Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

060 Phil 461:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 41456. August 30, 1934.]

In the matter of the estate of the deceased Robert Henry Wood. J. T. KNOWLES, administrator-appellant, v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Claimant-Appellee.

Ross, Lawrance & Selph and Federico Agrava for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; CLAIMS FOR INCOME TAXES; JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. — It is a well established and uniform doctrine in this jurisdiction that claims for deficiency income taxes may properly be presented in the intestate or testate proceedings of the deceased who owes them, without the necessity of presenting the same to the committee which had been created.

2. ID.; ID.; AFFIDAVIT; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF. — It is incumbent upon the Collector of Internal Revenue to prove the certainty of the items constituting his claim, particularly the alleged net income said to have been omitted in the returns filed by the deceased and subsequently discovered, according to the affidavit of the Collector of Internal Revenue, upon investigation by an official of his bureau. This allegedly omitted net income, for the same reason that it did not appear in any book or document forming part of the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, necessarily had to be proven by means of the testimony of said official. When the administrator filed his objection to the claim and generally and specifically denied its allegations, the character of prima facie evidence of the affidavit attached to the claim was destroyed, and it became incumbent upon the claimant to prove his claim by means of material and competent evidence.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


In the testamentary proceedings of Robert Henry Wood, after the committee on claims had approved the only claim filed therein and the court had ordered its payment, the Collector of Internal Revenue, through the Solicitor-General, filed a motion claiming from the estate the sum of P27,106.93 as deficiency income taxes for the years from 1918 to 1923, inclusive, and 1929, which said deceased had failed to pay and had not included in his income tax returns filed by him.

The claim was opposed by the administrator of the estate alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance or pass upon the same; that the claim should have been presented to the committee which has already ceased to exist; that the claim has already prescribed, inasmuch as more than three (3) years have elapsed and that the estate does not owe the amount of the taxes claimed.

The court decided the question of jurisdiction against the administrator and the latter excepted. Subsequently, the Collector of Internal Revenue filed an amended motion reducing the same claim of P19,680.42. The motion was supported by an affidavit of the Collector of Internal Revenue known as amended proof of debt, containing the income omitted by the deceased and discovered, upon investigation, by an official of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The administrator filed no amended opposition but his original written opposition subsisted.

At the hearing of the amended claim, the attorney for the administrator filed a motion for postponement of the hearing in order to give him an opportunity to file an itemized opposition. The court postponed the hearing. At the second hearing, the administrator failed to file the itemized opposition which he had promised but reiterated his objections stated in his written opposition. The Collector of Internal Revenue supported his claim by his affidavit, already attached to the record and refrained from presenting further evidence. After the hearing, the court, in an order of August 26, 1933, sustained the amended claim and ordered the administrator to pay to the Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P19,680.42, from available funds of the estate. The administrator filed a motion for reconsideration and a new trial after the denial of which he appealed, properly filing the necessary record on appeal.

In this instance, the administrator vigorously contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the Collector of Internal Revenue had not presented satisfactory or conclusive evidence to establish the certainty of the same in the amount lastly specified, and in this respect argues that the affidavit of said official is insufficient and incompetent evidence and, with the admission thereof, he was deprived of the right to cross-examine.

We do not give much weight to the first contention because it has been uniformly held in this jurisdiction that such claims may properly be presented in the intestate or testate proceedings of the deceased who owes the deficiency tax, without the necessity of presenting it to the committee which had been created. (Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas and Collector of Internal Revenue, 52 Phil., 803, and Whitney v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G. R. No. 32361 1 .)

The second point is decisive and resolves the appeal in favor of the administrator. We are of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the Collector of Internal Revenue to prove the certainty of the items constituting his claim, particularly the alleged net income said to have been omitted in the returns filed by the deceased and subsequently discovered, according to the affidavit of the Collector of Internal Revenue, upon investigation by an official of his bureau. This allegedly omitted net income, for the same reason that it did not appear in any book or document forming part of the files of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, necessarily had to be proved by means of the testimony of said official. Inasmuch as the latter was not presented or did not testify at the trial, it is clear that the administrator was deprived of his substantial right to cross-examine him. The foregoing conclusion of course, is based upon the premise that the affidavit presented in support of the claim is competent evidence, a quality which we doubt in view of the opposition originally filed by the administrator. When the administrator filed his opposition to the claim and generally and specifically denied its allegations, the character of prima facie evidence of the affidavit attached to the claim was destroyed and it became incumbent upon the claimant to prove his claim by means of material and competent evidence. This duty has not been compiled with in view of the fact that no other evidence had been presented and the claim was based solely on said affidavit.

In arriving at the foregoing conclusion, this court particularly took into consideration the circumstance that the claim is for a gross amount the exactness of which is not evident, inasmuch as the Collector of Internal Revenue, in his amended claim, notoriously reduced the amount previously claimed. If he has committed this substantial error in presenting his first claim, it is possible that the figures given in the amended claim may, likewise, be not exact and may be subject to further reduction after a careful analysis of the evidence which the claimant might have.

Wherefore, the appealed order is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions that it hold a new trial of the claim and require the parties to present the evidence by means of which they intend to support their respective contentions, without special pronouncement as to the costs of this instance. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Promulgated September 22, 1930, not reported.




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






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511