Case Digest (G.R. No. 106588)
Facts:
Raul H. Sesbreno v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the City Assessor of Cebu City, G.R. No. 106588, March 24, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Raul H. Sesbreno purchased two adjoining lots with improvements on April 3, 1980; the deed described the improvements as “a residential house of strong materials.” Petitioner declared the property for taxation as a residential house of strong materials with a floor area of 60 square meters, and the City Assessor of Cebu City entered Tax Declaration No. 02-20454 (effective 1980) showing a market value of P60,000 and an assessed value of P36,900.
During a February 1989 tax-mapping operation, field inspectors found that the property was actually a four-storey residential building with a fifth storey used as a roof deck and a total floor area of 500.20 square meters, constructed of Type II-A materials; the Board of Commissioners confirmed these findings in an ocular inspection on October 17, 1990. Based on that discovery the City Assessor issued Tax Declaration No. GR-06-045-00162 effective 1989, canceling the old declaration and assessing a net market value of P499,860 and an assessed value of P374,900 (applying the 1981–1984 Schedule of Market Value).
Petitioner protested the new assessment as “excessive and unconscionable,” asserting acquisition cost should control, but the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Cebu City dismissed his appeal on January 11, 1990. He then appealed to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA). The CBAA rendered a decision in September 1991 directing the assessor to issue tax declarations effective 1981 and effective July 1, 1987, applying minimum unit rates for a Type II-A building (and specific computations for back taxes), and later, after a joint manifestation/compromise by the parties on reconsideration, issued a July 28, 1992 Resolution modifying its decision and directing tax declarations effective 1981–1987 and for 1989 based on Type II-B rates and the parties’ agreed revised valuation.
Petitioner filed an “appeal by certiorari” in the Supreme Court (seeking annulment of the CBAA Resolution), assigning errors including that the CBAA considered back taxes not raised below, misapplied Sections 23, 24 and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 464, failed to apply the market-value definition in par. n, Sec. 3 of PD 464, and disregarded the Court’s ruling in Reyes v. Almanzor. The record also showed petitioner did not pa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Was the petition properly filed under Rule 45 and did petitioner’s failure to pay the assessed tax under protest bar judicial review under Section 64 of PD 464?
- Procedural/Substantive: May the CBAA (and on review the Supreme Court) consider and resolve the issue of back taxes when that specific issue was not raised before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals?
- Substantive: Does Section 25 of PD 464 apply so as to permit assessment of back taxes on the undeclared excess area discovered during revision, or should Section 24’s prospective-effect rule control?
- Substantive: Is the definition of “market value” in par. n, Sec. 3 of PD 464 — or the acquisition cost submitted by petitioner — the exclusive basis for computing the assessed value for real property taxation?
- Substantive: Did Section 23 of PD 464 (requiring certification of a general revision to the Secretary of Finance) preclude the imposition of the assessments and back taxes in this case?
- Substantive/Constitutional: Do the imposition of back taxes here violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto la...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)