Practice question
An owner challenges the economic reasonableness of an RPT increase using disputed valuation evidence, but has missed the initial remedies addressed in Pisón. The owner refuses to use section 252 because payment would supposedly concede the assessment’s correctness. What is most consistent with Pisón’s main opinion?
- Payment under protest necessarily admits every valuation fact
- A claim of hardship automatically invalidates the assessment
- For the stated economic-merits challenge, the payment-under-protest remedy remains material; proper protest preserves the challenge rather than conceding it
- The NIRC refund process automatically replaces the LGC
- Any owner may disregard collection indefinitely by alleging excessive value
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html — RA 7160, sections 226–231 and 252
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12001_2024.html — RA 12001, sections 14, 35 and 38
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70361 — Pisón v. City of Iloilo, G.R. No. 272170, January 28, 2026, main opinion
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.