Alejandro Ty v. Hon.

Trampe & Municpal Treasurer of Pasig

[G.R. No. 117577. December 1, 1995.]
PANGANIBAN, J.

DOCTRINE: Harmony in PD 921 Sec. 9 and LGC Sec. 212 is not only possible, but in fact desirable, necessary and
consistent with legislative intent and policy. By reading together and harmonizing these two provisions, we arrive at the
following steps in the preparation of the said Schedule of Market Values:
(1) The assessor in each municipality or city in the Metro Manila area shall prepare his/her proposed schedule of values,
in accordance with LGC Sec. 212.
(2) Then, the Local Treasury and Assessment District shall meet, per PD 921 Sec. 9. (See PD 921 Sec. 1 for the respective
districts). In this meeting, the different assessors shall compare their individual assessments, discuss and thereafter jointly
agree and produce a schedule of values for their district, taking into account the preamble of said PD that they should
evolve "a progressive revenue raising program that will not unduly burden the taxpayers.”
(3) The schedule jointly agreed upon by the assessors shall then be published in a newspaper of general circulation and
submitted to the sanggunian concerned for enactment by ordinance, per LGC Sec. 212.

SUMMARY: Petitioners are registered owners of lands in the Municipality (now City) of Pasig. The Municipal Assessor
of Pasig issued notices of assessment of real estate tax on the petitioners, which assessments were based on a Schedule of
market values prepared solely by the Municipal Assessor. Petitioners assailed the assessments before the RTC, but were
denied relief. The RTC ruled, among other things, that although PD 921 Sec. 9 required “joint action by all the assessors in
a Metro Manila district” for the making of the Schedule of Values, the LGC via Sec. 212 thereof effectively repealed the
same by requiring the Schedule to be issued by the Municipal Assessor solely. Petitioners thus appealed directly to the
SC, raising pure questions of law.

SC ruled in favor of the petitioners. PD 921 was neither expressly nor impliedly repealed by the LGC. An implied repeal
will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant
and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. PD 921 and the LGC are not co-extensive and mutually inclusive in
their scope and purpose. While the LGC covers almost all governmental functions delegated to LGUs all over the country,
PD 921 embraces only the Metro Manila area and is limited to the administration of financial services therein, especially
the assessment and collection of real estate (and some other local) taxes.

Harmony in PD 921 Sec. 9 and LGC Sec. 212 is not only possible, but in fact desirable, necessary and consistent with
legislative intent and policy. By reading together and harmonizing these two provisions, we arrive at the following steps:
(see doctrine) By this harmonization, both the preamble of PD 921 (decreeing that the real estate taxes shall "not unduly
burden the taxpayer") and the "operative principle of decentralization" provided under LGC Sec. 3 (encouraging LGUs to
"consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and resources") shall be fulfilled. Indeed, the essence of joint local action
for common good so cherished in the LGC finds concrete expression in this harmonization.

FACTS:
 Petitioners Alejandro Ty and MVR Picture Tube Inc. are both registered owners of lands in the Municipality (now
City) of Pasig.
 Respondent Municipal Assessor of Pasig sent petitioner notices of assessment of real estate tax on the real
properties owned by petitioners in Pasig.

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

 o The scheduled of market values & assessments were prepared solely by the Municipal Assessor.
 Petitioners requested the Municipal Assessor to reconsider.
 Not satisfied, petitioners filed with the RTC a petition for prohibition with prayer for a RO/WPI to declare void
the tax assessments.
 The RTC (through respondent Judge Trampe) denied the petition for lack of merit, and denied the petitioners’
MR:
o The assessments prepared solely by the Municipal Assessor are valid and legal, having been prepared in
accordance with the LGC.
o The LGC effectively repealed PD 921 (which required, in the preparation of said schedule, joint action by
all the city and municipal assessors in the Metro Manila area).
o Petitioners with failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Sections 226 and 252 of the LGC.
o The questioned assessments are consistent with the tremendously increased price of real estate.
 Petitioners thus filed this petition for review directly to the SC, raising pure questions of law.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

RULING RATIO

W/N the LGC Pertinent laws (emphasis supplied)

repealed the  PD 464 (AKA the Real Property Tax Code, promulgated 1974), Sec. 15:
provisions of PD 921 o “SECTION 15. Preparation of Schedule of Values. — Before any general
– NO. revision of property assessments is made, as provided in this Code, there shall
be prepared for the province or city a Schedule of Market Value for the
different classes of real property therein situated in such form and detail as
shall be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance.”
 PD 921 (promulgated 1976):
o “SECTION 9. Preparation of Schedule of Values for Real Property within the
Metropolitan Area . — The Schedule of Values that will serve as the basis for
the appraisal and assessment for taxation purposes of real properties located
within the Metropolitan Area shall be prepared jointly by the City Assessors
of the Districts created under Section 1 hereof, with the City Assessor of
Manila acting as Chairman, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of PD
No. 464, as amended, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code, and the
IRR thereof issued by the Secretary of Finance.”
o SECTION 1. Division of Metropolitan Manila into Local Treasury and
Assessment Districts . — For purposes of effective fiscal management,
Metropolitan Manila is hereby divided into the following Local Treasury and
Assessment Districts:
Second District — Quezon City, Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong and San Juan
 The LGC of 1991 (took effect in 1992):
o SECTION 212. Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values. — Before any
general revision of property assessment is made pursuant to the provisions of
this Title, there shall be prepared a schedule of fair market values by the
provincial, city and the municipal assessors of the municipalities within the
Metropolitan Manila Area for the different classes of real property situated in
their respective local government units for enactment by ordinance of the

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

 sanggunian concerned…….”
o SECTION 534. Repealing Clause . —
(c)….. and Presidential Decree Nos. 381, 436, 464, 477, 626, 632,752, and 1136
are hereby repealed and rendered of no force and effect
(f) All general and special laws, acts, city charter, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which
are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.

Application
 Based on the foregoing LGC provisions, PD 921 was not expressly repealed. Was it then
impliedly repealed?
 Petitioners’ arguments:
o Whether the assessment is made before or after the effectivity of the LGC, the
observance of, and compliance with, the explicit requirement of PD 921 is strict
and mandatory either because:
 PD 921 was not impliedly repealed by the LGC and is therefore still the
applicable statute, or because:
 The SC, in 3 related cases (Mathay/Javier/Puyat-Reyes cases)
promulgated after the LGC took effect, ruled that a schedule of market
values (and the assessments based thereon) prepared solely by the city
assessor failed to comply with the explicit requirement of collegial and
joint action by all the assessors in the Metro Manila area under PD 921,
and are thus void.
 Respondents’ arguments:
o Section 9 of PD 921 and Section 212 of the LGC are clearly and unequivocally
incompatible because they dwell on the same subject matter: the preparation of
a schedule of values for real property within the Metropolitan Manila Area.
o PD 921 Sec. 921 merely supplements PD 464 Sec. 15; Thus with the express
repeal of PD 464, PD 921 cannot exist independently on its own.
o Although the Mathay decisions were promulgated after the LGC took effect,
the assessments in those 3 cases were assessed in 1990 prior to the effectivity of
the LGC.
 PD 921 was NOT impliedly repealed by the LGC. We rule for petitioners.
 The LGC has a repealing provision (Sec. 534). If the intention of the legislature was to
abrogate PD 921, it would have included it in such repealing clause, as it did in
expressly rendering of no force and effect several other PDs. Hence, any repeal or
modification of PD 921 can only be possible under Sec. 534(f):
o “(f) All general and special laws, acts, city charter, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations and administrative regulations, part or parts thereof which are
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.”
 Sec. 534 is a general repealing provision. It is a basic rule that repeals by implication are
not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

 unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently
inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.
o Based on the rationale that the will of the legislature cannot be overturned by
the judicial function of construction and interpretation.
o Before an implied repeal is deemed to exist, it must be shown that the statutes
or statutory provisions deal with the same subject matter and that the latter be
inconsistent with the former.
o A subsequent general statute is not to be construed as repealing a special or
specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest.
o There must be a clear showing on the part of the law maker that the intent in
enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one.
 Based on the above concepts, we compare PD 921 and the LGC.
 PD 921 was promulgated in 1976, with the aim of (among other things) evolving "a
progressive revenue raising program that will not unduly burden the taxpayers…. in
Metro Manila.”
 The LGC took effect on 1 Jan. 1992, and declared “"genuine and meaningful local
autonomy” as state policy.
o Such policy is meant to decentralize government powers, authority,
responsibilities and resources from the national government to the LGUs "to
enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and
make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”
 From the above, PD 921 and the LGC are not co-extensive and mutually inclusive in
their scope and purpose. While the LGC covers almost all governmental functions
delegated to LGUs all over the country, PD 921 embraces only the Metro Manila area
and is limited to the administration of financial services therein, especially the
assessment and collection of real estate (and some other local) taxes.
 As to specific provisions re: schedule of values of real properties:
o PD 921 Sec. 9 requires that the schedule of values of real properties in the
Metro Manila area shall be prepared jointly by the city assessors in the districts
created therein.
o LGC Sec. 212 states that the schedule shall be prepared "by the provincial, city
and municipal assessors of the municipalities within the Metro Manila Area for
the different classes of real property situated in their respective LGUs for
enactment by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned. . . ."
 Harmony in these provisions is not only possible, but in fact desirable, necessary and
consistent with legislative intent and policy. By reading together and harmonizing
these two provisions, we arrive at the following steps in the preparation of the said
schedule:
o (1) The assessor in each municipality or city in the Metro Manila area shall
prepare his/her proposed schedule of values, in accordance with LGC Sec. 212.
o (2) Then, the Local Treasury and Assessment District shall meet, per PD 921
Sec. 9. In the instant case, that district shall be composed of the assessors in
Quezon City, Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong and San Juan, pursuant to Sec. 1
of said PD. In this meeting, the different assessors shall compare their

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

 individual assessments, discuss and thereafter jointly agree and produce a
schedule of values for their district, taking into account the preamble of said
PD that they should evolve "a progressive revenue raising program that will
not unduly burden the taxpayers.”
o (3) The schedule jointly agreed upon by the assessors shall then be published in
a newspaper of general circulation and submitted to the sanggunian concerned
for enactment by ordinance, per LGC Sec. 212.
 By this harmonization, both the preamble of PD 921 (decreeing that the real estate
taxes shall "not unduly burden the taxpayer") and the "operative principle of
decentralization" provided under LGC Sec. 3 (encouraging LGUs to "consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services and resources") shall be fulfilled. Indeed, the essence of
joint local action for common good so cherished in the LGC finds concrete expression in
this harmonization.
 Respondents’ claim that “with the express repeal of PD 464, PD 921, being a mere
supplement of the former, cannot exist independently on its own” is untenable.
o By harmonizing PD 921 with the LGC, we have just demonstrated that it can
exist outside of PD 464, as a support, supplement and extension of the LGC,
which for this purpose, has replaced PD 464.
 Thus, since PD 921 is still good law, the Mathay decisions are still the prevailing
doctrines, and thus the schedule of values prepared solely by the respondent municipal
assessor is illegal and void.

W/N petitioners are  Pertinent provisions: Sec. 226 and 252 of the LGC:
required to exhaust o Section 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. - Any owner or person having
administrative legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the
remedies before provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may,
seeking judicial within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of
relief – NO. 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.
o Section 252. Payment Under Protest. –
(a) No protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pays the tax.
There shall be annotated on the tax receipts the words "paid under protest".
The protest in writing must be filed within thirty (30) days from payment of the
tax to the provincial, city treasurer or municipal treasurer, in the case of a
municipality within Metropolitan Manila Area, who shall decide the protest
within sixty (60) days from receipt.
(b) The tax or a portion thereof paid under protest, shall be held in trust by the
treasurer concerned.
(c) In the event that the protest is finally decided in favor of the taxpayer, the
amount or portion of the tax protested shall be refunded to the protestant, or
applied as tax credit against his existing or future tax liability.
(d) In the event that the protest is denied or upon the lapse of the sixty day
period prescribed in subparagraph (a), the taxpayer may avail of the remedies

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

 as provided for in Chapter 3, Title II, Book II of this Code.
 Respondents’ arguments:
o This case is premature because petitioners neither appealed the questioned
assessments on their properties to the Board of Assessment Appeal, pursuant
to Sec. 226 nor paid the taxes under protest, per Sec. 252.
 We do not agree.
 GR: As a rule, administrative remedies must first be exhausted before resort to judicial
action can prosper.
 XPN: There’s an exception for cases where the controversy does not involve questions
of fact but only of law.
 In this case, the parties agreed during the proceedings before the RTC that the issues in
the petition were purely legal, and thus no evidence was presented before the RTC.
 In laying down the powers of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, the LGC
provides in Sec. 229 (b) that "the proceedings of the Board shall be conducted solely for
the purpose of ascertaining the facts." It follows that appeals to this Board may be
fruitful only where questions of fact are involved.
 The protest contemplated under LGC Sec. 252 is needed where there is a question as to
the reasonableness of the amount assessed. Hence, if a taxpayer disputes the
reasonableness of an increase in a real estate tax assessment, he is required to "first pay
the tax" under protest. Otherwise, the city or municipal treasurer will not act on his
protest.
 In this case however, the petitioners are questioning the very authority and power of
the assessor, acting solely and independently, to impose the assessment and of the
treasurer to collect the tax. These are not questions merely of amounts of the increase in
the tax but attacks on the very validity of any increase.
 Lastly, in the 3 Mathay decisions, the cases were referred to the Board for it to act only
as a fact-finding commission. But in this case, there are no such factual issues. Thus,
there is no reason to require petitioners to exhaust the administrative remedies
provided in the LGC, nor to mandate a referral by this Court to said Board.

W/N the new tax  Having already definitively disposed of the case through the resolution of the
assessments are foregoing two issues, we find no more need to pass upon the third.
oppressive and  It is axiomatic that the constitutionality of a law, regulation, ordinance or act will not be
confiscatory, and resolved by courts if the controversy can be, as in this case it has been, settled on other
therefore grounds.
unconstitutional –  The constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts
no need to pass unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is
upon this issue. necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota presented.

Epilogue
 What happens to real estate tax payments already made prior to its promulgation and finality? -> Under the law,
"the taxpayer may file a written claim for refund or credit for taxes and interests….”

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR

  Finally, this Tribunal would be remiss in its duty as guardian of the judicial branch if we let pass unnoticed the
ease by which the respondent Judge consigned "to the statutes' graveyard" a legislative enactment "together with
the 3 SC decicions promulgated jointly and unanimously en banc.
 Respondent Judge, in his decision, did not even make an attempt to try to reconcile or harmonize the laws
involved. Instead, he just unceremoniously swept them and this Court's decisions into the dustbin. In his future
acts and decisions, he is admonished to be more judicious in setting aside established laws, doctrines and
precedents.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the questioned
Decision and Order of respondent Judge, DECLARING as VOID the questioned Schedule of Market Values for
properties in Pasig City prepared by respondent Assessor, as well as the corresponding assessments and real estate tax
increases based thereon; and ENJOINING the respondent Treasurer from collecting the real estate tax increases made
on the basis of said Schedule and assessments. No costs.

B2023 (Manlangit) – TAX 2, PROF. SALVADOR