Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-10123 and L-10355 April 26 1!

5"

GENARO URSAL as Ci#$ Ass%ssor o& C%'( petitioner, vs. COURT O) TA* APPEALS and CONSUELO NOEL respondents. GENARO URSAL as Ci#$ Ass%ssor o& C%'( petitioner, vs. COURT O) TA* APPEALS and +ESUSA SAMSON respondents. City Fiscal of Cebu Jose L. Abad for petitioner. Francisco M. Alonso for respondents. ,ENG-ON J.. In these two cases Genaro rsal as Cit! Assessor of Cebu challen"es the correctness of the order of the Court of #a$ Appeals dis%issin" his appeals to that bod! fro% two rulin"s of the Cebu Board of Assess%ent Appeals. #he record shows that said cit! assessors in the e$ercise of his powers assessed for ta$ation certain real properties of Consuelo Noel and &esusa 'a%son in the Cit! of Cebu, and that upon protest of the ta$pa!ers, the Cebu Board of Assess%ent Appeals reduced the assess%ents. It also shows he too( the %atter to the Court of #a$ Appeals insistin" on his valuation) but said Court refused to entertain the appeal sa!in" it was late, and, besides, the assessor had no personalit! to brin" the %atter before it under section ** of Republic Act No. **+,, which reads as follows'EC. **. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. . An! person, association or corporation adversel! affected b! a decision or rulin" of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Custo%s or an! provincial or cit! Board of Assess%ent Appeals %a! file an appeal in the Court of #a$ Appeals within thirt! da!s after the receipt of such decision or rulin". /e share the view that the assessor had no personalit! to resort to the Court of #a$ Appeals. #he rulin"s of the Board of Assess%ent Appeals did not 0adversel! affect0 hi%. At %ost it was the Cit! of Cebu* that had been adversel! affected in the sense that it could not thereafter collect hi"her realt! ta$es fro% the above%entioned propert! owners. 1is opinion, it is true had been overruled) but the overrulin" inflicted no %aterial da%a"e upon hi% or his office. And the Court of #a$ Appeals was not created to decide %ere conflicts of opinion between ad%inistrative officers or a"encies. I%a"ine an inco%e ta$ e$a%iner resortin" to the Court of #a$ Appeals whenever the Collector of Internal Revenue %odifies, or lower his assess%ent on the return of a ta$ pa!er2 Republic Act No. **+, creatin" the Court of #a$ Appeals did not "rant it blan(et authorit! to decide an! and all ta$ disputes. 3efinin" such special court4s 5urisdiction, the Act necessaril! li%ited its authorit! to those %atters enu%erated therein. In line with this idea we recentl! approved said court4s order re5ectin" an appeal to it b! 6ope7 8 'ons fro% the decision of the Collector of Custo%s, because in our opinion its 5urisdiction e$tended onl! to a review of the decisions of the Commissioner of Custo%s, as provided b! the statute . and not to decisions of the Collector of Customs. 96ope7 8 'ons vs. #he Court of #a$ Appeals, *:: Phil., ;,:, ,< =ff. Ga7., >*:? <:@,A. #he appellant invites attention to the fact that the Court of Appeals is the successor of the for%er Central Board of #a$ Appeals created b! Co%%onwealth Act No. ,<: and of the Board of #a$ Appeals established b! E$ecutive =rder No. B:*CA, and that said Co%%onwealth Act No. ,<: 9section +A explicitly authorized the city assessor to appeal to the Central Board of #a$ Appeals. 1ere

is precisel! another ar"u%ent a"ainst his position- as Republic Act No. **+, failed to reenact such express permission, it is dee%ed with held. =versi"ht could not have been the clause of such withholdin", since there were proper "rounds therefor- 9aA discipline and co%%and responsibilit! in the e$ecutive branches) and 9bA instead of bein" another superior ad%inistrative a"enc! as was the for%er Board of #a$ Appeals + the Court of #a$ Appeals as created b! Republic Act No. **+, is a part of the 5udicial s!ste% presu%abl! to act onl! on protests of private persons adversel! affected b! the ta$, custo%, or assess%ent. #here is no %erit to the contention that section + of Co%%onwealth Act No. ,<: is still in force and 5ustifies rsal4s appeal. Apart fro% the reasons alread! advanced, Republic Act No. **+, is a co%plete law b! itself and e$pressl! enu%erates the %atters which the Court of #a$ Appeals %a! consider) such enu%eration e$cludes all others b! i%plication. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. parts of an ori"inal act which act o%itted fro% the act as revised are to be considered as annulled and repealed, provided it clearl! appears to have been the intention of the le"islature to cover the whole sub5ect b! the revision. 9;+ C. &. '. p. ,:*.A Inas%uch as we a"ree to the appellant4s lac( of personalit! before the Court of #a$ Appeals, we find it unnecessar! to review the Duestion whether or not his appeal had been perfected in due ti%e. /herefore, the challen"e order is hereb! affir%ed. adilla! Montemayor! "eyes! A.! #autista An$elo! Labrador! Concepcion! "eyes! J.#.L.! Endencia and Felix! JJ.!concur.

)oo#no#%s /e do not now decide whether the Cit! of Cebu %a! repudiate the acts of its own Board of Assess%ent Appeals b! appeal to the Court of #a$ Appeals.
* +

0to hear and decide ad%inistrativel!0. 9E$ecutive =rder B:*CA. series *E,*A