Vidal de Roces v. Posadas G.R. No.

34937 March 13, 1933 Facts: Sometime in 1925, plaintiffs Concepcion Vidal de Roces and her husband, as well as one Elvira Richards, received as donation several parcels of land from Esperanza uazon! he" too# possession of the lands thereafter and li#ewise obtained the respective transfer certificates! he donor died a "ear after without leavin$ an" forced heir! %n her will, which was admitted to probate, she be&ueathed to each of the donees the sum of '5,(((! )fter the distribution of the estate but before the deliver" of their shares, the C%R *appellee+ ruled that plaintiffs as donees and le$atees should pa" inheritance ta,es! he plaintiffs paid the ta,es under protest! C%R filed a demurrer on $round that the facts alle$ed were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action! he court sustained the demurrer and ordered the amendment of the complaint but the appellants failed to do so! -ence, the trial court dismissed the action on $round that plaintiffs, herein appellants, did not reall" have a ri$ht of action! 'laintiffs *appellant+ contend that Sec! 15.( of the )dministrative Code does not include donation inter vivos and if it does, it is unconstitutional, null and void for violatin$ SEC! / of the 0ones 1aw *providin$ that no law shall embrace more than one sub2ect and that the sub2ect should be e,pressed in its titles 3 that the 1e$islature has no authorit" to ta, donation inter vivos3 finall", that said provision violates the rule on uniformit" of ta,ation! C%R however contends that the word 4all $ifts4 refer clearl" to donation inter vivos and cited the doctrine in uason v! 'osadas! Issue5 6hether or not the donations should be sub2ected to inheritance ta, Held5 Sec! 15.( of the )dministrative Code clearl" refers to those donation inter vivos that ta#e effect immediatel" or durin$ the lifetime of the donor, but made in consideration of the death of the decedent! hose donations not made in contemplation of the decedent4s death are not included as it would be e&uivalent to imposin$ a direct ta, on propert" and not on its transmission! he phrase 4all $ifts4 as held in uason v! 'osadas refers to $ifts inter vivos as the" are considered as advances in anticipation of inheritance since the" are made in consideration of death!

ole!ti!o v. "ecretar# o$ Fi!a!ce %49 "&R' (3) Facts5 'etitioners * olentino, 7ilosba"an, %nc!, 'hilippine )irlines, Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and 8uilders )ssociation+ see# reconsideration of the Court9s previous rulin$ dismissin$ the petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionalit" of R!)! :o! ;;1<, the E,panded Value=)dded a, 1aw! 'etitioners contend that the R!)! did not >ori$inate e,clusivel"? in the -oR as re&uired b" )rticle <, Section 2. of the Constitution! he Senate alle$edl" did not pass it on second and third readin$s, instead passin$ its own version! 'etitioners contend that it should have amended the -ouse bill b" stri#in$ out the te,t of the bill and substitutin$ it with the te,t of its own bill, so as to conform with the Constitution! Issue5 6hether the R!)! is unconstitutional for havin$ >ori$inated? from the Senate, and not the -oR! Held5 'etition is unmeritorious! he enactment of the Senate bill has not been the first instance where the Senate, in the e,ercise of its power to propose amendments to bills *re&uired to ori$inate in the -ouse+, passed its own version! )n amendment b" substitution *stri#in$ out the te,t and substitutin$ it+, as ur$ed b" petitioners, concerns a mere matter of form, and considerin$ the petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would ma#e if Senate applied such substitution in the case, it cannot be applied to the case at bar! 6hile the aforementioned Constitutional provision states that bills must >ori$inate e,clusivel" in the -oR,? it also adds, >but the Senate ma" propose or concur with amendments!? he Senate ma" then propose an entirel" new bill as a substitute measure! 'etitioners erred in assumin$ the Senate version to be an independent and distinct bill! 6ithout the -ouse bill, Senate could not have enacted the Senate bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the former! )s such, it did not have to pass the Senate on second and third readin$s! 'etitioners &uestion the si$nin$ of the 'resident on both bills, to support their contention that such are separate and distinct! he 'resident certified the bills separatel" onl" because the certification had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which ) -E @A@E: was bein$ considered! 'etitioners &uestion the power of the Conference Committee to insert new provisions! he 2urisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolvin$ differences between the Senate and the -ouse! %t ma" propose an entirel" new provision, $iven that such are $ermane to the sub2ect of the conference, and that the respective houses of Con$ress subse&uentl" approve its report! 'etitioner ')1 contends that the amendment of its franchise b" the withdrawal of its e,emption from V) is not e,pressed in the title of the law, thereb" violatin$ the Constitution! he Court believes that the title of the R!)! satisfies the Constitutional Re&uirement! 'etitioners claim that the R!)! violates their press freedom and reli$ious libert", havin$ removed them from the e,emption to pa" V) ! Suffice it to sa" that since the law $ranted the press a privile$e, the law could ta#e bac# the privile$e an"time without offense to the Constitution! 8" $rantin$ e,emptions, the State does not forever waive the e,ercise of its soverei$n prero$ative! 1astl", petitioners contend that the R!)! violates due process, e&ual protection and contract clauses and the rule on ta,ation! 'etitioners fail to ta#e into consideration the fact that the V) was alread" provided for in E!A! :o! 2;/ lon$ before the R!)! was enacted! he latter merel" EB'):CS the base

of the ta,! E&ualit" and uniformit" in ta,ation means that all ta,able articles or #inds of propert" of the same class be ta,ed at the same rate, the ta,in$ power havin$ authorit" to ma#e reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of ta,ation! %t is enou$h that the statute applies e&uall" to all persons, forms and corporations placed in s similar situation!

Her*a!o +"a! Mi,uel- Fe.res &ordero Medical Fou!datio!, I!c. v. &IR &. .'. &'"/ N0. 1194 Facts5 -ermano is see#in$ the cancellation of Dinal )ssessment :otice *D):+ issued b" the 8%R for V) deficienc" amountin$ to '2,<(;,9//!(;, arisin$ from its sale of pharmac" items to its in=patients, in line with its renderin$ of >hospital services!? -ermano9 $rounds are5 *1+ he D): is void for the" merel" showed a mathematical computation of petitioner4s ta, liabilit" without statin$ the factual and le$al bases of the same3 *2+ C%R failed to ta#e into consideration that its sales of pharmac" items to its in=patients are e,empt from V) pursuant to Section 1(9*1+! Issue5 6hether the D): is void! Held5 he D): is not void based in the first $round! Section 22E provides that in the assessment, > he ta,pa"ers shall be informed in writin$ of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made3 otherwise, the assessment shall be void? to ensure that ta,pa"ers are dul" apprised of the basis of the ta, assessments a$ainst them! -ere, in the FCetails of CiscrepanciesF, attached to the assessment, the details contained therein showed that the factual basis for assessin$ petitioner for deficienc" V) was the discrepanc" from RE1%ED and hird='art" @atchin$! %n a lon$ line of cases, the SC has ruled that the re&uirement of the law to inform the ta,pa"er of the basis of the assessment does not necessaril" mean that it be a full narration of the facts and laws on which the assessment is based! -ere, -ermano was able to intelli$entl" ma#e its protest b" statin$ that its sales of pharmaceutical items in favor of its in=patients are e,empt from V) ! his circumstance proves that petitioner was sufficientl" informed of the facts and the law as to wh" the assessment has been issued a$ainst it! -owever, the assessment of V) deficienc" was incorrect! )s held in 'erpetual Succour -ospital vs! C%R and St! 1u#e4s @edical Center v! C ) G C%R, hospital services includes not onl" the services of the doctors, nurses and allied medical personnel, but also the necessar" laborator" services, and ma#in$ available the medicines, dru$s and pharmaceutical items that are necessar" in the dia$nosis, treatment and care of patients! Sale of dru$s or pharmaceutical items to inpatients of the hospital are, therefore, considered part of the hospital services covered b" Section 1(9 *l+ of the :%RC of 199;, as amended!