Interpretation of Section 135 of the 1991 Local Government Code (R.A. 7160)

DOJ OPINION NO. 056 , s. 2005 December 13, 2005 Hon. Margarito B. Teves Secretary Department of Finance Roxas Boulevard, 1000 Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the interpretation of Section 135 of the 1991 Local Government Code (R.A. 7160) specifically as regards to the proper application of the phrase hereunder quoted, to wit: "Sec. 135. Tax on Transfer of Real Property Ownership . (a) The province may impose a tax on the sale, donation, barter, or on any other mode of transferring ownership or title of real property at the rate of not more than fifty percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the total consideration involved in the acquisition of the property or of the fair market value in case the monetary consideration in the transfer is not substantial whichever is higher . . . . ." (emphasis supplied) You state that Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP), a government-owned corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1080, acquired condominium units located at Citibank Tower in Makati City at total consideration of P75,243,328.00; and that after having paid in full the said purchase price, a Deed of Absolute Sale was delivered in its favor on August 4, 2005 under which TIDCORP undertook the obligation of payment of transfer taxes. You also state that the Makati Treasurer's Office assessed TIDCORP the amount of P424,938.00, representing the tax liability of TIDCORP on its acquisition of the aforementioned condominium units which was based on 0.5% of the zonal value of P84,987,600.00; that, thereafter, TIDCORP paid under protest the transfer tax assessed on the contention that the transfer taxes should be in the amount of P376,216.64 only based on the monetary consideration of the subject transaction as the said consideration is substantial in relation to the accepted valuation of similar properties. Hence, this instant query. With regret, this Department has to decline rendition of the opinion requested in view of the following reasons: The resolution of the issue raised would inevitably involve an interpretation and/or examination of the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. The interpretation and application of the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, however, properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) as the lead agency designated by the President in the implementation of the said Code. 1 Pursuant to settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of justice does not rule on issues which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency in this case, the Oversight Committee and the DILG over whose rulings or actuations this Department exercises no revisory authority, unless the request comes from such office or agency itself. 2 Moreover, as matter of policy, the Secretary of justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on questions which are justiciable in nature or those which may be the subject of litigation. 3 Firstly, to rule on your query would be tantamount to a review of the action of the Makati City Treasurer. Unfortunately, however, the Secretary of Justice is devoid of any jurisdiction to pass upon or review the action/ruling or assessment made by said local government officer. Pursuant to settled precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not pass upon actions made by government officials over whom he exercises no revisory authority. 4 Nonetheless, may we invite your attention to the provisions of Section 195 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which provides for the remedy of the taxpayer in case when a protest is denied by the City Treasurer, that is, he or she may appeal before the court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the said denial of protest or after the lapse of sixty (60) days within which the said City Treasurer shall decide the protest otherwise the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALEZ Secretary Footnotes 1. Section 533, R.A. No. 7160, Adm. Order No. 269, dated February 21, 1992. 2. Secretary of Justice Op. Nos. 47 and 159, s. 1993. 3. Secretary of Justice Op. No. 31, s. 2000 citing Op. No. 12, s. 2000. 4. Ibid . No. 107, s. 1994; No. 19, s. 1996; No. 3, s. 1999.