FIRST
DIVISION
ARMY
& NAVY
CLUB,
MANILA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. 19297
January
26, 1923
-versus-
WENCESLAO
TRINIDAD,
COLLECTOR
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Defendant-Appellee.
D
E C I S I
O N
MALCOLM,
J :
The
question at issue in
this case is whether the land on which the Army and Navy Club of Manila
is situated should be assessed at P4.04 a square meter, the amount
which
the club paid the City of Manila for the land, or whether it should be
assessed at P20 a square meter, the amount at which the city assessor
and
collector valued the land. It is said to be a test case.
By a contract entered
into on December 29, 1908, the City of Manila sold to the Army and Navy
Club of Manila 12,665.46 square meters and land located in the New
Luneta,
recently filled, for P4.04 a square meter. It was agreed between the
parties
"that the above described premises, together with the improvements
which
may be made there upon, shall be exempt from taxation for a period of
ten
years following the date when the city engineer of the City of Manila
shall
make his certificate declaring that said premises are ready for
building
purposes." It was further agreed, "that the party of the first part
shall
have that right at its option to repurchase said described premises for
public purposes only, at any time after fifty years from the fulfilling
of the terms of this contract and the conveyance of said described
premises
by the first party or its successors to the second party or its
successors,
upon the payment to the second party or its successors of the purchase
price herein before set forth, plus the then value of the improvements
thereon, and when such value shall be ascertained and the whole amount
paid to the party of the second part or its successors, the second
party
agrees to reconvey the said described premises with all the
appurtenances
thereunto belonging to the first party."
The final deed from
the City of Manila was executed on September 20, 1918. It called for
12,705.30
square meters, and contained, among others, the clauses in the original
document above quoted.
Taxes on the property,
according to the aforesaid instruments, became payable for the first
time
in the year 1920. The city assessor and collector thereupon assessed
the
land at P20 per square meter. The Army and Navy Club paid the tax under
protest. Subsequently, there followed the instant action. In the lower
court, after trial, judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint.
With this brief
statement
of the case and of the facts before Us, the same issue which was set
forth
in the beginning of the opinion reasserts itself for resolution.
It is a general rule
that real estate is to be valued for purposes of taxation at its fair
market
value or, as it is called in the Charter of the City of Manila, its "
cash
value." By "fair market value" or " cash value: is meant the amount of
money which a purchaser willing but not obliged the property would pay
to an owner willing but not obliged to sell it, taking into
consideration
all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be
applied.
The criterion established by the statute and by the decisions
contemplates
a hypothetical sale. Hence, the buyers need not be actual and existing
purchasers. What a thing has cost is no infallible criterion of its
market
value. [26 R. C. L., 365; Turnley vs. City of Elizabeth (1908), 76 N.
J.
L., 42; Central Railroad Company vs. State Board of Assessors (1886),
49
N. J. L., 1; Administrative Code, sec. 2483].
Where evidence of
values
is not readily obtainable, the actual profits made on the property may
be considered. But in the case of exceptional property, not designed to
yield a rental or income or to be used for commercial purpose, but
wholly
or mainly for personal use, benefit, and gratification, the rule that
the
rental or income of property is a proper criterion in ascertaining its
value for taxation does not apply. In fact, there exists no rigid rule
for the valuation of property, which is affected by a multitude of
circumstances
which no rule could foresee or provide for [New Orleans Cotton
Exchange
vs. Board of Assessors (1885), 37 La. Ann., 423].
Up to this point, We
stated facts and law to which both parties would agree. But having
followed
the road thus far, the plaintiff and the defendant part company.
The principal thesis
of the appellant is this: The land of the Army and Navy Club here in
question
has no sales value other than P4.04 per square meter. In fact the land
cannot be sold, in view of the clauses in the deed giving the City of
Manila
the right to repurchase at P4.04, and restricting the use of the land
to
club purposes. This is undeniably a strong position.
The principal basis
for the decision of the trial judge, now taken over to support the
contention
of the Government, is this: It cannot be deduced from the stipulation,
authorizing the City of Manila to purchase the land on which the Army
and
Club is located after the expiration of fifty years at the price which
the club paid for the land, that the value of the land was to remain
stationary
and invariable throughout the fifty years. This, likewise, is a strong
position.
To what has been said
by counsel for the appellant and by the city fiscal, little can be
added.
The authorities are not helpful. Deductive reasoning leads either to
the
bald proposition announced by the appellant or to the bald proposition
announced by the appellee.
After thoughtful
consideration
of the case, the members of the Court have come to agree with the
judgment
rendered by the trial court. They are of the opinion that the views
announced
by the trial judge and again advanced by the Government, are the more
reasonable,
everything considered. They cannot believe that it was the intention to
permit the Army and Navy Club to pay taxes on its land at the purchase
value throughout all the fifty years, while surrounding property in
Ermita
and on the Cavite Boulevard must pay much more.
In addition, there
are two other factors of some importance which can be mentioned. In the
first place, it cannot be presumed that the Government, in this
instance,
the City of Manila, would set up one standard of taxation for one
person
and another standard for other persons. The city authorities must have
had in mind that conceding to the Army and Navy Club exemption from
taxation
for ten years was the limit of municipal consideration.
In the next place,
assessors, in fixing the value of property, have consider all the
circumstances
and elements of value, and must exercise a prudent discretion in
reaching
conclusions. Courts, therefore, will not presume to interfere with the
intelligent exercise of the judgment of men specially trained in
appraising
property. Where. as the Supreme Court of Louisiana says, the judicial
mind
is left in doubt, it is a sound rule to leave the assessment
undisturbed.
[Viuda e Hijos de Pedro P. Roxas vs. Rafferty (1918), 37 Phil., 957;
New
Orleans Cotton Exchange vs. Board of Assessors, supra].
Frankly admitting,
therefore, that appellant has made out a strong case, We are
nevertheless
constrained to affirm the judgment, without special finding as to costs
in either instance. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J.,
Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur. |