Board of Assessment Appeals-Zamboanga Appeals-Zamboanga del Sur Su r v. Samar Mining Co., Inc. (Emerson THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR and PLACIDO L. LUMBAY, in his capaci! as PRO"INCIAL ASSESSOR OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR , petitioners, vs. SAMAR MINING COMPANY, INC. and h# COURT OF TA$ APPEALS , respondents.
!.". #o. $-%&') - *ebruar+ %, / Zaldivar, J Zaldivar, J . SUMMARY% B+ virtue of a government lease, a mining compan+ built a road on alienable public land in Zamboanga del Sur. 01e provincial assessor sent a letter of assessment of real estate ta2 to t1e compan+, 31o appealed t1e same to t1e Board of Assessment Appeals, 31ic1 in turn up1eld t1e assessment. 01e compan+ appealed to t1e Court of 0a2 Appeals, 31ic1 too4 cogni5ance of t1e case and decided in favor of t1e compan+. 01e ta2 aut1orities appealed to t1e SC. Th# SC a&&i'(#d h# CTA d#cisi)n and '#i#'a#d #a'*i#' cas# *a+ +hich h#*d ha a p'ia# pa'! +h) in')d-c#s in#'a* i(p')#(#ns )n p-/*ic *and s-/0#c ) a *#as# is )n*! a pa'ia* -s-&'-c-a'! )& h# ')ad and h#'#&)'# cann) /# (ad# ) pa! '#a* #sa# a1 )n h)s# h)s# i(p') i(p')#(# #(#ns2 ns2 /#ca-s# /#ca-s# in s-ch s-ch cas#s cas#s )+n#'s )+n#'ship hip -*i(a# -*i(a#*! *! '#(ain '#(ainss +ih h# G)#'n(#n and h# i(p')#(#ns '#(ain )p#n ) p-/*ic -s#. FACTS% Samar Mining (Samico o3ned a mine and mill in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur. 0o connect t1em to t1e pier in 6aminta+an, Zamboanga del Sur, t1e compan+ built t1e )%-4m gravel pit Samico "oad, construction of 31ic1 3as finis1ed in 7. Since t1e road traversed public lands, lands, Samico Samico filed filed miscellaneo miscellaneous us lease application applicationss for rig1t of 3a+ 3it1 t1e Bureau Bureau of $ands and t1e Bureau of *orestr+ in 7& and 7, respectivel+. 0emporar+ permits 3ere granted, and eventuall+ t1e lease applications 3ere granted on 8ct. , 97: but t1e lease contracts 3ere never e2ecuted. 8n ;une 7, 9), Samico received an assessment letter from t1e petitioner 6rovincial Assessor, c1arging t1em 6,,''.'' as real estate ta2 on t1e ta2able portion of Samico "oad. Samico appeal appealed ed t1e assessm assessment ent to petiti petitione onerr BAA on t1e ground t1at t1e road road 3as not a ta2abl ta2ablee improvement because it 3as constructed entirel+ on public land 3it1in t1e meaning of Sec. % of CA )' and t1e decision of t1e SC in Bislig in Bislig Bay Lumber Co. v. Surigao. Surigao. 01e BAA up1eld t1e assessment but 1eld it unenforceable until t1e lease contracts 3ere e2ecuted. Samico moved for reconsideration, but t1e BAA, in a decision dated Aug. , 97, not onl+ denied t1e appeal but made t1e assessment immediatel+ enforceable, 3it1 t1e amount due accruing from t1e date of completion of t1e road in 7.
urisdiction over t1e case on t1e ground t1at Samico s1ould 1ave paid t1e ta2 under protest first before appealing. 8n ;une %&, 9, t1e C0A ruled t1at it 1as >urisdiction over t1e case and t1en decided in favor of Samico. 01e C0A 1eld t1at since t1e road 3as constructed on public lands suc1 t1at it is an integral part of t1e lands and not an independent improvement t1ereon, and t1at upon t1e termination of t1e lease t1e national government 3ill ac?uire o3ners1ip of t1e road, Samico s1ould be e2empted from pa+ing. @ence t1is appeal to t1e SC.
ISSUE3HELD4% # t1e road constructed on alienable public land leased to Samico is ta2able. 3NO4 ARGUMENTS5RATIO BAA and t1e 6rovincial Assessor argue t1at t1e road is an improvement and, t1erefore, ta2able under Section % of t1e Assessment $a3 (Common3ealt1 Act #o. )' 31ic1 provides as follo3s DSec. 2. Incidence of real property tax. - Except in cartered cities! tere sall be levied! assessed! and collected! an annual ad valorem tax on real property including land! buildings! macinery! and oter improvements not ereinafter specifically exempted.D
SC 01e road is indeed an improvement, but it is not ta2able under Sec. % of t1e Assessment $a3 pursuant to t1e ruling in Bislig Bay Lumber Co. v. "rov#l. $ov#t. of Surigao ('' 61il ', 31ic1 1eld t1at a private part+ 31o introduces improvements on public land sub>ect to a lease is onl+ a partial usufructuar+ of t1e road and t1erefore cannot be made to pa+ real estate ta2: because in suc1 cases o3ners1ip ultimatel+ remains 3it1 t1e !overnment and t1e improvements remain open to public use. In %unicipality of Cotabato! et al. v. Santos, ('7 61il 9, it 3as 1eld t1at improvements 31ic1 form an integral part (suc1 as di4es and gates of a publicl+-o3ned immovable (suc1 as s3ampland converted into fis1ponds are ta2-e2empt. % BAA and t1e 6rovincial Assessor argue t1at Bislig Bay does not appl+ because t1e road in t1at case 3as built on inalienable timberland. Samico "oad 3as built on alienable lands of t1e public domain and is t1erefore ta2able. SC 01e argument is untenable. 01e road in issue in t1e Bislig Bay case 3as e2empted not because it 3as built on inalienable lands /- /#ca-s# i &)'(#d an in#'a* pa' )& h# p-/*ic *and -p)n +hich i +as /-i*2 and /#ca-s# i +as )+n#d /! h# G)#'n(#n h')-h acc#ssi)n. S#ci)n 63a4 )& h# Ass#ss(#n La+ d)#s n) disin-ish /#+##n a*i#na/*# )' ina*i#na/*# *ands2 as *)n as h# *and is )& p-/*ic d)(ain, i is a17#1#(p . BAA and t1e 6rovincial Assessor argue t1at t1e C0A did not ac?uire >urisdiction over t1e case because Samico failed to pa+ t1e ta2 under protest as re?uired b+ Sec. 7) of t1e Assessment $a3 31ic1 states t1at &o court sall entertain any suit assailing te validity of a tax assessment under tis 'ct until te taxpayer sall ave paid under protest te taxes assessed against im! nor sall any court declare any tax invalid by reason....F SC Sec. 7) of t1e Assessment $a3 is inconsistent 3it1 t1e e2press provision and legislative intent of "A %7 (t1e $a3 creating t1e Court of 0a2 Appeals, and s1ould be deemed impliedl+ repealed insofar as it sets t1e pa+ment of ta2 under protest as a prere?uisite for appeals to t1e C0A. 01e SC ?uotes 3it1 approval t1e decision of t1e C0A, t1us (o re)uire te taxpayer! as contended by respondents! to pay first te disputed real property tax before e can file an appeal assailing te legality and validity of te realty tax assessment *ill render nugatory te appellate +urisdictional po*er of te Court of (ax 'ppeals as envisioned in Section ,/! in relation to Section 00! of 1epublic 'ct &o. 002. If *e follo* te contention of respondents to its logical conclusion! *e cannot conceive of a case involving te legality and validity of real property tax assessment! decided by te Board of 'ssessment 'ppeals! *ic can be appealed to te Court of (ax 'ppeals.F
01e Court furt1er sa+s 3e agree *it te foregoing vie* of te Court of (ax 'ppeals. It sould be noted tat *at is involved in te present case is simply an assessment of realty tax! as fixed by te "rovincial 'ssessor of 4amboanga del Sur! *ic *as disputed by Samar before te Board of 'ssessment 'ppeals of said province. (ere *as no demand yet for payment of te realty tax. In fact te letter of te "rovincial 'ssessor! of June ! 0567! notifying Samar of te assessment! states as follo*s8 9 S1ould +ou find t1e same to be not in accordance 3it1 la3 or its valuation to be not satisfactor+, +ou ma+ appeal t1is assessment under Section of Common3ealt1 Act )' to t1e Board of Assessment Appeals, t1roug1 t1e Municipal 0reasurer of Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, 3it1in 9' da+s from t1e date of +our receipt 1ereof.# 'ccordingly Samar appealed to te Board )uestioning te validity of te assessment. (e Board rendered a resolution over-ruling te contention of Samar tat te assessment *as illegal. (en Samar availed of its rigt to appeal from te decision of te Board to te Court of (ax 'ppeals as provided in Section 00 of 1epublic 'ct 002. Section 11 does not require that before an appeal from the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals can be brought to the Court of Tax Appeals, it must first be shown that the party disputing the assessment had paid under protest the realty tax assessed . In te absence of suc a re)uirement under te la*! all tat is necessary for a party aggrieved by te decision of te Board of 'ssessment 'ppeals is to file is notice of appeal to te Court of (ax 'ppeals *itin : days after receipt of te decision of te Board of 'ssessment 'ppeals! as provided in Section 00 of 1epublic 'ct 002.F In conclusion, t1e Court 1eld ;rom te afore)uoted portion of te decision of tis Court! 3e gater tat te only )uestion tat may be brougt before te City or "rovincial Board of 'ssessment 'ppeals is te )uestion *ic relates to te reasonableness or legality of te realty tax tat is assessed against a taxpayer. Such being the case, it would be unjust to require the realty owner to first pay the tax, that he precisely questions, before he can lodge an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals !e belie"e that it is not the intendment of the law that in questioning before the Court of Tax Appeals the "alidity or reasonableness of the assessment appro"ed by the Board of Assessment Appeals the taxpayer should first pay the questioned tax It is
