Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

April 3, 2001 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION The Provincial Assessor Pili, Camarines Sur M a d a m : This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 25, 2001, transmitting to this Bureau your recommendation for the deferment of the conduct of the general revision of real property assessments for calendar year 2000 in that province, embodied under your letter dated December 18, 2000 addressed to the Honorable Governor of same province, and Resolution No. 04, series of 1999, of the Camarines Sur Association of Municipal Assessors. It appears that the deferment of the said general revision of real property assessments was prompted by the reason/constraints stated in your letter and Resolution of Camarines Sur Association of Municipal Assessor. In this connection, attention is invited to the 4th Indorsement dated October 9, 1998, copy enclosed, of this Bureau, treating on a seemingly similar subject matter, the penultimate portion of which reads as follows: "Before anything else, it is worthwhile to emphasize herein that, under BLGF Memorandum Circular 04-95 dated March 22, 1995 (copy enclosed) of this Bureau, clarifications have been made that: ". . . the conduct of general revision of real property assessments within two (2) years from the effectivity of the Code is mandatory, and in cases where revaluation of properties were conducted, the Provincial or City Assessor concerned may advise the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Panlungsod that it is likewise mandatory to enact/approve a new Schedule of Market Value for purposes of conducting the initial revision of real property assessments mandated under the Code. "As to the sanctions for those who did not undertake the general revision of real property assessments, for one reason or another, attention is invited to Section 517 of the Code, . . . ." Accordingly, this Bureau is of the view, and therefore holds that the regular conduct of general revision of real property assessments, that is "once every three (3) years," is mandatory and no amount of resolution/petition should prevail over the specific provision of law (Section 219, R.A. No. 7160) that would warrant its deferment. HTcADC Very truly yours, (SGD.) BENJAMIN A. GERONIMO Executive Director