G.R. No. 119172. March 25, 1999.
BELEN C. FIGUERRES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY ASSESSOR OF MANDALUYONG, CITY TREASURER OF MANDALUYONG, and SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MANDALUYONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Belen C. Figuerres is the owner of a residential lot in Mandaluyong. In 1993, she received a notice of assessment for the year 1994 based on three municipal ordinances: Ordinance No. 119, S-1993 (revising fair market values); Ordinance No. 125, S-1993 (fixing assessment levels); and Ordinance No. 135, S-1994 (phasing the increase). The new assessment significantly increased her property’s tax liability.
Figuerres filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals to enjoin the enforcement of these ordinances. She contended they were invalid for lack of prior public hearings and publication, for non-compliance with the implementing rules of the Department of Finance (DOF), and because the DOF had not yet issued the necessary regulations under the new Local Government Code.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for prohibition based on the petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and on the substantive validity of the challenged tax ordinances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. On procedural grounds, the Court upheld the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioner failed to appeal the assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals as provided under Sections 226 and 230 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) before resorting to judicial action. The case did not fall under established exceptions to the doctrine, such as where the question is purely legal or where the administrative body is in estoppel. The assessment involved a quasi-judicial function reviewable by the Board.
On substantive grounds, the Court found the ordinances valid. First, under the Local Government Code of 1991, the power to enact real property tax ordinances is devolved to the Sanggunian, and DOF approval is no longer required. Second, the presumption of regularity in the enactment of ordinances stands. Petitioner provided no proof to rebut the presumption that mandatory public hearings were not conducted. For publication, Section 511 of the Code only requires transmission to the Official Gazette for archival purposes; the effectivity of tax ordinances is governed by Section 188, which requires posting. Respondent presented a certificate of posting for Ordinance No. 125. Lastly, petitioner failed to substantiate her claim of non-compliance with DOF Assessment Regulation No. 1-92. In the absence of contrary proof, the ordinances are presumed enacted in accordance with law.