Cary's Tax Digests

8/13/2019 Cary's Tax Digests

1/4

Vidal de Roces v. Posadas

G.R. No. 34937 March 13, 1933

Facts:

Sometime in 1925, plaintiffs Concepcion Vidal de Roces and her husband, as well as one Elvira

Richards, received as donation several parcels of land from Esperanza uazon! he" too# possession of

the lands thereafter and li#ewise obtained the respective transfer certificates!

he donor died a "ear after without leavin$ an" forced heir! %n her will, which was admitted to probate,

she be&ueathed to each of the donees the sum of '5,(((! )fter the distribution of the estate but beforethe deliver" of their shares, the C%R *appellee+ ruled that plaintiffs as donees and le$atees should pa"

inheritance taes! he plaintiffs paid the taes under protest!

C%R filed a demurrer on $round that the facts alle$ed were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action!

he court sustained the demurrer and ordered the amendment of the complaint but the appellants failed

to do so! -ence, the trial court dismissed the action on $round that plaintiffs, herein appellants, did not

reall" have a ri$ht of action!

'laintiffs *appellant+ contend that Sec! 15.( of the )dministrative Code does not include donation

inter vivos and if it does, it is unconstitutional, null and void for violatin$ SEC! / of the 0ones aw*providin$ that no law shall embrace more than one subect and that the subect should be epressed in

its titles 3 that the e$islature has no authorit" to ta donation inter vivos3 finall", that said provision

violates the rule on uniformit" of taation!

C%R however contends that the word 4all $ifts4 refer clearl" to donation inter vivos and cited the

doctrine in uason v! 'osadas!

Issue 6hether or not the donations should be subected to inheritance ta

HeldSec! 15.( of the )dministrative Code clearl" refers to those donation inter vivos that ta#e effect

immediatel" or durin$ the lifetime of the donor, but made in consideration of the death of the decedent!

hose donations not made in contemplation of the decedent4s death are not included as it would bee&uivalent to imposin$ a direct ta on propert" and not on its transmission!

he phrase 4all $ifts4 as held in uason v! 'osadas refers to $ifts inter vivos as the" are considered asadvances in anticipation of inheritance since the" are made in consideration of death!


2/4

ole!ti!o v. "ecretar# o$ Fi!a!ce

%49 "&R' (3)

Facts'etitioners *olentino, 7ilosba"an, %nc!, 'hilippine )irlines, Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and

8uilders )ssociation+ see# reconsideration of the Courts previous rulin$ dismissin$ the petitions filed

for the declaration of unconstitutionalit" of R!)! :o! ;;1but the Senate ma" propose or concur withamendments!? he Senate ma" then propose an entirel" new bill as a substitute measure! 'etitioners

erred in assumin$ the Senate version to be an independent and distinct bill! 6ithout the -ouse bill,

Senate could not have enacted the Senate bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the former! )s

such, it did not have to pass the Senate on second and third readin$s!

'etitioners &uestion the si$nin$ of the 'resident on both bills, to support their contention that such are

separate and distinct! he 'resident certified the bills separatel" onl" because the certification had to bemade of the version of the same revenue bill which ) -E @A@E: was bein$ considered!

'etitioners &uestion the power of the Conference Committee to insert new provisions! he urisdictionof the conference committee is not limited to resolvin$ differences between the Senate and the -ouse!

%t ma" propose an entirel" new provision, $iven that such are $ermane to the subect of the conference,

and that the respective houses of Con$ress subse&uentl" approve its report!

'etitioner ') contends that the amendment of its franchise b" the withdrawal of its eemption from

V) is not epressed in the title of the law, thereb" violatin$ the Constitution! he Court believes that

the title of the R!)! satisfies the Constitutional Re&uirement!

'etitioners claim that the R!)! violates their press freedom and reli$ious libert", havin$ removed them

from the eemption to pa" V)! Suffice it to sa" that since the law $ranted the press a privile$e, the lawcould ta#e bac# the privile$e an"time without offense to the Constitution! 8" $rantin$ eemptions, the

State does not forever waive the eercise of its soverei$n prero$ative!

astl", petitioners contend that the R!)! violates due process, e&ual protection and contract clauses and

the rule on taation! 'etitioners fail to ta#e into consideration the fact that the V) was alread"

provided for in E!A! :o! 2;/ lon$ before the R!)! was enacted! he latter merel" EB'):S the base


3/4

of the ta! E&ualit" and uniformit" in taation means that all taable articles or #inds of propert" of the

same class be taed at the same rate, the tain$ power havin$ authorit" to ma#e reasonable and natural

classifications for purposes of taation! %t is enou$h that the statute applies e&uall" to all persons, forms

and corporations placed in s similar situation!


4/4

Her*a!o +"a! Miuel- Feres &ordero Medical Fou!datio!, I!c. v. &IR

&..'. &'"/ N0. 194

Facts-ermano is see#in$ the cancellation of Dinal )ssessment :otice *D):+ issued b" the 8%R for V)

deficienc" amountin$ to '2,

Documents

Cary's Tax Digests