RPT Ordinance 2021
RPT Ordinance 2021
RPT Ordinance 2021
DECISION
LEONEN, J : p
former President Corazon Aquino, "[did] not impose new taxes or increase
taxes" 45 despite its mandate to revise real property market values for
property tax assessment purposes.
This argument will not stand, as Chavez is not on all fours with this
case. A reading of Executive Order No. 73 will show that it was not issued to
provide new values to be used in the computation of real property
assessments. Instead, it merely postponed the implementation of the
increase in real property taxes which had been previously issued. Further, it
did not provide for levy or exaction, but only amended another law's
effectivity date. Thus, Section 1 of Executive Order No. 73 states:
SECTION 1. Real property values as of December 31, 1984
as determined by the local assessors during the latest general
revision of assessments shall take effect beginning January 1, 1987
for purposes of real property tax collection. (Emphasis supplied)
This is unlike the Ordinance, which provided the updated real property
values for the purpose of computing real property tax assessments and
generating revenue. Moreover, the Ordinance's objective as a revenue
generating instrument was made clear in its scope and coverage, thus:
SECTION 2. Scope and Coverage. — This Code shall cover
the assessment, appraisal, classification, sub-classification and
identification of all real properties within the City of Batangas subject
of real property taxation.
Furthermore, Section 3 of the Ordinance enumerates guidelines for
"the appraisal, assessment, levy[,] and collection of real property tax." Thus,
it is apparent that the Ordinance was intended for the local government
unit's revenue generation. Despite petitioners' claims, they cannot deny that
the Ordinance is a tax ordinance. This Court has categorically stated that "if
the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real
and substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a tax." 46
Similarly here, in Lopez v. City of Manila, 47 the petitioner questioned
the legality of an ordinance enacted by the City of Manila, which revised the
real property values in its jurisdiction. In resolving the case, this Court
considered the general revision of real property values as a tax ordinance,
and appropriately applied Section 187 of the Local Government Code as a
remedy available to the taxpayer.
Section 187 48 provides that a taxpayer may question the
constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance on appeal, within 30 days from
its effectivity, to the Secretary of Justice. Having established that the
Ordinance is a tax ordinance, Tolentino properly questioned its legality
before the Secretary of Justice.
Nevertheless, while the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Justice
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
were correct in denominating the Ordinance as a tax ordinance or revenue
measure, this does not automatically make it an ordinance subject to the
procedures provided for by Sections 186 and 223 of the Local Government
Code, and Article 276 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, as held by
the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Justice. This was demonstrated in
Lopez, which applied Section 219 of the Local Government Code in the
enactment of the proposed ordinance on general revision of real property
values. It was held:
Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the steps to be
followed for the mandatory conduct of General Revision of Real
Property assessments, pursuant to the provision of Sec. 219 of R.A.
No. 7160 are as follows:
"1. The preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values.
2. The enactment of Ordinances:
a) levying an annual "ad valorem" tax on real
property and an additional tax accruing to the SEF;
b) fixing the assessment levels to be applied to
the market values of real properties;
c) providing necessary appropriation to defray
expenses incident to general revision of real property
assessments; and
d) adopting the Schedule of Fair Market Values
prepared by the assessors."
The preparation of fair market values as a preliminary step in
the conduct of general revision was set forth in Section 212 of R.A.
7160, to wit: (1) The city or municipal assessor shall prepare a
schedule of fair market values for the different classes of real
property situated in their respective Local Government Units for the
enactment of an ordinance by the sangguniang concerned, (2) The
schedule of fair market values shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the province, city or municipality concerned or
the posting in the provincial capitol or other places as required by
law.
It was clear from the records that Mrs. Lourdes Laderas, the
incumbent City Assessor, prepared the fair market values of real
properties and in preparation thereof, she considered the fair market
values prepared in the calendar year 1992. Upon that basis, the City
Assessor's Office updated the schedule for the year 1995. In fact, the
initial schedule of fair market values of real properties showed an
increase in real estate costs, which ranges from 600%-3.330% over
the values determined in the year 1979. However, after a careful
study on the movement of prices, Mrs. Laderas eventually lowered
the average increase to 1.020%. Thereafter, the proposed ordinance
with the schedule of the fair market values of real properties was
published in the Manila Standard on October 28, 1995 and the Balita
on November 1, 1995. Under the circumstances of this case, there
was compliance with the requirement provided under Sec. 212 of R.A.
7160. 49 (Citations omitted)
Footnotes
2. Id. at 59-73. The May 31, 2016 Decision was penned by Associate Justice
Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar
B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante of the Eighth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 75-77. The November 8, 2016 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar
B. Dimaampao and Franchito N. Diamante of the Eighth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 10.
5. Id. at 11.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 12.
8. Id. at 35.
9. Id. at 12.
12. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 36.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 419.
46. Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation , 572 Phil. 270, 294 (2008) [Per J.
Reyes, Third Division].
47. 363 Phil. 68 (1999) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
SECTION 187. Procedure for Approval and Effectivity of Tax Ordinances and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
Revenue Measures; Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for
approval of local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings
shall be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof: Provided,
further, That any question on the constitutionality or legality of tax
ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on appeal within thirty (30)
days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render
a decision within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the appeal:
Provided, however, That such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending
the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee,
or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within thirty (30) days after
receipt of the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the
Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal the aggrieved party may file
appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction.
51. Id.
52. Id.
56. DILG and DOF Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2010-01, October 20, 2010
<https://ntrc.gov.ph/images/other-issuances/Local%20Taxes/JMC_No_2010-
01.pdf> (Last accessed on May 5, 2021), Enjoining All Provinces, Cities and
the Municipality of Pateros, Metro Manila to Prepare the Schedule of Market
Values (SMVs) of Real Property and to Conduct the General Revision of
Property Assessments in their Respective Jurisdictions.
57. Mindanao Shopping Destination Corp. v. City of Davao, 810 Phil. 427, (2017)
[Per C.J. Peralta, En Banc].
58. G.R. No. 224825, October 17, 2018,
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64779> [Per J.A.
Reyes, Second Division].
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. 727 Phil. 430 (2014) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc], citing Lawyers Against Monopoly
and Poverty v. Secretary of Budget and Management, 686 Phil. 357 (2014)
[Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
62. Smart Communications, Inc. v. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, 727 Phil. 430,
447 (2014) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].