G.R. No.

L-16759 August 31, 1966

RAFAEL MORALES, petitioner,
vs.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
Rafael Morales and Enrico T. de la Cruz for petitioner.
Assistant Solicitor General J. P. Alejandro and J. M. Maza for respondent.
FACTS:
The Commissioner issued a deficiency assessment for estate and inheritance taxes against
taxpayer on May 14, 1956. In cto!er of that same year, the Commissioner reiterated the deficiency
assessment and demanded payment. In that same month, taxpayer disputed the assessment on the
ground of prescription. n "ecem!er #$, 1956, the Commissioner re%ected the c&aim of prescription
and reiterated his demand for payment. ' reminder (as sent to taxpayer on March #6, 195$, (ith
(arning that summary remedies (ou&d !e avai&ed for co&&ection. In cto!er, 195$, a (arrant of
distraint and &evy (as issued against taxpayer and his properties (ere sei)ed. In *ovem!er, 195$,
taxpayer re+uested cance&&ation of the (arrant of distraint and &evy on the same ground of prescription.
This (as denied on "ecem!er 5, 195$.
n "ecem!er $, 195$, or three days &ater, taxpayer fi&ed a petition for revie( (ith the Court of
Tax 'ppea&s. ,y (ay of defense, the Commissioner contended that the appea& (as fi&ed out of time-
according&y, the Court had no %urisdiction to entertain the petition.
I../01
23* the appea&a!&e decision of the Commissioner dated "ecem!er #$, 1956 had !ecome fina&
and executory.
4/5I*61
The .upreme Court indicated that the appea&a!&e decision is the first or ear&iest ru&ing made !y
the Commissioner on the issue on (hich appea& to the Court of Tax 'ppea&s is ta7en. .ince the petition
for revie( raises the same issue of prescription reso&ved !y the Commissioner adverse&y to the taxpayer
in his &etter of "ecem!er #$, 195$, such &etter is the appea&a!&e decision.
Cited and invo7ed !y taxpayer, the case of .t. .tephen8s 'ssociation v. Co&&ector of Interna&
4evenue (as deemed inapp&icap&e. The Commissioner had sent t(o &etters at different dates denying
the re+uest for cance&&ation of the assessment and it (as the second &etter (hich the Court considered
the appea&a!&e decision. ,ut this (as so !ecause in such second &etter, the Commissioner in express
terms indicated that such second &etter (as the decision (hich taxpayer cou&d appea& to the Court of
Tax 'ppea&s.
The second &etter dated "ecem!er did not dea& (ith the disputed assessment, !ut mere&y dea&t
(ith the manner of the co&&ection, (hich (as not re&evant to the issue of prescription sought to !e
revie(ed !efore the Tax Court. 9ina&&y, the first &etter, dated "ecem!er #$, 1956 had the tenor of
fina&ity.