4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.

Mendoza:SecondDivision

SYLLABI/SYNOPSIS

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.119172.March25,1999]

BELEN C. FIGUERRES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF ASSESSORS

OF MANDALUYONG, CITY TREASURER OF MANDALUYONG, and
SANGGUNIANGBAYANOFMANDALUYONG,respondents.

DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,datedFebruary8,1995,
dismissingaprohibitionsuitbroughtbypetitioneragainstrespondentofficialsoftheMunicipality,nowCity,of
Mandaluyongtopreventthemfromenforcingcertainordinancesrevisingthescheduleoffairmarketvaluesof
thevariousclassesofrealpropertyinthatmunicipalityandtheassessmentlevelsapplicablethereto.
PetitionerBelenC.Figuerresistheownerofaparcelofland,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.
413305,andlocatedatAmarilloStreet,BarangayMauway,CityofMandaluyong.In1993,shereceivedanotice
ofassessment,datedOctober20,1993,fromthemunicipalassessorofthethenMunicipalityofMandaluyong,
containingthefollowingspecifics:

TYPEAREABASEVALUEMARKETASSESSMENTASSESSED
PERSQ.M.VALUELEVELVALUE

Residential530sq.m.P2,500.00P1,325,000.0020P265,000.00[1]

Theassessment,effectiveintheyear1994,wasbasedonOrdinanceNos.119and125,seriesof1993,and
OrdinanceNo.135,seriesof1994,oftheSangguniangBayanofMandaluyong.Ordinance No. 119, series of
1993, which was promulgated on April 22, 1993, contains a schedule of fair market values of the different
classes of real property in the municipality.[2] Ordinance No. 125, series of 1993, which was promulgated on
November11,1993,ontheotherhand,fixestheassessmentlevelsapplicabletosuchclassesofrealproperty.[3]
Finally,OrdinanceNo.135,seriesof1994,whichwaspromulgatedonFebruary24,1994,amendedOrdinance
No.119,6byprovidingthatonlyonethird(1/3)oftheincreaseinthemarketvaluesapplicabletoresidential
landspursuanttothesaidordinanceshallbeimplementedintheyears1994,1995,and1996.[4]
Petitioner brought a prohibition suit in the Court of Appeals against the Assessor, the Treasurer, and the
SangguniangBayantostopthemfromenforcingtheordinancesinquestiononthegroundthattheordinances
were invalid for having been adopted allegedly without public hearings and prior publication or posting and
withoutcomplyingwiththeimplementingrulesyettobeissuedbytheDepartmentofFinance.[5]
Initsdecision,datedFebruary8,1995,[6]theCourtofAppealsthrewoutthepetition.Theappellatecourt
saidinpart:

PetitionersclaimthatOrdinanceNos.119,125and135arenullandvoidsincetheywerepreparedwithoutthe
approvalanddeterminationoftheDepartmentofFinanceiswithoutmerit.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 1/6
4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

TheapprovalanddeterminationbytheDepartmentofFinanceisnotneededundertheLocalGovernmentCode
of1991,sinceitisnowthecitycouncilofMandaluyongthatisempoweredtodetermineandapprovethe
aforecitedordinances.Furthermore,contrarytotheclaimofpetitionerthattheDepartmentofFinancehasnot
promulgatedthenecessaryrulesandregulationsfortheclassification,appraisalandassessmentofrealproperty
asprescribedbythe1991LocalGovernmentCode,DepartmentofFinanceLocalAssessmentRegulationNo.1
92datedOctober6,1992,whichisaddressedtoprovincial,city,andmunicipalassessorsandothersconcerned
withtheproperimplementationofSection219ofR.A.No.7160,providesfortherulesrelativetotheconductof
generalrevisionsofrealpropertyassessmentspursuanttoSections201and219oftheLocalGovernmentCode
of1991.

RegardingpetitionersclaimthatthereisneedformunicipalordinancestobepublishedintheOfficialGazette
fortheireffectivity,thesameisalsowithoutmerit.

Section511ofR.A.No.7160providesthat

....

ThesecretarytotheSanggunianconcernedshalltransmitofficialcopiesofsuchordinancestothechief
executiveofficeroftheOfficialGazettewithinseven(7)daysfollowingtheapprovalofthesaidordinancesfor
publicationpurposes.TheOfficialGazettemaypublishordinanceswithpenalsanctionsforarchivaland
referencepurposes.

Thus,thepostingandpublicationintheOfficialGazetteofordinanceswithpenalsanctionsisnotaprerequisite
fortheireffectivity.ThisfindssupportinthecaseofTaadav.Tuvera(146SCRA446),whereintheSupreme
CourtdeclaredthatmunicipalordinancesarecoveredbytheLocalGovernmentCode.

Moreover,petitionerfailedtoexhausttheadministrativeremediesavailabletohimasprovidedforunderSection
187ofR.A.No.7160,beforefilingtheinstantpetitionwiththisCourt.

....

Infact,asidefromfilinganappealtotheSecretaryofJusticeasprovidedunderSection187ofR.A.No.7160,
thepetitioner...couldhaveappealedtotheLocalBoardofAssessmentAppeals,thedecisionofwhichisin
turnappealabletotheCentralBoardofAssessmentAppealsasprovidedunderSections226and230ofthesaid
law.Accordingtocurrentjurisprudence,administrativeremediesmustbeexhaustedbeforeseekingjudicial
intervention.(Gonzalesv.SecretaryofEducation,5SCRA657).Ifalitigantgoestocourtwithoutfirstpursuing
theavailableadministrativeremedies,hisactionisconsideredprematureandnotyetripeforjudicial
determination(AlliedBrokerageCorporationv.CommissionerofCustoms,40SCRA555).

Asthepetitionerhasnotpursuedtheadministrativeremediesavailabletohim,hispetitionforprohibitioncannot
prosper(Gonzalesv.ProvincialAuditorofIloilo,12SCRA711).

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIEDduecourseandisherebyDISMISSED.[7]

PetitionerFiguerresassailstheabovedecision.Shecontendsthat
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN FINDING LACK OF
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ON THE PART OF HEREIN PETITIONER
WHEN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS
NOTREQUIREDBYLAWANDWOULDHAVEBEENAUSELESSFORMALITY.
2.THE HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS ERRED WHEN IT STATED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
OF MANDALUYONG IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE AND APPROVE THE AFORECITED
ORDINANCES WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MANDATORY PUBLIC HEARINGS
REQUIREDBYR.A.No.7160.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 2/6
4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

3.WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN STATING
THATTHEREISNONEEDFORPUBLICATIONOFTAXORDINANCES.
4. THERE IS NON COMPLIANCE BY PUBLIC RESPONDENTS OF ASSESSMENT
REGULATIONNo.192DATEDOCTOBER6,1992,EVENIFTHEHONORABLECOURTOF
APPEALSMENTIONEDTHEEXISTENCEOFTHESAIDASSESSMENTREGULATIONS.[8]
Ontheotherhand,theMunicipalityofMandaluyongcontends:
(1) the present case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies
(2)apartfromherbareallegations,petitionerFiguerreshasnotpresentedanyevidencetoshowthatnopublic
hearingswereconductedpriortotheenactmentoftheordinancesinquestion
(3)althoughanordinanceconcerningtheimpositionofrealpropertytaxesisnotrequiredtobepublishedinthe
OfficialGazetteinordertobevalid,stillthesubjectordinancesweredisseminatedbeforetheireffectivity
inaccordancewiththerelevantprovisionsofR.A.No.7160and
(4) the Municipality of Mandaluyong complied with the regulations of the Department of Finance in enacting
thesubjectordinances.

Exhaustionofadministrativeremedies

InLopezv.CityofManila,[9]werecentlyheld:

...Therefore,wherearemedyisavailablewithintheadministrativemachinery,thisshouldberesortedtobefore
resortcanbemadetothecourts,notonlytogivetheadministrativeagencytheopportunitytodecidethematter
byitselfcorrectly,butalsotopreventunnecessaryandprematureresorttocourts....

Withregardtoquestionsonthelegalityofataxordinance,theremediesavailabletothetaxpayerareprovided
underSections187,226,and252ofR.A.7160.

Section187ofR.A.7160provides,thatthetaxpayermayquestiontheconstitutionalityorlegalityofatax
ordinanceonappealwithinthirty(30)daysfromeffectivitythereof,totheSecretaryofJustice.Thepetitioner
afterfindingthathisassessmentisunjust,confiscatory,orexcessive,maybringthecasebeforetheSecretaryof
Justiceforquestionsoflegalityorconstitutionalityofthecityordinance.

UnderSection226ofR.A.7160,anownerofrealpropertywhoisnotsatisfiedwiththeassessmentofhis
propertymay,withinsixty(60)daysfromnoticeofassessment,appealtotheBoardofAssessmentAppeals.

Shouldthetaxpayerquestiontheexcessivenessoftheamountoftax,hemustfirstpaytheamountdue,in
accordancewithSection252ofR.A.No.7160.Then,hemustrequesttheannotationofthephrasepaidunder
protestandaccordinglyappealtotheBoardofAssessmentAppealsbyfilingapetitionunderoathtogetherwith
copiesofthetaxdeclarationsandaffidavitsordocumentstosupporthisappeal.

Although cases raising purely legal questions are excepted from the rule requiring exhaustion of
administrativeremediesbeforeapartymayresorttothecourts,inthecaseatbar,thelegalquestionsraisedby
petitionerrequire,aswillpresentlybeshown,proofoffactsfortheirresolution.Therefore,thepetitionersaction
intheCourtofAppealswaspremature,andtheappellatecourtcorrectlydismissedheractiononthegroundthat
shefailedtoexhaustavailableadministrativeremediesasabovestated.
PetitionerarguesthatresorttotheSecretaryofJusticeisnotmandatorybutonlydirectorybecauseR.A.No.
7160,187providesthatanyquestionontheconstitutionalityorlegalityoftaxordinancesorrevenuemeasures
may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice.Precisely, the Secretary of Justice can take cognizance of a case

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 3/6
4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

involving the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances where, as in this case, there are factual issues
involved.
Thereneedbenofearthatcompliancewiththeruleonexhaustionofadministrativeremedieswillunduly
delayresorttothecourtstothedetrimentoftaxpayers.AlthoughR.A.No.7160,187providesthatanappealto
theSecretaryofJusticeshallnothavetheeffectofsuspendingtheeffectivityoftheordinanceandtheaccrual
and payment of the tax, fee, or charge levied therein, it likewise requires the Secretary of Justice to render a
decisionwithinsixty(60)daysfromthedateofreceiptoftheappeal,afterwhichtheaggrievedpartymayfile
appropriateproceedingswithacourtofcompetentjurisdiction.

Publichearingsontaxordinance

Petitionerisrightincontendingthatpublichearingsarerequiredtobeconductedpriortotheenactmentof
anordinanceimposingrealpropertytaxes.R.A.No.7160,186providesthatanordinancelevyingtaxes,fees,or
chargesshallnotbeenactedwithoutanypriorpublichearingconductedforthepurpose.
However, it is noteworthy that apart from her bare assertions, petitioner Figuerres has not presented any
evidencetoshowthatnopublichearingswereconductedpriortotheenactmentoftheordinancesinquestion.
Ontheotherhand,theMunicipalityofMandaluyongclaimsthatpublichearingswereindeedconductedbefore
the subject ordinances were adopted,[10] although it likewise failed to submit any evidence to establish this
allegation. However, in accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, their
constitutionalityorlegalityshouldbeupheldintheabsenceofevidenceshowingthattheprocedureprescribed
bylawwasnotobservedintheirenactment.Inananalogouscase,UnitedStatesv.Cristobal,[11]itwasalleged
thattheordinancemakingitacrimeforanyonetoobstructwaterwayshadnotbeensubmittedbytheprovincial
boardasrequiredby22322233oftheAdministrativeCode.Inrejectingthiscontention,theCourtheld:

FromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstancethedefendantappealedtothiscourtuponthetheorythatthe
ordinanceinquestionwasadoptedwithoutauthorityonthepartofthemunicipalityandwastherefore
unconstitutional.Theappellantarguesthattherewasnoproofadducedduringthetrialofthecauseshowingthat
saidordinancehadbeenapprovedbytheprovincialboard.Consideringtheprovisionsoflawthatitistheduty
oftheprovincialboardtoapproveordisapproveordinancesadoptedbythemunicipalcouncilsofthedifferent
municipalities,wewillassume,intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,thatthelawhasbeencompliedwith.We
havearighttoassumethatofficialshavedonethatwhichthelawrequiresthemtodo,intheabsenceofpositive
prooftothecontrary.[12]

Furthermore,thelackofapublichearingisanegativeallegationessentialtopetitionerscauseofactionin
thepresentcase.Hence,aspetitioneristhepartyassertingit,shehastheburdenofproof.[13]Sincepetitioner
failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the subject ordinances and to discharge the burden of
proving that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enactment thereof, we are constrained to uphold
theirconstitutionalityorlegality.

Publicationandpostingofscheduleoffairmarketvalues

Petitioner is also right that publication or posting of the proposed schedule of fair market values of the
differentclassesofrealpropertyinalocalgovernmentunitisrequiredpursuanttoR.A.No.7160,212whichin
partstates:

....Thescheduleoffairmarketvaluesshallbepublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovince,
city,ormunicipalityconcerned,orintheabsencethereof,shallbepostedintheprovincialcapitol,cityor
municipalhallandintwootherconspicuouspublicplacestherein.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 4/6
4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

InTyv.Trampe,[14]itwasheldthat,ifthelocalgovernmentunitispartofMetroManila,theabovequoted
portionof212mustbeunderstoodtorefertothescheduleoffairmarketvaluesofthedifferentclassesofreal
property in the district to which the city or municipality belongs, as prepared jointly by the local assessors
concerned.
In addition, an ordinance imposing real property taxes (such as Ordinance Nos. 119 and 135) must be
postedorpublishedasrequiredbyR.A.No.7160,188whichprovides:

Section188.PublicationofTaxOrdinancesandRevenueMeasures.Withinten(10)daysaftertheirapproval,
certifiedtruecopiesofallprovincial,city,andmunicipaltaxordinancesorrevenuemeasuresshallbepublished
infullforthree(3)consecutivedaysinanewspaperoflocalcirculation:Provided,however,Thatinprovinces,
citiesandmunicipalitieswheretherearenonewspapersoflocalcirculation,thesamemaybepostedinatleast
two(2)conspicuousandpubliclyaccessibleplaces.

Hence,aftertheproposedscheduleoffairmarketvaluesofthedifferentclassesofrealpropertyinalocal
governmentunitwithinMetroManila,aspreparedjointlybythelocalassessorsofthedistricttowhichthecity
ormunicipalitybelongs,hasbeenpublishedorpostedinaccordancewith212ofR.A.No.7160andenactedinto
ordinancesbythesangguniansofthemunicipalitiesandcitiesconcerned,theordinancescontainingtheschedule
offairmarketvaluesmustthemselvesbepublishedorpostedinthemannerprovidedby188ofR.A.No.7160.
Withrespecttoordinanceswhichfixtheassessmentlevels(suchasOrdinanceNo.125),beinginthenature
ofataxordinance,188likewiseapplies.Moreover,asOrdinanceNo.125,7providesforapenalsanctionfor
violationsthereofbymeansofafineofnotlessthanP1,000.00normorethanP5,000.00, or imprisonment of
notlessthanone(1)monthnormorethansix(6)months,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt,notonly188but
511(a)alsomustbeobserved:

Ordinanceswithpenalsanctionsshallbepostedatprominentplacesintheprovincialcapitol,city,municipalor
barangayhall,asthecasemaybe,foraminimumperiodofthree(3)consecutiveweeks.Suchordinancesshall
alsobepublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,whereavailable,withintheterritorialjurisdictionofthe
localgovernmentunitconcerned,exceptinthecaseofbarangayordinances.Unlessotherwiseprovidedtherein,
saidordinancesshalltakeeffectonthedayfollowingitspublication,orattheendoftheperiodofposting,
whicheveroccurslater.

In view of 188 and 511(a) of R.A. No. 7160, an ordinance fixing the assessment levels applicable to the
differentclassesofrealpropertyinalocalgovernmentunitandimposingpenalsanctionsforviolationsthereof
(suchasOrdinanceNo.125)shouldbepublishedinfullforthree(3)consecutivedaysinanewspaperoflocal
circulation,whereavailable,withinten(10)daysofitsapproval,andpostedinatleasttwo(2)prominentplaces
intheprovincialcapitol,city,municipal,orbarangayhallforaminimumofthree(3)consecutiveweeks.
Apartfromherallegations,petitioner has not presented any evidence to show that the subject ordinances
were not disseminated in accordance with these provisions of R.A. No. 7160. On the other hand, the
Municipality of Mandaluyong presented a certificate, dated November 12, 1993, of Williard S. Wong,
SanggunianSecretaryoftheMunicipalityofMandaluyongthatOrdinanceNo.125,S1993...hasbeenposted
inaccordancewith59(b)ofR.A.No.7160,otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991.[15]Thus,
considering the presumption of validity in favor of the ordinances and the failure of petitioner to rebut such
presumption,weareconstrainedtodismissthepetitioninthiscase.

CompliancewithregulationsissuedbytheDepartmentofFinance

AlsowithoutmeritisthecontentionofpetitionerthatOrdinanceNo.119andOrdinanceNo.135arevoid
fornothavingbeenenactedinaccordancewithLocalAssessmentRegulationNo.192,datedOctober6,1992,
of the Department of Finance, which provides guidelines for the preparation of proposed schedules of fair
market values of the different classes of real property in a local government unit, such as time tables for
obtaininginformationfromownersofaffectedlandsandbuildingsregardingthevaluethereof.Asinthecaseof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 5/6
4/10/2017 FiguerresvsCA:119172:March25,1999:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

theproceduralrequirementsfortheenactmentoftaxordinancesandrevenuemeasures,however,petitionerhas
notshownthattheordinancesinthiscasewerenotenactedinaccordancewiththeapplicableregulationsofthe
Department of Finance. The Municipality of Mandaluyong claims that, although the regulations are merely
directory,ithascompliedwiththem.[16]Hence,intheabsenceofproofthattheordinanceswerenotenactedin
accordancewithsuchregulations,saidordinancesmustbepresumedtohavebeenenactedinaccordancewith
suchregulations.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo(Chairman),Puno,Quisumbing,andBuena,JJ.,concur.

[1]CARollo,p.56.

[2]Id.,pp.2148.

[3]Id.,pp.1619.

[4]Id.,p.51.

[5]CARollo,pp.115.

[6]PerAssociateJusticeJorgeS.ImperialandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesPacitaCaizaresNyeandConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.

[7]Rollo,pp.2124.

[8]Rollo,pp.56.

[9]G.R.No.127139,Feb.19,1999.

[10]Rejoinder,Rollo,p.68.

[11]34Phil.825(1916).

[12]Id.at826.

[13]IndustrialFinanceCorporationv.Tobias,78SCRA28(1977).

[14]250SCRA500,516517(1995).

[15]CARollo,p.20.

[16]Rejoinder,Rollo,p.68.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/mar99/119172.htm 6/6