Luzon Hydro Corp. v. Macanes

[CBAA CASE NO. L-141-2018. May 29, 2020.] (LBAA Case No. 04-2016) LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION , petitioner-appellant , vs. LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET , appellee , IMELDA I. MACANES, in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, and NENA B. MARIACOS (formerly Manuel C. Bagayao in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Bakun),in her capacity as Officer-in-Charge of the Municipal Treasury Office of the Municipality of Bakun , respondents-appellees . DECISION This is an Appeal filed by Petitioner-Appellant as regards the Decision dated April 05, 2018 of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Benguet (LBAA Benguet) which partially granted the Petition filed by Petitioner-Appellant. The Decision was rendered pursuant to a petition filed with the LBAA Benguet under Section 252 in relation to Section 226 of the Local Government Code (LGC), which allows Petitioner-Appellant to appeal before the LBAA Benguet the decision of Respondent-Appellee Imelda C. Macanes and then Manuel C. Bagayao, now substituted by the Municipal Treasury's Officer-in-Charge Nena B. Mariacos, denying Petitioner-Appellant's protest. Petitioner-Appellant seeks a tax refund or credit for realty taxes paid in the total amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five Pesos and 32/100 (Php388,925.32) on its properties that form part of the Bakun Hydroelectric Plant (BHP) "the Bakun Property" for taxable years 2005-2016 which was excessively collected by the Respondents-Appellees. ANTECEDENTS The National Power Corporation (NPC) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) 1 for the design, construction and operation of the BHP under a Build Operate Transfer (BOT) Agreement with the consortium composed of Northern Mini Hydro Corporation, Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc.,Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Inc.,and Pacific Hydro Limited ("Consortium") on 24 November 1996. Petitioner-Appellant became a party to and acceded to the rights and obligations of the Consortium under the PPA by means of Accession Undertaking. Prior to the construction of the BHP, NPC, Petitioner-Appellant and the Province of Benguet ("Province"),and the Municipality of Bakun ("Municipality"),entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on December 3, 1997 ("1997 MOA") 2 defining their respective commitments and obligations in respect of the BHP. Pursuant to the provisions of the PPA and the 1997 MOA, the BHP was constructed. The weir, desander, and tunnel were built within the Municipality, while the powerplant house, power station, turbine inlet, and other equipment and machinery were built within the Municipality of Alilem, Ilocos Sur. NPC, the Province, and the Municipality entered into a Compromise Agreement on December 2007 ("2007 Compromise Agreement"), 3 wherein the Province and the Municipality agreed to waive their claim of realty tax payment on the properties forming part of the BHP facility based on an eighty percent (80%) assessment level and the NPC agreed to waive its claim for exemption from payment of realty tax and shall assume payment based on a ten percent (10%) assessment level, effective from the commercial operation of BHP in 2002 up to 2012. Petitioner-Appellant, the Province, and the Municipality entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on 18 January 2008 ("2008 MOA"), 4 wherein the Province and the Municipality agreed to waive their right to assess and collect realty taxes on the properties forming part of the BHP facility for the years 2002 to 2015. On 20 December 2012, Petitioner-Appellant and the Province entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (the "2012 MOA"), 5 wherein the Province confirmed its waiver of its right to assess and collect realty taxes on the properties forming part of the BHP facility for the years 2002 to 2015, and further agreed to waive on the properties forming part of the BHP facility for the period covering 01 January 2016 to 5 February 2026. On 14 January 2013, NPC and the Province entered into a Compromise Agreement (the "2013 Compromise Agreement") 6 wherein the Province confirmed its waiver of its right to assess and collect realty taxes on the properties forming part of the BHP facility based on an eighty percent (80%) assessment level and the NPC agreed to waive its claim for exemption from payment of realty tax and shall assume payment based on a ten percent (10%) assessment level, effective from 1 January 2002 until 5 February 2026. Under the 2013 Compromise Agreement, the Province likewise agreed to adopt and apply the special assessment level of ten percent (10%) to "Future Assets" or "any and all properties classified as real property to be acquired, installed, built or constructed and are required to be declared [...] forming integral part of BHP facility." In 2016, upon its declaration of the Bakun Property, which consist of machinery and equipment that comprise a portion of the BHP and is covered by Tax Declaration No. 2010-08-01841, 7 Petitioner-Appellant was required to pay realty taxes thereon based on an assessment level of eighty percent (80%). On 8 January 2016, Petitioner-Appellant paid under protest the amount of Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Three Pesos and 72/100 (Php486,973.72) 8 in realty taxes on the Bakun Property for TY 2002 to 2016. On 5 February 2016, Petitioner-Appellant filed its Protest 9 with the Treasurer. On 6 June 2016, upon the lapse of the sixty-day period for the Treasurer to decide the Protest, Petitioner-Appellant filed a Petition with the LBAA. On 15 May 2018, Petitioner-Appellant received the Decision partially granting the Petition. The dispositive portion of which states: " WHEREFORE ,premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby partially granted and Judgment is hereby rendered based on substantial evidence : 1. Declaring that the petitioner-appellant is the one liable to pay the subject real property tax and not NPC ; 2. Declaring that 2013 Compromise Agreement does not include future properties and does not cover the subject machineries in this case ; 3. Declaring that the assessment level to be imposed on the machineries of petitioner-appellant is 80% and not 10% ; 4. Declaring that NPC is indeed a GOCC; and 5. Ordering the respondents-appellees to make the necessary correction on their assessment and not to include years 2002, 2003 and 2004 . SO ORDERED. " Aggrieved by the Decision of the LBAA, Petitioner-Appellant filed its Appeal before this Board. The Notice of Appeal and Memorandum on Appeal were received by this Board on June 14, 2018. Advice to Submit Original Records of the Case and Advice to Answer Appeal were both issued by this Board on July 18, 2018. On July 23, 2018 this Board received Respondents-Appellees' Comment. On August 06, 2018 the original copies of the records of LBAA Case No. 04-2016 as stated in the Transmittal Letter of Atty. Guerrero A. Felipe, Chairman, LBAA of Benguet were received by this Board. On August 07, 2018, Notice of Preliminary Conference was issued. The preliminary conference was set on September 04, 2018. Both parties complied with the order of this Board as regards the submission of proof of authority for their authorized representatives to represent them during the preliminary conference. During the preliminary conference, both parties manifested that they are open for a possible Compromise Agreement. The parties jointly moved that they be given time to negotiate for a possible settlement. The Motion was granted. The parties and counsels were given thirty (30) days from September 04, 2018 to negotiate and consult their clients as regards the possible Compromise Agreement, and were ordered to inform this Board whether or not the parties agreed to enter into a Compromise Agreement. Another Preliminary Conference was conducted on October 9, 2018. Both parties were asked to peruse the transmitted case records from the LBAA Benguet to determine whether or not they are the same and complete documents submitted to or issued by the LBAA of the Province of Benguet. Atty. Patricia V. Villanueva, counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, and Atty. Richard S. Antero, counsel for the Respondents-Appellees, confirmed that the LBAA case records are the same and complete pleadings submitted. They likewise confirmed that the LBAA case records contained the complete and same Orders, Decision, and other issuances of the LBAA of the Province of Benguet relative to the instant case. Relative to the report on the final developments on whether or not the parties agreed to enter into a Compromise Agreement, the parties informed this Board that they agreed to enter into a Compromise Agreement. However, Atty. Villanueva manifested that they are still in the process of negotiations and she moved for additional time for the parties to discuss the terms of the Compromise Agreement. Atty. Antero confirmed said development and also moved for additional time to finalize the Compromise Agreement. The parties moved to set the next preliminary conference on November 27, 2018. The motion was granted. Upon inquiry from the parties as to the status of the parties' compromise agreement during the November 27, 2018 preliminary conference Atty. Antero manifested that the parties have not yet finalized their compromise agreement. Atty. Villanueva confirmed the manifestation of Atty. Antero and further stated that the parties are still in the process of negotiating the terms and details of the agreement. Hence, the parties moved for additional time to finalize their compromise agreement. Atty. Antero moved to set the hearing on the Joint Motion to Approve the Compromise Agreement (Joint Motion) on the 1st week of February 2019. The parties agreed that the hearing be set on February 05, 2019. The motions of the parties were granted. The hearing on the Joint Motion was set on February 07, 2019 instead of February 05, 2019 because February 05, 2019 is Chinese New Year and was declared as a Special Non-Working Day per Proclamation No. 555 signed on 15 August 2018. During the February 07, 2019 Hearing which is supposed to be for the Joint Motion to Approve the Compromise Agreement, no Joint Motion was filed by the parties. Upon inquiry from the parties as to the status of the parties' compromise agreement, Atty. Villanueva manifested that the parties are still negotiating on the terms of the agreement. Atty. Villanueva further added that Petitioner-Appellant is still open to enter into a compromise agreement, however, they are still negotiating on the terms of the agreement specifically on the rate of assessment level, depreciation rate and the financial assistance to be given to the municipality and the province. Atty. Antero confirmed that the parties have not yet come up with the compromise agreement but still hopeful that they will be able to arrive at a compromise agreement. Both parties moved for additional time to finalize their compromise agreement. Atty. Villanueva moved to set the hearing on the Joint Motion to Approve the Compromise Agreement on April 2019. The motions of the parties were granted. The hearing for the approval of the parties' Compromise Agreement was set on April 11, 2019. However, there was still no Joint Motion filed by the parties. Upon inquiry from the parties as to the status of the parties' compromise agreement, Atty. Villanueva manifested that the parties are still negotiating the final terms of the agreement, specifically on the assessment level, depreciation rate and the financial assistance to be given to the municipality and the province. Atty. Antero also manifested that the copy of the draft/proposed Compromise Agreement was received by them only two weeks ago. Atty. Antero and Atty. Villanueva jointly manifested that another meeting with their principals is scheduled tentatively on the third week of April 2019. Both parties moved for additional time to finalize their compromise agreement and final resetting of the Joint Motion. The motions of the parties were granted. During the June 18, 2019 Hearing the parties still failed to submit their Joint Motion. Upon inquiry from the parties as to the status of the parties' compromise agreement, Atty. Antero manifested that parties still have not come up with the compromise agreement. Atty. Antero added that the parties had series of meetings and the Province of Benguet made its last offer on June 11, 2019. However, during the June 11, 2019 meeting, the representatives of Petitioner-Appellant cannot make a decision as to the last offer. Atty. Villanueva manifested that Petitioner-Appellant is still currently discussing the offer of the Province. In view of the foregoing premises and based on the following reasons: 1. The parties are still negotiating with the final terms of the compromise agreement; 2. To give ample time for the parties to decide on the compromise agreement; and 3. To give time for the incoming new local executives of the Province of Benguet and Municipality of Bakun to be apprised of the agreement. The parties jointly moved to set the hearing of the Joint Motion to Approve the Compromise Agreement or another preliminary conference on August 29, 2019. The motion of the parties was granted. Atty. Antero was ordered to submit new proof of authority to represent the Respondents-Appellees, as to Respondent-Appellee Imelda I. Macanes , in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, if there is a new "Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Benguet" and Provincial Vice Governor, and proof of authority to represent Respondent-Appellee Manuel C. Bagayao , in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Bakun during the preliminary conference. The said compliance shall be submitted on or before the scheduled hearing. On August 29, 2019, there was still no Joint Motion filed by the parties. Upon inquiry from the parties as to the status of the parties' compromise agreement, Atty. Antero manifested that the negotiation is still ongoing relative to the execution of the compromise agreement. Atty. Frederick William D. Crisologo, counsel of Petitioner-Appellant, affirmed that there is still an ongoing negotiation between the parties and manifested that due to the change of administration of the local government units the parties had to talk to the new officials regarding the proposed compromise agreement. The parties manifested that the proposed compromise agreement is still with the Municipality of Bakun for their review. They are also waiting for the resolutions relative to the compromise agreement from the Sangguniang of the Province of Benguet and Municipality of Bakun .Hence, they need additional time to continue their negotiation and finalize their Compromise Agreement. Hence, the parties jointly moved to postpone today's hearing and to set the hearing on the Joint Motion on the last week of October. The motion of the parties relative to the postponement of the hearing was granted but with warning that it will be the last and final extension for the negotiation. The proposed Joint Motion to Approve the Compromise Agreement will be heard on October 24, 2019. In the event that the parties fail to enter into a Compromise Agreement, the Preliminary Conference will continue at the stated schedule. Relative to the Compliance of Atty. Antero to the Order dated June 18, 2019, he submitted the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Benguet Resolution No. 2019-049 which granted the authority to the Provincial Legal Office, to appear and represent the Province of Benguet and the Municipality of Bakun, Benguet during the preliminary conference in the instant case. As regards the authority from the appropriate body of the Municipality of Bakun, according to Atty. Antero it is not yet available, hence, Atty. Antero is ordered to submit the proof of authority to represent Respondent-Appellee Manuel C. Bagayao , in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Bakun during the preliminary conference, with the power and authority to enter into a possible settlement upon a fair compromise, to enter into admissions or stipulations of facts, in defining and simplifying the issues and listing of witnesses and nature of their testimonies, as well as number and dates of hearings and such other matters as may aid/help in the prompt disposition of the case. The said compliance shall be submitted on or before the scheduled hearing/preliminary conference. On October 24, 2019 Hearing, the parties manifested that the negotiation between the parties failed. Hence, the preliminary conference proceeded. Upon inquiry from Atty. Antero, as regards the authority from the appropriate body of the Municipality of Bakun to represent Respondent-Appellee Manuel C. Bagayao , in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Bakun during the preliminary conference, Atty. Antero manifested that the Municipality of Bakun did not issue the said authority. Notwithstanding the absence of Respondent-Appellee Bagayao or the authorized representative of the Municipality of Bakun, Atty. Antero and Atty. Juan Paolo J. Santos, counsel for Petitioner-Appellant, jointly moved to proceed with the preliminary conference. The motion was granted but all the agreements and stipulations are subject to the comment of Respondent-Appellee Bagayao. Atty. Santos and Atty. Antero confirmed that the real parties of the case are: 1. Luzon Hydro Corporation Petitioner-Appellant; 2. Imelda I. Macanes, in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Benguet and Manuel C. Bagayao, in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Bakun Respondents-Appellees. The following are the agreed issues in the instant case: 1. Whether or not it is National Power Corporation (NPC) who is liable to pay the realty taxes on the Bakun property; 2. Whether or not the 2013 Compromise Agreement includes future properties and covers the Bakun Property; 3. Whether or not the assessment level to be imposed in the Bakun Property is ten percent (10%) or eighty percent (80%);and 4. Whether or not Governor Nestor B. Fongwan was duly authorized to enter into the Memorandum of Agreement dated December 20, 2012 with Luzon Hydro Corporation with regard to future properties; The following are the Petitioner-Appellant's proposed stipulations: 1. Statement of Facts number 14 in the Memorandum of Appeal which includes the existence of the Power Purchase Agreement; 2. Statement of Facts number 16 in the Memorandum of Appeal which includes the existence of the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement; 3. Statement of Facts numbers 18, 19 and 20 in the Memorandum of Appeal which include the existence of 2007 Compromise Agreement, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Agreement; 4. Statement of Facts number 21 in the Memorandum of Appeal which includes the existence of the 2013 Compromise Agreement; 5. Statement of Facts number 22 in the Memorandum of Appeal which is the declaration of Petitioner-Appellant of the subject properties which includes the existence of Tax Declaration No. 2010-09-01841; 6. Statement of Facts number 23 in the Memorandum of Appeal that on January 8, 2016 Petitioner-Appellant paid under protest the amount of four hundred eighty six thousand nine hundred seventy three pesos and 72/100 (Php486,973.72); 7. Luzon Hydro Corporation is duly authorized to enter into all the Memorandum of Agreements and Compromise Agreements involved in this case. Atty. Antero admitted all the proposed stipulations of Petitioner-Appellant, however, with the following qualifications: 1. The province and the municipality are not privies to the Power Purchase Agreement; 2. Mayor Marcelo Contada is not authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan of Bakun relative to the 2007 Compromise Agreement; and 3. The authority of Governor Nestor B. Fongwan is in issue to enter into a compromise agreement relative to the future properties. Atty. Antero proposed the following stipulations of facts: 1. Luzon Hydro Corporation is actually and directly operating the subject properties; 2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Benguet Resolution No. 12-320 is the authorization used by Governor Nestor B. Fongwan to enter into the 2013 Compromise Agreement; 3. Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Benguet Resolution No. 12-320 is intended for settling CBAA Case Nos. 57 and 59; 4. Governor Nestor B. Fongwan is not authorized to enter into the 2012 and 2013 Agreements. Petitioner-Appellant did not admit items 1 and 4 while items 2 and 3 are both admitted by Petitioner-Appellant with reservation that contents of the compromise agreement is one of the issues in the instant case. Respondent-Appellee Bagayao was ordered to attend the next preliminary conference or representative of the Municipality of Bakun with proof of authority to represent Respondent-Appellee Bagayao or the Municipality of Bakun during the preliminary conference. During the preliminary conference on December 11, 2019 Atty. Antero manifested that Manuel C. Bagayao has been separated from service effective July 2016 and currently the Officer in Charge is Nena B. Mariacos. Atty. Antero moved that Ms. Mariacos be substituted as one of the Respondents-Appellees and the real parties in interest in the instant case since Mr. Bagayao was impleaded only in this case in his official capacity. Atty. Bello interposed no objection. The motion was granted. In view thereof all pleadings and issuances of the Board will be entitled: "Luzon Hydro Corporation vs. Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of Benguet, Appellee, and Imelda I. Macanes, in her capacity as Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, and Nena B. Mariacos (formerly Manuel C. Bagayao in his capacity as Municipal Treasurer),in her capacity as Officer in Charge of the Municipal Treasury Office of the Municipality of Bakun." Atty. Antero submitted Resolution No. 124-2019 authorizing Atty. Sunny G. Sacla, Provincial Legal Officer of Benguet Province to appear and represent the Municipality of Bakun during the Preliminary Conference. The Sangguniang Bayan Members of the Municipality of Bakun present during the preliminary conference and Vice Mayor Edward P. Buscol recognized Atty. Antero as representative of Atty. Sacla. Petitioner-Appellant marked its Exhibits during the preliminary conference. The documents were perused by Atty. Antero, only photocopies of Exhibits A, 10 B, 11 C, 12 D, 13 F, 14 H, 15 I, 16 and J 17 were presented by Atty. Bello. Atty. Antero agreed to permanently marked Exhibits A, B, C, D and F despite being Photocopies because the Province of Benguet and the Municipality of Bakun are parties of the subject documents while Exhibits H, I and J are only provisionally marked because Respondents-Appellees were not privies to said documents. The original copy of Exhibits E, 18 K 19 and K-1 20 and certified true copy of Exhibit G 21 were presented by Petitioner-Appellant and were compared with the documents on record. Atty. Antero manifested that he is satisfied that said copies are faithful reproduction of the original/certified true copies. Exhibits E, K, K-1 and G are permanently marked. Respondents-Appellees presented and submitted to this Board certified true copy of Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Province Benguet Resolution No. 12-320. Atty. Bello perused said document. The said Resolution is permanently marked as their Exhibit "1".The parties manifested that there will be no testimonial evidence to be presented before this Board. The preliminary conference was terminated. The parties were ordered to submit their respective verified Position Papers and Replies. The Position Paper of Respondents-Appellees was received on January 16, 2020 while Petitioner-Appellant's Position Paper was received on January 23, 2020. No further pleadings/Replies were filed by both parties. Clarificatory Hearing was conducted on February 06, 2020. The certified true copies of the following provisionally marked Exhibits were presented during the hearing by Petitioner-Appellant: 1. NPC Letter dated July 23, 2003 "Exhibit H"; 2. Office of the Solicitor General Letter dated May 7, 2013 "Exhibit I";and 3. Power Purchase Agreement between National Power Corporation and The Consortium of the Northern Mini Hydro Corporation, Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc.,Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Incorporated and Pacific Hydro Limited "Exhibit J". The documents were perused by Atty. Antero and compared with the documents on record. Atty. Antero manifested that he is satisfied that said copies are faithful reproduction of the certified true copies. Exhibits H, I and J were permanently marked. Atty. Antero manifested that Nena B. Mariacos term as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) has expired, hence, she was replaced by Merlita Tolito as OIC of the Municipal Treasury Office of the Municipality of Bakun. The parties agreed not to change the case title and not to substitute the name of the current OIC considering that the Respondents-Appellees were sued in their official capacities. During the hearing the parties confirmed their respective pieces of evidence. Questions and/or clarifications were asked to both parties. As a result of the Clarificatory Hearing, Petitioner-Appellant was ordered to submit the following documents within twenty (20) days from February 06, 2020: 1. Accession Undertaking; and 2. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan and/or Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions and proof of authority of the signatories in the following agreements: a. 1997 Memorandum of Agreement among Province of Benguet, Municipality of Bakun, Luzon Hydro Corporation and National Power Corporation ("Exhibit B"); b. Compromise Agreement dated December 2007 among National Power Corporation, Province of Benguet and Municipality of Bakun ("Exhibit C");and c. Memorandum of Agreement dated January 18, 2008 among Province of Benguet, Municipality of Bakun and Luzon Hydro Corporation ("Exhibit D"). After clarifications from the parties, the hearing on the instant case was terminated. Upon submission by the Petitioner-Appellant of its Compliance or the lapse of the period to file the same, the case will be submitted for decision by the Board. Petitioner-Appellant's Compliance relative to the February 06, 2020 Order of the Board was received on March 06, 2020. Petitioner-Appellant's Compliance only includes the following: 1. Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 07-148 authorizing the Provincial Governor, on behalf of the Province of Benguet, to enter into a compromise agreement with Petitioner-Appellant and NPC; and 2. NPC Resolution No. 2007-72 authorizing the President of NPC, on behalf of NPC, to settle the real property tax liability involving the Bakun Hydroelectric Power Plant. In view of the submission of the Compliance, Position Papers and pieces of evidence, the instant case was considered submitted for decision on March 06, 2020. Petitioner-Appellant Arguments I. NPC is liable to pay the realty taxes on the Bakun property Petitioner-Appellant alleged that the NPC is liable to pay the realty taxes on the Bakun Property based on the following: "1. NPC is the proper party required to pay the realty taxes on the Bakun Property as it is the (sic) both the owner and user of such property. This is apparent in the PPA, which is the primary contract between NPC and LHC, the relevant portions of which provide: ' 2.8 Responsibilities of NPC. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing and at no cost to the Operator, NPC shall: (i) Assist the Operator with respect to its responsibilities. (ii) install, connect, and maintain the Transmission Line accordance with Article 13; and (iii) obtain and maintain all Water Rights necessary for the construction, testing commission, and operation of the Power Station and all Governmental Permits necessary for the use of the Site for the Power Station (including any permits necessary for the tunnel and the weir) for the period for the Effective Date up to Transfer Date. 2.9.1. Site. [...] NPC shall obtain registered legal title to the Site in its name within one (1) year from the Effective Date [...]. 7.1. Water Rights. [...] For such purpose, NPC shall, at its cost, obtain the Water Rights and provide the Operator the full benefit thereof by the Effective Date, and on, a timely basis until the Transfer Date, obtain such renewals or extensions thereof, secure such other Governmental Permits, and take such other action as may be necessary to maintain the Water Rights in full force and effect at all times during such period. 7.2.1. Governmental Permits. NPC at its cost shall obtain and maintain such Governmental Permits including the establishment of the Watershed as a watershed reservation for the purpose of maintaining the Watershed's usefulness as a source of water for hydroelectric power, and take such other action as may be necessary to grant to the Operator the authority to undertake the work set out in the Watershed Management Program for the period from the Completion Date until the Transfer Date.' 2. From the foregoing, it is clear that NPC is the party responsible for maintaining the necessary property and equipment, and obtaining the necessary permits for the operation of the BHP. Particularly, NPC shall be the owner of the land wherein the BHP facility will be constructed. It shall also obtain and maintain the transmission lines, special land use permits, and water permits, which are crucial elements for the operation of the BHP, being a hydroelectric power plant. 3. The following provisions of the PPA likewise indicate that NPC is the beneficial owner thereof as it has the authority to direct the operations of the BHP and the accountability for any negative effects on the BHP resulting from activities in the Watershed, which shall be maintained by NPC. ' 2.10. Electricity Delivery. Until the Transfer Date, NPC shall take all electricity generated by the Power Station and shall pay to the Operator the fees provided in Part B of Article 8. 3.4. Monitor Progress. NPC shall be entitled at its own cost to monitor the progress and quality of the design, construction, and installation work. [...] 7.2.3 Exclusions. NPC shall be responsible and liable for the effects on the Power Station or its ability to generate power of (i) the upstream diversion or impoundment of water by other persons, whether lawful or unlawful, or (ii) logging, kaingin, and similar activities by other persons within the Watershed or (iii) the construction of roads, buildings, and other civil works and other development within the Watershed.' 4. The mere fact that Tax Declaration No. 2010-09-0184 covering the Bakun Property indicated LHC as the owner thereof is of no moment as tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership or possession. In Republic of the Philippines v. Manimtim, et al. ," 22 the Supreme Court held: ' Well-settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.' (Emphasis supplied.) 5. In Testate Estate Lim v. City of Manila , 23 the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is neither the owner nor the beneficial user of the property cannot be held for real property tax: 'To impose the real property tax on the estate which was neither the owner nor the beneficial user of the property during the designated period would not only be contrary to but also unjust.' 6. Recognizing that it is not only the beneficial owner of the Bakun Property, but the owner as well, NPC expressly assumed the responsibility to pay the realty taxes thereon. Under the PPA, NPC agreed to pay the realty taxes on the BHP properties: ' 8.6 Taxes. [...] In addition, NPC shall be responsible for the payment of [...] (b) real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Site the structures and improvements thereon, and the Power Station [...]' (Emphasis Supplied) 7. The assumption of the realty tax liability was reiterated in the 1997 MOA, wherein NPC obligated itself to comply with the provisions of the LGC on the payment of realty taxes: 'A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 1. NPC shall: xxx xxx xxx d. Comply with Local Government Code and its Implementing regulations on the payments of the following taxes: i. REALTY TAX ii. NATIONAL WEALTH TAX equivalent to 1% of the gross revenue of the power plant for the utilization of water. It shall be paid directly to the host local government unit in accordance with the following scheme: * Province 20% * Municipality 45% * Barangay 35%' (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The obligation to pay the realty taxes was thereafter confirmed by NPC in its letter dated 23 July 2003 addressed to LHC, wherein NPC stated: 'We wish to confirm that under Article Power Purchase Agreement that was entered into by and between NPC and Luzon Hydro Corporation, the former undertook to assume the obligation to pay the real property tax assessments on Bakun Hydroelectric Power Project.' 9. The obligation by the NPC to pay the realty taxes cannot be said to be only between NPC and LHC as this was recognized by the Province and the Municipality when they entered into various agreements with NPC and/or LHC. 10. While they are not parties to the PPA, the Province and the Municipality are parties to the 1997 MOA wherein the NPC expressly bound itself to comply with the LGC on the payment of realty taxes. 11. Also, under the compromise agreements, the Province consented to NPC's obligation to pay the realty taxes. This obligation, in fact, was the Province's consideration for the waiver of its rights to assess and collect on the BHP. The 2013 Compromise Agreement provides: '2. x x x The PROVINCE further agrees to waive its rights to assess and/or collect RPT, SEF, related charges, interests and penalties on BHP's weir, desander, and tunnel and any and all other properties comprising the same located within its territorial jurisdiction based on an eighty percent (80%) assessment level, and NPC shall likewise waive its claim for RPT exemption, and assumes payment of RPT, inclusive of SEF, at a ten percent (10%) special assessment level ,the amount of which is One Million Three Hundred Twenty One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three Pesos and Twenty Eight Centavos (Php1,321,723.28) per year. For avoidance of doubt, the payment schedule is hereby summarized in the attached Schedule 1. 3. The RPT payments made by NPC based on the 29 January 2004 Agreement shall be credited as partial payment, and all previous payments made under the Compromise Agreement shall be considered and credited as full and absolute payment and satisfaction of any and all RPT, SEF, fees or related charges on BHP and any and all of the properties comprising it for the years 2002 and 2012 .All other payments to be made under this Agreement shall likewise be considered and credited as full and absolute payment and satisfaction of any and all RPT, SEF, fees or related charges on BHP and any and all of the properties comprising it for the applicable tax period in which they are paid.' (Emphasis supplied.) 12. The respective obligations of the parties, including that of the NPC to pay the realty taxes, must be complied with and recognized by the contracting parties in good faith. 24 13. In Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers Community Association, Inc. v. Lipat and Lipat , 25 the Supreme Court held: 'Indeed, the contract executed by the parties is the law between them. Consequently, from the time the contract is perfected, all parties privy to it are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but likewise to all consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.' 14. The Province and the Municipality, as parties of the agreements, cannot now deny recognition and enforceability of the provisions thereof, in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Toledo v. Hyden , 26 more so that they have benefited from these agreements: 'A party to a contract cannot deny the validity thereof after enjoying its benefits without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness. It is a long established doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of an unwise, foolish or disastrous contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what she was doing. Courts have no power to relieve parties from obligations voluntarily assumed, simply because their contracts turned out to be disastrous or unwise investments.' 15. In view of the foregoing, NPC is the party which is liable for the payment of the realty taxes on the Bakun Property." II. The realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of ten percent (10%) Petitioner-Appellant argued that the realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of ten percent (10%). According to Petitioner-Appellant given that NPC, a government-owned and/or -controlled corporation ("GOCC"),is the owner and user of the Bakun Property, the assessment level for special class of real property under Section 218, in relation to Section 216, shall apply: "SECTION 216. Special Classes of Real Property . All lands, buildings, and other improvements thereon actually, directly and exclusively used for hospitals, cultural, or scientific purposes, and those owned and used by local water districts, and government-owned or controlled corporations rendering essential public services in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power shall be classified as special . SECTION 218. Assessment Levels . The assessment levels to be applied to the fair market value of real property to determine its assessed value shall be fixed by ordinances of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan of a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area, at the rates not exceeding the following : xxx xxx xxx (d) On Special Classes: The assessment levels for all lands buildings, machineries and other improvements; Actual Use Assessment Level Cultural 15% Scientific 15% Hospital 15% Local water districts 10% Government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power. (Emphasis supplied.) 10%" Petitioner-Appellant argued that even assuming that the Bakun Property does not fall under the classification of "Special Classes" of real property under the LGC,the 2007 Compromise Agreement, which covers realty taxes for the period from 2002 to 2012, expressly provides that the applicable assessment level for the properties forming part of the BHP, which includes the Bakun Property, shall be ten percent (10%): "2. The Province of Benguet and the Municipality of Bakun hereby waive their claim of realty tax payment based on eight (sic) percent (80%) assessment level. NPC shall likewise waive its claim for realty tax exemption and assumes the payment of realty tax at ten percent (10%) special assessment level the amount of which is equivalent to One Million Three Hundred Twenty One Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Three Pesos and Twenty Eight Centavos (P1,321,723.28)." (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner-Appellant stated that this was reiterated in the 2013 Compromise Agreement, which covers realty taxes for the period from 2012 to 5 February 2026, and includes: "2. The PROVINCE hereby confirms and reiterates the waiver of its right to assess and/or collect RPT, SEF, related charges, interests and penalties on BHP's weir, desander, and tunnel and any and all other properties comprising the same located within its territorial jurisdiction based on an eighty percent (80%) assessment level for all applicable taxable period under the Compromise Agreement." Petitioner-Appellant alleged that such commitment of the Province has become binding on the Province upon the confirmation of the Officer of Solicitor General ("OSG"),which was given through a letter dated 7 May 2013 27 (the "OSG Letter").The pertinent portion of said letter provides: "Upon careful review of the Compromise Agreement and the records that you forwarded to us, we note that the waiver by the Province of Benguet of the assessment level on RPT due from 80% to 10% is advantageous to the NPC. Accordingly, its acceptance by the NPC poses no prejudice to the government. Therefore, we interpose no objection to the execution of said Compromise Agreement." Petitioner-Appellant averred that it should be noted that under both the 2007 Compromise Agreement and 2013 Compromise Agreement, Petitioner-Appellant agreed to provide the Province and the Municipality financial assistance in consideration of the compromise, the benefits of which have already been received. The Province and the Municipality cannot accept the benefits under these agreements and thereafter refuse to comply with their obligations. In Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. , 28 the Supreme Court stated: "Indubitably, MMC wholeheartedly accepted these terms and conditions, which formed part of the grant of the permit. MMC agreed to abide by these conditions. It must be accentuated that a party to a contract cannot deny its validity, without outrage to one's sense of justice and fairness, after enjoying its benefits. Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations as stated in their contracts, because obligations arising from these have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. " (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner-Appellant cited the case of Roa, Jr. v. Court of Appeals 29 where the Supreme Court reiterated that avoiding compliance with the obligations under a compromise agreement would result to unjust enrichment: "It may be true that Alfredo Roa, Sr. did not sign the compromise agreement, Exh. "1",for he was then in Manila working as a newspaperman but he certainly benefited from the effects of the compromise agreement which obliged Pablo Valdehuesa to withdraw, as he did withdraw his opposition to the registration of the Roa property under the Torrens system. The Roa property was subsequently registered without opposition and title was issued thereto in the name of Alfredo Roa, his brother Zosimo and his sisters Trinidad, Esperanza and Concepcion, all surnamed Roa as co-owners thereof. Certainly, the Roas may not escape compliance from their obligation under the compromise agreement by partitioning the property and assigning the property in dispute as part of the share of the petitioners. Moreover, it will be a pure and simple case of unjust enrichment for petitioners to acquire and own the property of Pablo Valdehuesa, without paying the value thereof or exchanging the land with another with an equal area as originally agreed. " (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner-Appellant stated that, thus, the Province and the Municipality must comply with their obligations under the 2007 Compromise Agreement and 2013 Compromise Agreement in good faith. Petitioner-Appellant concluded that in view of the foregoing, the realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of ten percent (10%). III. The 2013 Compromise Agreement includes future properties. According to Petitioner-Appellant the 2013 Compromise Agreement expressly states that it shall cover ANY AND ALL properties classified as real property to be acquired, installed, built, or constructed, forming part of the BHP: "2. x x x Consistent with the provisions of the Compromise Agreement and this Agreement, the PROVINCE hereby unconditionally agrees to uniformly adopt and apply the special assessment level of ten percent (10%),regardless of whether such assessment level is fixed by ordinances or not to any and all properties classified as real property to be acquired, installed, built or constructed and are required to be declared pursuant to a Sworn Declaration of Real Property under Section 202 of the LGC hereinafter referred to as 'Future Assets') forming an integral part of BHP facility. " (Emphasis Supplied) Petitioner-Appellant alleged that the 2013 Compromise Agreement expressly provides that the terms and conditions provided therein are a result of their free and fully informed consent, which was not only freely executed by the Province, but was likewise acknowledged under oath before a notary public that the execution of the same was the Province's free and voluntary act. Petitioner-Appellant disagreed with the finding of the LBAA that the 2013 Compromise Agreement cannot be made to apply due to the fact that is not a party thereto. Such finding is of no moment. Petitioner-Appellant concluded that it is clear that the properties covered by the 2013 Compromise Agreement are all properties, including any and all real property to be acquired, installed, build, or constructed which form part of the BHP facility. In the case of the Bakun Property, the same consists of a "Conveyance System, Tunnel, anchor blocks, HDPE pipe, rock bolts" as described in Tax Declaration No. 2010-08-01841, all of which consist of real properties forming party of the BHP facility. As such, there is no question that the Bakun Property is covered by the 2013 Compromise Agreement. Petitioner-Appellant most respectfully submitted that the 2013 Compromise Agreement includes future properties, i.e. ,Bakun Property. IV. Governor Nestor B. Fongwan was authorized to enter into the 2012 MOA with regard to future properties. Petitioner-Appellant argued that the authority of Governor Nestor B. Fongwan ("Governor Fongwan") to enter into the 2012 MOA is based on Resolution No. 12-320 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Benguet, which provides: "RESOLVED, as it is hereby done, to grant authority to Hon. Nestor B. Fongwan, Provincial Governor, to enter into a Memoranda of Agreement with the NPC and LHC to settle CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59." According to Petitioner-Appellant the 2012 MOA was executed in relation to and in consideration of the settlement of CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59. Petitioner-Appellant added that the Whereas Clauses thereof provides that it is an extension of the 2008 MOA: " WHEREAS, on 18 January 2008, the Parties and Bakun executed the 2008 MOA ,wherein the PROVINCE and Bakun agreed to waive their right to assess and/or collect RPT, Special Education Fund ('SEF'),related charges, interests and penalties on BHP's weir, desander and tunnel for the years 2002 to 2015, in consideration of the Compromise Agreement, and the financial assistance that LHC shall extend pursuant to the terms of the said 2008 MOA, for which the PROVINCE and Bakun specifically and expressly waived any claims, demands, liabilities and causes of action which relate to, or arise out of, or are in connection with the Assessments Waived (as the terms is therein defined) and agreed that the financial assistance extended by LHC thereunder was the final and maximum financial assistance that LHC shall extend the PROVINCE and Bakun for the years 2002 to 2015; WHEREAS, the 2008 MOA shall expire in 2015 and Parties, desirous of further improving their harmonious relations, have mutually agreed to execute this Agreement embodying the terms and conditions which they have freely agreed upon ,with their full and informed consent and pursuant to the relevant provisions of law which Agreement shall supersede the relevant provisions of the 2008 MOA and all the rights, duties, and obligations contained therein upon the expiration thereof:" (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner-Appellant stated that the 2008 MOA, in turn, expressly makes reference to the 2007 Compromise Agreement: "WHEREAS, on December [ ] 2007, the National Power Corporation ('NPC') entered into a Compromise Agreement with the PROVINCE and the MUNICIPALITY whereby (i) the PROVINCE waived the assessment of real property taxes on BHP's dam, weir and tunnel at an eighty percent (80%) assessment level, and (ii) NPC agreed to waive its claim for exemption from payment of real property taxes on the said dam, weir and tunnel and pay realty property taxes on the said assets at a ten percent (10%) special assessment level for the duration of BHP's Cooperation Period (as defined under the Power Purchase Agreement dated as of November 24, 1996 between NPC and LHC ('PPA') covering years 2002 to 2027 ('NPC Settlement')";(Emphasis Supplied) According to Petitioner-Appellant the 2007 Compromise Agreement was executed as a settlement of CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59: "WHEREAS, both LHC and NPC separately appealed the decision to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) which were docketed as Case Nos. L-57 and L-59 respectively . WHEREAS, NPC proposed to the Province of Benguet the settlement of the case at ten percent (10%) assessment for entire BHP's Cooperation Period (2002 to 2027)";(Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner-Appellant stated that the 2012 MOA, being ultimately connected to the 2007 Compromise Agreement, is covered by Resolution No. 12-320 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Benguet, which authorizes Governor Fongwan to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with NPC and LHC to settle CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59. Petitioner-Appellant alleged that the fact that it was agreed upon under the 2013 Compromise Agreement, which was executed by reason of the expiration of the 2007 Compromise Agreement, that future properties should be included is but a natural result of the settlement of CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59 between the parties and for "further improving their harmonious relations." 30 According to Petitioner-Appellant NPC, the Province and Petitioner-Appellant are free to agree on the terms and conditions of the 2012 MOA and the 2013 Compromise Agreement, as Compromise Agreement, as long as these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Tankiang v. Alaraz, et al. : 31 "Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions, as they may deem convenient, provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their differences, thereby putting an end to litigation. Such means of dispute settlement is an accepted, even desirable and encouraged, practice in courts of law and administrative tribunals." Petitioner-Appellant stated that the Province has not alleged any provision of the law or good customs that was violated by the provision in the 2013 Compromise Agreement as regards the future properties. Petitioner-Appellant added that there is likewise no prohibition of including future properties as the subject of an agreement. In fact, future things is expressly recognized by our Civil Code as a valid object for contracts: "ARTICLE 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the object a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts." Petitioner-Appellant argued that it is important to note that the purpose of a compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, put an end to one already commenced and/or avoid future litigation .Thus, in order to avoid future and repeated litigation on the proper tax rate on the Bakun Property, the parties deemed it necessary to include future properties. Petitioner-Appellant states that moreover, under the 2012 MOA, the Province represented and warranted the following: "(i) it has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement, and to perform its obligations hereunder and for all government stakeholders who have any right and authority in relation to the substance of this Agreement; 32 (ii) it has complied and will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and internal government policies and processes to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and render it legally effective and binding upon the Parties; 33 (iii) its signatory is duly authorized by its respective sanggunian or board"; 34 Petitioner-Appellant stated that the Province likewise made the same representation and warranty that its signatory is duly authorized by its respective sanggunian or board in the 2013 Compromise Agreement. 35 Petitioner-Appellant argued that Resolution No. 12-320 granting Governor Fongwan's authority is limited to ONLY to the execution of the 2013 Compromise Agreement as reviewed by the Province. According to Petitioner-Appellant that this is evident by the fact that Resolution No. 12-320 expressly provides that the memoranda is not contrary to law, morals, public policy, or public interest. Petitioner-Appellant added that this same indicates that the 2013 Compromise Agreement was not only reviewed by Governor Fongwan, but by the sanggunian itself. Petitioner-Appellant concluded that the Province cannot now claim as a reason to escape compliance of its obligations under the agreements after accepting the benefits thereunder, that its signatory was not authorized enter into the 2012 MOA with regard to future properties. IV. n The realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of ten (sic) percent (15%) Petitioner-Appellant alleged that the realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of ten (sic) percent (15%) pursuant to Executive Order No. 88, Series of 2019 on the basis of the following statements: "1. On 13 August 2019, the President of the Philippines promulgated Executive Order ('EO') No. 88, Series of 2019, to address the risk of financial stability of GOCCs, such as NPC, which have contractually obligated themselves to pay the realty taxes property, machinery and equipment used in the generation and distribution electric power. The Whereas Clauses of EO No. 88, of 2019, provide: 'WHEREAS, the payment of said real property taxes by the affected IPPs, some of which obligation have been contractually assumed by the GOCCs and carries the full faith of the National Government, threatens the financial stability of the GOCCs, the government's fiscal consolidation efforts, and the stability of energy prices ; WHEREAS, the forcible collection of the subject real property taxes by the LGUs concerned will trigger massive direct liabilities on the part of National Power Corporation/Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation and other affected GOCCs, may increase the cost of electricity, and may trigger further cross-defaults and significant economic losses across all sectors ; WHEREAS, under Section 277 of Republic Act No. 7160, ' the President of the Philippines may, when public interest so requires, condone or reduce the real property tax and interest for any year in any province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila area';x x x' (Emphasis supplied.) 2. In response to said risk, the President reduced the assessment level for purpose of computing the realty taxes to fifteen percent (15%): 'SECTION 1. Reduction and Condonation . All liabilities for real property tax, including any special levies accruing to the Special Education Fund, for calendar year (CY) 2018, on property, machinery, and equipment actually directly used by IPPs for the production of electricity under a Build-Operate-Transfer scheme and similar contracts (whether denominated Power Purchase Agreements, Energy Conversion Agreements, or other contractual agreements) with GOCCs, assessed by LGUs and other entities authorized to impose real property tax for all years up to CY 2018, are hereby reduced to an amount equivalent to the tax due if computed based on an assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of said property, machinery and equipment depreciated at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum, less any amounts already paid by the IPPs. All interests on such deficiency real property tax liabilities are also hereby condoned and the concerned IPPs are relieved from payment thereof.' (Emphasis supplied.) 3. Given that NPC is the party liable for the realty taxes, this Honorable Board should consider the financial impact on NPC of the payment of realty taxes at an assessment level of eighty percent (80%), consistent with the intention of the President as embodied in EO No. 88. 4. Thus, assuming arguendo that the special assessment level of ten percent (10%) under the LGC or under the compromise agreements executed by the parties cannot apply, the special assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) under EO No. 88, Series of 2019, must be implemented by the Province and the Municipality. 5. Under the LGC,the President has supervisory authority over local government units ('LGUs'): 'SECTION 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units . (a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions . The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays.' (Emphasis supplied.) 6. Moreover, the President was given the power by the LGC to condone and reduce realty taxes: 'SECTION 277. Condonation or Reduction of Tax by the President of the Philippines . The President of the Philippines may, when public interest so requires, condone or reduce the real property tax and interest for any year in any province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area.' 7. Thus, pursuant to the power of the President to reduce realty taxes and his supervisory authority over LGUs, the Province and the Municipality shall comply with EO No. 88, Series of 2019, and apply the special assessment level of fifteen percent (15%). In La Perla Cigar & Cigarette Factory, et al. v. Commissioner of Customs , 36 the Supreme Court held: ' The enormity of his omission to apply the Laurel-Langley Agreement and Executive Order No. 150 becomes more apparent when one bears in mind that under the Constitution the President himself, in whom the totality of executive power is vested, has the obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed . xxx xxx xxx There was no justification then for what the then Collector Ang-angco did. Certainly, if the President himself were called upon to execute the laws faithfully, a Collector of Customs, himself a subordinate executive official, cannot be considered as exempt in any wise from such an obligation of fealty. Similarly, if the President cannot suspend the operation of any law, it would be presumptuous in the extreme for one in the position of then Collector Ang-angco to consider himself as possessed of such a prerogative. Nevertheless, that was precisely what happened. Nor could such a failure to apply what the Laurel-Langley Agreement and Executive Order No. 150 provided be justified by the plea that no statute was transgressed. What must be faithfully executed are the laws, a term broad enough to include treaties, executive agreements and executive orders .Unless and until annulled by the courts, they must with fidelity be executed by the officials concerned.' (Emphasis supplied.) 8. Finally, in CE Casecnan Water and Energy Co.,Inc. v. Province of Nueva Ecija , 37 the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc ruled that the Provincial Assessor of Nueva Ecija should consider EO No. 173, Series of 2014, which is substantially similar to EO No. 88, Series of 2019, for purposes of determining the amount of refund the taxpayer is entitled to: 'CE Casecnan likewise points out that the CBAA should have applied EO No. 173 dated October 31, 2014 (Series of 2014), found that CE Casecnan had overpaid the Province, et al., and ordered a refund. We partly agree. The said EO No. 173 (Series of 2014) was promulgated, inter alia , pursuant to Section 277 of the LGC of 1991,46 which provides as follows: SEC. 277. Condonation or Reduction of Tax by the President of the Philippines. The President of the Philippines may, when public interest so requires, condone or reduce the real property tax and interest for any year in any province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area.' The said EO reduces the RPT tax liability of Independent Power Producers (IPPs), such as CE Casecnan, to an amount equivalent to the tax due if computed based on an assessment level of fifteen (15%) of the fair market value of said property, machinery and equipment depreciated at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum, less any amounts already paid by the IPPs for all years up to 2014. It also condones all fines, penalties and interests on such deficiency RPT liabilities and relieves IPPs from the payment thereof. Sections 1 and 2 of the EO No. 173 (Series of 2014) provides: 'SECTION 1. Reduction and Condonation. All liabilities for real property tax on property, machinery and equipment (including any special levies accruing to the Special Education Fund) actually and directly used by IPPs for the production of electricity under Build-Operate-Transfer contracts (whether denominated Power Purchase Agreements, Energy Conversion Agreements or other contractual agreements) with GOCCs, assessed by LGUs and other entities authorized to impose real property tax, for all years up to 2014, are hereby reduced to an amount equivalent to the tax due if computed based on an assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of said property, machinery and equipment depreciated at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum, less any amounts already paid by the IPPs. All fines, penalties and interests on such deficiency real property tax liabilities are also hereby condoned and the concerned IPPs are relieved from payment thereof. SECTION 2. Compliance by All Government Entities. All concerned departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including GOCCs and LGUs, are hereby ordered to strictly comply with this Executive Order.' Unless and until EO No. 173 (Series of 2014) is invalidated or declared void, it remains effective and its provisions must be enforced, particularly with respect to the present case involving RPT assessments for the years 2002 to 2006. In fine, EO No. 173 must be considered in resolving the proper amount to be collected in the instant consolidated cases, and to determine whether CE Casecnan is entitled to a refund on the basis of the said EO. Correspondingly, a remand of the said cases is called for. 9. In view of the foregoing, in view of the foregoing (sic) ,the realty taxes on the Bakun Property should be assessed at an assessment level of fifteen percent (15%)." Petitioner-Appellant prayed the following: (a) Declare that NPC, as the actual, direct, and exclusive user of the Bakun Property, shall be liable for the realty taxes thereof; (b) Declare that the assessment level to be applied on the Bakun Property should be ten percent (10%) in accordance with the 2013 Compromise Agreement; (c) Declare that future properties and the Bakun Property is covered by the 2013 Compromise Agreement; (d) Declare that Governor Nestor B. Fongwan was duly authorized to enter into the 2012 MOA with regard to future properties; (e) Order the Respondents-Appellees to refund or issue tax credit in favor of LHC in the total amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Pesos and 32/100 (Php388,925.32);and/or (f) Order the Respondents-Appellees to recompute the realty taxes on the Bakun Property based on the provisions of Executive Order No. 88, Series of 2019. Respondents-Appellees Arguments I. It is Luzon Hydro Corporation and not National Power Corporation who is liable for the payment of real property tax. Consequently, it is Luzon Hydro Corporation who is liable to pay real property taxes at an assessment level of eighty percent (80%) Respondents-Appellees alleged that it is LHC and not NPC who is liable for payment of real property tax. According to Respondents-Appellees Petitioner-Appellant insists that it is the NPC that is liable to pay taxes on the subject property. Respondents-Appellees added that a careful perusal of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code however show otherwise: " First ,under Article 2.13 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), the Operator shall own the Power Station and all the structures in connection with the project .Under the said PPA, Operator means the consortium, provided that, upon execution of the Accession Undertaking, ' Operator shall mean Luzon Hydro .' In paragraph 11 of the Petition filed with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals, petitioner stated that 'by means of an Accession Undertaking, LHC agreed to become a party to the PPA and acceded to the rights and obligations of the Consortium under the PPA .' The same statement is found in paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by petitioner with the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. Thus, it is undeniable that petitioner Luzon Hydro owns the power station and all the structures, fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site or used in connection with the Project being the operator. Second ,the intention of the parties in the PPA that Luzon Hydro is the operator is reflected in the Recitals, xxx xxx xxx Whereas, the said consortium has agreed to construct and operate ,and NPC has agreed to accept, a hydroelectric power plant upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth ; WHEREAS, the said consortium, in accordance with the tender documents and its bid, has caused the formation of the Luzon Hydro Corporation ("Luzon Hydro") for the purpose of performing the above mentioned undertakings in respect of the Project pursuant to and under the terms and conditions of the Accession Undertaking xxx xxx xxx Third , perusal of Section 234 (c) of the Code clearly requires that, in order to be exempt from real property tax, the machineries and equipment must be actually, directly and exclusively used in the generation and transmission of electric power by a government-owned or controlled corporation, viz. : Section 234. Exemption from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: xxx xxx xxx (c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of water and/or generation and transmission of electric power ;" (Emphasis supplied) Respondents-Appellees argued that there is no question that the subject properties are actually, directly, and exclusively used in the generation and transmission of electric power. However, it is Petitioner-Appellant, being the operator, that actually, directly and exclusively uses the subject properties, not NPC. Hence, the subject properties are not exempt from real property tax. Respondents-Appellees stated that Article 8.6 of the PPA stipulating that NPC shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the Site, the structures and improvements thereon, and the Power Station ," is not binding on the municipality and the province as they are not parties to the said agreement. Respondents-Appellees cited the case of Testate Estate of Concordia T. Urn vs. City of Manila, 182 SCRA 482 (1990) : "In real estate taxation, the unpaid taxes attach to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession it regardless of whether or not he is the owner." Respondents-Appellees reiterated as previously discussed, Petitioner-Appellant has the actual use and possession of the subject properties. Respondents-Appellees concluded that it is Petitioner-Appellant that is liable for real property tax on the said properties. According to Respondents-Appellees the stipulation in the PPA is binding between Petitioner-Appellant and NPC only and whatever taxes paid by Petitioner-Appellant would have to be refunded by NPC if LHC wishes to enforce the provisions of the PPA. Respondents-Appellees stated that during the hearing on 07 September 2017 in the LBAA, it was no less than the counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant who mentioned that petitioner-appellant LHC is the operator, viz. : "xxx xxx xxx Pros. Gondayao: No. But how is it related to National, this National Power Corporation, this, yes, NPC? Atty. Santos: Your Honors, Luzon Hydro Corporation entered into a BOT agreement or Build Operate and Transfer Agreement with NAPOCOR for the construction of Bakun Hydro Electric Power Plant. Luzon Hydro Corporation is technically the operator of the power plant behalf of National Power Corporation. Pros. Gondayao: You want to tell me then that Bakun Hydro Corporation is actually owned by this Luzon Hydro Corporation? Atty. Santos: No your Honors. Under the BO-under the BOT, it's merely operating and beneficial ownership is, naked ownership is with Luzon Hydro Corporation but the beneficial ownership remains with National Power Corporation." (TSN dated 07 September 2017, pp 2-3 (Emphasis Supplied)) Respondents-Appellees alleged that this instant case exactly falls on all fours with another case between the same parties which was just recently decided by the Supreme Court entitled " National Power Corporation vs. Luzon Hydro Corporation, Banggay T. Alwis, Municipal Assessor, Manuel C. Bagayao, Municipal Treasurer of Bakun, Benguet, Erlinda Estepa, Provincial Assessor, and Mauricio B. Ambanloc, Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Benguet/Luzon Hydro Corporation v. Banggay T. Alwis, Municipal Assessor, Manuel C. Bagayao, Municipal Treasurer of Bakun, Benguet, Erlinda Estepa, Provincial Assessor, Mauricio B. Ambanloc, Provincial Treasurer of The Province of Benguet, and the National Power Corporation " 38 which involves the other properties of Luzon Hydro Corporation subject of the same PPA. In denying the petition filed by petitioners, the High Court ruled that: "As correctly ruled by the CTA EB, the subject machineries neither exempt from. RPT under Section 234 (c) of Republic No. 7160, otherwise known as the 'Local Government Code of 1991,' nor can they be classified as 'special,' subject to a ten percent (10%) assessment level, under Sections 216 and 218 (d). These provisions clearly require that the machineries be actually, directly, and exclusively used by a government owned or controlled corporation such as the National Power Corporation (NPC). However, LHC and NPC's own Power Purchase Agreement, and the provisions of Republic Act No. 7718, show that it is the former, a private corporation, who has actual use and ownership of the subject machineries until the transfer date. "It is an elementary rule in taxation that exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. It is the taxpayer's duty to justify the exemption by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted." II. The 2013 Compromise Agreement does not validly include "future properties" as then Governor Fongwan was not authorized to enter into any agreement with regard to the same According to the Respondents-Appellees the 2007 and 2013 Compromise Agreements are intended specifically to apply to CBAA Case Nos. 57 and 59 only. Hence, the provision on "future assets" is not binding to the Province of Benguet. Respondents-Appellees stated that Petitioner-Appellant asserts that the Bakun Property should have been subject to the assessment level of ten percent (10%) in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 and 2013 Compromise Agreements. Respondents-Appellees argued that a scrutiny of the 2007 and 2013 Compromise Agreements would however reveal that they are intended specifically to CBAA Case Nos. 57 and 59 only which were then pending with the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. Respondents-Appellees alleged that the 2007 Compromise Agreement even expressly provided that it shall cover BHP's dam, weir and tunnel only which were the subject of an assessment being assailed by LHC in those cases. Respondents-Appellees added that the instant case involves the machinery of Petitioner-Appellant located at Mangta, Sinac consisting of the conveyance system, tunnel, anchor blocks, HDPE pipe and rock bolt. Respondents-Appellees declared that a perusal of the SP Resolution 12-320 clearly shows that the authority given to the Provincial Governor to enter in a Compromise Agreement is only relative to CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59 which at time were pending with the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. The title of the said Resolution is clear and unambiguous, thus: "RESOLUTION NO. 12-320 GRANTING AUTHORITY TO HON. NESTOR B. FONGWAN, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT WITH THE LUZON HYDRO CORPORATION AND THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION RELATIVE TO CBAA CASE NO. L-57 & L59." (Underscoring Supplied) According to Respondents-Appellees the properties involved in the aforesaid cases are only the Bakun AC Hydroelectric Plant particularly the weir, desander and tunnel. Respondents-Appellees added that considering that the authority given by the Sanggunian Panlalawigan to the Provincial Governor is only with respect to the properties being assessed in CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59, the Provincial Governor was NOT authorized to enter into any agreement with respect to other properties not mentioned the SP Resolution. Respondents-Appellees also stated in that 2007 Compromise Agreement where the Municipal Mayor of Bakun represented the Municipality of Bakun, no prior authorization was given by the Sanggunian Bayan of Bakun authorizing the then Mayor to enter into a Compromise Agreement with petitioner-appellant LHC. As can be gleaned from both agreements according to Respondents-Appellees, the 2013 Compromise Agreement was only intended to renew the terms and conditions of the 2007 Agreement. Section 22 (c), Title I of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides: "Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no contract may be entered into by the local chief executive in behalf of the local government unit without prior authorization by the sanggunian concerned .A legible copy of each contract shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the provincial capitol or the city, municipal or barangay hall." (Emphasis supplied) Respondents-Appellees stated that during the preliminary conference held on October 24, 2019, petitioner admitted that the aforesaid Resolution of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Benguet is intended for settling CBAA Case Nos. 57 and 59 only. Likewise, Respondents-Appellees stated that Section 465 of the same code enumerates the powers, duties, and compensation of the Chief Executive. Specifically, it states that: "Section 465. Chief Executive: Powers, Duties and Compensation. xxx xxx xxx For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the province and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the provincial governor shall: xxx xxx xxx (vi) Represent the province in all its business transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, and obligations, and such other documents upon authority of the sangguniang panlalawigan or pursuant law or ordinance ;" (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied) xxx xxx xxx Respondents-Appellees argued that the requirement of prior authorization was deliberately added as a measure of check and balance, to temper the authority of the local chief executive, and in recognition of the fact that the corporate powers of the local government unit are wielded as much by its chief executive as by its council. 39 Therefore, Respondents-Appellees concluded that here being no prior authority from the Sanggunian Panlalawigan, the 2013 Compromise Agreement cannot bind the Province of Benguet and Petitioner-Appellant cannot rightfully claim that it is to the 10% assessment level under the Compromise Agreement. Respondents-Appellees prayed that this Board denied the instant appeal filed by Petitioner-Appellant for lack of merit. ISSUES 1. Whether or not it is National Power Corporation who is liable to pay the realty taxes on the Bakun property; 2. Whether or not the 2013 Compromise Agreement includes future properties and covers the Bakun Property; 3. Whether or not the assessment level to be imposed in the Bakun Property is 10% (ten percent) or eighty percent (80%);and 4. Whether or not Governor Nestor B. Fongwan was duly authorized to enter into the Memorandum of Agreement dated December 20, 2012 with Luzon Hydro Corporation with regard to future properties; RULING OF THIS BOARD In the recently decided cases of National Power Corporation vs. Luzon Hydro Corporation, Banaggay T. Alwis, Municipal Assessor, Manuel C. Bagayao, Municipal Treasurer of Bakun, Benguet, Erlinda Estepa, Provincial Assessor, and Mauricio B. Ambanloc, Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Benguet and Luzon Hydro Corporation v. Banggay T. Alwis, Municipal Assessor, Manuel C. Bagayao, Municipal Treasurer of Bakun, Benguet, Erlinda Estepa, Provincial Assessor, Mauricio B. Ambanloc, Provincial Treasurer of The Province of Benguet, and the National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 244450 and G.R. No. 244659 June 10, 2019 , the Supreme Court held that the Power Purchase Agreement and provisions of Republic Act No. 7718 show that Petitioner-Appellant, a private corporation, has actual use and ownership of the subject machineries of the said cases until the transfer date. Article 2.13 of the PPA provides: "Article 2.13 Ownership of Power station . From effective Date until Transfer Date that the Operator shall own the Power Station and all the structures, fixtures, fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site or used in connection with the Project which have been supplied by it or at its cost." (Emphasis Supplied) Section 2 (b) of Republic Act No. 7718 (Entitled "An Act Amending certain Sections of Republic Act No. 6957, Entitled "An Act Authorizing the Financing, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects by the Private Sector, and for Other Purposes,") states: "Section 2. Definition of terms . The following terms used in this Act shall have the meanings stated below: xxx xxx xxx (b) Build-operate-and-transfer A contractual arrangement whereby the project proponent undertakes the construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and the operation and maintenance thereof. The project proponent operates the facility over a fixed term during which it is allowed to charge facility users appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated and incorporated in the contract to enable the project proponent to recover its investment, and operating and maintenance expenses in the project. The project proponent transfers the facility to the government agency or local government unit concerned at the end of the fixed term which shall not exceed fifty (50) years. Provided ,That in case of an infrastructure or development facility whose operation requires a public utility franchise, the proponent must be Filipino or, if a corporation must be duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and owned up to at least sixty percent (60%) by Filipinos." (Emphasis Supplied) The Supreme Court has decided that Petitioner-Appellant, a private corporation, has the actual use and ownership of the subject machineries of the said cases until the transfer date. The subject properties in the instant case are properties which are the under the same PPA and subject of the same law. Corollary thereto, Petitioner-Appellant is the one liable to pay the real property tax and not NPC, being also the actual user and owner of the subject properties in the instant case. Relative to the second and fourth issues in this case, being interrelated to each other, this Board deemed it proper to discuss them jointly. The Compromise Agreements and Memorandum of Agreements presented by the Petitioner-Appellant in this case as part of their evidence are the same agreements involved in the case of Luzon Hydro Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 229064 ,March 29, 2017, wherein the Supreme Court's Resolution states that: "xxx xxx xxx In this case, the parties failed to present any resolution from Sangguniang Bayan authorizing the municipal mayor of Bakun, Benguet to enter into any agreement with petitioner and the National Power Corporation. There is no evidence that the Sangguniang Bayan confirmed or ratified the agreements signed by the municipal mayor. The CTA En Banc ,therefore correctly denied the Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise for lack of prior authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan of Bakun, Benguet authorizing the municipal mayor to enter into the December 2007 Compromise Agreement and the January 18, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the CTA En Banc .For grave abuse of discretion to exist, there must be a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 40 This Board likewise ordered the Petitioner-Appellant as part of their Compliance to submit the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and/or Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions and proof of authority of the signatories relative to the Compromise Agreement dated December 2007 and Memorandum of Agreement dated January 18, 2008. However, Petitioner-Appellant merely submitted Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 07-148 entitled " Authorizing Hon. Nestor B. Fongwan, Provincial Governor, to enter into a Compromise Agreement with the Luzon Hydro Corporation and National Power Corporation in relation to CBAA Case No. L-57 & 59 now pending before the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Manila " and NPC Resolution No. 2007-72 authorizing the President of NPC, on behalf of NPC, to settle the real property tax liability involving the Bakun Hydroelectric Power Plant at ten percent (10%) assessment level for the period 2002 to 2012. According to the allegations of Petitioner-Appellant, the 2013 Compromise Agreement was executed by reason of the expiration of the 2007 Compromise Agreement, since the 2007 Compromise Agreement was ruled by the Supreme Court without prior authorization from the Sangguniang Bayan of Bakun, Benguet authorizing the municipal mayor to enter into the agreement, the 2007 Compromise Agreement cannot be a basis for the execution of the 2013 Compromise Agreement. Furthermore, both the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 07-148 and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 12-320 of the Province of Benguet clearly stated that the authority granted to Governor Fongwan is to settle the pending CBAA Case Nos. L-57 and L-59. It appeared that Petitioner-Appellant failed to present any evidence that the agreements were entered into by the person duly authorized to do so by the Sanggunian concerned. Moreover, Petitioner-Appellant presented an authority for a specific objective or purpose and not a blanket authority to the governor or mayor to enter into any agreement on behalf of the province or municipality. Consequently, the issue on whether or not the future properties are included in the 2013 Compromise Agreement and covers the subject properties of the case is already moot and academic since the origin of the agreement was declared to be without authority and the proof of authorities submitted are intended for a specific purpose. Petitioner-Appellant being the actual user and owner of the subject properties are liable to pay the real property tax during the taxable periods. On the issue of what assessment level to be imposed on the Bakun property, the subject properties of the case, this Board deemed it proper to apply Executive Order No. 88, series of 2019 issued by President Rodrigo R. Duterte. The qualifications and/or conditions set forth in the said Order are present in the parties and subject properties of instant case. The pertinent portions of which states: "SECTION 1. Reduction and Condonation . All liabilities for real property tax, including any special levies accruing to the Special Education Fund, for calendar year (CY) 2018, on property, machinery, and equipment actually directly used by IPPs for the production of electricity under a Build-Operate-Transfer scheme and similar contracts (whether denominated Power Purchase Agreements ,Energy Conversion Agreements, or other contractual agreements) with GOCCs ,assessed by LGUs and other entities authorized to impose real property tax for all years up to CY 2018 ,are hereby reduced to an amount equivalent to the tax due if computed based on an assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of said property, machinery and equipment depreciated at the rate of two percent (2%) per annum, less any amounts already paid by the IPPs. All interests on such deficiency real property tax liabilities are also hereby condoned and the concerned IPPs are relieved from payment thereof. Section 2. Application to future real property tax liabilities. All real property tax payments made by the IPPs over and above the reduced amount under Section 1 of this Order shall be applied to their real property tax liabilities for the succeeding year .x x x" (Emphasis supplied.) In view of the foregoing, the assessment level of fifteen percent (15%) under E.O. No. 88, Series of 2019 shall be applied and real property tax payments made over and above the reduced amount shall be applied to succeeding year. WHEREFORE ,premises considered, Petitioner-Appellant's partial Appeal is DENIED with the exception that the Respondents-Appellees are hereby ordered to re-compute the real property taxes on the subject properties based on the provisions of Executive Order No. 88, Series of 2019. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, May 29, 2020. VACANT Chairperson (SGD.) RAMON A. I. BANTA Member (SGD.) SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO Member Officer-In-Charge Footnotes 1. Exhibit J. 2. Exhibit B. 3. Exhibit C. 4. Exhibit D. 5. Exhibit E. 6. Exhibit F. 7. Exhibit G. 8. Exhibits K-1 and K-2. 9. Exhibit A. 10. Letter of Protest dated 05 February 2016. 11. 1997 Memorandum of Agreement among Province of Benguet, Municipality of Bakun, Luzon Hydro Corporation and National Power Corporation. 12. Compromise Agreement dated December 2007 among National Power Corporation, Province of Benguet and Municipality of Bakun. 13. Memorandum of Agreement dated January 18, 2008 among Province of Benguet, Municipality of Bakun and Luzon Hydro Corporation. 14. Compromise Agreement with Acknowledgment dated 14 January 2013 among National Power Corporation and Province of Benguet with NPC Resolution No. 2012-37, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Province of Benguet Resolution No. 12-320. 15. NPC Letter dated July 23, 2003. 16. Office of the Solicitor General Letter dated May 7, 2013. 17. Power Purchase Agreement between National Power Corporation and The Consortium of the Northern Mini Hydro Corporation, Ever Electrical Manufacturing, Inc.,Aboitiz Equity Ventures, Incorporated and Pacific Hydro Limited. 18. Memorandum of Agreement dated December 20, 2012 between Province of Benguet and Luzon Hydro Corporation with Secretary's Certificate dated 12 December 2012, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Benguet Resolution No. 12-320 and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Benguet Resolution No. 12-090. 19. Official Receipt No. BGT 0565567 dated January 8, 2016 in the amount of Php29,414.52. 20. Official Receipt No. BGT 0565566 dated January 8, 2016 in the amount of Php457,559.20. 21. Tax Declaration No. 2010-09-07-01841. 22. G.R. No. 169599, 16 March 2011. 23. G.R. No. 906639, 21 February 1990. 24. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 1159. 25. G.R. No. 182409, 20 March 2017. 26. Toledo v. Hyden ,G.R. No. 172139, December 2010. 27. Exhibit I. 28. G.R. Nos. 152613 and 152628, 152619-20, 152870-71 (Resolution),20 November 2009. 29. G.R. No. L-27294, 28 June 1983. 30. 2013 Compromise Agreement, Whereas Clause. 31. G.R. No. 181675, 22 June 2009. 32. 2012 MOA, Paragraph 5 (c) (i). 33. 2012 MOA, Paragraph 5 (c) (ii). 34. 2012 MOA, Paragraph 6. 35. 2013 Compromise Agreement Paragraph 5. 36. G.R. Nos. L-27948 and L-28001-11, 31 July 1969. 37. CTA E.B. Case No. 1380 & 1420, 10 November 2017. 38. G.R. No. 244450 and G.R. No. 244659 June 10, 2019. 39. Quisumbing, et al. vs. Garcia ,G.R. No. 175527. 40. VMC Rural Electric Service Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals ,535 Phil. 345, 358 (2006). n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Irregular alphabetical sequence.