Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Central Board of Assessment Appeals: Resolution
Central Board of Assessment Appeals: Resolution
Central Board of Assessment Appeals: Resolution
- versus -
CBAA CASE NO. V-01
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Re: T.D. No. 42555
OF TACLOBAN CITY, and 42556
Appellee, Tacloban City
- and -
RESOLUTION
Assessment Appeals of Tacloban City, and the City Treasurer of Tacloban City,
“SO ORDERED”
(a) this Board “failed to fully appreciate the contents and substance of the
contract” (paragraph 4, Motion for Reconsideration)
(b) “the Title of the contract is a misnomer because even if it (title) speaks
of management only, the provisions thereof clearly illustrate an
agreement of lease wherein the parties affected mutually agree to have
the properties subject matter thereof leased to Petitioner-Appellant.”
(paragraph 5, supra)
A perusal of the records disclose that the issues claimed are interrelated
and have already been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by the Board in
its decision and no new or substantial reasons are advanced by the movants to
Black’s Law Dictionary, pages 188-189, citing Reiming vs. Railroad Co.,
“The right to use and enjoy property according to one’s own liking as
to derive profit or benefit from it, including all that makes it desirable from
mere right of occupancy or possession” (underscoring supplied)
Whereas, this Board in CBAA Case No. 260, Asuncion Jamora vs. Board
of Assessment Appeals of Manila, et al, defines “actual use” (as defined in the
Code) as follows:
“Actual use refers to the purpose for which the property is principally
or predominantly utilized by the person in possession of the property.”
and for purposes of assessment, Section 19, P.D. 464, as amended, states
that:
“actual use” as used in the Code should not be construed as a criterion for the
Section 20, P.D. 464, as amended, to the market value or schedule of base unit
the tax liability of a state property the use of which is granted for consideration
assessed value.
enjoyment of a thing for profit or benefit, to its own liking, including all that
management contract, the enjoyment of the use of the thing is limited to what is
On the issue that the Board failed to fully appreciate the contents and
substance of the contract, it may be of note that what is determinative was that
Board’s ruling on the merits of the case, the intent of the parties, as provided in
“It is elementary that the real intention of the parties at the time the
written instruments were executed must govern in the interpretation given
to them by the court, and to this certain circumstances should be
considered, such as x x x; their statement and acts at the time of the
transaction; x x x. (Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, 1913; Vol. 8; par.
44607; Monagas vs. Albertucci (235 U.S. 81, 83), cited in Cuyugan vs.
Santos, 34 Phil. 114) (Villanueva vs. Geroche, CA-G.R. No. 49-R, 44 O.G.
2302) page 491, par. 208, Velayo’s Digest)” (underlining supplied)
With respect to the other issues raised, it appears that the same had
already been fully resolved by this Board in its decision now under
consideration.
disturb or alter our earlier decision, the herein Motion for Reconsideration is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines,
July 15, 1993.
(Signed)
MARGARITA G. MAGISTRADO
Chairman