CTA Case No. 589 (Decision)

, . iW" V Lit. Of' 'l".tJ � t U L lP'!" l�'<~ll 4.0UR 0 T AX APPB.ALS M.AbllU - �� � -... ... ' - - .. - � c .'~� ' _, � , 0 - 286 ..

0�; ;0 -- t ro t 11 0 Co ( .o- 0 � � i n io ' � � ;' 20, 1 57) 1 vol u. rw 0 cb ,1 1 0 0 1- tL ( � , .4 ' c 0 ' ro 0 � OV 0 ( c s0 ), y, n - i t l or t .) . � 3 t 0 e io 0 tl 00 0 tt. n y �

� .' � n � � � 0 11 10 � X � 0 .. ,, 288

� 58 5 - u � � v � 1 � t � t ' 1 � i' 28 9

CT I �� 59 .. ' (See also Ramacho v. Hun. of Baliuag 28 Th.il. 466) rt ot r, � 1 1c e � ., , .J l t � � ' u 3, . 9 3 :� 2 9 0