Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 166102 2015-08-05	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY ASSESSOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Section 252 of the Local Government Code mandates that "[n]o protest shall be entertained unless the taxpayer first pays the tax." It is settled that the requirement of "payment under protest" is a condition sine qua non before an appeal may be entertained.[38] Section 231 of the same Code also dictates that "[a]ppeal on assessments of real property x x x shall, in no case, suspend the collection of the corresponding realty taxes on the property involved as assessed by the provincial or city assessor, without prejudice to subsequent adjustment depending upon the final outcome of the appeal." Clearly, under the Local Government Code, even when the assessment of the real property is appealed, the real property tax due on the basis thereof should be paid to and/or collected by the local government unit concerned.
	GR No. 172457 2008-12-24	CJH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BIR TINGA, J.
With the foregoing disquisition on the first issue, there is no need to delve into the second issue at this juncture. It should be noted though, as admitted by CJH in its Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping,[33] that even before the filing of this petition, it already had a pending petition for review with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 169234[34] and entitled, Camp John Hay Development Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, et al. That case emanated from assessments made in 2002 for real estate taxes on CJH by the City of Baguio. Said assessments were duly challenged before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and the Court of Tax Appeals. The petition in G.R. No. 169234 was filed with this Court in September 2005, or after our 2003 Decision in John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition had attained finality. CJH therein raised the same question of law, as in this case, whether the doctrine of operative fact applies to G.R. No. 119775. Clearly, the Court in G.R. No. 169234 is better positioned to resolve that question of law, there being no antecedent jurisdictional defects that would preclude the Court from squarely deciding that particular issue. CJH is free to reiterate this current point of clarification as it litigates the petition in G.R. No. 169234.