G.R. No.

L-34937

March 13, 1933

CONCEPCION VIDAL DE ROCES and her husband, MARCOS ROCES, and ELVIRA VIDAL DE RICHARDS, plaintiffappellants, vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, defendantappellee. Feria and La O for appellants. Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee. IMPERIAL, J.: The plaintiffs herein brought this action to recover from the defendant, Collector of Internal Revenue, certain sums of money paid by them under protest as inheritance tax. They appealed from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the action, without costs. On March 10 and 12, 1925, Esperanza Tuazon, by means of public documents, donated certain parcels of land situated in Manila to the plaintiffs herein, who, with their respective husbands, accepted them in the same public documents, which were duly recorded in the registry of deeds. By virtue of said donations, the plaintiffs took possession of the said lands, received the fruits thereof and obtained the corresponding transfer certificates of title. On January 5, 1926, the donor died in the City of Manila without leaving any forced heir and her will which was admitted to probate, she bequeathed to each of the donees the sum of P5,000. After the estate had been distributed among the instituted legatees and before delivery of their respective shares, the appellee herein, as Collector of Internal Revenue, ruled that the appellants, as donees and legatees, should pay as inheritance tax the sums of P16,673 and P13,951.45, respectively. Of these sums P15,191.48 was levied as tax on the donation to Concepcion Vidal de Roces and P1,481.52 on her legacy, and, likewise, P12,388.95 was imposed upon the donation made to Elvira Vidal de Richards and P1,462.50 on her legacy. At first the appellants refused to pay the aforementioned taxes but, at the insistence of the appellee and in order not to delay the adjudication of the legacies, they agreed at last, to pay them under protest. The appellee filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged therein were not sufficient to constitute a cause of

action. After the legal questions raised therein had been discussed, the court sustained the demurrer and ordered the amendment of the complaint which the appellants failed to do, whereupon the trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the afore- mentioned appellants did not really have a right of action. In their brief, the appellants assign only one alleged error, to wit: that the demurrer interposed by the appellee was sustained without sufficient ground. The judgment appealed from was based on the provisions of section 1540 Administrative Code which reads as follows: SEC. 1540. Additions of gifts and advances. After the aforementioned deductions have been made, there shall be added to the resulting amount the value of all gifts or advances made by the predecessor to any those who, after his death, shall prove to be his heirs, devisees, legatees, or donees mortis causa. The appellants contend that the above-mentioned legal provision does not include donations inter vivos and if it does, it is unconstitutional, null and void for the following reasons: first, because it violates section 3 of the Jones Law which provides that no law should embrace more than one subject, and that subject should be expressed in the title thereof; second that the Legislature has no authority to impose inheritance tax on donations inter vivos; and third, because a legal provision of this character contravenes the fundamental rule of uniformity of taxation. The appellee, in turn, contends that the words "all gifts" refer clearly to donations inter vivos and, in support of his theory, cites the doctrine laid in the case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas (54 Phil., 289). After a careful study of the law and the authorities applicable thereto, we are the opinion that neither theory reflects the true spirit of the aforementioned provision. The gifts referred to in section 1540 of the Revised Administration Code are, obviously, those donations inter vivos that take effect immediately or during the lifetime of the donor but are made in consideration or in contemplation of death. Gifts inter vivos, the transmission of which is not made in contemplation of the donor's death should not be understood as included within the said legal provision for the reason that it would amount to imposing a direct tax on property and not on the transmission thereof, which act does not come within the scope of the provisions contained in Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which deals expressly with the tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa.

Our interpretation of the law is not in conflict with the rule laid down in the case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas, supra. We said therein, as we say now, that the expression "all gifts" refers to gifts inter vivos inasmuch as the law considers them as advances on inheritance, in the sense that they are gifts inter vivos made in contemplation or in consideration of death. In that case, it was not held that that kind of gifts consisted in those made completely independent of death or without regard to it. Said legal provision is not null and void on the alleged ground that the subject matter thereof is not embraced in the title of the section under which it is enumerated. On the contrary, its provisions are perfectly summarized in the heading, "Tax on Inheritance, etc." which is the title of Article XI. Furthermore, the constitutional provision cited should not be strictly construed as to make it necessary that the title contain a full index to all the contents of the law. It is sufficient if the language used therein is expressed in such a way that in case of doubt it would afford a means of determining the legislators intention. (Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, Vol. II, p. 651.) Lastly, the circumstance that the Administrative Code was prepared and compiled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Jones Law on that matter should not be overlooked and that, in a compilation of laws such as the Administrative Code, it is but natural and proper that provisions referring to diverse matters should be found. (Ayson and Ignacio vs. Provincial Board of Rizal and Municipal Council of Navotas, 39 Phil., 931.) The appellants question the power of the Legislature to impose taxes on the transmission of real estate that takes effect immediately and during the lifetime of the donor, and allege as their reason that such tax partakes of the nature of the land tax which the law has already created in another part of the Administrative Code. Without making express pronouncement on this question, for it is unnecessary, we wish to state that such is not the case in these instance. The tax collected by the appellee on the properties donated in 1925 really constitutes an inheritance tax imposed on the transmission of said properties in contemplation or in consideration of the donor's death and under the circumstance that the donees were later instituted as the former's legatees. For this reason, the law considers such transmissions in the form of gifts inter vivos, as advances on inheritance and nothing therein violates any constitutional provision, inasmuch as said legislation is within the power of the Legislature. Property Subject to Inheritance Tax. The inheritance tax ordinarily applies to all property within the power of the

state to reach passing by will or the laws regulating intestate succession or by gift inter vivos in the manner designated by statute, whether such property be real or personal, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal. (26 R.C.L., p. 208, par. 177.) In the case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas, supra, it was also held that section 1540 of the Administrative Code did not violate the constitutional provision regarding uniformity of taxation. It cannot be null and void on this ground because it equally subjects to the same tax all of those donees who later become heirs, legatees or donees mortis causa by the will of the donor. There would be a repugnant and arbitrary exception if the provisions of the law were not applicable to all donees of the same kind. In the case cited above, it was said: "At any rate the argument adduced against its constitutionality, which is the lack of Uniformity, does not seem to be well founded. It was said that under such an interpretation, while a donee inter vivos who, after the predecessor's death proved to be an heir, a legatee, or a donee mortis causa, would have to pay the tax, another donee inter vivos who did not prove to he an heir, a legatee, or a donee mortis causa of the predecessor, would be exempt from such a tax. But as these are two different cases, the principle of uniformity is inapplicable to them." The last question of a procedural nature arising from the case at bar, which should be passed upon, is whether the case, as it now stands, can be decided on the merits or should be remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. According to our view of the case, it follows that, if the gifts received by the appellants would have the right to recover the sums of money claimed by them. Hence the necessity of ascertaining whether the complaint contains an allegation to that effect. We have examined said complaint and found nothing of that nature. On the contrary, it be may be inferred from the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 7 thereof that said donations inter vivos were made in consideration of the donor's death. We refer to the allegations that such transmissions were effected in the month of March, 1925, that the donor died in January, 1926, and that the donees were instituted legatees in the donor's will which was admitted to probate. It is from these allegations, especially the last, that we infer a presumption juris tantum that said donations were made mortis causa and, as such, are subject to the payment of inheritance tax. Wherefore, the demurrer interposed by the appellee was wellfounded because it appears that the complaint did not allege fact sufficient to constitute a cause of action. When the appellants refused

to amend the same, spite of the court's order to that effect, they voluntarily waived the opportunity offered them and they are not now entitled to have the case remanded for further proceedings, which would serve no purpose altogether in view of the insufficiency of the complaint. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Villamor, Ostrand, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Buttes, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions VILLA-REAL, J., dissenting: I sustain my concurrence in Justice Street's dissenting opinion in the case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas (54 Phil., 289). The majority opinion to distinguish the present case from abovementioned case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas, by interpreting section 1540 of the Administrative Code in the sense that it establishes the legal presumption juris tantum that all gifts inter vivos made to persons who are not forced heirs but who are instituted legatees in the donor's will, have been made in contemplation of the donor's death. Presumptions are of two kinds: One determined by law which is also called presumption of law or of right; and another which is formed by the judge from circumstances antecedent to, coincident with or subsequent to the principal fact under investigation, which is also called presumption of man (presuncion de hombre). (Escriche, Vol. IV, p. 662.) The Civil Code as well as the code of Civil Procedure establishes presumptions juris et de jure and juris tantum which the courts should take into account in deciding questions of law submitted to them for decision. The presumption which majority opinion wishes to draw from said section 1540 of the Administrative Code can neither be found in this Code nor in any of the aforementioned Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, said presumption cannot be called legal or of law. Neither can it be called a presumption of man (presuncion de hombre) inasmuch as the majority opinion did not infer it from circumstances antecedent to, coincident with or subsequent to the principal fact with is the donation itself. In view of the nature, mode of making and effects of donations inter vivos, the contrary presumption would be more reasonable and logical; in other words, donations inter vivos made to

persons who are not forced heirs, but who are instituted legatees in the donor's will, should be presumed as not made mortis causa, unless the contrary is proven. In the case under consideration, the burden of the proof rests with the person who contends that the donation inter vivos has been made mortis causa. It is therefore, the undersigned's humble opinion that the order appealed from should be reversed and the demurrer overruled, and the defendant ordered to file his answer to the complaint. Street, J., concurs.

G.R. No. L-36770

November 4, 1932

LUIS W. DISON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, defendantappellant. Marcelino Aguas for plaintiff-appellant. Attorney-General Jaranilla for defendant-appellant. BUTTE, J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in favor of the defendant Juan Posadas, Jr., Collector of Internal Revenue, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, Luis W. Dison, for the recovery of an inheritance tax in the sum of P2,808.73 paid under protest. The petitioner alleged in his complaint that the tax is illegal because he received the property, which is the basis of the tax, from his father before his death by a deed of gift inter vivos which was duly accepted and registered before the death of his father. The defendant answered with a general denial and with a counterdemand for the sum of P1,245.56 which it was alleged is a balance still due and unpaid on account of said tax. The plaintiff replied to the counterdemand with a general denial. The court a quo held that the cause of action set up in the counterdemand was not proven and dismissed the same. Both sides appealed to this court, but the cross-complaint and appeal of the Collector of Internal Revenue were dismissed by this court on March 17, 1932, on motion of the Attorney-General.1awphil.net The only evidence introduced at the trial of this cause was the proof of payment of the tax under protest, as stated, and the deed of gift executed by Felix Dison on April 9, 1928, in favor of his sons Luis W. Dison, the plaintiff-appellant. This deed of gift transferred twentytwo tracts of land to the donee, reserving to the donor for his life the usufruct of three tracts. This deed was acknowledged by the donor before a notary public on April 16, 1928. Luis W. Dison, on April 17, 1928, formally accepted said gift by an instrument in writing which he acknowledged before a notary public on April 20, 1928. At the trial the parties agreed to and filed the following ingenious stipulation of fact: 1. That Don Felix Dison died on April 21, 1928;

2. That Don Felix Dison, before his death, made a gift inter vivos in favor of the plaintiff Luis W. Dison of all his property according to a deed of gift (Exhibit D) which includes all the property of Don Felix Dizon; 3. That the plaintiff did not receive property of any kind of Don Felix Dison upon the death of the latter; 4. That Don Luis W. Dison was the legitimate and only child of Don Felix Dison. It is inferred from Exhibit D that Felix Dison was a widower at the time of his death. The theory of the plaintiff-appellant is that he received and holds the property mentioned by a consummated gift and that Act No. 2601 (Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code) being the inheritance tax statute, does not tax gifts. The provision directly here involved is section 1540 of the Administrative Code which reads as follows: Additions of Gifts and Advances. After the aforementioned deductions have been made, there shall be added to the resulting amount the value of all gifts or advances made by the predecessor to any of those who, after his death, shall prove to be his heirs, devises, legatees, or donees mortis causa. The question to be resolved may be stated thus: Does section 1540 of the Administrative Code subject the plaintiff-appellant to the payment of an inheritance tax? The appellant argues that there is no evidence in this case to support a finding that the gift was simulated and that it was an artifice for evading the payment of the inheritance tax, as is intimated in the decision of the court below and the brief of the Attorney-General. We see no reason why the court may not go behind the language in which the transaction is masked in order to ascertain its true character and purpose. In this case the scanty facts before us may not warrant the inference that the conveyance, acknowledged by the donor five days before his death and accepted by the donee one day before the donor's death, was fraudulently made for the purpose of evading the inheritance tax. But the facts, in our opinion, do warrant the inference that the transfer was an advancement upon the inheritance which the donee, as the sole and

forced heir of the donor, would be entitled to receive upon the death of the donor. The argument advanced by the appellant that he is not an heir of his deceased father within the meaning of section 1540 of the Administrative Code because his father in his lifetime had given the appellant all his property and left no property to be inherited, is so fallacious that the urging of it here casts a suspicion upon the appellants reason for completing the legal formalities of the transfer on the eve of the latter's death. We do not know whether or not the father in this case left a will; in any event, this appellant could not be deprived of his share of the inheritance because the Civil Code confers upon him the status of a forced heir. We construe the expression in section 1540 "any of those who, after his death, shall prove to be his heirs", to include those who, by our law, are given the status and rights of heirs, regardless of the quantity of property they may receive as such heirs. That the appellant in this case occupies the status of heir to his deceased father cannot be questioned. Construing the conveyance here in question, under the facts presented, as an advance made by Felix Dison to his only child, we hold section 1540 to be applicable and the tax to have been properly assessed by the Collector of Internal Revenue. This appeal was originally assigned to a Division of five but referred to the court in banc by reason of the appellant's attack upon the constitutionality of section 1540. This attack is based on the sole ground that insofar as section 1540 levies a tax upon gifts inter vivos, it violates that provision of section 3 of the organic Act of the Philippine Islands (39 Stat. L., 545) which reads as follows: "That no bill which may be enacted into law shall embraced more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill." Neither the title of Act No. 2601 nor chapter 40 of the Administrative Code makes any reference to a tax on gifts. Perhaps it is enough to say of this contention that section 1540 plainly does not tax gifts per se but only when those gifts are made to those who shall prove to be the heirs, devisees, legatees or donees mortis causa of the donor. This court said in the case of Tuason and Tuason vs. Posadas 954 Phil., 289):lawphil.net When the law says all gifts, it doubtless refers to gifts inter vivos, and not mortis causa. Both the letter and the spirit of the law leave no room for any other interpretation. Such, clearly, is the tenor of the language which refers to donations that took effect before the donor's death, and not to mortis causadonations, which can only be made with the formalities of a will, and can only

take effect after the donor's death. Any other construction would virtually change this provision into: ". . . there shall be added to the resulting amount the value of all gifts mortis causa . . . made by the predecessor to those who, after his death, shall prove to be his . . . donees mortis causa." We cannot give to the law an interpretation that would so vitiate its language. The truth of the matter is that in this section (1540) the law presumes that such gifts have been made in anticipation of inheritance, devise, bequest, or gift mortis causa, when the donee, after the death of the donor proves to be his heir, devisee or donee mortis causa, for the purpose of evading the tax, and it is to prevent this that it provides that they shall be added to the resulting amount." However much appellant's argument on this point may fit his preconceived notion that the transaction between him and his father was a consummated gift with no relation to the inheritance, we hold that there is not merit in this attack upon the constitutionality of section 1540 under our view of the facts. No other constitutional questions were raised in this case. The judgment below is affirmed with costs in this instance against the appellant. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Abad Santos, Vickers and Imperial, JJ., concur.

[G.R. No. 123206. March 22, 2000] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and JOSEFINA P. PAJONAR, as Administratrix of the Estate of Pedro P. Pajonar, respondents. RESOLUTION GONZAGA-REYES, J.: Supr-ema Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the December 21, 1995 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 34399 affirming the June 7, 1994 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 4381 granting private respondent Josefina P. Pajonar, as administratrix of the estate of Pedro P. Pajonar, a tax refund in the amount of P76,502.42, representing erroneously paid estate taxes for the year 1988. Pedro Pajonar, a member of the Philippine Scout, Bataan Contingent, during the second World War, was a part of the infamous Death March by reason of which he suffered shock and became insane. His sister Josefina Pajonar became the guardian over his person, while his property was placed under the guardianship of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, in Special Proceedings No. 1254. He died on January 10, 1988. He was survived by his two brothers Isidro P. Pajonar and Gregorio Pajonar, his sister Josefina Pajonar, nephews Concordio Jandog and Mario Jandog and niece Conchita Jandog. On May 11, 1988, the PNB filed an accounting of the decedent's property under guardianship valued at P3,037,672.09 in Special Proceedings No. 1254. However, the PNB did not file an estate tax return, instead it advised Pedro Pajonar's heirs to execute an extrajudicial settlement and to pay the taxes on his estate. On April 5, 1988, pursuant to the assessment by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the estate of Pedro Pajonar paid taxes in the amount of P2,557. On May 19, 1988, Josefina Pajonar filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City for the issuance in her favor of letters of administration of the estate of her brother. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 2399. On July 18, 1988, the trial court appointed Josefina Pajonar as the regular administratrix of Pedro Pajonar's estate.

On December 19, 1988, pursuant to a second assessment by the BIR for deficiency estate tax, the estate of Pedro Pajonar paid estate tax in the amount of P1,527,790.98. Josefina Pajonar, in her capacity as administratrix and heir of Pedro Pajonar's estate, filed a protest on January 11, 1989 with the BIR praying that the estate tax payment in the amount of P1,527,790.98, or at least some portion of it, be returned to the heirs.[3] Jur-is However, on August 15, 1989, without waiting for her protest to be resolved by the BIR, Josefina Pajonar filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), praying for the refund of P1,527,790.98, or in the alternative, P840,202.06, as erroneously paid estate tax.[4] The case was docketed as CTA Case No. 4381. On May 6, 1993, the CTA ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund Josefina Pajonar the amount of P252,585.59, representing erroneously paid estate tax for the year 1988.[5] Among the deductions from the gross estate allowed by the CTA were the amounts of P60,753 representing the notarial fee for the Extrajudicial Settlement and the amount of P50,000 as the attorney's fees in Special Proceedings No. 1254 for guardianship.[6]Juri-ssc On June 15, 1993, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a motion for reconsideration[7] of the CTA's May 6, 1993 decision asserting, among others, that the notarial fee for the Extrajudicial Settlement and the attorney's fees in the guardianship proceedings are not deductible expenses. On June 7, 1994, the CTA issued the assailed Resolution[8] ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to refund Josefina Pajonar, as administratrix of the estate of Pedro Pajonar, the amount of P76,502.42 representing erroneously paid estate tax for the year 1988. Also, the CTA upheld the validity of the deduction of the notarial fee for the Extrajudicial Settlement and the attorney's fees in the guardianship proceedings. On July 5, 1994, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the CTA's May 6, 1993 Decision and its June 7, 1994 Resolution, questioning the validity of the abovementioned deductions. On December 21, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied the Commissioner's petition.[9] Hence, the present appeal by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The sole issue in this case involves the construction of section 79[10] of the National Internal Revenue Code[11] (Tax Code) which provides for the allowable deductions from the gross estate of the decedent. More particularly, the question is whether the notarial fee paid for the extrajudicial settlement in the amount of P60,753 and the attorney's fees in the guardianship proceedings in the amount of P50,000 may be allowed as deductions from the gross estate of decedent in order to arrive at the value of the net estate. We answer this question in the affirmative, thereby upholding the decisions of the appellate courts. J-jlex In its May 6, 1993 Decision, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled thus: Respondent maintains that only judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings are allowed as a deduction to the gross estate. The amount of P60,753.00 is quite extraordinary for a mere notarial fee. This Court adopts the view under American jurisprudence that expenses incurred in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate should be allowed as a deduction from the gross estate. "There is no requirement of formal administration. It is sufficient that the expense be a necessary contribution toward the settlement of the case." [ 34 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 765; Nolledo, Bar Reviewer in Taxation, 10thEd. (1990), p. 481 ] xxx.....xxx.....xxx The attorney's fees of P50,000.00, which were already incurred but not yet paid, refers to the guardianship proceeding filed by PNB, as guardian over the ward of Pedro Pajonar, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 1254 in the RTC (Branch XXXI) of Dumaguete City. x x x xxx.....xxx.....xxx The guardianship proceeding had been terminated upon delivery of the residuary estate xxx.....xxx.....xxx

to the heirs entitled thereto. Thereafter, PNB was discharged of any further responsibility. Attorney's fees in order to be deductible from the gross estate must be essential to the collection of assets, payment of debts orthe distribution of the property to the persons entitled to it. The services for which the fees are charged must relate to the proper settlement of the estate. [ 34 Am. Jur. 2d 767. ] In this case, the guardianship proceeding was necessary for the distribution of the property of the late Pedro Pajonar to his rightful heirs. Scjuris

PNB was appointed as guardian over the assets of the late Pedro Pajonar, who, even at the time of his death, was incompetent by reason of insanity. The expenses incurred in the guardianship proceeding was but a necessary expense in the settlement of the decedent's estate. Therefore, the attorney's fee incurred in the guardianship proceedings amounting to P50,000.00 is a reasonable and necessary business expense deductible from the gross estate of the decedent.[12] Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court of Tax Appeals modified its previous ruling by reducing the refundable amount to P76,502.43 since it found that a deficiency interest should be imposed and the compromise penalty excluded.[13] However, the tax court upheld its previous ruling regarding the legality of the deductions It is significant to note that the inclusion of the estate tax law in the codification of all our national internal revenue laws with the enactment of the National Internal Revenue Code in 1939 were copied from the Federal Law of the United States. [UMALI, Reviewer in Taxation (1985), p. 285 ] The 1977 Tax Code, promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 1158, effective June 3, 1977, reenacted substantially all the provisions of the old law on estate and gift taxes, except the

sections relating to the meaning of gross estate and gift. [ Ibid, p. 286. ] Nc-mmis In the United States, [a]dministrative expenses, executor's commissions and attorney's fees are considered allowable deductions from the Gross Estate. Administrative expenses are limited to such expenses as are actually and necessarily incurred in the administration of a decedent's estate. [PRENTICE-HALL, Federal Taxes Estate and Gift Taxes (1936), p. 120, 533. ] Necessary expenses of administration are such expenses as are entailed for the preservation and productivity of the estate and for its management for purposes of liquidation, payment of debts and distribution of the residue among the persons entitled thereto.[Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Abada, 40 Phil. 124. ] They must be incurred for the settlement of the estate as a whole. [34 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 765. ] Thus, where there were no substantial community debts and it was unnecessary to convert community property to cash, the only practical purpose of administration being the payment of estate taxes, full deduction was allowed for attorney's fees and miscellaneous expenses charged wholly to decedent's estate. [ Ibid., citing Estate of Helis, 26 T .C. 143 (A). ] Petitioner stated in her protest filed with the BIR that "upon the death of the ward, the PNB, which was still the guardian of the estate, (Annex 'Z' ), did not file an estate tax return; however, it advised the heirs to execute an extrajudicial settlement, to pay taxes and to post a bond equal to the value of the estate, for which the estate paid P59,341.40 for the premiums. (See Annex 'K')." [p. 17, CTA record. ] Therefore, it would appear from the records of the case that the only practical purpose of settling the estate by means of an extrajudicial settlement pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court was for the payment of taxes and the distribution of the estate to the heirs. A fortiori, since our estate tax laws are of American origin, the interpretation adopted by American Courts has some persuasive effect on

the interpretation of our own estate tax laws on the subject. Anent the contention of respondent that the attorney's fees of P50,000.00 incurred in the guardianship proceeding should not be deducted from the Gross Estate, We consider the same unmeritorious. Attorneys' and guardians' fees incurred in a trustee's accounting of a taxable inter vivos trust attributable to the usual issues involved in such an accounting was held to be proper deductions because these are expenses incurred in terminating an inter vivos trust that was includible in the decedent's estate. (Prentice Hall, Federal Taxes on Estate and Gift, p.120, 861] Attorney's fees are allowable deductions if incurred for the settlement of the estate. It is noteworthy to point that PNB was appointed the guardian over the assets of the deceased. Necessarily the assets of the deceased formed part of his gross estate. Accordingly, all expenses incurred in relation to the estate of the deceased will be deductible for estate tax purposes provided these are necessary and ordinary expenses for administration of the settlement of the estate.[14] In upholding the June 7, 1994 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals held that: Newmiso 2. Although the Tax Code specifies "judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings," there is no reason why expenses incurred in the administration and settlement of an estate in extrajudicial proceedings should not be allowed. However, deduction is limited to such administration expenses as are actually and necessarily incurred in the collection of the assets of the estate, payment of the debts, and distribution of the remainder among those entitled thereto. Such expenses may include executor's or administrator's fees, attorney's fees, court fees and charges, appraiser's fees, clerk hire, costs of preserving and distributing the estate and storing or maintaining it, brokerage fees or commissions for selling or disposing of the estate,

and the like. Deductible attorney's fees are those incurred by the executor or administrator in the settlement of the estate or in defending or prosecuting claims against or due the estate. (Estate and Gift Taxation in the Philippines, T. P. Matic, Jr., 1981 Edition, p. 176 ). xxx.....xxx.....xxx xxx.....xxx.....xxx It is clear then that the extrajudicial settlement was for the purpose of payment of taxes and the distribution of the estate to the heirs. The execution of the extrajudicial settlement necessitated the notarization of the same. Hence the Contract of Legal Services of March 28, 1988 entered into between respondent Josefina Pajonar and counsel was presented in evidence for the purpose of showing that the amount of P60,753.00 was for the notarization of the Extrajudicial Settlement. It follows then that the notarial fee of P60,753.00 was incurred primarily to settle the estate of the deceased Pedro Pajonar. Said amount should then be considered an administration expenses actually and necessarily incurred in the collection of the assets of the estate, payment of debts and distribution of the remainder among those entitled thereto. Thus, the notarial fee of P60,753 incurred for the Extrajudicial Settlement should be allowed as a deduction from the gross estate. 3. Attorney's fees, on the other hand, in order to be deductible from the gross estate must be essential to the settlement of the estate. Acctmis The amount of P50,000.00 was incurred as attorney's fees in the guardianship proceedings in Spec. Proc. No. 1254. Petitioner contends that said amount are not expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings as the guardianship proceeding was instituted during the lifetime of the decedent when there was yet no estate to be settled. Again , this contention must fail.

The guardianship proceeding in this case was necessary for the distribution of the property of the deceased Pedro Pajonar. As correctly pointed out by respondent CTA, the PNB was appointed guardian over the assets of the deceased, and that necessarily the assets of the deceased formed part of his gross estate. x x x

It is clear therefore that the attorney's fees incurred in the guardianship proceeding in Spec. Proc. No. 1254 were essential to the distribution of the property to the persons entitled thereto. Hence, the attorney's fees incurred in the guardianship proceedings in the amount of P50,000.00 should be allowed as a deduction from the gross estate of the decedent.[15] The deductions from the gross estate permitted under section 79 of the Tax Code basically reproduced the deductions allowed under Commonwealth Act No. 466 (CA 466), otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1939,[16] and which was the first codification of Philippine tax laws. Section 89 (a) (1) (B) of CA 466 also provided for the deduction of the "judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings" for purposes of determining the value of the net estate. Philippine tax laws were, in turn, based on the federal tax laws of the United States.[17] In accord with established rules of statutory construction, the decisions of American courts construing the federal tax code are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of our own tax laws.[18] Scc-alr Judicial expenses are expenses of administration.[19] Administration expenses, as an allowable deduction from the gross estate of the decedent for purposes of arriving at the value of the net estate, have been construed by the federal and state courts of the United States to include all expenses "essential to the collection of the assets, payment of debts or the distribution of the property to the persons entitled to it."[20] In other words, the expenses must be essential to the proper settlement of the estate. Expenditures incurred for the individual benefit of the heirs, devisees or legatees are not deductible.[21] This distinction has been carried over to our jurisdiction. Thus, in Lorenzo v. Posadas[22] the Court construed the phrase "judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings" as not including the compensation paid to a trustee of the decedent's estate when it appeared that such trustee was

appointed for the purpose of managing the decedent's real estate for the benefit of the testamentary heir. In another case, the Court disallowed the premiums paid on the bond filed by the administrator as an expense of administration since the giving of a bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office, and not necessary in the settlement of the estate.[23]Neither may attorney's fees incident to litigation incurred by the heirs in asserting their respective rights be claimed as a deduction from the gross estate.[24] Coming to the case at bar, the notarial fee paid for the extrajudicial settlement is clearly a deductible expense since such settlement effected a distribution of Pedro Pajonar's estate to his lawful heirs. Similarly, the attorney's fees paid to PNB for acting as the guardian of Pedro Pajonar's property during his lifetime should also be considered as a deductible administration expense. PNB provided a detailed accounting of decedent's property and gave advice as to the proper settlement of the latter's estate, acts which contributed towards the collection of decedent's assets and the subsequent settlement of the estate. We find that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the questioned resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals. WHEREFORE, the December 21, 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The notarial fee for the extrajudicial settlement and the attorney's fees in the guardianship proceedings are allowable deductions from the gross estate of Pedro Pajonar. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur. Calrspped

Estate of Lagtangon, Died January 10, 1998

Pedro Siaton, Negros

P.

Pajonar Oriental

I.Real Properties II.Personal Properties a. Refrigerator b. Wall Clock, Esso Gasul Tables and Chairs c.Beddings, Stereo Cassette, TV, Betamax d. Karaoke, Electric Iron, Fan,Transformer and Corner Set e. Toyota Tamaraw Additional Personal Properties: f. Time Deposit-PNB g. Stocks and Bonds-PNB h. Money Market i. Cash Deposit GROSS ESTATE Less: Deductions: a.A Funeral expenses b. Commission to Trustee (PNB) c.B Notarial Fee for the Extra-judicial Settlement d. Attorneys Fees in Special Proceeding No. 1254 for guardianship e.Filing Fees in Special Proceeding No. 2399 f.Publication of Notice to Creditors September 7, 14 and 21, 1988 issues of the Dumaguete Star Informer g.Certification fee for Publication on the Bulletin Board of the Municipal Building of Siaton, Negros Oriental h.Certification fee for Publication in the Capitol i.Certification fee for publication of Notice to Creditors NET ESTATE Estate Tax Due Less: Estate Tax Paid: CB Confirmation Receipt Nos. .....B 14268064 .....B 15517625 AMOUNT REFUNDABLE Rollo, 86-88. Ibid., 78-79, 81-83. CA Records, 118-130. [8] Rollo, 47-56. [9] Ibid., 35-46.
[6] [7]

P102,966.59

P7,500.00 3,090.00 15,700.00 7,400.00 27,500.00 P200,000.00 201,232.37 2,300,000.00 114,101.83 61,190.00

2,815,334.20 P 2,979,490.79

P50,000.00 18,335.93 60,753.00 50,000.00 6,374.88 600.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 186,075.81 2,793,414.98 P1,277,762.3 9

Entitled "Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Josefina P. Pajonar, as Administratrix of the Estate of Pedro P. Pajonar, and Court of Tax Appeals." Rollo, 35-46. [2] Eighth Division composed of J. Jaime M. Lantin, ponente; and JJ Eduardo G. Montenegro and Jose C. De la Rama, concurring. [3] CA Records, 45-53. [4] Ibid., 37-44.
[1] [5]

P2,557.00 1,527,790.98

1,530,347.98 P252,585.59

The CTA made the following computations

SEC. 79 Computation of net estate and estate tax. For the purpose of the tax imposed in this Chapter, the value of the net estate shall be determined:
[10]

(a).....In the case of a citizen or resident of the Philippines, by deducting from the value of the gross estate(1)..... Expenses, losses, indebtedness, and taxes. Such amounts(A).....For funeral expenses in an amount equal to five per centum of the gross estate but in no case to exceed P50,000.00; (B).....For judicial expenses of the testamentary or intestate proceedings; xxx.....xxx.....xxx [11] This refers to the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended. On the date of decedents death (January 10, 1988), the latest amendment to the Tax Code was introduced by Executive Order No. 273, which became effective on January 1, 1988. [12] Rollo, 78-79, 81-83.
[13]

Estate tax Due Less : estate tax paid 04.05.88 ........ [CBCR No. 14268054] Deficiency estate tax Add: Additions to tax ........Interest on deficiency [Sec. 249 (b)] ........04.12.88 to 12.19.88 ........(1,275,205.39 x 20% x 252/365) Total deficiency tax Less: estate tax paid 12.19.88 ........ (CBCR No. 15517625) Amount Refundable

P1,277,762.39 2,557.00 P1,275,205.39 176,083.16

P1,451,288.55 1,527,790.98 P76,502.43

[G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008] RAFAEL ARSENIO S. DIZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JOSE P. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2] dated April 30, 1999 which affirmed the Decision[3] of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) dated June 17, 1997.[4] The Facts On November 7, 1987, Jose P. Fernandez (Jose) died. Thereafter, a petition for the probate of his will[5] was filed with Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (probate court).[6] The probate court then appointed retired Supreme Court Justice Arsenio P. Dizon (Justice Dizon) and petitioner, Atty. Rafael Arsenio P. Dizon (petitioner) as Special and Assistant Special Administrator, respectively, of the Estate of Jose (Estate). In a letter [7] dated October 13, 1988, Justice Dizon informed respondent Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) of the special proceedings for the Estate. Petitioner alleged that several requests for extension of the period to file the required estate tax return were granted by the BIR since the assets of the estate, as well as the claims against it, had yet to be collated, determined and identified. Thus, in a letter[8] dated March 14, 1990, Justice Dizon authorized Atty. Jesus M. Gonzales (Atty. Gonzales) to sign and file on behalf of the Estate the required estate tax return and to represent the same in securing a Certificate of Tax Clearance. Eventually, on April 17, 1990, Atty. Gonzales wrote a letter[9] addressed to the BIR Regional Director for San Pablo City and filed the estate tax return[10] with the same BIR Regional Office, showing therein a NIL estate tax liability, computed as follows: COMPUTATION OF TAX

Conjugal Real Property (Sch. 1) P10,855,020.00 Conjugal Personal Property (Sch.2) 3,460,591.34 Taxable Transfer (Sch. 3) Gross Conjugal Estate 14,315,611.34 Less: Deductions (Sch. 4) 187,822,576.06 Net Conjugal Estate NIL Less: Share of Surviving Spouse NIL. Net Share in Conjugal Estate NIL xxx Net Taxable Estate NIL. Estate Tax Due NIL.[11] On April 27, 1990, BIR Regional Director for San Pablo City, Osmundo G. Umali issued Certification Nos. 2052[12] and 2053[13] stating that the taxes due on the transfer of real and personal properties[14] of Jose had been fully paid and said properties may be transferred to his heirs. Sometime in August 1990, Justice Dizon passed away. Thus, on October 22, 1990, the probate court appointed petitioner as the administrator of the Estate.[15] Petitioner requested the probate court's authority to sell several properties forming part of the Estate, for the purpose of paying its creditors, namely: Equitable Banking Corporation (P19,756,428.31), Banque de L'Indochine et. de Suez (US$4,828,905.90 as of January 31, 1988), Manila Banking Corporation (P84,199,160.46 as of February 28, 1989) and State Investment House, Inc. (P6,280,006.21). Petitioner manifested that Manila Bank, a major creditor of the Estate was not included, as it did not file a claim with the probate court since it had security over several real estate properties forming part of the Estate.[16] However, on November 26, 1991, the Assistant Commissioner for Collection of the BIR, Themistocles Montalban, issued Estate Tax Assessment Notice No. FAS-E-87-91-003269,[17] demanding the payment of P66,973,985.40 as deficiency estate tax, itemized as follows: Deficiency Estate Tax- 1987 Estate tax P31,868,414.48 25% surcharge- late filing 7,967,103.62 late payment 7,967,103.62 Interest 19,121,048.68 Compromise-non filing 25,000.00 non payment 25,000.00 no notice of15.00

death

no

CPA300.00 6.

Certificate Total amount due & collectible P66,973,985.40[18] In his letter[19] dated December 12, 1991, Atty. Gonzales moved for the reconsideration of the said estate tax assessment. However, in her letter[20] dated April 12, 1994, the BIR Commissioner denied the request and reiterated that the estate is liable for the payment of P66,973,985.40 as deficiency estate tax. On May 3, 1994, petitioner received the letter of denial. On June 2, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for review[21] before respondent CTA. Trial on the merits ensued. As found by the CTA, the respective parties presented the following pieces of evidence, to wit: In the hearings conducted, petitioner did not present testimonial evidence but merely documentary evidence consisting of the following: Nature of Document (sic) 1. Letter dated October 13, 1988 from Arsenio P. Dizon addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue informing the latter of the special proceedings for the settlement of the estate (p. 126, BIR records); Petition for the probate of the will and issuance of letter of administration filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 87-42980 (pp. 107-108, BIR records); Pleading entitled "Compliance" filed with the probate Court submitting the final inventory of all the properties of the deceased (p. 106, BIR records); Attachment to Exh. "C" which is the detailed and complete listing of the properties of the deceased (pp. 89105, BIR rec.); Claims against the estate filed by Equitable Banking Corp. with the probate Court in the amount of Exhibits "A"

7.

8.

9.

2.

"B" & "B-1"

10. "C" 11. "C-1" to "C-17" 12. "D" to "D-24"

3.

4.

5.

P19,756,428.31 as of March 31, 1988, together with the Annexes to the claim (pp. 64-88, BIR records); Claim filed by Banque de L' Indochine et de Suez with the probate Court in the amount of US $4,828,905.90 as of January 31, 1988 (pp. 262-265, BIR records); Claim of the Manila Banking Corporation (MBC) which as of November 7, 1987 amounts to P65,158,023.54, but recomputed as of February 28, 1989 at a total amount of P84,199,160.46; together with the demand letter from MBC's lawyer (pp. 194-197, BIR records); Demand letter of Manila Banking Corporation prepared by Asedillo, Ramos and Associates Law Offices addressed to Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., represented by Jose P. Fernandez, as mortgagors, in the total amount of P240,479,693.17 as of February 28, 1989 (pp. 186-187, BIR records); Claim of State Investment House, Inc. filed with the RTC, Branch VII of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 8638599 entitled "State Investment House, Inc., Plaintiff, versus Maritime Company Overseas, Inc. and/or Jose P. Fernandez, Defendants," (pp. 200-215, BIR records); Letter dated March 14, 1990 of Arsenio P. Dizon addressed to Atty. Jesus M. Gonzales, (p. 184, BIR records); Letter dated April 17, 1990 from J.M. Gonzales addressed to the Regional Director of BIR in San Pablo City (p. 183, BIR records); Estate Tax Return filed by the estate of the late Jose P. Fernandez through its authorized representative, Atty. Jesus M. Gonzales, for Arsenio P. Dizon, with attachments (pp. 177-182, BIR records);

"E" to "E-3"

"F" to "F-3"

"G" & "G-1"

"H" to "H-16"

"I"

"J"

"K" to "K-5"

13.

14.

Certified true copy of the Letter of Administration issued by RTC Manila, Branch 51, in Sp. Proc. No. 87-42980 appointing Atty. Rafael S. Dizon as Judicial Administrator of the estate of Jose P. Fernandez; (p. 102, CTA records) and Certification of Payment of estate taxes Nos. 2052 and 2053, both dated April 27, 1990, issued by the Office of the Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 4-C, San Pablo City, with attachments (pp. 103-104, CTA records.).

"L"

9.

"M" to "M-5"

Respondent's [BIR] counsel presented on June 26, 1995 one witness in the person of Alberto Enriquez, who was one of the revenue examiners who conducted the investigation on the estate tax case of the late Jose P. Fernandez. In the course of the direct examination of the witness, he identified the following: Documents/Signatures Estate Tax Return prepared by the BIR; Signatures of Ma. Anabella Abuloc and Alberto Enriquez, Jr. appearing at the lower Portion of Exh. "1"; Memorandum for the Commissioner, dated July 19, 1991, prepared by revenue examiners, Ma. Anabella A. Abuloc, Alberto S. Enriquez and Raymund S. Gallardo; Reviewed by Maximino V. Tagle Signature of Alberto S. Enriquez appearing at the lower portion on p. 2 of Exh. "2"; Signature of Ma. Anabella A. Abuloc appearing at the lower portion on p. 2 of Exh. "2"; Signature of Raymund S. Gallardo appearing at the Lower portion on p. 2 of Exh. "2"; Signature of Maximino V. Tagle also appearing on p. 2 of Exh. "2"; Summary of revenue Enforcement Officers Audit Report, dated July 19, 1991; BIR Record p. 138 -dopp. 143-144

Signature of Alberto Enriquez at the lower portion of Exh. "3"; 10. Signature of Ma. Anabella A. Abuloc at the lower portion of Exh. "3"; 11. Signature of Raymond S. Gallardo at the lower portion of Exh. "3"; 12. Signature of Maximino V. Tagle at the lower portion of Exh. "3"; 13. Demand letter (FAS-E-87-91-00), signed by the Asst. Commissioner for Collection for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, demanding payment of the amount of P66,973,985.40; and 14. Assessment Notice FAS-E-87-91-00 The CTA's Ruling

-do-do-do-dop. 169

pp. 169-170[22]

1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

-do-do-do-dop. 139

On June 17, 1997, the CTA denied the said petition for review. Citing this Court's ruling in Vda. de Oate v. Court of Appeals,[23] the CTA opined that the aforementioned pieces of evidence introduced by the BIR were admissible in evidence. The CTA ratiocinated: Although the above-mentioned documents were not formally offered as evidence for respondent, considering that respondent has been declared to have waived the presentation thereof during the hearing on March 20, 1996, still they could be considered as evidence for respondent since they were properly identified during the presentation of respondent's witness, whose testimony was duly recorded as part of the records of this case. Besides, the documents marked as respondent's exhibits formed part of the BIR records of the case.[24] Nevertheless, the CTA did not fully adopt the assessment made by the BIR and it came up with its own computation of the deficiency estate tax, to wit: Conjugal Real Property P 5,062,016.00 Conjugal Personal Prop. 33,021,999.93 Gross Conjugal Estate 38,084,015.93 Less: Deductions 26,250,000.00 Net Conjugal Estate P 11,834,015.93 Less: Share of Surviving Spouse 5,917,007.96 Net Share in Conjugal Estate P 5,917,007.96 Add: Capital/Paraphernal Properties - P44,652,813.66 Less: Capital/Paraphernal Deductions 44,652,813.66 Net Taxable Estate P 50,569,821.62

Estate Tax Due P 29,935,342.97 Add: 25% Surcharge for Late 7,483,835.74 Filing Add: Penalties for-No notice of 15.00 death No CPA certificate 300.00 Total deficiency estate tax P 37,419,493.71 exclusive of 20% interest from due date of its payment until full payment thereof [Sec. 283 (b), Tax Code of 1987].[25] Thus, the CTA disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, viewed from all the foregoing, the Court finds the petition unmeritorious and denies the same. Petitioner and/or the heirs of Jose P. Fernandez are hereby ordered to pay to respondent the amount of P37,419,493.71 plus 20% interest from the due date of its payment until full payment thereof as estate tax liability of the estate of Jose P. Fernandez who died on November 7, 1987. SO ORDERED.[26]

Appeals is contrary to the Rules of Court and rulings of this Honorable Court; 2. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing/considering the estate tax return prepared and filed by respondent BIR knowing that the probate court appointed administrator of the estate of Jose P. Fernandez had previously filed one as in fact, BIR Certification Clearance Nos. 2052 and 2053 had been issued in the estate's favor; Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing the valid and enforceable claims of creditors against the estate, as lawful deductions despite clear and convincing evidence thereof; and Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals erred in validating erroneous double imputation of values on the very same estate properties in the estate tax return it prepared and filed which effectively bloated the estate's assets.[31]

3.

4.

Aggrieved, petitioner, on March 2, 1998, went to the CA via a petition for review.[27] The CA's Ruling On April 30, 1999, the CA affirmed the CTA's ruling. Adopting in full the CTA's findings, the CA ruled that the petitioner's act of filing an estate tax return with the BIR and the issuance of BIR Certification Nos. 2052 and 2053 did not deprive the BIR Commissioner of her authority to re-examine or re-assess the said return filed on behalf of the Estate.[28] On May 31, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] which the CA denied in its Resolution[30] dated November 3, 1999. Hence, the instant Petition raising the following issues: 1. Whether or not the admission of evidence which were not formally offered by the respondent BIR by the Court of Tax Appeals which was subsequently upheld by the Court of

The petitioner claims that in as much as the valid claims of creditors against the Estate are in excess of the gross estate, no estate tax was due; that the lack of a formal offer of evidence is fatal to BIR's cause; that the doctrine laid down in Vda. de Oatehas already been abandoned in a long line of cases in which the Court held that evidence not formally offered is without any weight or value; that Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence requiring a formal offer of evidence is mandatory in character; that, while BIR's witness Alberto Enriquez (Alberto) in his testimony before the CTA identified the pieces of evidence aforementioned such that the same were marked, BIR's failure to formally offer said pieces of evidence and depriving petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine Alberto, render the same inadmissible in evidence; that assuming arguendo that the ruling in Vda. de Oate is still applicable, BIR failed to comply with the doctrine's requisites because the documents herein remained simply part of the BIR records and were not duly incorporated in the court records; that the BIR failed to consider that although the actual payments made to the Estate creditors were lower than their respective claims, such were

compromise agreements reached long after the Estate's liability had been settled by the filing of its estate tax return and the issuance of BIR Certification Nos. 2052 and 2053; and that the reckoning date of the claims against the Estate and the settlement of the estate tax due should be at the time the estate tax return was filed by the judicial administrator and the issuance of said BIR Certifications and not at the time the aforementioned Compromise Agreements were entered into with the Estate's creditors.[32] On the other hand, respondent counters that the documents, being part of the records of the case and duly identified in a duly recorded testimony are considered evidence even if the same were not formally offered; that the filing of the estate tax return by the Estate and the issuance of BIR Certification Nos. 2052 and 2053 did not deprive the BIR of its authority to examine the return and assess the estate tax; and that the factual findings of the CTA as affirmed by the CA may no longer be reviewed by this Court via a petition for review.[33] The Issues There are two ultimate issues which require resolution in this case: First. Whether or not the CTA and the CA gravely erred in allowing the admission of the pieces of evidence which were not formally offered by the BIR; and Second. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the CTA in the latter's determination of the deficiency estate tax imposed against the Estate. The Court's Ruling The Petition is impressed with merit.

Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is categorically described as a court of record. As cases filed before it are litigated de novo, partylitigants shall prove every minute aspect of their cases. Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be given the pieces of evidence submitted by the BIR, as the rules on documentary evidence require that these

documents must be formally offered before the CTA.[34] Pertinent is Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which reads: SEC. 34. Offer of evidence. -- The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. The CTA and the CA rely solely on the case of Vda. de Oate, which reiterated this Court's previous rulings in People v. Napata[35] and People v. Mate[36] on the admission and consideration of exhibits which were not formally offered during the trial. Although in a long line of cases many of which were decided after Vda. de Oate, we held that courts cannot consider evidence which has not been formally offered,[37] nevertheless, petitioner cannot validly assume that the doctrine laid down in Vda. de Oate has already been abandoned. Recently, in Ramos v. Dizon,[38] this Court, applying the said doctrine, ruled that the trial court judge therein committed no error when he admitted and considered the respondents' exhibits in the resolution of the case, notwithstanding the fact that the same were not formally offered. Likewise, in Far East Bank & Trust Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[39] the Court made reference to said doctrine in resolving the issues therein. Indubitably, the doctrine laid down in Vda. De Oate still subsists in this jurisdiction. In Vda. de Oate, we held that: From the foregoing provision, it is clear that for evidence to be considered, the same must be formally offered. Corollarily, the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. In Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles [186 SCRA 385], we had the occasion to make a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. We said that the first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same. However, in People v. Napat-a [179 SCRA 403] citing People v. Mate[103 SCRA 484], we relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present,

viz.: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.[40] From the foregoing declaration, however, it is clear that Vda. de Oate is merely an exception to the general rule. Being an exception, it may be applied only when there is strict compliance with the requisites mentioned therein; otherwise, the general rule in Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court should prevail. In this case, we find that these requirements have not been satisfied. The assailed pieces of evidence were presented and marked during the trial particularly when Alberto took the witness stand. Alberto identified these pieces of evidence in his direct testimony.[41] He was also subjected to cross-examination and re-cross examination by petitioner.[42] But Alberto's account and the exchanges between Alberto and petitioner did not sufficiently describe the contents of the said pieces of evidence presented by the BIR. In fact, petitioner sought that the lead examiner, one Ma. Anabella A. Abuloc, be summoned to testify, inasmuch as Alberto was incompetent to answer questions relative to the working papers.[43] The lead examiner never testified. Moreover, while Alberto's testimony identifying the BIR's evidence was duly recorded, the BIR documents themselves were not incorporated in the records of the case. A common fact threads through Vda. de Oate and Ramos that does not exist at all in the instant case. In the aforementioned cases, the exhibits were marked at the pre-trial proceedings to warrant the pronouncement that the same were duly incorporated in the records of the case. Thus, we held in Ramos: In this case, we find and so rule that these requirements have been satisfied. The exhibits in question were presented and marked during the pre-trial of the case thus, they have been incorporated into the records. Further, Elpidio himself explained the contents of these exhibits when he was interrogated by respondents' counsel... x x x x

While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence,[45] as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves and are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the presentation of the BIR's evidence is not a mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of BIR's claims against the Estate.[46] The BIR's failure to formally offer these pieces of evidence, despite CTA's directives, is fatal to its cause.[47] Such failure is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason was advanced by the BIR to justify such fatal omission. This, we take against the BIR. Per the records of this case, the BIR was directed to present its evidence[48] in the hearing of February 21, 1996, but BIR's counsel failed to appear.[49] The CTA denied petitioner's motion to consider BIR's presentation of evidence as waived, with a warning to BIR that such presentation would be considered waived if BIR's evidence would not be presented at the next hearing. Again, in the hearing of March 20, 1996, BIR's counsel failed to appear.[50] Thus, in its Resolution[51] dated March 21, 1996, the CTA considered the BIR to have waived presentation of its evidence. In the same Resolution, the parties were directed to file their respective memorandum. Petitioner complied but BIR failed to do so.[52] In all of these proceedings, BIR was duly notified. Hence, in this case, we are constrained to apply our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha:[53] A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. Strict adherence to the said rule is not a trivial matter. The Court inConstantino v. Court of Appeals ruled that the formal offer of one's evidence is deemed waived after failing to submit it within a considerable period of time. It explained that the court cannot admit an offer of evidence made after a lapse of three (3) months because to do so would "condone an inexcusable laxity

But what further defeats petitioner's cause on this issue is that respondents' exhibits were marked and admitted during the pre-trial stage as shown by the Pre-Trial Order quoted earlier.[44]

if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice." Applying the aforementioned principle in this case, we find that the trial court had reasonable ground to consider that petitioners had waived their right to make a formal offer of documentary or object evidence. Despite several extensions of time to make their formal offer, petitioners failed to comply with their commitment and allowed almost five months to lapse before finally submitting it. Petitioners' failure to comply with the rule on admissibility of evidence is anathema to the efficient, effective, and expeditious dispensation of justice. Having disposed of the foregoing procedural issue, we proceed to discuss the merits of the case. Ordinarily, the CTA's findings, as affirmed by the CA, are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the lower courts committed gross error in the appreciation of facts.[54] In this case, however, we find the decision of the CA affirming that of the CTA tainted with palpable error. It is admitted that the claims of the Estate's aforementioned creditors have been condoned. As a mode of extinguishing an obligation,[55] condonation or remission of debt[56] is defined as: an act of liberality, by virtue of which, without receiving any equivalent, the creditor renounces the enforcement of the obligation, which is extinguished in its entirety or in that part or aspect of the same to which the remission refers. It is an essential characteristic of remission that it be gratuitous, that there is no equivalent received for the benefit given; once such equivalent exists, the nature of the act changes. It may become dation in payment when the creditor receives a thing different from that stipulated; or novation, when the object or principal conditions of the obligation should be changed; or compromise, when the matter renounced is in litigation or dispute and in exchange of some concession which the creditor receives.[57] Verily, the second issue in this case involves the construction of Section 79[58] of the National Internal Revenue Code[59] (Tax Code) which provides for the allowable deductions from the gross estate of the decedent. The specific question is whether the actual claims of the aforementioned creditors may be fully allowed as deductions

from the gross estate of Jose despite the fact that the said claims were reduced or condoned through compromise agreements entered into by the Estate with its creditors. "Claims against the estate," as allowable deductions from the gross estate under Section 79 of the Tax Code, are basically a reproduction of the deductions allowed under Section 89 (a) (1) (C) and (E) of Commonwealth Act No. 466 (CA 466), otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and which was the first codification of Philippine tax laws. Philippine tax laws were, in turn, based on the federal tax laws of the United States. Thus, pursuant to established rules of statutory construction, the decisions of American courts construing the federal tax code are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of our own tax laws.[60] It is noteworthy that even in the United States, there is some dispute as to whether the deductible amount for a claim against the estate is fixed as of the decedent's death which is the general rule, or the same should be adjusted to reflect post-death developments, such as where a settlement between the parties results in the reduction of the amount actually paid.[61] On one hand, the U.S. court ruled that the appropriate deduction is the "value" that the claim had at the date of the decedent's death.[62] Also, as held in Propstra v. U.S., [63] where a lien claimed against the estate was certain and enforceable on the date of the decedent's death, the fact that the claimant subsequently settled for lesser amount did not preclude the estate from deducting the entire amount of the claim for estate tax purposes. These pronouncements essentially confirm the general principle that post-death developments are not material in determining the amount of the deduction. On the other hand, the Internal Revenue Service (Service) opines that post-death settlement should be taken into consideration and the claim should be allowed as a deduction only to the extent of the amount actually paid.[64] Recognizing the dispute, the Service released Proposed Regulations in 2007 mandating that the deduction would be limited to the actual amount paid.[65] In announcing its agreement with Propstra,[66] the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

We are persuaded that the Ninth Circuit's decision...in Propstra correctly apply the Ithaca Trust date-of-death valuation principle to enforceable claims against the estate. As we interpret Ithaca Trust, when the Supreme Court announced the dateof-death valuation principle, it was making a judgment about the nature of the federal estate tax specifically, that it is a tax imposed on the act of transferring property by will or intestacy and, because the act on which the tax is levied occurs at a discrete time, i.e., the instance of death, the net value of the property transferred should be ascertained, as nearly as possible, as of that time. This analysis supports broad application of the date-of-death valuation rule.[67] We express our agreement with the date-of-death valuation rule, made pursuant to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States.[68] First. There is no law, nor do we discern any legislative intent in our tax laws, which disregards the date-of-death valuation principle and particularly provides that post-death developments must be considered in determining the net value of the estate. It bears emphasis that tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed, beyond what the statute expressly and clearly imports, tax statutes being construedstrictissimi juris against the government.[69] Any doubt on whether a person, article or activity is taxable is generally resolved against taxation.[70] Second. Such construction finds relevance and consistency in our Rules on Special Proceedings wherein the term "claims" required to be presented against a decedent's estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime, or liability contracted by the deceased before his death.[71] Therefore, the claims existing at the time of death are significant to, and should be made the basis of, the determination of allowable deductions. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated April 30, 1999 and the Resolution dated November 3, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 46947 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Bureau of Internal Revenue's deficiency estate tax assessment against the Estate of Jose P. Fernandez is hereby NULLIFIED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-19201

June 16, 1965

REV. FR. CASIMIRO LLADOC, petitioner, vs. The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and The COURT of TAX APPEALS, respondents. Hilado and Hilado for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. PAREDES, J.: Sometime in 1957, the M.B. Estate, Inc., of Bacolod City, donated P10,000.00 in cash to Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz, then parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of herein petitioner, for the construction of a new Catholic Church in the locality. The total amount was actually spent for the purpose intended. On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate, Inc., filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April 29, 1960, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish of Victorias, Negros Occidental, of which petitioner was the priest. The tax amounted to P1,370.00 including surcharges, interests of 1% monthly from May 15, 1958 to June 15, 1960, and the compromise for the late filing of the return. Petitioner lodged a protest to the assessment and requested the withdrawal thereof. The protest and the motion for reconsideration presented to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were denied. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals on November 2, 1960. In the petition for review, the Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc claimed, among others, that at the time of the donation, he was not the parish priest in Victorias; that there is no legal entity or juridical person known as the "Catholic Parish Priest of Victorias," and, therefore, he should not be liable for the donee's gift tax. It was also asserted that the assessment of the gift tax, even against the Roman Catholic Church, would not be valid, for such would be a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. After hearing, the CTA rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which are quoted below: ... . Parish priests of the Roman Catholic Church under canon laws are similarly situated as its Archbishops and

Bishops with respect to the properties of the church within their parish. They are the guardians, superintendents or administrators of these properties, with the right of succession and may sue and be sued. xxx xxx xxx

The petitioner impugns the, fairness of the assessment with the argument that he should not be held liable for gift taxes on donation which he did not receive personally since he was not yet the parish priest of Victorias in the year 1957 when said donation was given. It is intimated that if someone has to pay at all, it should be petitioner's predecessor, the Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz, who received the donation in behalf of the Catholic parish of Victorias or the Roman Catholic Church. Following petitioner's line of thinking, we should be equally unfair to hold that the assessment now in question should have been addressed to, and collected from, the Rev. Fr. Crispin Ruiz to be paid from income derived from his present parish where ever it may be. It does not seem right to indirectly burden the present parishioners of Rev. Fr. Ruiz for donee's gift tax on a donation to which they were not benefited. xxx xxx xxx

We saw no legal basis then as we see none now, to include within the Constitutional exemption, taxes which partake of the nature of an excise upon the use made of the properties or upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the properties. (Phipps vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 91 F [2d] 627; 1938, 302 U.S. 742.) It is a cardinal rule in taxation that exemptions from payment thereof are highly disfavored by law, and the party claiming exemption must justify his claim by a clear, positive, or express grant of such privilege by law. (Collector vs. Manila Jockey Club, G.R. No. L-8755, March 23, 1956; 53 O.G. 3762.) The phrase "exempt from taxation" as employed in Section 22(3), Article VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of taxes. Statutes exempting charitable and religious property from taxation should be construed fairly though

strictly and in such manner as to give effect to the main intent of the lawmakers. (Roman Catholic Church vs. Hastrings 5 Phil. 701.) xxx xxx xxx

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. The next issue which readily presents itself, in view of petitioner's thesis, and Our finding that a tax liability exists, is, who should be called upon to pay the gift tax? Petitioner postulates that he should not be liable, because at the time of the donation he was not the priest of Victorias. We note the merit of the above claim, and in order to put things in their proper light, this Court, in its Resolution of March 15, 1965, ordered the parties to show cause why the Head of the Diocese to which the parish of Victorias pertains, should not be substituted in lieu of petitioner Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc it appearing that the Head of such Diocese is the real party in interest. The Solicitor General, in representation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, interposed no objection to such a substitution. Counsel for the petitioner did not also offer objection thereto. On April 30, 1965, in a resolution, We ordered the Head of the Diocese to present whatever legal issues and/or defenses he might wish to raise, to which resolution counsel for petitioner, who also appeared as counsel for the Head of the Diocese, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bacolod, manifested that it was submitting itself to the jurisdiction and orders of this Court and that it was presenting, by reference, the brief of petitioner Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc as its own and for all purposes. In view here of and considering that as heretofore stated, the assessment at bar had been properly made and the imposition of the tax is not a violation of the constitutional provision exempting churches, parsonages or convents, etc. (Art VI, sec. 22 [3], Constitution), the Head of the Diocese, to which the parish Victorias Pertains, is liable for the payment thereof. The decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby affirmed insofar as tax liability is concerned; it is modified, in the sense that petitioner herein is not personally liable for the said gift tax, and that the Head of the Diocese, herein substitute petitioner, should pay, as he is presently ordered to pay, the said gift tax, without special, pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur. Barrera, J., took no part.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed from, is hereby affirmed except with regard to the imposition of the compromise penalty in the amount of P20.00 (Collector of Internal Revenue v. U.S.T., G.R. No. L-11274, Nov. 28, 1958); ..., and the petitioner, the Rev. Fr. Casimiro Lladoc is hereby ordered to pay to the respondent the amount of P900.00 as donee's gift tax, plus the surcharge of five per centum (5%) as ad valorem penalty under Section 119 (c) of the Tax Code, and one per centum (1%) monthly interest from May 15, 1958 to the date of actual payment. The surcharge of 25% provided in Section 120 for failure to file a return may not be imposed as the failure to file a return was not due to willful neglect.( ... ) No costs. The above judgment is now before us on appeal, petitioner assigning two (2) errors allegedly committed by the Tax Court, all of which converge on the singular issue of whether or not petitioner should be liable for the assessed donee's gift tax on the P10,000.00 donated for the construction of the Victorias Parish Church. Section 22 (3), Art. VI of the Constitution of the Philippines, exempts from taxation cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents, appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious purposes. The exemption is only from the payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated, as property taxes, as contra distinguished from excise taxes. In the present case, what the Collector assessed was a donee's gift tax; the assessment was not on the properties themselves. It did not rest upon general ownership; it was an excise upon the use made of the properties, upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the properties (Phipps vs. Com. of Int. Rec. 91 F 2d 627). Manifestly, gift tax is not within the exempting provisions of the section just mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of giftinter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious purposes, does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution. As well observed by the learned respondent Court, the phrase "exempt from taxation," as employed in the Constitution (supra) should not be interpreted to

G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, and DELPHIN PACHECO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HYDRO PIPES PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The petitioners question the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which sustained the private respondent's contention that the deed of exchange whereby Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco conveyed a parcel of land to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for 2,500 shares of stock was actually a deed of sale which violated a right of first refusal under a lease contract. Briefly, the facts of the case are summarized as follows: In 1974, Delfin Pacheco and his sister, Pelagia Pacheco, were the owners of 27,169 square meters of real estate Identified as Lot. No. 1095, Malinta Estate, in the Municipality of Polo (now Valenzuela), Province of Bulacan (now Metro Manila) which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4240 of the Bulacan land registry. On April 3, 1974, the said co-owners leased to Construction Components International Inc. the same property and providing that during the existence or after the term of this lease the lessor should he decide to sell the property leased shall first offer the same to the lessee and the letter has the priority to buy under similar conditions (Exhibits A to A-5) On August 3, 1974, lessee Construction Components International, Inc. assigned its rights and obligations under the contract of lease in favor of Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc. with the signed conformity and consent of lessors Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco (Exhs. B to B-6 inclusive)

The contract of lease, as well as the assignment of lease were annotated at he back of the title, as per stipulation of the parties (Exhs. A to D-3 inclusive) On January 3, 1976, a deed of exchange was executed between lessors Delfin and Pelagia Pacheco and defendant Delpher Trades Corporation whereby the former conveyed to the latter the leased property (TCT No.T-4240) together with another parcel of land also located in Malinta Estate, Valenzuela, Metro Manila (TCT No. 4273) for 2,500 shares of stock of defendant corporation with a total value of P1,500,000.00 (Exhs. C to C-5, inclusive) (pp. 44-45, Rollo) On the ground that it was not given the first option to buy the leased property pursuant to the proviso in the lease agreement, respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc., filed an amended complaint for reconveyance of Lot. No. 1095 in its favor under conditions similar to those whereby Delpher Trades Corporation acquired the property from Pelagia Pacheco and Delphin Pacheco. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment is hereby rendered declaring the valid existence of the plaintiffs preferential right to acquire the subject property (right of first refusal) and ordering the defendants and all persons deriving rights therefrom to convey the said property to plaintiff who may offer to acquire the same at the rate of P14.00 per square meter, more or less, for Lot 1095 whose area is 27,169 square meters only. Without pronouncement as to attorney's fees and costs. (Appendix I; Rec., pp. 246- 247). (Appellant's Brief, pp. 1-2; p. 134, Rollo) The lower court's decision was affirmed on appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The defendants-appellants, now the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.

We initially denied the petition but upon motion for reconsideration, we set aside the resolution denying the petition and gave it due course. The petitioners allege that: The denial of the petition will work great injustice to the petitioners, in that: 1. Respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc, ("private respondent") will acquire from petitioners a parcel of industrial land consisting of 27,169 square meters or 2.7 hectares (located right after the Valenzuela, Bulacan exit of the toll expressway) for only P14/sq. meter, or a total of P380,366, although the prevailing value thereof is approximately P300/sq. meter or P8.1 Million; 2. Private respondent is allowed to exercise its right of first refusal even if there is no "sale" or transfer of actual ownership interests by petitioners to third parties; and 3. Assuming arguendo that there has been a transfer of actual ownership interests, private respondent will acquire the land not under "similar conditions" by which it was transferred to petitioner Delpher Trades Corporation, as provided in the same contractual provision invoked by private respondent. (pp. 251-252, Rollo) The resolution of the case hinges on whether or not the "Deed of Exchange" of the properties executed by the Pachecos on the one hand and the Delpher Trades Corporation on the other was meant to be a contract of sale which, in effect, prejudiced the private respondent's right of first refusal over the leased property included in the "deed of exchange." Eduardo Neria, a certified public accountant and son-in-law of the late Pelagia Pacheco testified that Delpher Trades Corporation is a family corporation; that the corporation was organized by the children of the two spouses (spouses Pelagia Pacheco and Benjamin Hernandez and spouses Delfin Pacheco and Pilar Angeles) who owned in common the parcel of land leased to Hydro Pipes

Philippines in order to perpetuate their control over the property through the corporation and to avoid taxes; that in order to accomplish this end, two pieces of real estate, including Lot No. 1095 which had been leased to Hydro Pipes Philippines, were transferred to the corporation; that the leased property was transferred to the corporation by virtue of a deed of exchange of property; that in exchange for these properties, Pelagia and Delfin acquired 2,500 unissued no par value shares of stock which are equivalent to a 55% majority in the corporation because the other owners only owned 2,000 shares; and that at the time of incorporation, he knew all about the contract of lease of Lot. No. 1095 to Hydro Pipes Philippines. In the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, they refer to this scheme as "estate planning." (p. 252, Rollo) Under this factual backdrop, the petitioners contend that there was actually no transfer of ownership of the subject parcel of land since the Pachecos remained in control of the property. Thus, the petitioners allege: "Considering that the beneficial ownership and control of petitioner corporation remained in the hands of the original co-owners, there was no transfer of actual ownership interests over the land when the same was transferred to petitioner corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. The transfer of ownership, if anything, was merely in form but not in substance. In reality, petitioner corporation is a mere alter ego or conduit of the Pacheco co-owners; hence the corporation and the co-owners should be deemed to be the same, there being in substance and in effect an Identity of interest." (p. 254, Rollo) The petitioners maintain that the Pachecos did not sell the property. They argue that there was no sale and that they exchanged the land for shares of stocks in their own corporation. "Hence, such transfer is not within the letter, or even spirit of the contract. There is a sale when ownership is transferred for a price certain in money or its equivalent (Art. 1468, Civil Code) while there is a barter or exchange when one thing is given in consideration of another thing (Art. 1638, Civil Code)." (pp. 254-255, Rollo) On the other hand, the private respondent argues that Delpher Trades Corporation is a corporate entity separate and distinct from the Pachecos. Thus, it contends that it cannot be said that Delpher Trades Corporation is the Pacheco's same alter ego or conduit; that petitioner Delfin Pacheco, having treated Delpher Trades Corporation as such a separate and distinct corporate entity, is not a party who may allege that this separate corporate existence should be disregarded. It maintains that there was actual transfer of ownership interests over the leased property when the same was

transferred to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. We rule for the petitioners. After incorporation, one becomes a stockholder of a corporation by subscription or by purchasing stock directly from the corporation or from individual owners thereof (Salmon, Dexter & Co. v. Unson, 47 Phil, 649, citing Bole v. Fulton [1912], 233 Pa., 609). In the case at bar, in exchange for their properties, the Pachecos acquired 2,500 original unissued no par value shares of stocks of the Delpher Trades Corporation. Consequently, the Pachecos became stockholders of the corporation by subscription "The essence of the stock subscription is an agreement to take and pay for original unissued shares of a corporation, formed or to be formed." (Rohrlich 243, cited in Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 430) It is significant that the Pachecos took no par value shares in exchange for their properties. A no-par value share does not purport to represent any stated proportionate interest in the capital stock measured by value, but only an aliquot part of the whole number of such shares of the issuing corporation. The holder of no-par shares may see from the certificate itself that he is only an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation. But this character of proportionate interest is not hidden beneath a false appearance of a given sum in money, as in the case of par value shares. The capital stock of a corporation issuing only no-par value shares is not set forth by a stated amount of money, but instead is expressed to be divided into a stated number of shares, such as, 1,000 shares. This indicates that a shareholder of 100 such shares is an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation, no matter what value they may have, to the extent of 100/1,000 or 1/10. Thus, by removing the par value of shares, the attention of persons interested in the financial condition of a corporation is focused upon the value of assets and the amount of its debts. (Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 107).

Moreover, there was no attempt to state the true or current market value of the real estate. Land valued at P300.00 a square meter was turned over to the family's corporation for only P14.00 a square meter. It is to be stressed that by their ownership of the 2,500 no par shares of stock, the Pachecos have control of the corporation. Their equity capital is 55% as against 45% of the other stockholders, who also belong to the same family group. In effect, the Delpher Trades Corporation is a business conduit of the Pachecos. What they really did was to invest their properties and change the nature of their ownership from unincorporated to incorporated form by organizing Delpher Trades Corporation to take control of their properties and at the same time save on inheritance taxes. As explained by Eduardo Neria: xxx xxx xxx ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q Mr. Neria, from the point of view of taxation, is there any benefit to the spouses Hernandez and Pacheco in connection with their execution of a deed of exchange on the properties for no par value shares of the defendant corporation? A Yes, sir. COURT: Q What do you mean by "point of view"? A To take advantage for both spouses and corporation in entering in the deed of exchange.

ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q (What do you mean by "point of view"?) What are these benefits to the spouses of this deed of exchange? A Continuous control of the property, tax exemption benefits, and other inherent benefits in a corporation. Q What are these advantages to the said spouses from the point of view of taxation in entering in the deed of exchange? A Having fulfilled the conditions in the income tax law, providing for tax free exchange of property, they were able to execute the deed of exchange free from income tax and acquire a corporation. Q What provision in the income tax law are you referring to? A I refer to Section 35 of the National Internal Revenue Code under par. C-sub-par. (2) Exceptions regarding the provision which I quote: "No gain or loss shall also be recognized if a person exchanges his property for stock in a corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person alone or together with others not exceeding four persons gains control of said corporation." Q Did you explain to the spouses this benefit at the time

you executed the deed of exchange? A Yes, sir Q You also, testified during the last hearing that the decision to have no par value share in the defendant corporation was for the purpose of flexibility. Can you explain flexibility in connection with the ownership of the property in question? A There is flexibility in using no par value shares as the value is determined by the board of directors in increasing capitalization. The board can fix the value of the shares equivalent to the capital requirements of the corporation. Q Now also from the point of taxation, is there any flexibility in the holding by the corporation of the property in question? A Yes, since a corporation does not die it can continue to hold on to the property indefinitely for a period of at least 50 years. On the other hand, if the property is held by the spouse the property will be tied up in succession proceedings and the consequential payments of estate and inheritance taxes when an owner dies. Q Now what advantage is this continuity in relation to ownership by a particular

person of certain properties in respect to taxation? A The property is not subjected to taxes on succession as the corporation does not die. Q So the benefit you are talking about are inheritance taxes? A Yes, sir. (pp. 3-5, tsn., December 15, 1981) The records do not point to anything wrong or objectionable about this "estate planning" scheme resorted to by the Pachecos. "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Liddell & Co., Inc. v. The collector of Internal Revenue, 2 SCRA 632 citing Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 7 L. ed. 596). The "Deed of Exchange" of property between the Pachecos and Delpher Trades Corporation cannot be considered a contract of sale. There was no transfer of actual ownership interests by the Pachecos to a third party. The Pacheco family merely changed their ownership from one form to another. The ownership remained in the same hands. Hence, the private respondent has no basis for its claim of a light of first refusal under the lease contract. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED, The questioned decision and resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 885-V-79 of the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 120721

February 23, 2005

The National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, provides: Sec. 91. Imposition of Tax. (a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid upon the transfer by any person, resident, or nonresident, of the property by gift, a tax, computed as provided in Section 92. (b) The tax shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible. Pursuant to the above-quoted provisions of law, the transfer of property by gift, whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible, is subject to donors or gift tax. A gift is generally defined as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another without any consideration or compensation therefor (28 C.J. 620; Santos vs. Robledo, 28 Phil. 250). In the instant case, the contributions are voluntary transfers of property in the form of money from private respondents to Sen. Angara, without considerations therefor. Hence, they squarely fall under the definition of donation or gift. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General: The fact that the contributions were given to be used as campaign funds of Sen. Angara does not affect the character of the fund transfers as donation or gift. There was thereby no retention of control over the disposition of the contributions. There was simply an indication of the purpose for which they were to be used. For as long as the contributions were used for the purpose for which they were intended, Sen. Angara had complete and absolute power to dispose of the contributions. He was fully entitled to the economic benefits of the contributions. Section 91 of the Tax Code is very clear. A donors or gift tax is imposed on the transfer of property by gift.1awphi1.nt The Bureau of Internal Revenue issued Ruling No. 344 on July 20, 1988, which reads: Political Contributions. For internal revenue purposes, political contributions in the Philippines are considered taxable gift rather

MANUEL G. ABELLO, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, TEODORO D. REGALA, AVELINO V. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. DECISION AZCUNA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 27134, entitled "Comissioner of Internal Revenue v. Manuel G. Abello, Jose C. Concepcion, Teodoro D. Regala, Avelino V. Cruz and Court of Tax Appeals," which reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) to withdraw his letters dated April 21, 1988 and August 4, 1988 assessing donors taxes and to desist from collecting donors taxes from petitioners. During the 1987 national elections, petitioners, who are partners in the Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) law firm, contributed P882,661.31 each to the campaign funds of Senator Edgardo Angara, then running for the Senate. In letters dated April 21, 1988, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed each of the petitioners P263,032.66 for their contributions. On August 2, 1988, petitioners questioned the assessment through a letter to the BIR. They claimed that political or electoral contributions are not considered gifts under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), and that, therefore, they are not liable for donors tax. The claim for exemption was denied by the Commissioner.11vvphi1.nt On September 12, 1988, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CTA, which was decided on October 7, 1991 in favor of the petitioners. As aforestated, the CTA ordered the Commissioner to desist from collecting donors taxes from the petitioners.2 On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the CTA decision on April 20, 1994.3 The appellate Court ordered the petitioners to pay donors tax amounting to P263,032.66 each, reasoning as follows:

than taxable income. This is so, because a political contribution is indubitably not intended by the giver or contributor as a return of value or made because of any intent to repay another what is his due, but bestowed only because of motives of philanthropy or charity. His purpose is to give and to bolster the morals, the winning chance of the candidate and/or his party, and not to employ or buy. On the other hand, the recipient-donee does not regard himself as exchanging his services or his product for the money contributed. But more importantly he receives financial advantages gratuitously. When the U.S. gift tax law was adopted in the Philippines (before May 7, 1974), the taxability of political contributions was, admittedly, an unsettled issue; hence, it cannot be presumed that the Philippine Congress then had intended to consider or treat political contributions as non-taxable gifts when it adopted the said gift tax law. Moreover, well-settled is the rule that the Philippines need not necessarily adopt the present rule or construction in the United States on the matter. Generally, statutes of different states relating to the same class of persons or things or having the same purposes are not considered to be in pari materia because it cannot be justifiably presumed that the legislature had them in mind when enacting the provision being construed. (5206, Sutherland, Statutory Construction, p. 546.) Accordingly, in the absence of an express exempting provision of law, political contributions in the Philippines are subject to the donors gift tax. (cited in National Internal Revenue Code Annotated by Hector S. de Leon, 1991 ed., p. 290). In the light of the above BIR Ruling, it is clear that the political contributions of the private respondents to Sen. Edgardo Angara are taxable gifts. The vagueness of the law as to what comprise the gift subject to tax was made concrete by the above-quoted BIR ruling. Hence, there is no doubt that political contributions are taxable gifts.4 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its resolution of June 16, 1995.5 Petitioners thereupon filed the instant petition on July 26, 1995. Raised are the following issues: 1. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER IN ITS DECISION THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF OUR GIFT TAX LAW?

2. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE INTENTION OF THE GIVERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS WERE GIFTS SUBJECT TO DONORS TAX? 3. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DEFINITION OF AN "ELECTORAL CONTRIBUTION" UNDER THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAXABLE? 4. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF CLOSE TO HALF A CENTURY OF NOT SUBJECTING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DONORS TAX? 5. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE EFFECT THAT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT TAXABLE GIFTS? 6. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN NOT APPLYING AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME THE PHILIPPINES GIFT TAX LAW WAS ADOPTED IN 1939? 7. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN RESOLVING THE CASE MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF A RULING ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSMENTS HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE? 8. DID THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERR WHEN IT DID NOT CONSTRUE THE GIFT TAX LAW LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER AND STRICLTY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION?6 First, Fifth and Sixth Issues Section 91 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) reads:

(A) There shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid upon the transfer by any person, resident or nonresident, of the property by gift, a tax, computed as provided in Section 92 (B) The tax shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible. The NIRC does not define transfer of property by gift. However, Article 18 of the Civil Code, states: In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code. Thus, reference may be made to the definition of a donation in the Civil Code. Article 725 of said Code defines donation as: . . . an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. Donation has the following elements: (a) the reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.7 The present case falls squarely within the definition of a donation. Petitioners, the late Manuel G. Abello8 , Jose C. Concepcion, Teodoro D. Regala and Avelino V. Cruz, each gave P882,661.31 to the campaign funds of Senator Edgardo Angara, without any material consideration. All three elements of a donation are present. The patrimony of the four petitioners were reduced by P882,661.31 each. Senator Edgardo Angaras patrimony correspondingly increased by P3,530,645.249 . There was intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi was present since each of the petitioners gave their contributions without any consideration. Taken together with the Civil Code definition of donation, Section 91 of the NIRC is clear and unambiguous, thereby leaving no room for construction. In Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court10 the Court enunciated: It bears stressing that the first and fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or

ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. As has been our consistent ruling, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation; there is only room for application (Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, 24 SCRA 708 [1968]) Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says and the court has no choice but to see to it that its mandate is obeyed (Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople, 138 SCRA 273 [1985]; Luzon Surety Co., Inc. v. De Garcia, 30 SCRA 111 [1969]; Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 35 SCRA 270 [1970]). Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.l^vvphi1.net Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or more things at the same time. A statute is ambiguous if it is admissible of two or more possible meanings, in which case, the Court is called upon to exercise one of its judicial functions, which is to interpret the law according to its true intent. Second Issue Since animus donandi or the intention to do an act of liberality is an essential element of a donation, petitioners argue that it is important to look into the intention of the giver to determine if a political contribution is a gift. Petitioners argument is not tenable. First of all, donative intent is a creature of the mind. It cannot be perceived except by the material and tangible acts which manifest its presence. This being the case, donative intent is presumed present when one gives a part of ones patrimony to another without consideration. Second, donative intent is not negated when the person donating has other intentions, motives or purposes which do not contradict donative intent. This Court is not convinced that since the purpose of the contribution was to help elect a candidate, there was no donative intent. Petitioners contribution of money without any material consideration evinces animus donandi. The fact that their purpose for donating was to aid in the election of the donee does not negate the presence of donative intent. Third Issue Petitioners maintain that the definition of an "electoral contribution" under the Omnibus Election Code is essential to appreciate how a

political contribution differs from a taxable gift.11 Section 94(a) of the said Code defines electoral contribution as follows: The term "contribution" includes a gift, donation, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value, or a contract, promise or agreement to contribute, whether or not legally enforceable, made for the purpose of influencing the results of the elections but shall not include services rendered without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time in behalf of a candidate or political party. It shall also include the use of facilities voluntarily donated by other persons, the money value of which can be assessed based on the rates prevailing in the area. Since the purpose of an electoral contribution is to influence the results of the election, petitioners again claim that donative intent is not present. Petitioners attempt to place the barrier of mutual exclusivity between donative intent and the purpose of political contributions. This Court reiterates that donative intent is not negated by the presence of other intentions, motives or purposes which do not contradict donative intent. Petitioners would distinguish a gift from a political donation by saying that the consideration for a gift is the liberality of the donor, while the consideration for a political contribution is the desire of the giver to influence the result of an election by supporting candidates who, in the perception of the giver, would influence the shaping of government policies that would promote the general welfare and economic well-being of the electorate, including the giver himself. Petitioners attempt is strained. The fact that petitioners will somehow in the future benefit from the election of the candidate to whom they contribute, in no way amounts to a valuable material consideration so as to remove political contributions from the purview of a donation. Senator Angara was under no obligation to benefit the petitioners. The proper performance of his duties as a legislator is his obligation as an elected public servant of the Filipino people and not a consideration for the political contributions he received. In fact, as a public servant, he may even be called to enact laws that are contrary to the interests of his benefactors, for the benefit of the greater good. In fine, the purpose for which the sums of money were given, which was to fund the campaign of Senator Angara in his bid for a

senatorial seat, cannot be considered as a material consideration so as to negate a donation. Fourth Issue Petitioners raise the fact that since 1939 when the first Tax Code was enacted, up to 1988 the BIR never attempted to subject political contributions to donors tax. They argue that: . . . It is a familiar principle of law that prolonged practice by the government agency charged with the execution of a statute, acquiesced in and relied upon by all concerned over an appreciable period of time, is an authoritative interpretation thereof, entitled to great weight and the highest respect. . . .12 This Court holds that the BIR is not precluded from making a new interpretation of the law, especially when the old interpretation was flawed. It is a well-entrenched rule that . . . erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not block subsequent correct application of the statute (PLDT v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 676), and that the Government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents (Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 52 Phil. 803, 807; Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Pineda, 98 Phil. 711, 724).13 Seventh Issue Petitioners question the fact that the Court of Appeals decision is based on a BIR ruling, namely BIR Ruling No. 88-344, which was issued after the petitioners were assessed for donors tax. This Court does not need to delve into this issue. It is immaterial whether or not the Court of Appeals based its decision on the BIR ruling because it is not pivotal in deciding this case. As discussed above, Section 91 (now Section 98) of the NIRC as supplemented by the definition of a donation found in Article 725 of the Civil Code, is clear and unambiguous, and needs no further elucidation. Eighth Issue Petitioners next contend that tax laws are construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and strictly against the government. This rule of construction, however, does not benefit petitioners because, as

stated, there is here no room for construction since the law is clear and unambiguous. Finally, this Court takes note of the fact that subsequent to the donations involved in this case, Congress approved Republic Act No. 7166 on November 25, 1991, providing in Section 13 thereof that political/electoral contributions, duly reported to the Commission on Elections, are not subject to the payment of any gift tax. This all the more shows that the political contributions herein made are subject to the payment of gift taxes, since the same were made prior to the exempting legislation, and Republic Act No. 7166 provides no retroactive effect on this point. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.