Republic vs. de La Rama
Republic vs. de La Rama
Republic vs. de La Rama
The estate was still under the administration of Eliseo In the instant case, the person adversely affected
Hervas as regards the collection of said dividends. The should have been the administrator of the estate, and
administrator was the representative of the estate, the notice of the assessment should have been sent to
whose duty it was to pay and discharge all debts and him. The administrator had not received the notice of
charges on the estate and to perform all orders of the assessment, and he could not appeal the assessment to
court by him to be performed (Rule 71, Section 1), and the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from notice.
to pay the taxes and assessments due to the Hence the assessment did not fall within the exclusive
Government or any branch or subdivision thereof jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals.
(Section 7, Rule 89, Old Rules of Court). The tax must be
collected from the estate of the deceased, and it is the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed
administrator who is under obligation to pay such claim from should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, without costs.
(Estate of Claude E. Haygood.) (Collector of Internal Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala,
Revenue v. Haygood, 65 Phil. 520). The notice of Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez and Castro,
assessment, therefore, should have been sent to the JJ., concur.
administrator. In this case, notice was first sent to
Lourdes de la Rama-Osmeña on February 29, 1956, and
4