Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 225 views

    Vera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Jay-ar Rivera Badulis
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether claims by the government for unpaid taxes are barred by the statute of non-claims under the Rules of Court. The court ruled that statute does not bar tax claims, as taxes represent a legal obligation of the decedent unlike other claims expressly enumerated in the statute such as contract claims. The court noted taxes are vital for government operations and allowing tax claims helps protect public interests over private interests of an estate. The court ultimately granted the petition and allowed the government's claim for unpaid taxes against the estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Vera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Jay-ar Rivera Badulis
    225 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether claims by the government for unpaid taxes are barred by the statute of non-claims under the Rules of Court. The court ruled that statute does not bar tax claims, as taxes represent a legal obligation of the decedent unlike other claims expressly enumerated in the statute such as contract claims. The court noted taxes are vital for government operations and allowing tax claims helps protect public interests over private interests of an estate. The court ultimately granted the petition and allowed the government's claim for unpaid taxes against the estate.

    Original Description:

    Tax Law 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether claims by the government for unpaid taxes are barred by the statute of non-claims under the Rules of Court. The court ruled that statute does not bar tax claims, as taxes represent a legal obligation of the decedent unlike other claims expressly enumerated in the statute such as contract claims. The court noted taxes are vital for government operations and allowing tax claims helps protect public interests over private interests of an estate. The court ultimately granted the petition and allowed the government's claim for unpaid taxes against the estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    225 views2 pages

    Vera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Jay-ar Rivera Badulis
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether claims by the government for unpaid taxes are barred by the statute of non-claims under the Rules of Court. The court ruled that statute does not bar tax claims, as taxes represent a legal obligation of the decedent unlike other claims expressly enumerated in the statute such as contract claims. The court noted taxes are vital for government operations and allowing tax claims helps protect public interests over private interests of an estate. The court ultimately granted the petition and allowed the government's claim for unpaid taxes against the estate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [TAX 1] General Principles of Taxation 02

    JRRB
    Vera v. Fernandez
    G.R. No. L-31364 | March 30, 1979| De Castro, J.:
    Petitioners: MISAEL P. VERA, as Commissioner of Internal
    Revenue, and JAIME ARANETA, as Regional Director, Revenue
    Region No. 14, Bureau of Internal Revenue
    Respondents: HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, Judge of the Court
    of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, and
    FRANCIS A. TONGOY, Administrator of the Estate of the late
    LUIS D. TONGOY respondents.

    FACTS
    A motion for allowance of claim and for payment of taxes
    was filed in a special proceedings entitled: "Intestate
    Estate of Luis D. Tongoy," The claim represents the
    indebtedness to the Government of the late Luis D.
    Tongoy for deficiency income taxes in the total sum of
    P3,254.80. The Administrator opposed the motion solely
    on the ground that the claim was barred under Section 5,
    Rule 861 of the Rules of Court. Finding the opposition
    well-founded, the respondent Judge dismissed the motion
    for allowance of claim filed by herein petitioner. A MR
    was filed, but was denied. Hence, this appeal on
    certiorari,

    ISSUE(S)
    W/N the statute of non-claims Section 5, Rule 86 of the
    New Rule of Court, bars claim of the government for
    unpaid taxes, still within the period of limitation
    prescribed in Section 331 and 332 of the National
    Internal Revenue Code. NO
    RULING
    A perusal of the aforequoted provisions shows that it
    makes no mention of claims for monetary obligation of
    the decedent created by law, such as taxes which is
    entirely of different character from the claims expressly
    enumerated therein, such as: "all claims for money
    against the decedent arising from contract, express or
    implied, whether the same be due, not due or contingent,

    All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contracts,
    express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or
    contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last
    sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
    decedent, must be filed within the time limited in they notice;
    otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth
    as counter claims in any action that the executor or administrator
    may bring against the claimants. xxx

    all claim for funeral expenses and expenses for the last
    sickness of the decedent and judgment for money against
    the decedent." Under the familiar rule of statutory
    construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius , the
    mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another
    thing not mentioned. Thus, if a statute enumerates the
    things upon which it is to operate, everything else must
    necessarily, and by implication be excluded from its
    operation and effect.
    The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for
    taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of exception
    from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not
    hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the Government
    and their prompt and certain availability are imperious
    need. Upon taxation depends the Government ability to
    serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To
    safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of
    government officials entrusted with the collection of
    taxes should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment
    to the people, in the same manner as private persons
    may be made to suffer individually on account of his own
    negligence, the presumption being that they take good
    care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to
    government officials with respect to matters not of their
    own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the
    government's exception, as a general rule, from the
    operation of the principle of estoppel.
    Furthermore, per Section 315 of the Tax Code, payment
    of income tax shall be a lien in favor of the Government
    of the Philippines from the time the assessment was
    made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue until paid
    with interests, penalties, etc. By virtue of such lien, this
    court held that the property of the estate already in the
    hands of an heir or transferee may be subject to the
    payment of the tax due the estate. Before the inheritance
    has passed to the heirs, the unpaid taxes due the
    decedent may be collected, even without its having been
    presented under Section 2 of Rule 86 2 of the Rules of
    Court. It may truly be said that until the property of the
    estate of the decedent has vested in the heirs, the
    decedent, represented by his estate, continues as if he
    were still alive, subject to the payment of such taxes as
    would be collectible from the estate even after his death.

    Section 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. - In the notice


    provided in the preceding section, the court shall state the time for
    the filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more than
    twelve (12) nor less than six (6) months after the date of the first
    publication of the notice. However, at any time before an order of
    distribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to
    file his claim within the time previously limited the court may, for
    cause shown and on such terms as are equitable, allow such claim
    to be flied within a time not exceeding one (1) month.

    [TAX 1] General Principles of Taxation 02


    JRRB

    Even assuming arguendo that claims for taxes have to be


    filed within the time prescribed in Section 2, Rule 86 of
    the Rules of Court, the claim in question may be filed
    even after the expiration of the time originally fixed
    therein, as may be gleaned from the italicized portion of
    the Rule (see footnote 2)
    In the instant case, petitioners filed an application
    (Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of
    Payment of Taxes) which, though filed after the expiration
    of the time previously limited but before an order of the
    distribution is entered, should have been granted by the
    respondent court, in the absence of any valid ground, as
    none was shown, justifying denial of the motion, specially

    considering that it was for allowance Of claim for taxes


    due from the estate, which in effect represents a claim of
    the people at large, the only reason given for the denial
    that the claim was filed out of the previously limited
    period, sustaining thereby private respondents'
    contention, erroneously as has been demonstrated.
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION
    Petition is GRANTED.

    You might also like