Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > March 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23912 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE CONCEPCION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23912. March 15, 1968.]

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. JOSE CONCEPCION, as Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Mary H. Mitchell-Roberts (deceased), and JACK F. MITCHELL-ROBERTS, Respondents.

Solicitor General for Petitioner.

Liedo, Andrada, Perez & Associates for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; RECOVERY OF TAX ILLEGALLY COLLECTED; DENIED WHERE TAXPAYER HAD FAILED TO APPEAL IN DUE TIME. — Where a taxpayer seeking a refund of estate and inheritance taxes whose request is denied and whose appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals was dismissed for being filed out of time, sues anew to recover such taxes, already paid under protest, his action is devoid of merit. For in the same way that the expedient of an appeal from a denial of a tax request for cancellation of warrant of distraint and levy cannot be utilized to test the legality of an assessment which had become conclusive and binding on the taxpayer, so is Section 360 of the Tax Code not available to revive the right to contest the validity of an assessment which had become final for failure to appeal the same on time.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


In this petition for the review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the decisive question, one of first impression, is whether a taxpayer who had lost his right to dispute the validity of an assessment, the period for appealing to the Court of Tax Appeals having expired, as found by such Court in a previous case in a decision now final, and who thereafter paid under protest could then, relying on Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code 1 sue for recovery on the ground of its illegality? The Court of Tax Appeals, in the decision under review, answered in the affirmative. We hold otherwise and accordingly reverse.

In CTA Case No. 669, respondents Jose Concepcion, as ancillary administrator of the estate of Mary H. Mitchell-Roberts, and respondent Jack F. Mitchell-Roberts, husband of the deceased, sought a refund of the sum of P1,181.33 and P2,616.10 representing estate and inheritance taxes on 50 shares of stock of Edward J. Nell Company issued in the names of both spouses "as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common." The above assessment was made by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the ground that there was a transmission to the husband of one-half share thereof upon the death of the wife, the above shares being conjugal property. Respondents maintained on the other hand that there was no transmission of property since under English law, ownership of all property acquired during the marriage vests in the husband. Moreover, the shares of stock were issued to the spouses "as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common." Not being agreeable to the theory entertained by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondents, in a previous case, CTA Case No. 168, appealed such a decision under Republic Act No. 1125. The Court of Tax Appeals, however, dismissed such an appeal as the petition for review because it was filed beyond the reglementary period of 30 days. That decision, rendered on April 29, 1957, became final.

What next transpired was set forth in the appealed decision, CTA Case No. 669, thus: "Whereupon, on June 14, 1957, petitioners paid the taxes in question amounting to P1,181.33 (as estate tax) and P2,616.10 (as inheritance tax), inclusive of delinquency penalties, and at the same time filed a claim for the refund of said amounts (Exh. A. BIR rec. pp. 83-87). In the claim for refund, petitioners also invoked the reciprocity provision of Section 122 of the Revenue Code (CTA rec. pp. 92-93). Without waiting for the decision of respondent on the claim for refund, petitioners instituted the instant appeal on June 11, 1959 in order to avoid the prescriptive period of two years provided for in Section 306 of the Revenue Code." 2

Petitioner Commissioner on Internal Revenue, before the Court of Tax Appeals, raised as one of its defenses the fact that respondents were "estopped from denying the legality and correctness of the assessment for estate and inheritance taxes in view of the fact that they paid the same in pursuance of a decision of the Commissioner which has become final, executory and demandable as a result of the dismissal of CTA Case No. 168, . . ." 3 Such a defense was considered unavailing by the Court of Tax Appeals by virtue of its decision in La Paz y Buen Viaje Cigar & Cigarette Factory v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 4 It was the view of the Court of Tax Appeals that with no procedural obstacle to stand in the way and with the spouses, both non-resident English subjects, being married in England, their property relation thus being governed by English law, the national law of the husband, by virtue of which there was no transmission of property from wife to husband, governs, with the result that no tax was demandable. Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue was ordered to refund the inheritance and estate taxes paid in the amount of P3,797.43. Hence this petition for review.

The Court of Tax Appeals in relying on its previous decision in the La Paz y Buen Viaje Cigar & Cigarette Factory and ruling against the defense of the finality of the assessment, after the dismissal of the appeal in CTA No. 168 in view of the failure to have been filed within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days, must have been of the belief that this Court, in affirming its decision on March 30, 1963, without however passing on the above question, did give an indication of its probable thinking on the matter. Such is not a correct appraisal of the situation however, for on March 30, 1963, the very same day its La Paz y Buen Viaje decision was affirmed, the opinion in Republic of the Philippines v. Lopez 5 was handed down. This is an appeal by the Republic from an order of the Court of First Instance of Baguio dismissing its complaint for collection of a deficiency income tax against defendant Lopez on the ground that the action had prescribed. After noting that prescription as a defense did not lie, this Court, in an opinion by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, likewise stated: "Another ground for reversing the dismissal of the complaint is that the proper remedy of the taxpayer against the assessment complained of was to appeal the ruling of the Collector to the Court of Tax Appeals. . . ." The precise question in this litigation then, while undoubtedly one of novelty, is not without illumination supplied by radiations from past decisions.

For subsequently, in Republic v. Lim Tian Teng Sons & Co., Inc., 6 the above doctrine was reaffirmed categorically in this language: "Taxpayer’s failure to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals in due time made the assessment in question final, executory and demandable. And when the action was instituted on September 2, 1958 to enforce the deficiency assessment in question, it was already barred from disputing the correctness of the assessment or invoking any defense that would reopen the question of his tax liability on the merits. Otherwise, the period of thirty days for appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals would make little sense." Once the matter has reached the stage of finality in view of the failure to appeal, it logically follows, in the appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, in Morales v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 7 that it "could no longer be reopened through the expedient of an appeal from the denial of petitioner’s request for cancellation of the warrant of distraint and levy."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the same way then that the expedient of an appeal from a denial of a tax request for cancellation of warrant of distraint and levy cannot be utilized for the purpose of testing the legality of an assessment, which had become conclusive and binding on the taxpayer, there being no appeal, the procedure set forth in Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code is not available to revive the right to contest the validity of an assessment once the same had been irretrievably lost not only by the failure to appeal but likewise by the lapse of the reglementary period within which to appeal could have been taken. Clearly then, the liability of respondent Concepcion as an ancillary administrator of the estate of the deceased wife and of respondent Mitchell-Roberts as the husband for the amount of P1,181.33 as estate tax and P2,616,10 as inheritance tax was beyond question. Having paid the same, respondents are clearly devoid of any legal right to sue for recovery. The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals ordering petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund the above total sum of P3,797.43 cannot stand.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals under review is reversed. With costs against respondents.

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C . J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Section 306 provides: "Recovery of Tax Erroneously Or Illegally Collected. — No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal-revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Brief for the Petitioner, Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, Appendix A, p. 41.

3. Id. p. 42.

4. Court of Tax Appeals Case No. 700, August 4, 1960. The decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals was affirmed by this Court in La Paz y Buen Viaje Cigar & Cigarette v. Collector of Internal Revenue, L-17830, promulgated March 30, 1963. The opinion however by the then Justice, now Chief Justice, Concepcion passed sub silentio on the question of whether the failure on the part of a taxpayer to file its appeal within the reglementary period of 30 days under Republic Act No. 1125 closed all avenues available to the taxpayer who disputes the legality of the assessment.

5. L-18007, March 30, 1963.

6. L-21731, March 31, 1966, the opinion being penned by Justice Bengzon.

7. L-16759, August 31, 1966.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21738 March 1, 1968 - IN RE: CHOA EK YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21881 March 1, 1968 - PACIFIC OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-23066 March 1, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE S. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23426 March 1, 1968 - LEOPOLDO SY-QUIA, ET AL. v. MARY MARSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22667 March 1, 1968 - JOSE DE ASIS, ET AL. v. ANGELINA DUMADAUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24115 March 1, 1968 - EUFEMIA V. SHAFFER v. VIRGINIA G. PALMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25175 March 1, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIANO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-26082 March 1, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-27030 March 6, 1968 - PABLO GONZAGA, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-28473 March 6, 1968 - TAHIR LIDASAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28598 March 12, 1968 - NAGA TAGORANAO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28725 March 12, 1968 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. JOSUE L. CADIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 March 13, 1968 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-22485 March 13, 1968 - CONSUELO V. CALO v. AJAX INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-23351 March 13, 1968 - CIRILO PAREDES v. JOSE L. ESPINO

  • G.R. No. L-23718 March 13, 1968 - JUSTINO LUCERO v. LEON P. DACAYO

  • G.R. No. L-24213 March 13, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25420 March 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25460 March 13, 1968 - INOCENCIO C. TAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26185 March 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFORIANO CESAR

  • G.R. No. L-26437 March 13, 1968 - RAQUEL G. DOCE v. BRANCH II OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26585 March 13, 1968 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-25738 March 14, 1968 - SILVERIO CAGAMPANG v. FLAVIANO MORANO

  • G.R. No. L-25001 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. ALBAPARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21610 March 15, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. DON PEDRO SECURITY GUARDS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23912 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. L-19911 March 15, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-22997 March 15, 1968 - PABLO C. MONTALBAN, ET AL. v. GERARDO MAXIMO

  • G.R. No. L-25052 March 15, 1968 - DATU MARIGA DIRAMPATEN v. HADJI MADKI ALONTO

  • G.R. No. L-25302 March 15, 1968 - ABUNDIO MATILLANO, ET AL. v. SEVERIANO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-25403 March 15, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS A. CATALINO

  • G.R. No. L-26331 March 15, 1968 - BALBINO PAMINTUAN, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20662 & L-20663 March 19, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MARlNE OFFICERS’ GUILD v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24466 March 19, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CAPITO @ JIMMY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968 - TEODORO ALMIROL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN

  • G.R. No. L-23586 March 20, 1968 - A.D. SANTOS, INC. v. VENTURA VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24826 March 20, 1968 - ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24918 March 20, 1968 - FELIX DE VILLA v. ANACLETO TRINIDAD, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25939 March 20, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. JESUS P. MORFE

  • G.R. No. L-27106 March 20, 1968 - PALANAN LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20589-90 March 21, 1968 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO v. VICTORINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22231 March 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PAAT

  • G.R. No. L-23565 March 21, 1968 - INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25640 March 21, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26538 March 21, 1968 - MELECIO ROSARIO, ET AL. v. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26922 and 26923 March 21, 1968 - EUFRACIO FAGTANAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 101 March 27, 1968 - EMETERIO A. BUYCO, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-19378 March 27, 1968 - ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20046 March 27, 1968 - ROMEO PAYLAGO, ET AL. v. INES PASTRANA JARABE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 March 27, 1968 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-22984 March 27, 1968 - MARGARITO SARONA, ET AL. v. FELIPE VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23467 March 27, 1968 - AMALGAMATED LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23489 March 27, 1968 - JULIAN ABANA v. FRANCISCO QUISUMBING

  • G.R. Nos. L-24123, L-24124, L-24125 & L-24126 March 27, 1968 - GREGORIO ROBLES v. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25471 March 27, 1968 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25513 March 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO C. DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-25676 March 27, 1968 - ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, ET AL. v. ILDEFONSO D. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-26213 March 27, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-28550 to L-28552 March 27, 1968 - PEDRO R. DIZON v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-28563 March 27, 1968 - GOV. PEDRO R. DIZON v. HON. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-21196 March 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO BELCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22535 March 28, 1968 - ALFREDO VILLARUEL v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24440 March 28, 1968 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24660 March 28, 1968 - PEDRO VIDAL, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27757 March 28, 1968 - RICARDO DEQUITO v. LEOPOLDO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20477 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX B. ACEBEDO

  • G.R. No. L-20802 March 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21890 March 29, 1968 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22062 March 29, 1968 - GREGORIO Y. ROMERO v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22759 March 29, 1968 - MANUEL R. JIMENEZ v. ALBERTO V. AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-25366 March 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BUAN

  • G.R. No. L-25475 March 29, 1968 - FELICIDAD REYES-TALAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA

  • G.R. No. L-26830 March 29, 1968 - CIPRIANO A. FALCON, ET AL. v. FELICIANO OROBIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23375 March 30, 1968 - FRANCISCO ORFIDA v. PEDRO PANUELOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28539 March 30, 1968 - SALVADOR Q. PEDIDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.