts of which, if allowed or required by law or regulation to be passed on to motorist end-users, shall be added on to toll collectible therefrom. XXX 8.11 GRANTEE'S Operation Company b. The Operations Company shall be a single purpose corporation, the powers and functions of which shall only be to undertake and perform the Operation and Maintenance of the STAR for and behalf of the GlL-\NTEE under this Agreement, including the collection of toll revenue and the payment of all monetary obligations incurred in the course of implementing this Agreement. It is very apparent that it was never intended for petitioner to be exempt from the payment of taxes, including that of Real Property Taxes which may accrue at any time during the Concession Period. This is not only logical, but is in keeping with the general rule that "(Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. Any claim for tax exemption is strictly construed against the claimant." Petitioner has not shown its eligibility for exemption; hence, it is subject to the tax." Hence, Petitioner-j\ppellant cannot claim exemption from payment of the taxes assessed by the Respondents-Appellants. The Tax Declaration was correctlY issued In the name Petitioner- .-\ppellant

DECISIO'\ CL\ Ell '-'0. 29+3 (CB.\.\ C.\SE '\0. L.\.15.2020) Petitioner-Appellant insists that since the ownership of the subject property belongs to the Government, and the beneficial use of which is enjoyed by the public, there was no basis for Respondent-Appellant City Assessor to issue Tax Declaration No. 0103-02564 on the subject property under its name. },s correctly found by the CBA'"c\, Petitioner-Appellant has beneficial use of the subject property. It necessarily follows that the Tax Declaration should be issued in the name of Petitioneh-\ppellant. Thus, Respondent-'"�\ppellee City , \ssessor correctly listed, valued and assessed the subject property in the name of Petitioner-Appellant pursuant to Sections 204 and 205 of the JoGC, which provides as follows: "Section 204. Dedaration of Rea! PtvperiJ' by the A.r.re.rs01:- \\'hen any person, natural or Juridical, by whom real property is required to be declared under Section 202 hereof, refuses or fails for any reason to make such declaration within the time prescribed, the provincial, city or municipal assessor shall himself declare the property in the name of the defaulting owner, if known, or against an unknown owner, as the case may be, and shall assess the property for taxation in accordance with the provision of this Title. No oath shall be required of a declaration thus made by the provincial, cit)' or municipal assessor." "Section 205. Li.rting ofRea! Property in t!Je A.rsemnent Rolfs. - XXX (d) Real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines, its instrumentalities and political subdivisions, the beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person, shall be listed, valued and assessed in the name of the possessor, grantee or of the public entity if such property has been acquired or held for resale or lease." Thus, the Tax Declaration No. 0103-02564 issued by Respondent- Appellant City '"\ssessor under the name of Petitioner-Appellant should not be cancelled. In view of the foregoing, the Court En Bam� finds that petitioner has not sufficiently established its case.

DECISIO'-' CT.\ EB !\0. 2943 (CB.\.\ C.\SE '-iO. L-145-2020) ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. .., ~. ~ ..........._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: ~ ~ f ~-f~r;...&:r, MARIAN Im. REYEg-FAJARDO Associate Justice LAN~VID Associate Justice HENRY S. ANGELES Associate Justice

Page 16 of16 DECISJO): CL\ EB '-iO. 29~3 (ClH.\ C\SE NO. J.-1-IS-2020) CERTIFICATION Pursuant to I\rticle VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ~- ~ )......._____ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice