G.R. No. 97618 , 97760, 102319 December 16, 1993
ISMAEL MATHAY, JR., petitioner, vs. VICTOR C. MACALINCAG, Undersecretary of Finance, THE CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, respondents. / RUFINO S. JAVIER, petitioner, vs. VICTOR C. MACALINCAG (Undersecretary of Finance), THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AND THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, respondents. / CONSUELO PUYAT-REYES, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, Acting through the then Undersecretary Victor C. Macalincag, THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AND THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF MAKATI, respondents.

FACTS

Three consolidated petitions for prohibition were filed by members of Congress and property owners (Ismael Mathay, Jr. for Quezon City; Rufino Javier for Pasig; Consuelo Puyat-Reyes for Makati) challenging the constitutionality and validity of new schedules of market values for real property taxation and the resulting increased assessments in their respective localities. The petitioners alleged that the schedules were prepared solely by the individual City/Municipal Assessors of Quezon City, Pasig, and Makati. They contended this violated the explicit mandatory requirement of Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 921, which states that the Schedule of Values for real property within the Metropolitan Manila Area “shall be prepared jointly by the City Assessors of the Districts” with the City Assessor of Manila as Chairman. This joint preparation requirement was echoed in the implementing Department of Finance Administrative Regulation No. 7-77. The Supreme Court initially issued temporary restraining orders against the implementation of the new assessments. Subsequently, the Court referred the factual issues in the cases to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) acting as a fact-finding body. The CBAA, after separate hearings, ruled in favor of the petitioners in all three cases. It found as an undisputed fact that the subject schedules were prepared solely by the respective local assessors without the joint participation of the other assessors in Metropolitan Manila as required by P.D. 921. The CBAA rejected the argument that P.D. 921 had been repealed, stating that a legislative act like a presidential decree cannot be repealed by an executive order.

ISSUE

Whether the Schedules of Market Values for real properties in Quezon City, Pasig, and Makati, prepared solely by their respective City/Municipal Assessors, are valid and enforceable despite the mandatory requirement for joint preparation by all City Assessors in Metropolitan Manila under Section 9 of P.D. No. 921.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court approved and adopted the CBAA’s decisions, declaring the subject Schedules of Market Values null and void. The Court found that the CBAA proceeded correctly and agreed with its conclusion. The schedules for Quezon City, Pasig, and Makati were prepared in patent violation of the explicit and mandatory requirement of Section 9 of P.D. 921 and its implementing rule, Section 1.02 of Administrative Regulation No. 7-77, which demand joint preparation by the City Assessors of the districts of Metropolitan Manila with the City Assessor of Manila as Chairman. Since the schedules were prepared solely by the individual assessors without this collective action, they were illegal and void. The Court ordered the respective City/Municipal Assessors and Treasurers to act accordingly.