LOPEZ vs. COMELEC

FACTS:

The referendum on PD 824 held in February 1975 authorized the president to restructure the local government of the greater MIA area comprising for cities and municipalities. A public corporation was created known as the Metronalize Commission. Petitioners assailed the Cons??????????????????? Ang ganda ng sulat………… wahahahaha

TAXATION

LABOR:

TAXATION

CIR vs. BPI

G.R. No. 134062 April 17, 2007

Corona, J.:

FACTS:

In October 28, 1988, petitioner assessed BPI of deficiency percentage and documentary stamp tax for the year 1986, in the total amount of P129,488,056.63. A letter reply by respondent was sent on December 10, 1988 stating among other:

... we shall inform you the taxpayer’s decision on whether to pay of protest the assessment, CTA ruled that BPI failed to protest on time under Sec 270 of NIRC of 1986.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the assessments issued to BPI for deficiency percentage and documentary stamp taxes for 1986 had already become final and un-appealable.

RULING:

In merely notifying BPI of his findings. CIR relied on the provisions of the former Section 270 prior to its amendment by RA 8424. The sentence

“the taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made…”

Was not in the old Section 270 but was only later on inserted in the renumbered Section 228 in 1997.

Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and are made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty to prove otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of duties, an assessment duly made by BIR examiner and approved by his superior officers will not be distributed. All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax assessments.

TAXATION

BPI vs. CIR

G.R. 139736 October 17, 2005

Chico-Nazario,J.:

FACTS:

On June 6 and 14, 1985, petitioner bank sold $500,000.00 to the Central Bank, for the total sale amount of $1M. BIR issued deficiency assessment for DST in the amount of 28,020.00 for the said sales. On October 20,1989, petitioner received the notice and consequently filed a protest in November 16,1989. Petitioner did not receive a reply but soon after, October 15, 1992, BIR issued a Warrant of distraint, and finally in August 13, 1997, BPI received a letter denying its request for reconsideration. Petitioner alleged prescription to CTA but the latter denied the same. CTA likewise ruled in the negative that the sales of currency by petitioner was not subject to DST. CA sustained first issue but reinstated the second.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the right to collect has prescribed;

Request for reconsideration

It will not suspend the running of the statute of limitations because reconsideration of tax assessment is limited to the evidence.

Request for reinvestigation

will suspend the running of statute of limitations because it entails the reception and re-evaluation of additional evidence. It will take more time.

RULING:

The period for the BIR to assess and collect an internal revenue tax is limited to three years by Section 203 of the Tax Code. This period is limited by Section 223

Exemptions… a) in the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within 10 years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission…

BPI executed no waiver of the Statute of Limitations, thus it did not suspend running of the prescription. Likewise, BPI requested for a reconsideration and suspension of the running of the statute of limitations shouldn’t apply. The statute of limitations for collection “against BPI had expired; none of the conditions from the statute of limitations on collection exists herein.”

TAXATION

BPI (Far East Bank and Trust Co) vs. CIR

G.R. 174492 March 7, 2008

Tinga, J.:

FACTS:

Following a pre-assessment notice on deficiency tax filed by respondent in 1986, the latter sent final demand to petitioner on April 7, 1989. Petitioner filed a protest and a waiver of the Statutes of Limitations was effected until December 31, 1994. On August 9, 2002, respondent issued a final decision on petitioner’s protest ordering the withdrawal and cancellation of the deficiency withholding tax assessment in the amount of P190,752,860.82 and considered the sane as close and terminated but the documentary stamp tax of P24,587,174.63 was reiterated. Thereafter petition for review was filed with CTA. The court denied the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the collection of the deficiency DST is barred by prescription:

RULING:

In order to determine whether the prescriptive period for collecting the tax deficiency tolled by BPI’s filing of the protest letters dated April 7, 1989. Section 20 of the Tax Code must be examined:

The running of the Statute of Limitations… on the making of assessment and the beginning of distraint or levy or a proceeding in court of collection… shall be suspended for the period… when the taxpayer requests for re-investigation which is granted by the Commissioner.

In order to suspend the running of the prescriptive periods for assessment and collection, the request for re-investigation must be granted by CIR. There is nothing in this case which indicates, expressly or impliedly, that the CIR had granted the request for re-investigation filed by BPI. What is reflected is the silence and inaction of the CIR.

Given the prescription of the Government’s claim, we no longer deem it necessary to pass upon the validity of the assessment.

TAXATION

CIR vs. Phil. Global Communitions

G.R. No. 167146 October 31, 2006

Chico – Nazario, J.:

FACTS:

Responded was pre-assessed for a deficiency tax for the year 1990. In 1994, final assessment was sent to respondent and through counsel, Philcon sent protest letter to CIR. In 2002, after 8 long years, respondent received from CIR a final decision denying the respondent’s protest and affirming said assessment. CTA ruled on prescription and ordered CIR to withdraw and cancel assessment previously issued against petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CIR’s right to collect alleged deficiency tax is barred by prescription

RULING:

There was nothing from the respondent’s protest letter that could tell the running of prescriptive period upon which CIR could have caused the collection from respondent. The motion for reconsideration was in effect denied by CIR and prescription runs from 1994 until 1997, collection effected in 2002 was barred now, by prescription.

Sucession – Reserva Troncal

Sumaya vs. IAC

G.R. No. 68843-44 September 2, 1991

Medialdea, J.:

FACTS:

Raul inherited from his ascendants a parcel of land. He died intestate, single and without an issue. His mother inherited his properties and same was sold to Sumaya and another to Villa Honario who in turn assigned rights of said property to Agro-industrial Coconut Corp. the parties admit that said properties do not certain any annotation as its reservable nature. The lower court decided in favor of Balan-takbos due to the reservable nature of the property, CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the reservable character of the property need to be annotated.

RULING:

Upon the death of Raul, the reservista, his mother caused the registration of an affidavit of self-adjudication of the estate of Raul clearly stated thereby that the decedent inherited the same from his father. The court ruled that said affidavit was a declaration and substance a recording with the Registry of Deeds of the reservable character of properties

Section 52 of the Registration decree provides:

“Every conveyance, mortgage, base, lien attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land, shall, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the land which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering or filing or entering.”

There was also sufficient notice of the resevable character of the property when Raul’s mother indicated in the deed of sale that said property was inherited from her son. But the purpose of the motion in to afford persons due protection against any act of resevor which may make it ineffective.

SUCCESSION

Rodelas vs. Aranza

G.R. L- 58509 December 7, 1982

Relova, J.:

FCTS:

Appellant Rodelas filed for probate of holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla which the lower court denied noting that the alleged holographic will was executed for more than 14 years from the time the execution of will. In view of the lapse of 14 years, the fact that the original of the will cannot be located shows that the decedent has discarded before his death his allegedly missing Holographic Will.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by photostatic copy.

RULING:if the holographic will has been lost, and no other copy is available, the will cannot probated

because the best and only evidence is the hand writing of the testator. But if a photostatic copy of a holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of testator.

SUCCESSION

Ajero vs. CA & Cemente Sand

G.R. No. 106720 September 15, 1994

Puno, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner submitted for probate the holographic will of the late Annie Sand who died on November 25,1982. Private respondent opposed the probate because the purported will was not Annie’s hand writing; it contained alterations and corrections ,which were not duly signed by decedent and it was procured by petitioners through pressure and undue influence. The lower court allowed the

will for probate as 3 witnesses were presented who testified on the authenticity and that the latter is of sound mind.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the holographic will executed by Annie Sand executed in the formalities prescribed by law.

RULING:

What assures authenticity of holographic will is the requirement that they totally autographic or hand-written by the testator himself, as provided in Art – 810 NCC:

A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated and signed by the testator himself. It is subject to no other form and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of holographic will that is unquestionably hand written by the testator. A holographic will may still be admitted for probate not with standing non-compliance with the provisions of 814 NCC.

SUCCESSION

Nera vs. Rimando

G.R. L – 5971 February 7, 1911

Carson, J.:

FACTS:

The trial judge have not considered the question of fact which is of vital importance to the case. The members of the Court opined that the subscribing witness was in the small room with the

testator and the other subscribing witnesses at the time when they attached their signatures to the instrument.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a subscribing witness at the time the instrument was signed was outside the rooms, the testament be accepted.

HELD:

At the time when the testator was signing the will, the witness was outside, the will shall be invalid. This is because, the line of vision from this witness to the testator and the other subscribing witness would necessarily have been impeded by the curtain separating the inner from the outer one at the moment of inscription of each signature.

SUCCESSION

Vda de Perez vs. Tolete

G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994

Quiason, J.:

FACTS:

Dr. Jose Cunanam and wife Evelyn Perez-Cunanam, both American citizens, executed will separately but containing almost the same provisions. The doctor’s will and testament bequeathed to

his wife all the remainder of his real and personal properties at the time of his death. His likewise states that should both of them die, it shall be presumed that he predeceased his wife, and all estate shall be administered and distributed in accordance with such presumption. Evelyn’s will and testament contained her acknowledgement that in case both died, it shall be presumed she pre-deceased her husband. On January 9, 1982, the entire Cunanam family perished when their house was burned down. Salud, mother of Evelyn filed a petition for the probate of a wills, that were likewise admitted for probate in the US court. On June 23, Court granted probate but Cunanam heirs opposed and petitioned the court to nullify proceedings, disqualify petitioner as administratix. Judge recalled the appointment of petitioner as administratix and disallowed the probate of the 2 wills.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the 2 wills may be probated at the 2 wills may be probated at the same time in a court.

HELD:

Since the wills of the Cunanam spouse were admitted for probate, as American citizens, NCC provision was satisfied:

Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produce effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities by the law of the place in which he resides, or according in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.

What the law prohibits is the making of joint wills either for the testator’s reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. The Cunanam spouses executed separate will. Since the wills contain essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are conjugal in nature, practical considerations dictate their joint probate… we will always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation.

TAXATION

Oceanic Wireless Network vs. CIR

G.R. No. 148380

Azcuna, J.:

FACTS:

On March 17, 1988, petitioner received from BIR deficiency tax assessments for the taxable year 1984 in the total amount of P8,644,988.71. Petitioner filed protest and requested a cancellation but acting of behalf of BIR Commissioner, Mr. Buot denied the same. Final notice and warrant of distraint and levy were likewise served to petitioner who in turn filed a petition for review to CTA. CTA dismissed the same for lack of jurisdiction and the filing was beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the demand letter of January 24, 1991 cannot be considered as the same was signed by a mere subordinate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and signed by a subordinate officer who was acting in behalf of the CIR is deemed final and executor and subject to appeal to the CTA.

HELD:

The determination on whether or not a demand letter is ,final is conditioned upon the language used or the tenor of the letter being sent to the tax payer. Section 6 of the Code has it that examination of returns and determination of Tax due… “the Commissioner or his duly authorized rep.”

“The tax or any deficiency so assessed shall be paid upon notice or demand from the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative”

Thus, authority to make tax assessments may be delegated and said assessment has the same force or effects as that issued by the Commissioner. For CTA to acquire jurisdiction, an assessment must first be disputed by the taxpayer and ruled upon by the Commissioner to warrant a decision from which a petition for review may be taken to CTA. Where an adverse ruling has been rendered by the CIR with reference to disputed assessment or claim for refund on credit, the taxpayer may appeal the same within 30 days upon receipt thereof.

TAXATION

Philippine Journalists, Inc vs. CIR

G.R. 162852 December 16, 2004

Ynares – Santiago; J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner paid its income tax for 1994 in the amount of P10,247,387. On August 10, 1995, BIR examined the books of PJE and found a deficiency tax in the amount of P127,9840,433.20. Petitioner was invited to an informal conference upon which, its representative Tolentino signed a waiver of the Statutes of limitations which waived the running of the prescriptive period. PJI argued they did not receive any assessment notice and for whatever claim that CIR had over PJI has already prescribed when three years have lapsed from the time the deficiency was discovered and the same was served for final demand on December 1998. CIRcontends the waiver on the Statutes of limitation did not toll the running of the Prescriptive Period. CTA agreed but CA reversed othe decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the waiver of Statute of Limitations signed by Tolentino is valid in order that the prescriptive period was tolled.

HELD:

A waiver is not a unilateral act of the taxpayer, when Tolentino was the only party who signed, but it is an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR. The requirement to furnish the taxpayer with a copy of the waiver is not only to give notice of the existence of the document but of the acceptance by the BIR and the perfection of the agreement. The waiver document is incomplete and defective thus the three-year prescriptive period was not extended or tolled and continued to run until April 17, 1998.

The Court upheld that on the execution of waivers, the requirements should to strictly complied with. In the case at bar, the waiver of the Statute of Limitations on the following grounds: i) the waiver failed to state the date of the acceptance thereof by the BIR; ii) the fact of receipt by the taxpayer of his/her copy was not indicated in the original waiver and iii) the waiver was not signed by Commissioners.

TAXATION

Estate of Vda de Gabriel vs. CIR

G.R. No. 155541

Ynares – Santiago, J.:

FACTS:Philtrust managed the business affairs of Juliana Vda de Gabriel during her lifetime. Philttrust

filed for a petition for appointment as Special Administrator of her estate but denied by the probate Court. Another petition was filed but again denied by the court although the petitioner continued to represent the decedent by paying her income tax after her death.

Meanwhile, BIR assessed the estate of the decedent as having a deficiency tax. Notice of collection and final demand were subsequently sent by the respondent to the petitioner on behalf of the Estate. BIR contended that the Estate was sufficiently served with the Notice while the Estate, through Ambrosio denied the same. The lower court decided in favor of the Estate while the CA reversed the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the service on Philtrust of the demand letter was valid and its inaction of binds the Estate.

HELD:

The Court finds in favor of the Petitioner. The relationship of the decedent and Philtrust is that of agency and it ceases o exist at the death of the Principal (Vda de Gabriel). Philtrust was never appointed as the Administrator of the Estate, and never had a legal obligation to inform respondent that Vda de Gabriel was dead.

Since there was never any valid notice of the assessment, it could not have become final, executor and incontestable and for failure to make the assessment within the 5-year period provided in Sec. 318 of NIRC of 1997, respondent’s claim against the petitioner Estate is barred. In IR vs. Pascor Realty:

“An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer to determine his remedies thereon, due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.”

TAXATION

CIR vs. Isabela Cultural Corporation

G.R. No. 135210 July 11, 2001

Panganiban, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner assessed respondent of a deficiency tax amounting to over P9M. However, a protest filed by respondent made the CIR reduces the assessment to P333,196.86 and an interest of P4,897.79 as expanded withholding tax. In 1995, respondent received a final noticed and demanded payment for the deficiency within 10 days. Respondent considered such final notice of seizure as final decision, thus petition for review was file to CA. The CTA having rendered judgment dismissing the petition, CIR filed the instant petition anchored on the argument that petitioner’s issuance of the final notice before seizure constitute its decision appealable to CTA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Final Notice before seizure against ICC constitutes the final decision of the CIR appealable to CTA.

RULING:

Petition is not meritorious

The final notice cannot but be considered disposing of the request of respondent for reconsideration. Section 228 of NIRC states:

…If the protest is denied or is not acted upon within 180 days, from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision may appeal to CTA within 30 days from receipt of said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty day period otherwise the decision shall become final executor and demandable.

The case was remanded the CTA for proper disposal.

TAXATION

Lutz vs. Araneta

G.R No. L- 7859 December 22, 1955

Reyel,JBL;

Facts:

Walter Lutz, Judicial Administrator of the intestate estate of Ledesma. Sought to recover the sum of P 14, 666.40 paid by the estate as taxes, alleging that such tax is unconstitutional as it levied for the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively which is in his opinion not a public purpose.

Issue:

Whether or not tax valid in supporting the sugar industry?

Ruling:

The court ruled that the tax is valid as it served public purpose. The Tax provided for in C.A 567 is primarily an exercise of police power since sugar is a great source of income for the country and employees thousand of laborers/ Hence, it was competent for the legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the sugar industry should be established in turn: and in the wide filed of its police power, the lawmaking body could provide that the time distribution of benefits there from be readjusted among its component to enable it to resist the added strain of the increase in taxes that it had 40 sustain,

TAXATION

Commissioner of internal Revenue vs. Central

Luzonb Drug Corp. (Mercury Drug)

G.R 148512 June 26, 2006

Azcuna J:

Facts:

This is petitioner for review under rule 45 of ROC seeking the nullification of CA decision granting respondents claim for tax equal to the amount of the 20% that it extended to senior citizens on the latters purchaser pursuant to Senior Citizens Act. Respondent deducted the total amount of P 219,778 from its gross income for the taxable year 1995 whereby respondent did not pay tax for that year reporting a net loss of P 20, 963 in its corporate income tax. In 1996, claiming that the P 219, 778 should be applied as a tax credit, respondent claimed for refund in the amount of P 150, 193.00

Issue:

Whether or not the 20% discount granted by the respond dent to qualified senior citizens may be claimed as tax credit or as a deduction gross sale?

Ruling:

“Tax Credit” is explicitly provided for in Sec. 4 of R. A 7432. The Discount given to senior citizens is a tax credit, not a deduction from the gross sales of the establishment concerned.

The tax credit that is contemplated, not a remedy for taxes that were erroneously or illegally assessed and collected. In the same vein, prior payment of any tax liability is not a precondition before a taxable entity can benefit from tax credit. The credit may be availed of upon payment, if any. Where there is no tax liability or where a private established reports a net loss for the period, the tax credit taxable year.

TAXATION

Apostolic Prefect vs. City Treasurer of Baguio City

G.R 4752, April 18, 1941

Imperial:

Fact:

The Apostolic prefect is a corporation; of religious character organized under the phil. Laws imposed a special assessment against properties within its territorial jurisdiction, including those of the apostolic prefect, which benefits from its drainage and sewerage system. The Apostolic Prefect contends that its properties should be free of tax.

Issue:

Whether or not Apostolic Prefect, as a religious entity is exempt from the payment of the special assessment.

Ruling:

A special assessment is not a tax; and neither the decree nor the Constitution except the petitioner from payment of said special assessment. Although in its broad meaning, tax includes both general taxes and special assessment, yet there is a recognized distinction: Assessment is confined to local impositions upon property for the payment of the cost of public improvements in its immediate vicinity and levied with special benefits to the property assessed.

Petitioner, likewise, has not proven that the property in question is used exclusively for the religious purposes; but that it appears that the same is being used to other non- religious purposes. Thus, petitioner is required to pay the special assessment.

TAXATION

PAL vs. Edu

HRL- 41383 August 15, 1988

Gutierrez:

Facts:

PAL is engaged in air transportation business under a legislative franchise wherein it it’s exempt from tax payment. PAL has not been paying motor vehicle registration since 1956. The Land Registration required all tax exempt entities including PAL, to pay motor vehicle registration.

Issue:

Whether or not registration fees as to motor vehicles are taxes to which PAL is exempted.

Ruling:

Taxes are for revenue, whereas fees are exactions for purposes of regulation and reflection and are for that reason limited in amount to what is necessary to cover the cost of truth services renders in that in that connection. It is the object of the changes and not the name that determines whether a charge is a tax or a fee. The money collected under the motor vehicles Law is not intended for the expenditures of the MV office but accrues to the funds for the construction and maintenance of public roads streets and

As the fees are not collected for the regularity p0urposese as an incident to the enforcement of regulations governing the operations of motor vehicles on public highways for everyone’s use. They are veritable taxes, not merely fees. PAL is thus exempt from paying such fees, except for the b/n June 27, 1968 to April 9, 1979, where it tax exemption in the franchise repealed.

TAX

Caltex Philippines vs. COA

G.R No. 92585 May 8, 1992

Davide J:

Facts:

In 1989 COA sent a letter to Caltex directing it to remit to OP and F its collection of the additional tax on petroleum authorized under P. D 1956 and pending such remittance, all of its claims from the OP and F shall be held in abeyance. Petitioner requested COA for the early release of its reimbursement certificates from the OP and F covering claims with the Office of Energy Affairs, COA denied the same

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners can avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required under the law to remit to the OP and F against any amount that it may receive by way do reimbursement.

Ruling:

It is a settled rule that a taxpayer may not offset he may have against the government. Taxes cannot be the subject of the compensation and taxpayers are not mutually debtors and creditors of each other and claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract one judgment to be set-off.

The oil companies merely acted as agents for the government in the latter’s collection since taxes are passed unto the end- users, the consuming publics.

TAX

Domingo vs. Gartitles

G.R – 18993 June 29, 1963

Labrador, J.:

Facts:

In Domingo vs. Moscoso, the Supreme Court declared as final executor the ordered of the lower court for the payment of estate and inheritance taxes, charges and penalties amounting to P 40, 058.55 by the estate of the eat water price. The petition for execution filed by the fiscal was denied by the lower court. The court held that the execution is unjustified as the Government is indebted to the estate for 262, 200 and ordered the amount of inheritance taxes can be deducted from the Government’s indebtedness to the estate

Issue:

Whether or not a tax and a debt may be compensated.

Ruling:

The court having jurisdiction of the Estate had found that the claim of the Estate against the government has been recognized and the amount of P 262, 200 has already been appropriated by a corresponding law. Both the +claim of the Government for the intestate for services rendered have already become overdue and demanded as well as fully liquidated Compensation takes place by operation of law and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount. Therefore the petitioner has no clear right to execute the judgment for taxes against the estate of the deceased Walter Prices.

TAXATION- Presidents power to appropriate

Garcis vs. Executive Secretary

211 SCRA 219 July 3, 1992

Feleciano J:

Facts:

The president issued an Executive Order which imposed, across the board including crude oil and other oil products, additional duty advalorem The Tariff Commission held public hearing s on said E.O and submitted a report to the President for consideration and appropriate action. The President on the other hand issued and E. O which levied a special duty of P 0.95 per liter of imported oil products.

Ruling:

Whether or not The President issue an E. O which is tantamount to enacting a bill, in the nature of revenue- generating measure.

Ruling:

The Court said that although the enactments of appropriation, revenue and tariff of bills is within the province of the Legislative, it does not follow E.O in question herein, assuming they may be characterized as revenue measure are prohibited to the President, That they must be enacted instead by Congress Section 28 Article VI of the Constituent provides:

(2) The Congress may, by law authorized the President to fix, Tariff rates and other duties or imports.

The relevant Congressional Statute is the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines and Sections 104 and 401, the pertinent provisions thereof.

TAXATION- Veto on conditions power of the president- not allowed

Bengson vs. Drilon

G.R 103524 April 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133

Gutierez, J:

Facts:

Petitioners are retired justice of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals who are currently receiving pensions under RA 910 as amended by RA 1797. President Marcos issued a decree a repealing section 3-A of RA.1797 which authorized the adjustment of the pension of retired justice and officers and enlisted members of the Armed Forces. P.D 1638 was eventually issued by the Marcos which provided for the automatic readjust. Men was restored while that of the retired through H.B 16297 in 1990. When her adviser gave the wrong information that the questioned provision that the questioned provisions in 192 GAA were simply to attempt to overcome her earlier veto in 1990 President Aquino issued the veto now challenged in this petition.

It turns out the Pd 644 which repealed PH 1797 was still in effect and HB 16297 was superfluous because it and to restore benefits which were never taken away validly. The veto of HB 16297 did not also produce any affect.

Issue:

Whether or not the veto of the President of certain provisions in the 6AA of FY. 1992 relating to the payment of the adjusted pensions of retired Justices is constitutional or valid.

Ruling:

The Veto of these specific provisions in the 6AA is tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary how its funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant to fiscal autonomy, Pursuant to constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it the appropriate law.

Any argument which seeks to remove special privileges given by law to former Justice on the ground that there should be no grant of distinct privileges “preferential treatment” to retired justice ignores these provisions of the Constitutional provisions on special.

The petition is granted and the questioned veto is illegal and that provisions of 192 6AA are declared and valid and subsisting.

TAXATION- due process/ promotion of welfare

Reyes vs. Almazon

G.R 43839-46 April 26, 1991

196 SCRA 322

Paras, J:

Facts:

Petitioner is owners of parcels of land leased to tenants. RA 6359 was enacted prohibiting for one year an increase in monthly rentals of dwelling units and said Act also disallowed ejected of lesser upon the expiration of the usual period of lease. City assessor of Manila reassessed the value of petitioner’s property based on the schedule of the Secretary of Finance. The revision entailed an increase to the tax rates and petitioner’s metered that the reassessment imposed upon them greatly exceeded the annual income derived from their properties.

Issue:

Whether or not income approach is the method to be used in the tax assessment and not the comparable sales approach.

Ruling:

By no stretch of the imagination can the market value of properties covered by the P.D 20 be equated with the market value of properties not so covered. In the case at bar, not even the factors determinant of the assessed value of subject properties under the comparable sales approach were presented by respondent namely (1) that the sale must represent a bonafide arms length transaction between a willing buyer and (2) the property must be comparable property. As general rule. There were no takers so that there can be conclusions that these properties are comparable.

Taxes are lifeblood of government however, such collection should be made in accordance with the law and therefore necessary to reconcile complicating interest of the authorities so that the real purpose of taxation, promotion of the welfare of common good can be achieved.

Taxation-religious are not exempt for all taxes

Lladoc vs. CIR and CTA

GR 19201 June 16, 1965 14 SCRA 293

Paredes, J:

Facts;

MB Estate of Bacolod City donated P 10, 000.00 in cash to Fr. Ruiz, them Parish priest of Victorias, who was the predecessor of the petitioner. MB Estate filed their donor’s gift tax but a petitioner is an protest regarding donee’s tax against the Catholic Church the law; that when the donation was made he was not yet the parish priest.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner should be liable for the assessed donee’s gift tax donated.

Ruling:

A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift inter vivios, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious purposes, does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. : exempt from taxation” as employed in the Constitution should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes. And there being no clear, positive or express grant of such privilege by law in favor of petitioner, the exemption herein must be denied.

TAXATION

RCBC vs. CIR

G.R. No. 1684498 April 24, 2007

Ynares – Santiago, J.:

FACTS:

RCBC sought to file a petition for review with the CTA for failure of the Commissioner IR failure to act on its disputed tax assessment. However, the CTA 2nd division denied the petition because it was not filed within the reglementary period required by law. The CTA en banc affirmed the ;ruling of its second division, RCBC filed this motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the court, affirming the decision of the CTA en banc. RCBC maintained that its former counsel’s failure to file petition for review with the CTA within the reglementary period was excusable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RCBC had timely filed its petition for review before the CTA in order to give the latter jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:

Petitioner’s motion for Reconsideration denied

The CTA is a court of special jurisdiction and can only take cognizance of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. Sec 7 of RA 9282 amending RA 1125, the Law creating the CTA and Section 3 of Rules of Court of TA provides that CTA shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the 1) decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments refunds of internal revenues taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation threto, or other matters arising under NIRC or other laws administered BIR; 2) inaction by the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenues taxes, fees or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under NIRC, where the NIRC provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denials.

The jurisdiction of the CTA has been expanded to include not only decision or rulings but inactions inaction as well of the CIR. The decisions, rulings or inaction of the Commissioner are necessary in order to vest the CTA with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, provided it is filed within the period provided of by Section 3 Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of CTA.

In the instant case, the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within 180 days from the date of submission of documents. Thus, RCBC opted the file for review before the CTA. Unfortunately, the petition for review was filed out of time i.e. it was filed more than 30 days after the lapse of the 180-day period. Consequently, it was dismissed by the CTA for filing. RCBC did not file a motion for consideration of make an appeal; hence the disputed assessment become final, demandable and executory.

SUCCESSION

Vda de Ramos vs. CA

G.R. L – 40804 January 31, 1987

Guerrero, J.: 81 SCRA 397

FACTS:

Adelaida Nista and siblings Buenavetura and Marcelina both claimedto be the instituted heirs of Eugenia Danila, the adopting parents of both Buenaventura and Marcelina. Both parties agreed to settle extra judicially their claims towards the estate of the decedent. Barely two weeks after such agreement, or on November 16, 1968, Rosario de Ramos et al, filed a motion for have to intervene as co-petitioners alleging that being instituted heirs on devises, they have rights and interest to protect in the estate of Eugenia. They likewise filed their opposition to the compromise reached by Marcelina and Adelaida. The court granted the opposition and the original petition and amended opposition to probate of the alleged will and codicil stand. The lower court then allowed the probate of the will although two attesting witnesses, Odon and Rosendo testified that they did not see Eugenia signed the will but was already signed when they affix their signature. Notaries public Barcenas and Alvero affirmed the execution of the will.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the last testament and its accompanying codicil were executed in accordance with the formalities of the law, considering the complicated circumstances that two of the attesting witnesses testified against their due execution while other non-subscribing witnesses testified to the contrary.

RULING:

It appears positively that the documents were prepared by a lawyer and the execution of the same was evidently surprised by him. The solemnity surrounding the execution of a will is attended by some intricacies not usually within the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of the will and testament and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. If there should be any stress on the participation of the lawyers in the execution of the will, it cannot be less than the exercise of their primary duty to uphold the lofty purpose of the law.

SUCCESSION – PROBATE

Nuguid vs. NuguidG.R. L 2344 June 23, 1966 17SCRA 449Sanchez J.:

FACTS:

Rosario Nuguid, single died on December 30, 1962. She was without descendants but was survived by her parents and siblings. On May 18, 1963, Remedios Nuguid, her sister filed in CFI a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario on November 17, 1951 or 11 years ago. Sadi will instituted Remedios as the universal heir thereby, compulsory heirs, the ascendants of the dedcedent, filed their opposition to the probate proceeding. They contend that they were illegally preterited and as a consequence, the institution is void. The court’s order held that “the will in question is a complete nullity.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the compulsory heirs were preterited, thereby rendering the holographic will void.Whether the court may rule on the intrinsic validity of the ill.

RULING:

The statute we are called upon to apply in Article 854 of the Civil Code which states:

“The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inefficious”

The forced heirs, parents of the deceased, were received nothing by the testament. The one-sentence will institutes petitioner as the universal heir – no specific legacies or bequest are threin provided for. It is in this posture that we say that the nullity is complete.

Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his/her share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law.

On the second issue, the case is for the probate of the will and the court’s area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will. Examination on the intrinsic validity of the will comes after the will has been duly authenticated. However, if the case is to be remanded for probate if the case is to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. The practical conditions: time, effort, expense and added anxiety, induced us to a belief that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question.

TAXATION

CIR vs. CA

G.R. 119322 June 4, 1996

Berneguerero.com

FACTS:

On June 1, 1993, the President issued a Memorandum creating a Task Force to investigate the tax liabilities of manufacturers engaged in tax evasion scheme, such as selling products through dummy marketing corporations to avoid payment of correct internal revenue tax, to collect from them any tax liabilities discovered from such investigation, and to file the necessary criminal actions against those who may have violated the tax code. On July 1,1993, the CIR issued a Revenue Memorandum reclassifying best selling cigarettes bearing the brands “Hope”, “More” and “Champion” as cigarettes of foreign brands subject to a higher tax rate. In a letter received by Fortune on August 24, 1993, the Commissioner assessed the latter a deficiency tax amounting to P7,685,942,221.66, all for the year 1992.

On September 7, 1993, the Commissioner filed a complaint with the DOJ against Fortune, its corporate officers, et al. for alleged fraudulent tax evasion for supposed non-payment by Fortune of the correct amount of income tax, and valorem tax and value-added tax for the year 1992. The panel of prosecutors denied the motion to dismiss and treated the same as Fortune’s counter affidavits an issued an order denying motion for reconsideration, motion for suspension of investigation motion to inhibit the State Prosecutors and motion to require submission by the BIR of certain documents to support Fortune’s motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the tax due must be proven before the taxpayer is prosecuted for willful attempt to evade payment of tax, contrary to the Ungab vs. Cusi case.

RULING:

If every step in the production of cigarette was closely monitored and supervised by the BIR personnel specifically assigned to Fortune’s promises and considering that the manufacturer’s Swo0rn Declarations on the data required to be submitted by the manufacturer were scrutinized and verified by the BIR and since the manufacturer’s whole-sale price was duly approved by the BIR then it is presumed that such registered wholesale price is the same or approximates “the rice, excluding the VAT, at which the goods are sold at wholesale in the place production, otherwise the BIR would not have approved the registered wholesale price of goods for purposes of imposing the ad valorem tax due. In such case, and in the absence of contrary evidence, it was precipitate and premature to conclude that Fortune made fraudulent returns or willfully attempted to evade payment of taxes due. Before one is prosecuted for attempted to evade or defeat any tax under Sec 253 and 255 of the tax Code, the fact that a tax is due must first be proved. Before Fortune could be prosecuted for tax evasion, the fact that the deficiency income, ad valorem and value added taxes were due from Fortune for 1992 must first be established. The commissioner has nor resolved Fortune’s request for consideration up to the present. The Court cannot subscribe to Commissioner thesis citing Ungab ve Cusi, that the lack of determination of Fortune’s exact or correct tax liability is not a bar to criminal prosecution and that while precise computation and assessment is required for a civil action to collect tax deficiencies, the tax code does not require such computation and assessment prior to criminal prosecution.”

COPYRIGHT

Pearl & Dean Inc. vs. SM

GR 148222 August 15, 2003

FACTS:

Petitioner negotiated with SM for the lease and installation of light boxes for its use in SM Makati and SM Cubao. Within weeks, SM rescinded the contract alleging that P & D did not comply with the terms of their agreement. Eventually, P&D found out that SM, through another agent NEMI, put up their own light boxes for advertisement which was the object of the rescinded contract. P&D sued SM for unfair competition and infringement of trademark.

SM found out that P&D’s trademark for Poster Ads pertained to stationeries which do not actually include light boxes such as those installed by the former to its establishments. RTC of Makati decided in favor of P&D with damages against the plaintiff. CA however reversed the decision, thus this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not SM committed infringement of trademark or practiced unfair competition lby the action of installing light boxes in their stores.

RULING:

The court decided on the negative. Copyright does not extend to the structures themselves citing the case of Baker vs. Selden (101 U.S. 841, 1979). Said case promulgated a decision that “exclusivity to the actual forms is not extended by the copyright. Our court further emphasized that” copyright was limited to the drawings alone and not to the light box itself.

SC further defined the following: copyright is confined to literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain from the moment of their creation; trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods; patentable inventions refer to any technical solution in any field of human activity, which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable.

SUCCESION- Hologrophic Will (Substatial)

Kalaw vs. Relova

GR No. L-40207 Sept.28 1984

Melencio-Herrera J:

Facts:

Private Respondent Gregorio K. Kalaw filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will executed by Natividad K. Kalaw on December 24, 1968. Said will named Rosa K. Kalaw to be her sole heir but changed it to that of Gregorio’s absent the full signature of the decedent over such alterations as provided for the Art. 814 of the NCC. Rosa apposed the probate of the will of which originally instituted her as the sole heir.

Issue:

Whether or not the original unaltered text after subsequent alternations and insertions were voided by the trial court for lack of authentication by the full signature of the testatrix, should be probated or not, with her as sole heir.

Ruling:

The court ruled negatively, saying: “The holographic will in dispute had only one substantial provision, which was altered by substituting the original heir with another, but which alteration did not carry the requisite of full authentication by the full signature of the testator, the effect must be that entire will is voided that nothing remains in the will after that which could remain valid. To state that the will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.

SUCCESION- dated “Feb. /16

Roxas vs. De Jesus

Intestate Estate of Andres and Bibianan

De Jesus vs. Andres De Jesus, Jr.

G.R L-38338 January 28, 1985

Gutierez, HJr;

Facts:

Petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, was appointed administrator of his sister Bibiana’s estate. He found a notebook belonging to his sister, containing a letter will address to her children. It was entirely written and signed by Bibiana. The date of which was written: Feb/61”. Handwriting and signature that was written on what purposed to be her holographic will.

Issue:

Whether or not the date “Feb. /61” appearing on the holographic will of the deceased is a valid compliance with the Art. 810 of the Civil Code?

Ruling:

The court agreed with the petitioner when it contented that liberal construction of the holographic will should prevail. Neither absents any evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there any substitution of wills and testaments. There is no question that the holographic will of the deceased was entirely written, dated and signed by the testratix herself and in a language known to her.

The objection interposed by respondent Luz Henson that the holographic Will is fatally defective because the date “Feb/.61” appearing on the will is not sufficient compliance with Art. 810 of NCC was declared “too technical to be entertained” The SC pronounced that the Feb/61 appearing on the will is valid applying the principle of substantial compliance.

RESERVATION TROCAL- SUCCESSION

Maria Cano vs. Dir of Lands, Guerreno et.al

G.R L-107 January 16, 1959

Reyes, JBL. J

Facts:

The CFI of Sorsogon ordered that the two parcels of land be registered in the name of Maria Cano subject to right of reservation in favor of Eustaguia Guerrero. On Sep. 8 1955, reservista cano died and the Lower Court granted the petition for the issuance of a new certificate for the reason that the death of the reservista vested the ownership of the property in the petitioner as the sole reserve troncal. Opposites, heir of Maria Cano appealed the order insisting that reservation proceedings. This appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not an intestacy proceeding is necessary for the entitlement of reservation to the receivable property?

Ruling:

The court ruled no.

The Reservatorio is not the resevista’s successor mortis cause nor ids the reservable property part of the reservista’s estate; the reservatorio receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendants ( prepositus), said property merely reverting to the line of origin form which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista’s lifetime.

It is a consequence of these principles that up[on the death of reesrvista, the reservatorio nearest to the prepositus becomes automatically and by operation of law, the owner of the reservable property. As already state of the reservista and does not even answer for the debts of the latter.

SUCCESSION-Reserva Troncal

Tioco de Papa at all vs. Camacho at al.

G.R No. L- 28032 September 24, 1986

Narvasa.: J,

Facts:

Plaintiffs and respondent of this case are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being aunt and uncles of the respondent. Camacho inherited her property from her mother Trinidad, a descendant of Eustacio Dizon, Ist degree cousin of defendants.

Issue:

Whether or not uncles and aunts, together with the niece who survived reservista would be consiredred reservatories.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the uncles and aunts shall not share in the reservable property, since under the law of intestate succession a descendant’s uncle and aunts may not succed at intestate as long as nephew and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to inheret. The rule of proximity applies (The relatives in the direct ascending shall exclude relatives in the collateral line.)

Taxation

Lung Center vs. Quezon City

GR 144104 June 29, 2004

En Banc, Collejo J:

Facts;

The Lung Center is a charitable institution within the context of 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. The elements considered in determining a charitable institution is; its corporate purposes; constitution and by- laws, methods of administration, nature of the actual work performed, character of the services rendered, indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of properties. As a general

principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from government; and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.

Issue:

Whether or not the real properties of the Lung Center are exempt from the real property taxes.

Ruling;

Partly No. Those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not exempt form real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. Under PD 1823, the Lung Center does not enjoy any property tax exemptions privileges for its real properties as well as the building constructed thereon

The property tax exemption under Sec. 28 (3), Art. Vl of the 1987 Constitutional covers the property taxes only. This provision was implement by Sec 234 (b) of RA 7160 which provides that in order to be entitled to the exemption. The Lung center must be able to prove that: it is a charitable institution and; its real properties are actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. Accordingly, the portions occupied by the hospital used for its patients are exempt from real property taxes while those leased to private entitles are not exempt from such taxes.

Taxation- Medical Arts Bldg. as “Special City Assessor of Cebu vs.

Association of Benevola De Cebu

Gr. 152904 June 8, 2007

Velasco, Jr. J

Facts:

Benevola de Cebu is a non- stock non- profit organization which in 1990, a medical arts building was constructed and in 1998 was issued with a certification classifying the building as commercial. City assessed the building with a market value of P 28, 060, 520 and an assessed value of P 9, 821, 180 at the assessment level of 35% and not 10% which is currently imposed on private respondent herein.

Petitioner claimed that the building is used as commercial clinic/ spaces for renting out to physicians and thus classified as commercial. Benevola de Cebu contented that the building ids used actually, directly and exclusively part of hospital and should have an assessment level of 10%.

Issue:

Whether or not the new building is liable to pay the 35% assessment level?

Ruling:

We hold that the new building is an integral part of the hospital and should not be assessed as commercial. Being part of the Hospital it is mandate to fully departmentalized and be equipped with the service capabilities needed to support the certified medical specialities and other licenmsed, physicians. The fact that they are holding office in a separate and nature of their services vis-à-vis the overall operation of the hospitals and to its patients.

Under the Local Government Unit Code, Sec 26, All Lands, building and other improvements thereon actually, directly and exclusively used for hospitals, cultural or scientific purposes and those armed and used by local water districts. Shall be classified as special.

Taxation

Association of Custom Brokers vs. Manila

G.R L- 4376 May 22, 1953

En banc

Facts:

The Municipal Board of Manila passed ordinance No. 3379 which imposes a property tax which is within the power of the city under its revised charter. The ordinance was passed by the Municipal Board under the authority conferred by the section 18 of R.A 409

Issue:

Whether the Ordinance infringers on the rule on uniformity of taxes as ordained by the Constitution.

Ruling;

The ordinance exacts the tax upon all motor vehicles operating within Manila and Does not distinguished between a motor which registered is the City of Manila and one registered in another place nor does it distinguished private or vehicle for hire. The distinction is important if we note that the ordinance intends to burden with the tax only those registered in Manila. There is no pretends that the Ordinance equally applies to vehicles who come to Manila for a temporary purpose.

Taxation

Commission of Internal Revenue vs. CA, Anscor

G.R No. 108576 January 20, 1999

Martinez, J:

Facts:

In 1930, Andres Soriano, a citizen and resident of U.S formed Anscor with capital of 1M divided into 10, 000.00 common shares. Anscor is wholly owned and controlled by the family of Don Andres, who are all non- resident aliens. In 1945, Don Andres transferred 1, 250 shares to his two sons as their initial investment. 1947, Anscor declared stock dividend and also between 1949 and 1963. Don Andres.

Died in 1964 and Left a shareholding of 185, 154 shares. By a Board Resolution, Anscor redeemed 108, 000 common shares from the estate of Don Andres. Revenue examiners, in 1973 issued a report that Anscor be assessed for deficiency withholding tax at source but the Corporation claimed that they availed of tax amnesty under PD 23.

Anscor filed a petition for review with the CTA availing that tax assessment on the redemptions and exchange of stocks. Ca affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether on or Anscor redemption of stocks from its stockholder as well as the exchange of common with preferred shares can be considered as essentially equivalent to the distribution of taxable dividend” making the proceeds thereof taxable under the provisions of 1939 Revenue Act.

Ruling;

Not being taxpayers but a tax agent on behalf of the government, Anscor is not protected by the amnesty under the Decree. The implementing rules of PD 23 are very explicit to wit. Tax liabilities with or without assessment, on withholding tax at source provided under Sec. 53 and 54 of the NIRC.

Anscor was assessed under said Sections thus by specific provision of law, it is not covered by amnesty.

The three elements in the impositions of income tax are. 1) There must be gain and or profit, 2) that the gain and or is realized or received actually or constructively, and 3) it is not exempted by law or treaty from income tax.

The redemption made by anscor converts into money the stock dividends which become a realized profit or gain and consequently, the stockholders separate property. As realized income the proceeds of the redeemed stock dividends can be reached by income taxation regardless of the existence of any business purpose for the redemption. To rule that said proceeds are exempt from tax when the redemption is supported by legitimate business reasons would open doors for income earners not to pay tax so long as the person from whom the income was divided has legitimate business reasons.

CA’s decision is modified in that Anscor’s decision is modified in that Ansccor’s redemption of stock dividends is hereby considered as essentially equivalent to distribution taxable dividends for which it is liable for the withholding tax-at-source.

TAXATION

Pimentel vs. Aguirre

GR 132988. July 19, 2000

Panganiban, J;

Facts:

In 1997, the President Ramos issued AO 372 pertinent portion on the assailed provision to wits.

Section 4, pending assessment and evaluation by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee of the emerging fiscal situation, the amount equivalent to 10% of the internal revenue allotment to the local government unit shall be withheld.

Subsequently, then Pres. Estrada amended the provision and reduced to 5% the amount of IRA to be withheld. Petition contends that the President was in effect exercising control, not supervision over LGU.

Issue:

Whether or not the withholding of their IRA, are valid exercise of the Presidents power of general supervision over local governments.

Ruling:

Local government units, I addition to having administrative autonomy in their exercise of their function, enjoy fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government. As well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. A basis feature of local fiscal autonomy is the autonomic released of the shares of LGU’s in the IRA.

Local Government code provides that release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned with 5 days after not is subjected to any Lin or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.

Section 4 has no color of validity at all. Said provision encroaches on the fiscal autonomy of local government unit.

Succession

Acain vs. IAC

G.R 72706 October 27, 1987

Paras J:

Facts:

Constantino filed for the probate the will of his deceased child brother Nemesio, The spouse and adopted child of the decedent apposed the probate of will because of pwtition. RTC dismissed the petition of the wife. CA reversed and the probate thus, was dismissed.

Issue:

Whether or not there was petition of the “Compulsory heirs in the direct time” thus their commission shall not annul the institution of heirs.

Ruling:

Petition consists in the omission of the enforced heirs because they are not mentioned therein, or though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly is inherited, As of the widow, there is no petition because shall is not in the direct line. However, the same amount be said for the adopted child whose legal adoption has not been questioned by the petitioners. Adoption given to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person. A legal heir hence, this is a clear case of petitioner.

The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sister to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the mollification of such institution of universal heirs, without any other testamentary disposition in the will amounts to a declaration that nothing was s written. No legacies in the will, the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters.

CIV PRO

BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Laws)

Vaca and Nieto vs. CA and PP

GR 131714 Nov. 16, 1998

Mendoza J.

Facts:

Petitioners Vaca and Nieto is the owner purchasing manager respectively, of Ervine Int’l who rendered security services to the former. After more than 5 days since notice of dishonor was given to Ervine, the latter issued another check amounting to P 19, 860.16 which also covered the previous check of P 10,000.00 which they have issued on September 18, 1989 however acting operations Manager of Gard’s filed a complaint for violation of B.P 22 against petitioner and the RTC decided against Ervine. The CA affirmed the decision of the RCT and consequently denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration, thus the appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in finding the petitioners guilty of violation of B.P 22?

Ruling:

The SC ruled that petitioner conviction for violation of BP Bldg. 22 is well founded.

The elements of the offense penalized under B. P Blg. 22 are: 1) making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply to account or for any check to apply to account or for value; 20 Knowledge of the maker , drawer, or issuer that at the time of the issue he does not have insufficient fund in of credit with the drawer bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentments; and, 3) Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The maker’s knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds.

SC further reiterated sec 2 of B.P Blg. 22 which requires that check be given within five days from the notice of dishonor to them.