Taxpayer’s remedies

1. Contesting an assessment of value of real property

Section 195. Protest of Assessment. - When the local treasurer or

his duly authorized representative finds that correct taxes, fees, or
charges have not been paid, he shall issue a notice of assessment
stating the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of
deficiency, the surcharges, interests and penalties. Within sixty
(60) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment, the
taxpayer may file a written protest with the local treasurer
contesting the assessment; otherwise, the assessment shall
become final and executory. The local treasurer shall decide the
protest within sixty (60) days from the time of its filing. If the local
treasurer finds the protest to be wholly or partly meritorious, he
shall issue a notice cancelling wholly or partially the assessment.
However, if the local treasurer finds the assessment to be wholly
or partly correct, he shall deny the protest wholly or partly with
notice to the taxpayer. The taxpayer shall have thirty (30) days
from the receipt of the denial of the protest or from the lapse of
the sixty (60) day period prescribed herein within which to appeal
with the court of competent jurisdiction otherwise the assessment
becomes conclusive and unappealable.

Who may contest:

Any owner or person having legal interest in the property
who is not satisfied with the assessment of his property may file
a written protest with the local treasurer contesting the
assessment.

When to file the protest:

Within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the notice of
assessment.

-The treasurer shall decide the protest within sixty (60) days
from the time of its filing and can wholly or partially cancel the
assessment.

Prescriptive period to file appeal :

Thirty (30) days from the receipt of the denial of the
protest OR

Sixty (60) days from the filing of the protest in case there
is inaction on the part of the local treasurer.

a. Appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals

(Sec. 226, LGC;)

Section 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. - Any owner or

person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied
with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the
assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the
date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the
Board of Assessment Appeals of the provincial or city by filing a
petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose,
together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or
documents submitted in support of the appeal

Composition of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals

(LGC IRR Art.318)
1. Registrar of Deeds
2. Provincial or City Prosecutor
3. Provincial or City Engineer

i. Action by Local Board of Assessment Appeals

(Sec. 229, LGC; Art. 320, IRR)

Section 229. Action by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. -

(a) The Board shall decide the appeal within one hundred twenty
(120) days from the date of receipt of such appeal. The Board, after
hearing, shall render its decision based on substantial evidence or
such relevant evidence on record as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

(b) In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Board shall have
the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, conduct ocular
inspection, take depositions, and issue subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum. The proceedings of the Board shall be conducted
solely for the purpose of ascertaining the facts without necessarily
adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings.

(c) The secretary of the Board shall furnish the owner of the
property or the person having legal interest therein and the
provincial or city assessor with a copy of the decision of the Board.
In case the provincial or city assessor concurs in the revision or
the assessment, it shall be his duty to notify the owner of the
property or the person having legal interest therein of such fact
using the form prescribed for the purpose. The owner of the
property or the person having legal interest therein or the
assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board,
may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision of
said Board, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, as herein provided. The decision of the Central
Board shall be final and executory.

b. Appeal to the Central Board of Assessment

Appeals (Sec. 230, LGC; Art. 322, IRR)
Section 230. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. - The
Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall be composed of a
chairman, and two (2) members to be appointed by the President,
who shall serve for a term of seven (7) years, without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the chairman shall hold
office for seven (7) years, one member for five (5) years, and the
other member for three (3) years. Appointment to any vacancy shall
be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In
no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity. The chairman and the members of the
Board shall be Filipino citizens, at least forty (40) years old at the
time of their appointment, and members of the Bar or Certified
Public Accountants for at least ten (10) years immediately
preceding their appointment. ……... The Board shall have appellate
jurisdiction over all assessment cases decided by the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals.

There shall be Hearing Officers to be appointed by the Central

Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to civil service laws, rules
and regulations, one each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, who
shall hold office in Manila, Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City,
respectively, and who shall serve for a term of six (6) years, without
reappointment until their successors have been appointed and
qualified. The Hearing Officers shall have the same qualifications as
that of the Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts.

The Central Board Assessment Appeals, in the performance of its

powers and duties, may establish and organize staffs, offices, units,
prescribe the titles, functions and duties of their members and
adopt its own rules and regulations.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the annual appropriations for the

Central Board of Assessment Appeals shall be included in the
budget of the Department of Finance in the corresponding General
Appropriations Act.

c. Effect of Appeal on the Payment of Real Property

Tax (Sec. 231, LGC; Art. 322, IRR)

Section 231. Effect of Appeal on the Payment of Real

Property Tax. - Appeal on assessments of real property made
under the provisions of this Code shall, in no case, suspend the
collection of the corresponding realty taxes on the property

During the pendency of appeal on assessments of real

property, collection of the corresponding realty taxes will not be
suspended.

Discussion:
 Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code
of 1991, clearly sets forth the administrative remedies available
to a taxpayer or real property owner who is not satisfied with
the assessment or reasonableness of the real property tax
sought to be collected. The Supreme Court outlined said
remedies, to wit:

Should the taxpayer/real property owner

question the excessiveness or reasonableness of the
assessment, Section 252 directs that the taxpayer
should first pay the tax due before his protest can
be entertained. There shall be annotated on the tax
receipts the words paid under protest. It is only
after the taxpayer has paid the tax due that he may
file a protest in writing within thirty days from
payment of the tax to the Provincial, City or
Municipal Treasurer, who shall decide the protest
within sixty days from receipt. In no case is the local
treasurer obliged to entertain the protest unless the
tax due has been paid.

If the local treasurer denies the protest or fails

to act upon it within the 60-day period provided for
in Section 252, the taxpayer/real property owner
may then appeal or directly file a verified petition
with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA)
within sixty days from denial of the protest or
receipt of the notice of assessment, as provided in
Section 226 of R.A. No. 7160[.]

And, if the taxpayer is not satisfied with the

decision of the LBAA, he may elevate the same to
the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA),
which exercises exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide all appeals from the decisions, orders and
resolutions of the Local Boards involving contested
assessments of real properties, claims for tax refund
and/or tax credits or overpayments of taxes. An
appeal may be taken to the CBAA by filing a notice
of appeal within thirty days from receipt thereof.

From the Central Board Assessment Appeals, the dispute

may then be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals by filing a
verified petition for review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules
of Court; to the Court of tax Appeals en banc; and finally to the
Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari pursuant
to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. (City of Pasig vs.
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. 185023)

Quezon City v. BayanTel Corp., G.R. No. 162015, March 6,

2006
FACTS:
 Respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. (Bayantel) is
a legislative franchise holder under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
3259 (1961) to establish and operate radio stations for domestic
telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting and telecasting.
Section 14 (a) of R.A. No. 3259 states: “The grantee shall be
liable to pay the same taxes on its real estate, buildings and
personal property, exclusive of the franchise, as other persons or
corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to
pay.”
In 1992, R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the “Local
Government Code of 1991” (LGC) took effect. Section 232 of the
Code grants local government units within the Metro Manila
Area the power to levy tax on real properties. Barely few
months after the LGC took effect, Congress enacted R.A. No.
7633, amending Bayantel’s original franchise. The Section 11 of
the amendatory contained the following tax provision: “The
grantee, its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same
taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal property,
exclusive of this franchise, xxx“. In 1993, the government of
Quezon City enacted an ordinance otherwise known as the
Quezon City Revenue Code withdrawing tax exemption
privileges.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Quezon City Government Taxpayer (BayanTel, Inc.)

 Sent notices of delinquency  Bayantel wrote a letter the

to BayanTel for the total
amount of P43,878,208.18,
followed by the issuance of
several warrants of levy
against Bayantels
properties preparatory to
their sale at a public auction
set on July 30, 2002, due to
non-payment of realty taxes
 This assessment by the City
Treasurer is pursuant to the
withdrawal of the
exemption enjoyed by
BayanTel, by virtue of the
enactment of the City
Revenue code, a local
ordinance, and anchored on
the constitutional grant to
municipal corporations of a
general power to levy taxes
and create sources of
revenue.
office of the City Assessor
seeking the exclusion of its
real properties in the city from
the roll of taxable real
properties. With its request
having been denied, Bayantel
interposed an appeal with the
Local Board of Assessment
Appeals (LBAA). And,
evidently on its firm belief of
its exempt status, Bayantel did
not pay the real property
taxes assessed against it by
the Quezon City government.
 The grant of taxing powers to
local government units under
the Constitution and the LGC
does not affect the power of
Congress to grant exemptions
to certain persons. And by
virtue of a subsequent
enacted law of the legislature,
 BayanTel, Inc., with a firm
belief that indeed they are
exempt, filed with the RTC of
Quezon City a petition for
prohibition with an urgent
application for a temporary
restraining order against
Quezon City

ISSUE: Whether Bayantel’s real properties in Quezon City

are exempt from real property taxes under its legislative
franchise
HELD:
Yes, real properties of BayanTel, Inc. in Quezon City are
exempt from real property taxes under its legislative franchise.

The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress;

however, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local
legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid
delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority conferred
by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution. Under the latter, the
exercise of the power may be subject to such guidelines and
limitations as the Congress may provide which, however, must
be consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.

Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government

units under the Constitution and the LGC does not affect the
power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain persons,
pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the
constitutional grant to local governments simply means that in
interpreting statutory provisions on municipal taxing powers,
doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal corporations.
 Admittedly, Rep. Act No. 7633 was enacted subsequent to
the LGC. Perfectly aware that the LGC has already withdrawn
Bayantel’s former exemption from realty taxes, Congress opted
to pass Rep. Act No. 7633 using, under Section 11 thereof,
exactly the same defining phrase “exclusive of this franchise”
which was the basis for Bayantel’s exemption from realty taxes
prior to the LGC. In plain language, Section 11 of Rep. Act No.
7633 states that “the grantee, its successors or assigns shall be
liable to pay the same taxes on their real estate, buildings and
personal property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons
or corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to
pay.”

The Court views this subsequent piece of legislation as an

express and real intention on the part of Congress to once again
remove from the LGC’s delegated taxing power, all of the
franchisee’s (Bayantel’s) properties that are actually, directly
and exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise.

Spouses Hu v. Spouses Unico, G.R. No. 146534, September

18, 2009
FACTS:
Spouses Renato and Maria Aurora J. Unico purchased an
800-square meter residential property cover by TCT No. 263361
from spouses Manuel and Adoracion de los Santos in 1978.
Despite payment of the full purchase price, they did not register
the sale in the Registry of Deeds nor declared the property for
taxation purposes much less paid the real property tax.
Due to tax delinquency, the property was sold at public
auction on March 5, 1984 to spouses Hu Chuan and Leoncia Lim
Hu. After a year, they filed a petition for consolidation of
ownership and issuance of new title. Subsequently, TCT No.
236631 was issued to them.
Only in December, 1986, did Renato and Maria decide to
pay their realty tax on the property but they were informed that
the property was already registered in the names of the spouses
Hu.
Thus, Renato and Maria filed a complaint for annulment of
sale and damages before the RTC of Quezon City. According to
them, the City Treasurer and the Registry of Deeds sent notices
to the spouses De los Santos. Because they were never informed
of the tax sale, they were deprived of their property without due
process, hence the tax sale was void. For the same reason, the
RTC voided the tax sale, which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, thus the spouses Hu elevated their case to the
Supreme Court. According to them, they could not be
prejudiced by the spouses’ failure to receive the notice of tax
sale and advertisement.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

City Treasurer of Quezon
City
 Due to the owner’s tax
delinquency, the City
Treasurer sent the notice of
tax sale and advertisement to
the registered owners
Spouses de los Santos, since
the Spouses Unico
negligently failed to register
the property they purchased
from the latter to their
names.
 The City was able to sell said
property at a public auction
to the Spouses Hu who were
able to have a new title
issued under their names.
 The local treasurer cannot
rely solely on the tax
declaration but must verify
with the Register of Deeds
who the registered owner of
the particular property is.
Since it was the de los
Santos who are still the
registered owners, the
notices were sent to them.
Spouses Renato and Maria
Unico
 The City Treasurer of Quezon
City and the Registrar of
Deeds of Quezon City never
informed them of the tax
delinquency sale, hence they
were deprived of their
property without due process
of the law and the sale
should be void.
 The RTC found that the
Spouses Unico were the
actual occupants of the
property, thus, the City
Treasurer erred when it sent
the notice of tax sale to
Spouses de los Santos, thus
it nullified the tax sale.
ISSUE: Whether or not the tax sale was void since the
spouses Unico did not receive the notice of tax sale and
advertisement.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the sale to the Spouses Hu
was valid.
With regard to determining to whom the notice of sale
should have been sent, settled is the rule that, for purposes of
real property taxation, the registered owner of the property is
deemed the taxpayer. Thus, in identifying the real delinquent
taxpayer, a local treasurer cannot rely solely on the tax
declaration but must verify with the Register of Deeds who the
registered owner of the particular property is.
Respondents not only neglected to register the transfer of
the property but also failed to declare the property in their
names as required by Section 6 of PD 464. TCT No. 236631
issued to the spouses de los Santos was never cancelled and
respondents never paid realty tax on the property since they
acquired it. Thus, the spouses de los Santos remained the
registered owners of the property in the Torrens title and tax
declaration. Since the transfer of the property to respondents
was never registered, the City Treasurer correctly sent notice of
the tax sale and advertisement to the spouses de los Santos and
the tax sale conducted in connection therewith was valid.