Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17725 February 28, 1962
REPUL!C OF T"E P"!L!PP!NES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
M#MUL#O LUMER COMP#N$, ET #L., defendants-
appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Arthur Tordesillas for defendants-appellants.
#RRER#, J.:
From the decision of the Court of First nstance of Manila !in
Civil Case No. "#$%%& orderin' it to pa( to plaintiff Republic
of the Philippines the sum of P#,)%*."+ ,ith -. interest
thereon from the date of the filin' of the complaint until full(
paid, plus costs, defendant Mambulao /umber Compan(
interposed the present appeal.
$
0he facts of the case are briefl( stated in the decision of the
trial court, to ,it1 .
0he facts of this case are not contested and ma( be
briefl( summari2ed as follo,s1 !a& under the first
cause of action, for forest char'es coverin' the period
from 3eptember $%, $45* to Ma( *#, $45",
defendants admitted that the( have a liabilit( of
P5)+."+, ,hich liabilit( is covered b( a bond
e6ecuted b( defendant 7eneral nsurance 8 3uret(
Corporation for Mambulao /umber Compan(, 9ointl(
and severall( in character, on :ul( *4, $45", in favor
of herein plaintiff; !b& under the second cause of
action, both defendants admitted a 9oint and several
liabilit( in favor of plaintiff in the sum of P*4-.+%,
also covered b( a bond dated November *+, $45";
and !c& under the third cause of action, both
defendants admitted a 9oint and several liabilit( in
favor of plaintiff for P",4*)."%, also covered b( a
bond dated :ul( *%, $45#. 0hese three liabilities
a''re'ate to P#,)%*."+. f the liabilit( of defendants
in favor of plaintiff in the amount alread( mentioned
is admitted, then ,hat is the defense interposed b(
the defendants< 0he defense presented b( the
defendants is =uite unusual in more ,a(s than one. t
appears from E6h. " that from :ul( "$, $4#) to
>ecember *4, $45-, defendant Mambulao /umber
Compan( paid to the Republic of the Philippines
P),*%%.5* for ?reforestation char'es? and for the
period commencin' from April "%, $4#+ to :une *#,
$4#), said defendant paid P4*+.%) to the Republic of
the Philippines for ?reforestation char'es?. 0hese
reforestation ,ere paid to the plaintiff in pursuance of
3ection $ of Republic Act $$5 ,hich provides that
there shall be collected, in addition to the re'ular
forest char'es provided under 3ection *-# of
Common,ealth Act #-- @no,n as the National
nternal Revenue Code, the amount of P%.5% on each
cubic meter of timber... cut out and removed from
an( public forest for commercial purposes. 0he
amount collected shall be e6pended b( the director of
forestr(, ,ith the approval of the secretar( of
a'riculture and commerce, for reforestation and
afforestation of ,atersheds, denuded areas ... and
other public forest lands, ,hich upon investi'ation,
are found needin' reforestation or afforestation ....
0he total amount of the reforestation char'es paid b(
Mambulao /umber Compan( is P4,$*+.5%, and it is
the contention of the defendant Mambulao /umber
Compan( that since the Republic of the Philippines
has not made use of those reforestation char'es
collected from it for reforestin' the denuded area of
the land covered b( its license, the Republic of the
Philippines should refund said amount, or, if it cannot
be refunded, at least it should be compensated ,ith
,hat Mambulao /umber Compan( o,ed the
Republic of the Philippines for reforestation char'es.
n line ,ith this thou'ht, defendant Mambulao
/umber Compan( ,rote the director of forestr(, on
Februar( *$, $45+ letter E6h. $, in para'raph # of
,hich said defendant re=uested Athat our account
,ith (our bureau be credited ,ith all the reforestation
char'es that (ou have imposed on us from :ul( $,
$4#+ to :une $#, $45-, amountin' to around
P*,4)).-* ...A. 0his letter of defendant Mambulao
/umber Compan( ,as ans,ered b( the director of
forestr( on March $*, $45+, mar@ed E6h. *, in ,hich
the director of forestr( =uoted an opinion of the
secretar( of 9ustice, to the effect that he has no
discretion to e6tend the time for pa(in' the
reforestation char'es and also e6plained ,h( not all
denuded areas are bein' reforested.
0he onl( issue to be resolved in this appeal is ,hether the sum
of P4,$*+.5% paid b( defendant-appellant compan( to
plaintiff-appellee as reforestation char'es from $4#+ to $45-
ma( be set off or applied to the pa(ment of the sum of
P#,)%*."+ as forest char'es due and o,in' from appellant to
appellee. t is appellant?s contention that said sum of
P4,$*+.5%, not havin' been used in the reforestation of the
area covered b( its license, the same is refundable to it or ma(
be applied in compensation of said sum of P#,)%*."+ due from
it as forest char'es.1wph1.t
Be find appellant?s claim devoid of an( merit. 3ection $ of
Republic Act No. $$5, provides1
3EC0CN $. 0here shall be collected, in addition to
the re'ular forest char'es provided for under 3ection
t,o hundred and si6t(-four of Common,ealth Act
Numbered Four Dundred 3i6t(-si6, @no,n as the
National nternal Revenue Code, the amount of fift(
centavos on each cubic meter of timber for the first
and second 'roups and fort( centavos for the third
and fourth 'roups cut out and removed from an(
public forest for commercial purposes. 0he amount
collected shall be e6pended b( the >irector of
Forestr(, ,ith the approval of the 3ecretar( of
A'riculture and Natural Resources !commerce&, for
reforestation and afforestation of ,atersheds,
denuded areas and co'on and open lands ,ithin
forest reserves, communal forest, national par@s,
timber lands, sand dunes, and other public forest
lands, ,hich upon investi'ation, are found needin'
reforestation or afforestation, or needin' to be under
forest cover for the 'ro,in' of economic trees for
timber, tannin', oils, 'ums, and other minor forest
products or medicinal plants, or for ,atersheds
protection, or for prevention of erosion and floods
and preparation of necessar( plans and estimate of
costs and for reconnaisance surve( of public forest
lands and for such other e6penses as ma( be deemed
necessar( for the proper carr(in' out of the purposes
of this Act.
All revenues collected b( virtue of, and pursuant to,
the provisions of the precedin' para'raph and from
the sale of bar@s, medical plants and other products
derived from plantations as herein provided shall
constitute a fund to be @no,n as Reforestation Fund,
to be e6pended e6clusivel( in carr(in' out the
purposes provided for under this Act. All provincial
or cit( treasurers and their deputies shall act as a'ents
of the >irector of Forestr( for the collection of the
revenues or incomes derived from the provisions of
this Act. !Emphasis supplied.&
Ender this provision, it seems =uite clear that the amount
collected as reforestation char'es from a timber licenses or
concessionaire shall constitute a fund to be @no,n as the
Reforestation Fund, and that the same shall be e6pended b(
the >irector of Forestr(, ,ith the approval of the 3ecretar( of
A'riculture and Natural Resources for the reforestation or
afforestation, amon' others, of denuded areas ,hich, upon
investi'ation, are found to be needin' reforestation or
afforestation. Note that there is nothin' in the la, ,hich
re=uires that the amount collected as reforestation char'es
should be used e6clusivel( for the reforestation of the area
covered b( the license of a licensee or concessionaire, and that
if not so used, the same should be refunded to him. Cbserve
too, that the licensee?s area ma( or ma( not be reforested at all,
dependin' on ,hether the investi'ation thereof b( the >irector
of Forestr( sho,s that said area needs reforestation. 0he
conclusion seems to be that the amount paid b( a licensee as
reforestation char'es is in the nature of a ta6 ,hich forms a
part of the Reforestation Fund, pa(able b( him irrespective of
,hether the area covered b( his license is reforested or not.
3aid fund, as the la, e6pressl( provides, shall be e6pended in
carr(in' out the purposes provided for thereunder, namel(, the
reforestation or afforestation, amon' others, of denuded areas
needin' reforestation or afforestation.
Appellant maintains that the principle of a compensation in
Article $*+) of the ne, Civil Code
*
is applicable, such that
the sum of P4,$*+.5% paid b( it as reforestation char'es ma(
compensate its indebtedness to appellee in the sum of
P#,)%*."+ as forest char'es. But in the vie, ,e ta@e of this
case, appellant and appellee are not mutuall( creditors and
debtors of each other. Conse=uentl(, the la, on compensation
is inapplicable. Cn this point, the trial court correctl(
observed1 .
Ender Article $*+), NCC, compensation should ta@e
place ,hen t,o persons in their o,n ri'ht are
creditors and debtors of each other. Bith respect to
the forest char'es ,hich the defendant Mambulao
/umber Compan( has paid to the 'overnment, the(
are in the coffers of the 'overnment as ta6es
collected, and the 'overnment does not o,e an(thin',
cr(stal clear that the Republic of the Philippines and
the Mambulao /umber Compan( are not creditors
and debtors of each other, because compensation
refers to mutual debts. ..
And the ,ei'ht of authorit( is to the effect that internal
revenue ta6es, such as the forest char'es in =uestion, can be
the sub9ect of set-off or compensation.
A claim for ta6es is not such a debt, demand, contract
or 9ud'ment as is allo,ed to be set-off under the
statutes of set-off, ,hich are construed uniforml(, in
the li'ht of public polic(, to e6clude the remed( in an
action or an( indebtedness of the state or
municipalit( to one ,ho is liable to the state or
municipalit( for ta6es. Neither are the( a proper
sub9ect of recoupment since the( do not arise out of
the contract or transaction sued on. ... !)% C.:.3. +"-
+#. & .
0he 'eneral rule, based on 'rounds of public polic( is
,ell-settled that no set-off is admissible a'ainst
demands for ta6es levied for 'eneral or local
'overnmental purposes. 0he reason on ,hich the
'eneral rule is based, is that ta6es are not in the
nature of contracts bet,een the part( and part( but
'ro, out of a dut( to, and are the positive acts of the
'overnment, to the ma@in' and enforcin' of ,hich,
the personal consent of individual ta6pa(ers is not
re=uired. ... f the ta6pa(er can properl( refuse to pa(
his ta6 ,hen called upon b( the Collector, because he
has a claim a'ainst the 'overnmental bod( ,hich is
not included in the ta6 lev(, it is plain that some
le'itimate and necessar( e6penditure must be
curtailed. f the ta6pa(er?s claim is disputed, the
collection of the ta6 must a,ait and abide the result
of a la,suit, and mean,hile the financial affairs of
the 'overnment ,ill be thro,n into 'reat confusion.
!#+ Am. :ur. +---+-+.&
BDEREFCRE, the 9ud'ment of the trial court appealed from
is hereb( affirmed in all respects, ,ith costs a'ainst the
defendant-appellant. 3o ordered.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1899% &u'e 29, 196(
MELEC!O R. )OM!NGO, a* Co++,**,o'er o-
!'.er'a/ Re0e'ue, petitioner,
vs.
"ON. LOREN1O C. G#RL!TOS, ,' 2,* 3a4a3,.y a*
&u56e o- .2e Cour. o- F,r*. !'*.a'3e o- Ley.e,
a'5 S!MEON# 7. PR!CE, a* #5+,',*.ra.r,8 o- .2e
!'.e*.a.e E*.a.e o- .2e /a.e 9a/.er S3o..
Pr,3e,respondents.
Office of the Solicitor General and Atty. G. H. antolino
for petitioner.
!enedicto and artine" for respondents.
L#R#)OR, J.:
0his is a petition for certiorari and #anda#us a'ainst the
:ud'e of the Court of First nstance of /e(te, Ron. /oren2o
C. 7arlitos, presidin', see@in' to annul certain orders of the
court and for an order in this Court directin' the respondent
court belo, to e6ecute the 9ud'ment in favor of the
7overnment a'ainst the estate of Balter 3cott Price for
internal revenue ta6es.
t appears that in Melecio R. >omin'o vs. Don. :ud'e 3. C.
Moscoso, 7.R. No. /-$#-+#, :anuar( "%, $4-%, this Court
declared as final and e6ecutor( the order for the pa(ment
b( the estate of the estate and inheritance ta6es, char'es and
penalties, amountin' to P#%,%5).55, issued b( the Court of
First nstance of /e(te in, special proceedin's No. $#
entitled An the matter of the ntestate Estate of the /ate
Balter 3cott Price.A n order to enforce the claims a'ainst
the estate the fiscal presented a petition dated :une *$,
$4-$, to the court belo, for the e6ecution of the 9ud'ment.
0he petition ,as, ho,ever, denied b( the court ,hich held
that the e6ecution is not 9ustifiable as the 7overnment is
indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of
P*-*,*%%. 0he orders of the court belo, dated Au'ust *%,
$4-% and 3eptember *), $4-%, respectivel(, are as follo,s1
Att(. Benedicto submitted a cop( of the contract
bet,een Mrs. 3imeona F. Price, Administratri6 of
the estate of her late husband Balter 3cott Price
and >irector Goilo Castrillo of the Bureau of
/ands dated 3eptember $4, $45- and
ac@no,led'ed before Notar( Public 3alvador H.
Es'uerra, le'al adviser in MalacaIan' to
E6ecutive 3ecretar( >e /eon dated >ecember $#,
$45-, the note of Dis E6cellenc(, Pres. Carlos P.
7arcia, to >irector Castrillo dated Au'ust *, $45),
directin' the latter to pa( to Mrs. Price the sum
ofP"-),$#%.%%, and an e6tract of pa'e +-5 of
Republic Act No. *+%% appropriatin' the sum of
P*-*.*%%.%% for the pa(ment to the /e(te
Cadastral 3urve(, nc., represented b( the
administratri6 3imeona F. Price, as directed in the
above note of the President. Considerin' these
facts, the Court orders that the pa(ment of
inheritance ta6es in the sum of P#%,%5).55 due the
Collector of nternal Revenue as ordered paid b(
this Court on :ul( 5, $4-% in accordance ,ith the
order of the 3upreme Court promul'ated :ul( "%,
$4-% in 7.R. No. /-$#-+#, be deducted from the
amount of P*-*,*%%.%% due and pa(able to the
Administratri6 3imeona F. Price, in this estate, the
balance to be paid b( the 7overnment to her
,ithout further dela(. !Crder of Au'ust *%, $4-%&
0he Court has nothin' further to add to its order
dated Au'ust *%, $4-% and it orders that the
pa(ment of the claim of the Collector of nternal
Revenue be deferred until the 7overnment shall
have paid its accounts to the administratri6 herein
amountin' to P*-*,*%%.%%. t ma( not be amiss to
repeat that it is onl( fair for the 7overnment, as a
debtor, to its accounts to its citi2ens-creditors
before it can insist in the prompt pa(ment of the
latter?s account to it, speciall( ta@in' into
consideration that the amount due to the
7overnment dra,s interests ,hile the credit due to
the present state does not accrue an( interest.
!Crder of 3eptember *), $4-%&
0he petition to set aside the above orders of the court belo,
and for the e6ecution of the claim of the 7overnment
a'ainst the estate must be denied for lac@ of merit. 0he
ordinar( procedure b( ,hich to settle claims of
indebtedness a'ainst the estate of a deceased person, as an
inheritance ta6, is for the claimant to present a claim before
the probate court so that said court ma( order the
administrator to pa( the amount thereof. 0o such effect is
the decision of this $ourt in Alda#i" %s. &ud'e of the $ourt
of (irst )nstance of indoro, 7.R. No. /-*"-%, >ec. *4,
$4#4, thus1
. . . a ,rit of e6ecution is not the proper procedure
allo,ed b( the Rules of Court for the pa(ment of
debts and e6penses of administration. 0he proper
procedure is for the court to order the sale of
personal estate or the sale or mort'a'e of real
propert( of the deceased and all debts or e6penses
of administrator and ,ith the ,ritten notice to all
the heirs le'atees and devisees residin' in the
Philippines, accordin' to Rule )4, section ", and
Rule 4%, section *. And ,hen sale or mort'a'e of
real estate is to be made, the re'ulations contained
in Rule 4%, section +, should be complied ,ith.1wph1.t
E6ecution ma( issue onl( ,here the devisees,
le'atees or heirs have entered into possession of
their respective portions in the estate prior to
settlement and pa(ment of the debts and e6penses
of administration and it is later ascertained that
there are such debts and e6penses to be paid, in
,hich case Athe court havin' 9urisdiction of the
estate ma(, b( order for that purpose, after hearin',
settle the amount of their several liabilities, and
order ho, much and in ,hat manner each person
shall contribute, and ma(issue e*ecution if
circumstances re=uireA !Rule )4, section -; see
also Rule +#, 3ection #; Emphasis supplied.& And
this is not the instant case.
0he le'al basis for such a procedure is the fact that in the
testate or intestate proceedin's to settle the estate of a
deceased person, the properties belon'in' to the estate are
under the 9urisdiction of the court and such 9urisdiction
continues until said properties have been distributed amon'
the heirs entitled thereto. >urin' the pendenc( of the
proceedin's all the estate is in custodia le'is and the proper
procedure is not to allo, the sheriff, in case of the court
9ud'ment, to sei2e the properties but to as@ the court for an
order to re=uire the administrator to pa( the amount due
from the estate and re=uired to be paid.
Another 'round for den(in' the petition of the provincial
fiscal is the fact that the court havin' 9urisdiction of the
estate had found that the claim of the estate a'ainst the
7overnment has been reco'ni2ed and an amount of
P*-*,*%% has alread( been appropriated for the purpose b(
a correspondin' la, !Rep. Act No. *+%%&. Ender the above
circumstances, both the claim of the 7overnment for
inheritance ta6es and the claim of the intestate for services
rendered have alread( become overdue and demandable is
,ell as full( li=uidated. Compensation, therefore, ta@es
place b( operation of la,, in accordance ,ith the
provisions of Articles $*+4 and $*4% of the Civil Code, and
both debts are e6tin'uished to the concurrent amount, thus1
AR0. $*%%. Bhen all the re=uisites mentioned in
article $*+4 are present, compensation ta@es effect
b( operation of la,, and e6tin'uished both debts to
the concurrent amount, eventhou'h the creditors
and debtors are not a,are of the compensation.
t is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has no clear ri'ht to
e6ecute the 9ud'ment for ta6es a'ainst the estate of the
deceased Balter 3cott Price. Furthermore, the petition
for certiorari and #anda#us is not the proper remed( for
the petitioner. Appeal is the remed(.
0he petition is, therefore, dismissed, ,ithout costs.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22(69 O3.ober 15, 1966
!N T"E M#TTER OF T"E TEST#TE EST#TE OF P#TR!C!O
PONFERR#)#, deceased.
&O#:U!N COR)ERO, administrator-appellee,
vs.
&OSE GON)#, ,' 2,* 3a4a3,.y a* Re4re*e'.a.,0e o- .2e Co++,**,o'er o-
!'.er'a/ Re0e'ue, claimant-appellant.
Arte#io G. +a,orar for ad#inistrator and appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General for clai#ant and appellant.
S#NC"E1, J.:
Cn 3eptember $), $45", a demand b( letter ,as made on Patricio Ponferrada
b( the Bureau of nternal Revenue
$
for the pa(ment of P",)%5.)), coverin'
forest char'es for the period from November *, $4#- to :anuar( *4,
$4#4.
*
Ponferrada made a partial pa(ment of P*-*."+,
"
leavin' a balance of
P",5#".5$.
Ponferrada died on November *5, $45+. n the 0estate Estate
proceedin's,
#
:oa=uin Cordero ,as named Administrator.
Cn :ul( *4, $454, the BR, thru respondent :ose 7onda, filed in the
proceedin's 9ust mentioned a claim for the said sum of P",5#".5$. 0he
Administrator opposed. 7round1 Prescription.
5
Epon a stipulation of facts, the probate court, on Au'ust *), $4-", declared
that said claim of P",5#".5$ had prescribed.
-
BR no, appeals direct to this Court.
+
$. Cur 0a6 Code
)
provides for t,o main periods of prescription. 0he first
refers to assessment,
4
the second to the remedies of collection.
$%
Not
concerned ,ith the first, ,e are ,ith the second.
0hat an assessment has here been, made, ,e do not doubt. B( the ver( fact
that, on 3eptember $), $45", a formal demand ,as made b( the 'overnment
upon the deceased Patricio Ponferrada for the pa(ment of forest char'es in
a definite amount J P",)%5.)) J assessment is deemed to have been made.
$$
3eptember $), $45" then is a safe startin' point for the statutor( limitation to
commence collection suit. Dere, the court claim ,as filed on :ul( *4, $454.
From 3eptember $), $45" to :ul( *4, $454, a period of 5 (ears, $% months and
$$ da(s has passed. 0he five-(ear prescriptive period had thus elapsed.
3ection ""* !c& of the 0a6 Code reads1
!c& Bhere the assessment of an( internal-revenue ta6 has been
made ,ithin the period of limitation above prescribed such
ta6 #ay ,e collected b( distraint or lev( or ,y a proceedin' in
court, but onl( if be'un !$&within fi%e years after the assess#ent of
the ta*, or !*& prior to the e*piration of any period for collection
a'reed upon in writin' b( the Commissioner of nternal Revenue
and the ta6pa(er before the e6piration of such five-(ear. 0he
period so a'reed upon ma( be e6tended b( subse=uent
a'reements in writin' made before the e6piration of the period
previousl( a'reed upon.
$*
Be note the narro,l(-confined restriction of time ,ithin ,hich a proceedin'
in court ma( be brou'ht1 -,ut only if ,e'un !$& ,ithin five (ears after the
assessment of the ta6A. mplicit in the ,ords but onl( is that, unless other,ise
authori2ed b( statute, the 5-(ear period is absolute.
0he Code itself reco'ni2es but one e6ception1 f suit is started Aprior to the
e6piration of an( period for collectiona'reed upon in writin' b( the
Commissioner of nternal Revenue and the ta6pa(er before the e6piration of
such five-(ear periodA J ,hich ma( be e6tended b( subse=uent ,ritten
a'reements made Abefore the e6piration of the period previousl( a'reed
uponA. n $ollector of )nternal +e%enue %s. .ineda, etc., /-$#5**, Ma( "$,
$4-$, this Court
$"
said in terms e=uall( pertinent here, that1 Athe onl(
a'reement that could have suspended the runnin' of the prescriptive period
for the collection of the ta6 in =uestion is, . . . a written a'reement bet,een
3olano !the ta6pa(er& and the Collector, entered into before the e6piration of
the five-(ear prescriptive period, e6tendin' the period of limitation prescribed
b( la, !3ec. ""* KcL, N..R.C.&.A No such ,ritten a'reement e6ists here. 0he
ori'inal five-(ear limit 'overns.
*. Appellant?s brief dra,s our attention to 9urisprudence ,here a ta6pa(er ma(
not avail of the limitations statute.
$#
0hese cases are inapposite. n Arcache,
dela( in ta6 collection ,as e6cused because of Ahis Kta6pa(er?sL o,n repeated
re=uests for re-investi'ation and similarl( repeated re=uests of e6tension of
time to pa(A. n 3ison, Athe ta6pa(er?s petition for reconsideration or
reinvesti'ation had stopped the runnin' of the five-(ear limitation periodA. n
Capitol 3ubdivision, the pendenc( of a ta6pa(er?s petition for clarification
interrupted said period. None of these situations obtains here.
0he 'overnment also ur'es that partial pa(ment is Aac@no,led'ment of the
ta6 obli'ationA, hence, a A,aiver of the defense of prescriptionA. But partial
pa(ment ,ould not prevent the 'overnment from suin' the ta6pa(er. Because,
b( such act of pa(ment, the 'overnment is not thereb( Apersuaded to postpone
collection to ma@e him feel that the demand ,as not unreasonable or that no
harrassment or in9ustice is meantA. Bhich, as stated in $ollector %s. Suyoc
$onsolidated inin' $o./ et al., /-$$5*+, November *5, $45), is the
underl(in' reason behind the rule that prescriptive period is arrested b( the
ta6pa(er?s re=uest for ree6amination or reinvesti'ation J even if he Ahas not
previousl( ,aived it KprescriptionL in ,ritin'A. And, partial pa(ment is no
,aiver Ain ,ritin'A. Particularl( is this true here ,here, out of the claim of
P",)%5.)), but P*-*.*+ ,ere paid; and in reference to the other claim of
P-,**%.-5,
$5
appellee made a substantial pa(ment of P-,%%%.%%
and ac0nowled'ed liabilit( of P**%.-5.
". 0he 'overnment leans heavil( upon the Barretto case
$-
to stren'then its
claim that the action had not (et prescribed. Because, this Court there said1
. . . Moreover, as alread( stated in the decision, forest char'es and
surchar'es are pay#ents for ti#,er ta0en fro# pu,lic forests, and
the( are considered as internal revenue ta6es onl( in the sense that
the( are to be collected b( the Collector of nternal Revenue and
the re'ulations for their collection are contained in the National
nternal Revenue Code. Forest products are obtained under
licenses issued b( the 7overnment and forest char'es are in a
sense contractual in ori'in. 1o prescripti%e period ha%in' ,een
prescri,ed ,y law for this case, 3ec. #" of the Code of Civil
Procedure should appl( . . . .
$+
0his opinion ,as planted on the vie,s of the 0a6 Commission !$4"4&, as
follo,s1
Forest char'es, ,hich are not propert( ta6es but rather the price
paid for e6ploitin' national resources, need to be revised
$)
to ma@e
them more in harmon( ,ith present-da( conditions in the industr(
and ,ith public policies.
Forest char'es are to be distin'uished from ta6es. 0he( are, strictl(
spea@in', the price ,hich the 7overnment char'es for the privile'e
'ranted to concessionaires to e6ploit the public domain, rather than
a ta6 imposed to support the 'eneral services of the
'overnment . . . .
$4
Compellin' reasons there are ,hich constrain us to revise the vie,s e6pressed
in the !arretto case.
B( la,, forest char'es have always been cate'ori2ed as internal revenue ta6es
for J all purposes. Cur statute boo@s sa( so.
Be start ,ith the 0a6 Code. Forest char'es appear belo, the headin' A00/E
H J M3CE//ANECE3 0AME3A, under Chapter H, alon' ,ith such
others as ta6 on ban@s !Chapter &, ta6es on receipts of insurance companies
!Chapter &, franchise ta6 !Chapter &, and amusement ta6es !Chapter H&.
And 3ection $) of the same Code, includes Achar'es on forest productsA in the
list of those that Aare deemed to be national internal revenue ta6esA, thus1
3EC. $). Sources of re%enue.J0he follo,in' ta6es, fees and
char'es are deemed to be national internal revenue ta6es1
!a& ncome ta6;
!b& Estate, inheritance and 'ift ta6es;
!c& 3pecific ta6es on certain articles;
!d& Privile'e ta6es on business or occupation;
!e& >ocumentar( stamp ta6es;
!f& Minin' ta6es;
!'& Miscellaneous ta6es, fees and char'es, namel(, ta6es on ban@s
and insurance companies, franchise ta6es, ta6es on
amusements, char'es on forest products, fees for sealin' ,ei'hts
and measures, firearms license fees, tobacco inspection fees, and
,ater rentals. !As amended b( Rep. Act No. $#+-, approved :une
$5, $45-.&
*%
Bith the e6ception of radio re'istration fees, ,hich ,ere eliminated, the
fore'oin' is a reproduction in toto of the ori'inal 3ection $) of the 0a6 Code
approved on :une $5, $4"4.
3ection $#"), Administrative Code of $4$+, the la, ,hich 3ection $) of the
0a6 Code of $4"4 replaced, states in part1
3EC. $#"). Sources of ta*es.J0he follo,in' ta6es, fees, and
char'es in the nature of ta6 are deemed to be internal revenue
ta6es1
666 666 666
!f& Char'es for forest products.
666 666 666
3ection $#") of the Administrative Code, in turn, proceeded from 3ection *$,
Act *""4 of the Philippine /e'islature @no,n as the nternal Revenue /a, of
$4$#, ,hich provides1
AR0C/E . J 3ources of internal revenue.
3EC. *$. Sources of ta*es.J0he follo,in' ta6es, fees, and char'es
in the nature of ta6 are deemed to be internal-revenue ta6es1
666 666 666
!f& Char'es for forest products;
666 666 666
Predecessor of this provision is 3ection *5 of Act $$)4, @no,n as the nternal
Revenue /a, of $4%#, ,hich reads1
3EC. *5. 0he follo,in' sources of revenue shall be included in the
internal revenue for the Philippine slands, and the ta6es imposed
shall be collected b( the Collector of nternal Revenue . . . and the
revenue obtained therefrom shall be devoted to the support of the
several provinces and of the nsular and municipal 'overnments in
the manner in this Act provided1
666 666 666
$. 0a6 on forestr( products.
666 666 666
#. No,, the la, on prescription in the 0a6 Code does not ma@e an( distinction
at all as to the sources of ta6es to ,hich it is made applicable. ts broad s,eep
is articulated in the terms Ainternal-revenue ta6esA
*$
and Aan( internal-revenue
ta6A.
**
3ince Achar'es on forest productsA are Ainternal-revenue ta6esA, the(
are ,ithin the covera'e of the la, on prescription of actions to collect
Ainternal-revenue ta6esA or Aan( internal-revenue ta6A. Dad the 0a6 Code
intended that forest char'es be outside the operational rule on prescription,
that statute should have so provided. Be cannot insert therein an( such
e6ception no,. Clearl(, that is intrusion into the le'islative domain in
violation of a definite proscription in the Constitution.
5. Authorities are not ,antin' to brin' home the point that forest char'es are
in realit( internal revenue ta6es, as such sub9ect to the other provisions of
internal revenue la,. As earl( as $4$),
*"
this Court held that forest char'es are
in the nature of an internal revenue ta6 on propert( KAforest products removed
from the public forestAL and a distress ,arrant ma( be issued thereon.
Cne month before the !arretto decision came the /acson case.
*#
0here, this
Court made mention of the observations of the 0a6 Commission Kheretofore
te6tuall( copiedL, ,hich recommended the enactment of the $4"4 nternal
Revenue Code. Do,ever, this Court sustained the %iews of the dissentin'
9ud'e of the Court of 0a6 Appeals, thus1
. . . 0here appears to be no le'al basis for not considerin' forest
char'es as ta6es ,hen respondent considers them as ta6es under
Republic Act No. "%#, as amended, thus enablin' holders of
bac@pa( certificates to pa( forest char'es out of their bac@pa(
!B..R. rulin', November **, $455, E6. B&, and as internal revenue
ta6 under Chapter , 0itle M, of the Revenue Code, so as to
authori2e collection of said char'es b( distraint and lev( !Cp. Att(.
7en., Cct. *+, $4**&. 0he ar'ument that forest char'es are not
ta6es because the( are the price paid for the sale b( the
7overnment of forest products o%erloo0s the fact that some forest
char'es are impose on forest products cut and removed from
unre'istered private lands. !3ee 3ec. *--, Revenue Code&. 0he
7overnment cannot sell forest products ,hich it does not o,n.
From this it ma( be inferred that forest char'es are not in
reality the price paid for the sale b( the 7overnment of forest
products; they are essentially ta*es for the pri%ile'e of cuttin' and
removin' forest products . . . They stand on the sa#e footin' as the
#inin' ta*es imposed under 0itle H of the Revenue Code . . . .
*5
Even the Chairman of the $4"4 0a6 Commission later on !November *%,
$4"4&, in a decision he rendered as 3ecretar( of Finance, in the case of the
>ulaI'an Minin' nterests Co., nc., coverin' forest char'es, adverted to the
rulin' in the Don'@on' and 3han'hai Ban@in' Corporation case, supra. De
applied 3ection $5)) of the Administrative Code and declared that ever(
internal revenue ta6 J ,hich includes forest char'es 2 is a lien on the
propert( for ,hich that ta6 is imposed.
*-
5$ Am. :ur. p. $%+* is authorit( for the statement that1
Ta*es ,hich, althou'h imposed under statutes containin' man(
variations as to their precise phraseolo'(, are directed 'enerall(
a'ainst the production, or se%erance from the soil, of such natural
resources asti#,er, oil, natural 'as, ores, or the li@e, and are
normall( measured accordin' to the =uantit( or value of the
articles produced or severed, are usuall(, althou'h not invariabl(,
re'arded as e6cise rather than propert( ta6es.
*+
0he vie, that forest char'es are much li@e ad %alore# ta6es in minin', finds
9urisprudential support. n $e,u .ortland $e#ent $o#pany %s. $o##issioner
of )nternal +e%enue, /-$)-#4, Februar( *+, $4-5, ,e said that thisad
%alore# ta6 !on minerals used for cement& Ais a ta6 not on the minerals, ,ut
upon the pri%ile'e of se%erin' or e*tractin' the sa#e fro# the earth, the
'overnment?s ri'ht to e6act the said impost sprin'in' from the +e'alian
theory of State ownership of its natural resourcesA.
*)
3o sa(in', this Court
there applied 3ection "%-,
*4
under the Administrative Provisions Kof the 0a6
CodeL ,hich include prescription of actions for ta6 collection.
n another case,
"%
upon the premise that forest char'es Aare in the coffers of
the 'overnment as ta6es collectedA, the pronouncement ,as that internal
revenue ta6es cannot be the sub9ect of compensation1 Reason1 'overnment and
ta6pa(er Aare not mutuall( creditors and debtors of each otherA under Article
$*+) of the Civil Code and a Aclaim for ta6es is not such a de,t,
demand, contract or 9ud'ment as is allo,ed to be set-off.A 0his decision
inferentiall( ta@es forest char'es out of the !arretto rule, because the( are
ta6es J not Ain a sense contractual in ori'in.A
0he thou'hts e6pressed in the authorities 9ust cited funnel do,n to one idea1
forest char'es are internal revenue ta6es, ,hether one labels them ta6es on
propert(, or e6cise ta6es, i.e., ta6es upon the privile'e of cuttin' and cartin'
a,a( timber and forest products. And the( fall under the philosoph( of
ta6ation J to support the 'eneral services of 'overnment. 0he( 'o into the
'eneral fund.
"$
-. 0he provisions on prescription fall under 0itle M, entitled 7eneral
Administrative Provisions. 0his title applies to all ta6es, fees,
and char'es collected under the Code. n this title?s first provision !3ection
"%5&, in9unction is unavailin' to a forest concessionaire Ato restrain the
collection of an( national internal-revenue ta6, fee, or char'eimposed b( this
CodeA. B( 3ection "%-, the concessionaire, ma( onl( sue for ta6 refunds
,ithin t,o (ears from the date of pa(ment.
"*
3ection "$- defines the Acivil
remedies for the collection of internal revenue ta6es, fees, orchar'esA to be
distraint and lev(, and 9udicial action.
""
n 3ection ""+, the forest concessionaire
"#
J li@e all other ta6pa(ers J is
obli'ated to preserve his boo@s of account for a period of five (ears Afrom the
date of the last entr( in each boo@.A Bh(< Because the 'overnment is 'iven a
li@e period of five (ears ,ithin ,hich to ma@e assessment. f forest char'es
,ere Ain a sense contractual in ori'inA, then the concessionaire should be
re=uired to @eep his accountin' records not for five (ears onl(, but for ten
(ears, to 9ibe ,ith the $%-(ear prescriptive period in the Civil Code.
"5
n sum, here is the situation of a man called upon to pa( forest char'es.
Applicable to him are the 0a6 Code provisions on distraint and lev(; the t,o-
(ear period for refund; the prohibition a'ainst in9unction; the dut( to @eep his
boo@s for five (ears. But, if ,e ,ere to adhere to the !arretto decision, then
the la, on prescription in the Code of Civil Procedure Kno, Art. $$##, Civil
CodeL
"-
must have to be scissored and pasted over 3ections ""$ and ""* of the
0a6 Code. Eniformit( in the application of the 0a6 Code provisions ,ould
su''est that ,e veer a,a( from this vie,.
+. Cur stand is even fortified b( the facts set forth in the !arretto case.
Assessment ,as not there based on a return. 0he 9ud'ment on prescription
therein ,as 'rounded on fraud. Because, from an e6amination of the boo@s, it
,as found that Aman( purchases of lo's ,ere ,ithout invoices and sales under
declaredA. 0he Adeficiencies amountin' to fraud ,ere discoveredA in $45".
And appl(in' the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it ,as there
declared that the period for prescription should be rec@onedA from $45". But
the situation presented in said case is precisel( covered b( 3ection ""*!a& of
the 0a6 Code, ,hich reads1
!a& n the case of a false or fraudulent
"+
return ,ith intent to evade
ta6 or of a failure to file a return, the ta6 ma( be assessed, or
a proceedin' in court for the collection of such ta6 ma( be be'un
,ithout assessment, at an( time within ten years after the
discover( of the falsit(, fraud, or omission.
")
Cur conclusion, therefore, is that the over,helmin' implication from the te6t
of the 0a6 Code leaves no other reasonable construction e6cept that1 Forest
char'es come ,ithin the compass of the prescriptive periods set forth therein.
0he net result still is1 From 3eptember $), $45" !,hen demand for pa(ment
,as made& to :ul( *4, $45" !,hen court claim ,as filed&, more than five !5&
(ears have elapsed. B( the terms of Article ""*!c& of the 0a6 Code,supra,
action to collect has prescribed.
Epon the premises, the 9ud'ment appealed from is affirmed. No costs. 3o
ordered.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25299 &u/y 29, 1969
COMM!SS!ONER OF !NTERN#L RE;ENUE, petitioner,
vs.
!TOGON-SU$OC M!NES, !NC., a'5 T"E COURT OF T#<
#PPE#LS, respondents.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio .. !arredo/ Assistant Solicitor
General (elicisi#o +. +osete and Special Attorney Oscar S. de
$astro for petitioner.
+a#on O. +eynoso/ &r. and elchor +. (lores for respondents.
FERN#N)O, J.:
0he =uestion presented for determination in this petition for the
revie, of a decision of the Court of 0a6 Appeals, one that is of first
impression, ,ould not have arisen had respondent to'on-3u(oc
Mines, nc., the ta6pa(er involved, dul( paid in full its liabilit(
accordin' to its income ta6 return for the fiscal (ear $4-%--$. nstead,
it deducted ri'ht a,a( the amount represented b( claim for refund
filed ei'ht !)& months bac@, for the previous (ear?s income ta6, for
,hich it ,as not liable at all, so it alle'ed, as it suffered a loss
instead, a claim subse=uentl( favorabl( acted on b( petitioner
Commissioner of nternal Revenue but after the date of such pa(ment
of the $4-%-$4-$ ta6. Accordin'l(, an interest in the amount of
P$,5$*.)" ,as char'ed b( petitioner Commissioner of nternal
Revenue on the sum ,ithheld on the 'round that no deduction on
such refund should be allo,ed before its approval. Bhen the matter
,as ta@en up before the Court of 0a6 Appeals, the above assessment
representin' interest ,as set aside in the decision of 3eptember "%,
$4-5. 0hat is the decision no, an appeal b( petitioner Commissioner
of nternal Revenue. Be sustain the Court of 0a6 Appeals.
Respondent to'on-3u(oc Mines, nc., a minin' corporation dul(
or'ani2ed and e6istin' in accordance ,ith the la,s of the Philippines,
filed on :anuar( $", $4-$, its income ta6 return for the fiscal (ear
$454-$4-%. t declared a ta6able income of P$$#,"-).%# and a ta6
due thereon amountin' to P*-,"$%.#$, for ,hich it paid on the same
da(, the amount of P$",$55.*% as the first installment of the income
ta6 due. Cn Ma( $+, $4-$, petitioner filed an amended income ta6
return, reportin' therein a net loss of P""$,+%+."". t thus sou'ht a
refund from the Commissioner of nternal Revenue, no, the
petitioner.1wph1.t
Cn Februar( $#, $4-*, respondent to'on-3u(oc Mines, nc. filed its
income ta6 return for the fiscal (ear $4-%-$4-$, settin' forth its
income ta6 liabilit( to the tune of P4+,"#5.%%, but deductin' the
amount of P$",$55.*% representin' alle'ed ta6 credit for
overpa(ment of the precedin' fiscal (ear $454-$4-%. %n >ecember
$), $4-*, petitioner Commissioner of nternal Revenue assessed
a'ainst the respondent the amount of P$,5$*.)" as $. monthl(
interest on the aforesaid amount of P$",$55.*% from :anuar( $-,
$4-* to >ecember "$, $4-*. 0he basis for such an assessment ,as
the absence of le'al ri'ht to deduct said amount before the refund or
ta6 credit thereof ,as approved b( petitioner Commissioner of
nternal Revenue.
$
3uch an assessment ,as contested b( respondent before the Court of
0a6 Appeals. As alread( noted, it prevailed. 0he decision of
3eptember "%, $4-5, no, on appeal, e6plains ,h(. 0hus1
ARespondent assessed a'ainst the petitioner the amount of P$,5$*.)"
as $. monthl( interest on the sum of P$",$55.*% from :anuar( $-,
$4-* to >ecember "$, $4-* on the 'round that petitioner had no le'al
ri'ht to deduct the said amount from its income ta6 liabilit( for the
fiscal (ear $4-%-$4-$ until the refund or ta6 credit thereof has been
approved b( respondent. As aforestated, petitioner paid the amount of
P$",$55.*% as first installment on its reported income ta6 liabilit( for
the fiscal (ear $454-$4-%. But, it turned out that instead of derivin' a
net 'ain, it sustained a net loss durin' the said fiscal (ear.
Accordin'l(, it filed an amended income ta6 return and a claim for
the refund of the sum of P$",$55.*%, ,hich sum it subse=uentl(,
deducted from its income ta6 liabilit( for the succeedin' fiscal (ear
$4-%-$4-$. 0he overpa(ment for the fiscal (ear $454-$4-% and the
deduction of the overpaid amount from its $4-%-$4-$ ta6 liabilit( are
not denied b( respondent. n this circumstance, ,e find it unfair and
un9ust for the Commissioner to e6act an interest on the said sum of
P$",$55.*%, ,hich, after all, ,as paid to and received b( the
'overnment even before the incidence of the ta6 in =uestion.A
*
0hat is the =uestion before us in this petition for revie, b( the
Commissioner of nternal Revenue. De ar'ues that the Court of 0a6
Appeals should not have absolved respondent corporation Afrom
liabilit( to pa( the sum of P$,5$*.)" as $. monthl( interest for
delin=uenc( in the pa(ment of income ta6 for the fiscal (ear $4-%-
$4-$.A
"
As noted at the outset, ,e find such contention far from
persuasive.
t could not be error for the Court of 0a6 Appeals, considerin' the
admitted fact of overpa(ment, entitlin' respondent to refund, to hold
that petitioner should not repose an interest on the aforesaid sum of
P$",$55.*% A,hich after all ,as paid to and received b( the
'overnment even before the incidence of the ta6 in =uestion.A t
,ould be, accordin' to the Court of 0a6 Appeals, Aunfair and un9ustA
to do so. Be a'ree but ,e 'o farther. 0he imposition of such an
interest b( petitioner is not supported b( la,.
0he National nternal Revenue Code provides that interest upon the
amount determined as a deficienc( shall be assessed and shall be paid
upon notice and demand from the Commissioner of nternal Revenue
at the specified.
#
t is made clear, ho,ever, in an earlier provision
found in the same section that if in an( precedin' (ear, the ta6pa(er
,as entitled to a refund of an( amount due as ta6, such amount, if not
(et refunded, ma( be deducted from the ta6 to be paid.
5
0here is no =uestion respondent ,as entitled to a refund. nstead of
,aitin' for the sum involved to be delivered to it, it deducted the said
amount from the ta6 that it had to pa(. 0hat it had a ri'ht to do
accordin' to the la,. t is true a doubt could have arisen due to the
fact that as of the time such a deduction ,as made, the Commissioner
of nternal Revenue had not as (et approved such a refund. t is an
admitted fact thou'h that respondent ,as clearl( entitled to it, and
petitioner did not alle'e other,ise. Nor could he do so. Ender all the
circumstances disclosed therefore, the applicabilit( of the le'al
provision allo,in' such a deduction from the amount of the ta6 to be
paid cannot be disputed.
0his conclusion is in accordance ,ith the principle announced
in $astro %. $ollector of )nternal +e%enue.
-
Bhile the case is not
directl( in point, it (ields an implication that ma@es even more
formidable the case for respondent ta6pa(er. As there held, the
imposition of the monthl( interest ,as considered as not constitutin'
a penalt( Abut a 9ust compensation to the state for the dela( in pa(in'
the ta6, and for the concomitant use b( the ta6pa(er of funds that
ri'htfull( should be in the 'overnment?s hands ....A
Bhat is therefore sou'ht to be avoided is for the ta6pa(er to ma@e
use of funds that should have been paid to the 'overnment. Dere, in
vie, of the overpa(ment for the fiscal (ear $454-$4-%, the sum of
P$",$55.*% had alread( formed part of the public funds. t cannot be
said, therefore, that respondent ta6pa(er ,as 'uilt( of an( dela(
enablin' it to utili2e a sum of mone( that should have been in the
'overnment treasur(.
Do, then, as a matter of pure la,, even if ,e la( to one side the
demands of fairness and 9ustice, ,hich to the Court of 0a6 Appeals
seem to be uppermost, can its decision be overturned< Accordin'l(,
,e find no valid 'round for this appeal.
BDEREFCRE, the decision of 3eptember "%, $4-5 of the Court of
0a6 Appeals is affirmed. Bithout pronouncement as to
costs.1wph1.t
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
0DR> >H3CN
G.R. No. L-676%9 &u'e 28, 1988
ENGR#C!O FR#NC!#, petitioner,
vs.
!NTERME)!#TE #PPELL#TE COURT a'5 "O
FERN#N)E1, respondents.
GUT!ERRE1, &R., J.:
0he petitioner invo@es le'al and e=uitable 'rounds to reverse the =uestioned
decision of the ntermediate Appellate Court, to set aside the auction sale of
his propert( ,hich too@ place on >ecember 5, $4++, and to allo, him to
recover a *%" s=uare meter lot ,hich ,as, sold at public auction to Do
Fernande2 and ordered titled in the latter?s name.
0he antecedent facts are as follo,s1
En'racio Francia is the re'istered o,ner of a residential lot and a t,o-stor(
house built upon it situated at Barrio 3an sidro, no, >istrict of 3ta. Clara,
Pasa( Cit(, Metro Manila. 0he lot, ,ith an area of about "*) s=uare meters, is
described and covered b( 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle No. #+"4 !"++45& of the
Re'istr( of >eeds of Pasa( Cit(.
Cn Cctober $5, $4++, a $*5 s=uare meter portion of Francia?s propert( ,as
e6propriated b( the Republic of the Philippines for the sum of P#,$$-.%%
representin' the estimated amount e=uivalent to the assessed value of the
aforesaid portion.
3ince $4-" up to $4++ inclusive, Francia failed to pa( his real estate ta6es.
0hus, on >ecember 5, $4++, his propert( ,as sold at public auction b( the
Cit( 0reasurer of Pasa( Cit( pursuant to 3ection +" of Presidential >ecree No.
#-# @no,n as the Real Propert( 0a6 Code in order to satisf( a ta6 delin=uenc(
of P*,#%%.%%. Do Fernande2 ,as the hi'hest bidder for the propert(.
Francia ,as not present durin' the auction sale since he ,as in li'an Cit( at
that time helpin' his uncle ship bananas.
Cn March ", $4+4, Francia received a notice of hearin' of /RC Case No.
$54"-P An re1 Petition for Entr( of Ne, Certificate of 0itleA filed b( Do
Fernande2, see@in' the cancellation of 0C0 No. #+"4 !"++45& and the
issuance in his name of a ne, certificate of title. Epon verification throu'h his
la,(er, Francia discovered that a Final Bill of 3ale had been issued in favor of
Do Fernande2 b( the Cit( 0reasurer on >ecember $$, $4+). 0he auction sale
and the final bill of sale ,ere both annotated at the bac@ of 0C0 No. #+"4
!"++45& b( the Re'ister of >eeds.
Cn March *%, $4+4, Francia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. De
later amended his complaint on :anuar( *#, $4)%.
Cn April *", $4)$, the lo,er court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion
of ,hich reads1
BDEREFCRE, in vie, of the fore'oin', 9ud'ment is
hereb( rendered dismissin' the amended complaint and
orderin'1
!a& 0he Re'ister of >eeds of Pasa( Cit( to issue a ne, 0ransfer Certificate of
0itle in favor of the defendant Do Fernande2 over the parcel of land includin'
the improvements thereon, sub9ect to ,hatever encumbrances appearin' at the
bac@ of 0C0 No. #+"4 !"++45& and orderin' the same 0C0 No. #+"4 !"++45&
cancelled.
!b& 0he plaintiff to pa( defendant
Do Fernande2 the sum of
P$,%%%.%% as attorne(?s fees. !p.
"%, Record on Appeal&
0he ntermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lo,er court in
toto.
Dence, this petition for revie,.
Francia prefaced his ar'uments ,ith the follo,in' assi'nments of 'rave errors
of la,1