G.R. No. L-7451. May 26, 1958

Appeal taken against a decision of the defunct Board of Tax Appeals upholding
the resolution of the Board of Assessment Appeals for the province of Tarlac,
that sustained a 40% increase in the assessed values of certain portions of the
Hacienda Luisita.

The record demonstrates that early in 1953, the Provincial Assessor of Tarlac
notified the manager of the Hacienda Luisita (owned and operated by Compañia
General de Tabacos de Filipinas) that the assessment of its portions covered by
Tax Declarations Nos. 25473 to 25477 in the municipality of La Paz, and Nos.
7065 to 7067 in the municipality of Concepcion, would be increased by 40% on the
average, in accordance with the new schedule of values approved by the Secretary
of Finance. The hacienda administrator appealed to the Provincial Board of
Assessment Appeals, which sustained the Assessor. Upon application to the
Department Secretary, the matter was referred to the Board of Tax Appeals where
the case was heard and argued, but with equally unfavorable results to the
appellant. The latter then resorted to this Court for a final decision.

Appellant contends that in assessing the value of the hacienda lands, the
Assessor refused or failed to take into account the losses amounting to
P2,400,168.00 suffered by appellant during the Japanese occupation; the fact
that after liberation the sum of P591,905.69 had to be invested for its
rehabilitation; that during the first years of postwar operation, the hacienda
lost P26,685.70; and that the hacienda was mortgaged for almost three million
pesos and had to pay amortizations totalling close to two million on its
mortgages and outstanding bonded indebtedness.

The complaints are without merit. As pointed out by the appealed decision,
such items of losses, investments, and indebtedness do not affect the value of
the lands subjected to reassessment, in the absence of proof that the losses
were due to deterioration of the lands themselves. Appellant’s argument
evidences a failure to distinguish between the intrinsic value of the land (upon
which the assessment is based) and the profit or loss from its exploitation,
that has nothing to do with the lands themselves but concerns exclusively the
business of the entity operating the Hacienda.

It is not denied that under Commonwealth Act No. 470 (Assessment Law),
taxable real property should be assessed at its true and full value; and
appellant has not shown that the Assessor failed to take into account any
factors that relate to such value, like the quality, income, productivity,
location, accessibility, improvements or use of the property, that would
increase or decrease either its utility or its exchange value. Some of the items
claimed as reducing factors (for example, the rehabilitation investment)
actually increase the value of the rehabilitated land rather than decrease it.

Finally, it is a well known fact that the values tended to increase after
liberation. Whether or not the rise was due to a decrease in the purchasing
power of the currency may be disputed, but the increase undoubtedly
exists.

That the Provincial Assessor acted upon the reports of his
assistants, and did not personally inspect the property, does not affect the
legality or validity of the assessment made upon the Assessor’s official
authority or responsibility. In the absence of legal prohibition, Qui facit per
aliud facit per se.

The foregoing considerations dispose of the case on its merits, and render it
unnecessary to rule on the lack of legal personality of the Hacienda, which was
not raised in the proceedings below.

The decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant. So
ordered.

Paras C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angela, Labrador,
Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.