2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.120880.June5,1997]

FERDINAND R. MARCOS II, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE

COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and
HERMINIAD.DEGUZMAN,respondents.
DECISION
TORRES,JR.,J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Government action is once again assailed as
precipitate and unfair, suffering the basic and oftly implored requisites of due process of law.
Specifically, the petition assails the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated November 29,
1994inCAG.R.SPNo.31363,wherethesaidcourtheld:

"Inviewofalltheforegoing,werulethatthedeficiencyincometaxassessments
andestatetaxassessment,arealreadyfinaland(u)nappealableandthesubsequent
levyofrealpropertiesisataxremedyresortedtobythegovernment,sanctionedby
Section213and218oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode.Thissummarytax
remedyisdistinctandseparatefromtheothertaxremedies(suchasJudicialCivil
actionsandCriminalactions),andisnotaffectedorprecludedbythependencyof
anyothertaxremediesinstitutedbythegovernment.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedDISMISSING
thepetitionforcertiorariwithprayerforRestrainingOrderandInjunction.
Nopronouncementsastocosts.
SOORDERED."
More than seven years since the demise of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, the former
PresidentoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,thematterofthesettlementofhisestate,andits
duestothegovernmentinestatetaxes,arestillunresolved,thelatterissuebeingnowbefore
this Court for resolution. Specifically, petitioner Ferdinand R. Marcos II, the eldest son of the
decedent, questions the actuations of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
assessing,andcollectingthroughthesummaryremedyofLevyonRealProperties,estateand
incometaxdelinquenciesupontheestateandpropertiesofhisfather,despitethependencyof
theproceedingsonprobateofthewillofthelatepresident,whichisdocketedasSp.Proc.No.
10279intheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,Branch156.
Petitioner had filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

1/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

Prohibition with an application for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
orderonJune28,1993,seekingto

I.AnnulandsetasidetheNoticesofLevyonrealpropertydatedFebruary22,1993
andMay20,1993,issuedbyrespondentCommissionerofInternalRevenue
II.AnnulandsetasidetheNoticesofSaledatedMay26,1993
III.EnjointheHeadRevenueExecutiveAssistantDirectorII(CollectionService),
fromproceedingwiththeAuctionoftherealpropertiescoveredbyNoticesofSale.
After the parties had pleaded their case, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[2] on
November 29, 1994, ruling that the deficiency assessments for estate and income tax made
uponthepetitionerandtheestateofthedeceasedPresidentMarcoshavealreadybecomefinal
and unappealable, and may thus be enforced by the summary remedy of levying upon the
properties of the late President, as was done by the respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.

"WHEREFORE,premisesconsideredjudgmentisherebyrenderedDISMISSING
thepetitionforCertiorariwithprayerforRestrainingOrderandInjunction.
Nopronouncementsastocost.
SOORDERED."
Unperturbed, petitioner is now before us assailing the validity of the appellate court's
decision,assigningthefollowingaserrors:
A. RESPONDENT COURT MANIFESTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE SUMMARY TAX
REMEDIESRESORTEDTOBYTHEGOVERNMENTARENOTAFFECTEDANDPRECLUDEDBY
THE PENDENCY OF THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE LATE
PRESIDENT'SALLEGEDWILL.TOTHECONTRARY,THISPROBATEPROCEEDINGPRECISELY
PLACED ALL PROPERTIES WHICH FORM PART OF THE LATE PRESIDENT'S ESTATE IN
CUSTODIALEGISOFTHEPROBATECOURTTOTHEEXCLUSIONOFALLOTHERCOURTSAND
ADMINISTRATIVEAGENCIES.
B. RESPONDENT COURT ARBITRARILY ERRED IN SWEEPINGLY DECIDING THAT SINCE
THE TAX ASSESSMENTS OF PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS HAD ALREADY BECOME FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS
CITED IN THE PETITION. INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THE TAX ASSESSMENTS HAD
ALREADY BECOME FINAL, HOWEVER, PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE
UNLAWFUL MANNER AND METHOD IN WHICH TAX COLLECTION IS SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED BY RESPONDENTS COMMISSIONER AND DE GUZMAN. THUS, RESPONDENT
COURT SHOULD HAVE FAVORABLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE FOLLOWING
GROUNDSINTHEPETITION:

(1)TheNoticesofLevyonRealPropertywereissuedbeyondtheperiod
providedintheRevenueMemorandumCircularNo.3868.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

2/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

(2)[a]ThenumerouspendingcourtcasesquestioningthelatePresident's
ownershiporinterestsinseveralproperties(bothpersonalandreal)makethe
totalvalueofhisestate,andtheconsequentestatetaxdue,incapableofexact
pecuniarydeterminationatthistime.Thus,respondentsassessmentoftheestate
taxandtheirissuanceoftheNoticesofLevyandSalearepremature,
confiscatoryandoppressive.
[b]Petitioner,asoneofthelatePresident'scompulsoryheirs,wasnever
notified,muchlessservedwithcopiesoftheNoticesofLevy,contrarytothe
mandateofSection213oftheNIRC.Assuch,petitionerwasnevergivenan
opportunitytocontesttheNoticesinviolationofhisrighttodueprocessoflaw.
C. ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLEAR MERIT OF THE PETITION, RESPONDENT COURT
MANIFESTLYERREDINRULINGTHATITHADNOPOWERTOGRANTINJUNCTIVERELIEFTO
PETITIONER. SECTION 219 OF THE NIRC NOTWITHSTANDING, COURTS POSSESS THE
POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS
COMMISSIONER'S AND DE GUZMAN'S ARBITRARY METHOD OF COLLECTING THE ALLEGED
DEFICIENCYESTATEANDINCOMETAXESBYMEANSOFLEVY.

Thefactsasfoundbytheappellatecourtareundisputed,andareherebyadopted:

"OnSeptember29,1989,formerPresidentFerdinandMarcosdiedinHonolulu,
Hawaii,USA.
OnJune27,1990,aSpecialTaxAuditTeamwascreatedtoconductinvestigations
andexaminationsofthetaxliabilitiesandobligationsofthelatepresident,aswell
asthatofhisfamily,associatesand"cronies".Saidauditteamconcludedits
investigationwithaMemorandumdatedJuly26,1991.Theinvestigationdisclosed
thattheMarcosesfailedtofileawrittennoticeofthedeathofthedecedent,an
estatetaxreturns[sic],aswellasseveralincometaxreturnscoveringtheyears1982
to1986,allinviolationoftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC).
Subsequently,criminalchargeswerefiledagainstMrs.ImeldaR.Marcosbeforethe
RegionalTrialofQuezonCityforviolationsofSections82,83and84(has
penalizedunderSections253and254inrelationtoSection252a&b)ofthe
NationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC).
TheCommissionerofInternalRevenuetherebycausedthepreparationandfilingof
theEstateTaxReturnfortheestateofthelatepresident,theIncomeTaxReturnsof
theSpousesMarcosfortheyears1985to1986,andtheIncomeTaxReturnsof
petitionerFerdinand'Bongbong'MarcosIIfortheyears1982to1985.
OnJuly26,1991,theBIRissuedthefollowing:(1)Deficiencyestatetax
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

3/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

assessmentno.FAC28991002464(againsttheestateofthelatepresident
FerdinandMarcosintheamountofP23,293,607,638.00Pesos)(2)Deficiency
incometaxassessmentno.FAC18591002452andDeficiencyincometax
assessmentno.FAC18691002451(againsttheSpousesFerdinandandImelda
MarcosintheamountsofP149,551.70andP184,009,737.40representing
deficiencyincometaxfortheyears1985and1986)(3)Deficiencyincometax
assessmentnos.FAC18291002460toFAC18591002463(againstpetitioner
Ferdinand'Bongbong'MarcosIIintheamountsofP258.70pesosP9,386.40Pesos
P4,388.30PesosandP6,376.60Pesosrepresentinghisdeficiencyincometaxesfor
theyears1982to1985).
TheCommissionerofInternalRevenueaversthatcopiesofthedeficiencyestate
andincometaxassessmentswereallpersonallyandconstructivelyservedon
August26,1991andSeptember12,1991uponMrs.ImeldaMarcos(throughher
caretakerMr.Martinez)atherlastknownaddressatNo.204OrtegaSt.,SanJuan,
M.M.(Annexes'D'and'E'ofthePetition).Likewise,copiesofthedeficiencytax
assessmentsissuedagainstpetitionerFerdinand'Bongbong'MarcosIIwerealso
personallyandconstructivelyserveduponhim(throughhiscaretaker)onSeptember
12,1991,athislastknownaddressatDonMarianoMarcosSt.cornerP.Guevarra
St.,SanJuan,M.M.(Annexes'J'and'J1'ofthePetition).Thereafter,Formal
AssessmentnoticeswereservedonOctober20,1992,uponMrs.Marcosc/o
petitioner,athisoffice,HouseofRepresentatives,BatasanPambansa,QuezonCity.
Moreover,anoticetoTaxpayerinvitingMrs.Marcos(orherdulyauthorized
representativeorcounsel),toaconference,wasfurnishedthecounselofMrs.
Marcos,DeanAntonioCoronelbuttonoavail.
Thedeficiencytaxassessmentswerenotprotestedadministratively,byMrs.Marcos
andtheotherheirsofthelatepresident,within30daysfromserviceofsaid
assessments.
OnFebruary22,1993,theBIRCommissionerissuedtwentytwonoticesoflevyon
realpropertyagainstcertainparcelsoflandownedbytheMarcosestosatisfythe
allegedestatetaxanddeficiencyincometaxesofSpousesMarcos.
OnMay20,1993,fourmoreNoticesofLevyonrealpropertywereissuedforthe
purposeofsatisfyingthedeficiencyincometaxes.
OnMay26,1993,additionalfour(4)noticesofLevyonrealpropertywereagain
issued.TheforegoingtaxremedieswereresortedtopursuanttoSections205and
213oftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

4/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

InresponsetoaletterdatedMarch12,1993sentbyAtty.LoretoAta(counselof
hereinpetitioner)callingtheattentionoftheBIRandrequestingthattheybeduly
notifiedofanyactiontakenbytheBIRaffectingtheinterestoftheirclient
Ferdinand'BongbongMarcosII,aswellastheinterestofthelatepresidentcopies
oftheaforesaidnoticeswereservedonApril7,1993andonJune10,1993,upon
Mrs.ImeldaMarcos,thepetitioner,andtheircounselofrecord,'DeBorja,
Medialdea,Ata,Bello,GuevarraandSerapioLawOffice'.
NoticesofsaleatpublicauctionwerepostedonMay26,1993,atthelobbyofthe
CityHallofTaclobanCity.Thepublicauctionforthesaleoftheeleven(11)parcels
oflandtookplaceonJuly5,1993.Therebeingnobidder,thelotsweredeclared
forfeitedinfavorofthegovernment.
OnJune25,1993,petitionerFerdinand'Bongbong'MarcosIIfiledtheinstant
petitionforcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt,with
prayerfortemporaryrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminaryinjunction."
It has been repeatedly observed, and not without merit, that the enforcement of tax laws
and the collection of taxes, is of paramount importance for the sustenance of government.
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary
hindrance. However, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any
arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to
reconciletheapparentlyconflictinginterestsoftheauthoritiesandthetaxpayerssothatthereal
purposeoftaxation,whichisthepromotionofthecommongood,maybeachieved."[3]
Whetherornottheproperavenuesofassessmentandcollectionofthesaidtaxobligations
weretakenbytherespondentBureauisnowthesubjectoftheCourt'sinquiry.
Petitionerpositsthatnoticesoflevy,noticesofsale,andsubsequentsaleofpropertiesof
thelatePresidentMarcoseffectedbytheBIRarenullandvoidfordisregardingtheestablished
procedure for the enforcement of taxes due upon the estate of the deceased. The case of
Domingovs.Garlitos[4]isspecificallycitedtobolstertheargumentthat"theordinaryprocedure
by which to settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased, person, as in an
inheritance(estate)tax,isfortheclaimanttopresentaclaimbeforetheprobatecourtsothat
said court may order the administrator to pay the amount therefor." This remedy is allegedly,
exclusive,andcannotbeeffectedthroughanyothermeans.
Petitioner goes further, submitting that the probate court is not precluded from denying a
requestbythegovernmentfortheimmediatepaymentoftaxes,andshouldorderthepayment
ofthesameonlywithintheperiodfixedbytheprobatecourtforthepaymentofallthedebtsof
thedecedent.Inthisregard,petitionercitesthecaseofCollectorofInternalRevenuevs.The
AdministratrixoftheEstateofEcharri(67Phil502),whereitwasheldthat:

"ThecaseofPinedavs.CourtofFirstInstanceofTayabasandCollectorofInternal
Revenue(52Phil803),relieduponbythepetitionerappellantisgoodauthorityon
thepropositionthatthecourthavingcontrolovertheadministrationproceedingshas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

5/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

jurisdictiontoentertaintheclaimpresentedbythegovernmentfortaxesdueandto
ordertheadministratortopaythetaxshoulditfindthattheassessmentwasproper,
andthatthetaxwaslegal,dueandcollectible.Andtherulelaiddowninthatcase
mustbeunderstoodinrelationtothecaseofCollectorofCustomsvs.Haygood,
supra.,astotheproceduretobefollowedinagivencasebythegovernmentto
effectuatethecollectionofthetax.Categoricallystated,whereduringthependency
ofjudicialadministrationovertheestateofadeceasedpersonaclaimfortaxesis
presentedbythegovernment,thecourthastheauthoritytoorderpaymentbythe
administratorbut,inthesamewaythatithasauthoritytoorderpaymentor
satisfaction,italsohasthenegativeauthoritytodenythesame.Whilethereare
caseswherecourtsarerequiredtoperformcertaindutiesmandatoryandministerial
incharacter,thefunctionofthecourtinacaseofthepresentcharacterisnotoneof
themandhere,thecourtcannotbeanorganismendowedwithlatitudeofjudgment
inonedirection,andconvertedintoameremechanicalcontrivanceinanother
direction."
On the other hand, it is argued by the BIR, that the state's authority to collect internal
revenuetaxesisparamount.Thus,thependencyofprobateproceedingsovertheestateofthe
deceased does not preclude the assessment and collection, through summary remedies, of
estate taxes over the same. According to the respondent, claims for payment of estate and
incometaxesdueandassessedafterthedeathofthedecedentneednotbepresentedinthe
form of a claim against the estate. These can and should be paid immediately. The probate
courtisnotthegovernmentagencytodecidewhetheranestateisliableforpaymentofestate
ofincometaxes.Wellsettledistherulethattheprobatecourtisacourtwithspecialandlimited
jurisdiction.
Concededly,theauthorityoftheRegionalTrialCourt,sitting,albeitwithlimitedjurisdiction,
as a probate court over estate of deceased individual, is not a trifling thing. The court's
jurisdiction,onceinvoked,andmadeeffective,cannotbetreatedwithindifferencenorshouldit
beignoredwithimpunitybytheverypartiesinvokingitsauthority.
Intestamenttothis,ithasbeenheldthatitiswithinthejurisdictionoftheprobatecourtto
approve the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospective heirs before final
adjudication[5] to determine who are the heirs of the decedent[6] the recognition of a natural
child[7] the status of a woman claiming to be the legal wife of the decedent[8] the legality of
disinheritanceofanheirbythetestator[9]andtopassuponthevalidityofawaiverofhereditary
rights.[10]
ThepivotalquestionthecourtistaskedtoresolvereferstotheauthorityoftheBureauof
InternalRevenuetocollectbythesummaryremedyoflevyingupon,andsaleofrealproperties
ofthedecedent,estatetaxdeficiencies,withoutthecognitionandauthorityofthecourtsittingin
probateoverthesupposedwillofthedeceased.
Thenatureoftheprocessofestatetaxcollectionhasbeendescribedasfollows:

"Strictlyspeaking,theassessmentofaninheritancetaxdoesnotdirectlyinvolvethe
administrationofadecedent'sestate,althoughitmaybeviewedasanincidenttothe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

6/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

completesettlementofanestate,and,undersomestatutes,itismadethedutyofthe
probatecourttomaketheamountoftheinheritancetaxapartofthefinaldecreeof
distributionoftheestate.Itisnotagainstthepropertyofdecedent,norisitaclaim
againsttheestateassuch,butitisagainsttheinterestorpropertyrightwhichthe
heir,legatee,devisee,etc.,hasinthepropertyformerlyheldbydecedent.Further,
undersomestatutes,ithasbeenheldthatitisnotasuitorcontroversybetweenthe
parties,norisitanadversaryproceedingbetweenthestateandthepersonwhoowes
thetaxontheinheritance.However,underotherstatutesithasbeenheldthatthe
hearinganddeterminationofthecashvalueoftheassetsandthedeterminationof
thetaxareadversaryproceedings.Theproceedinghasbeenheldtobenecessarilya
proceedinginrem.[11]
In the Philippine experience, the enforcement and collection of estate tax, is executive in
character, as the legislature has seen it fit to ascribe this task to the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.Section3oftheNationalInternalRevenueCodeatteststothis:

"Sec.3.PowersanddutiesoftheBureau.ThepowersanddutiesoftheBureauof
InternalRevenueshallcomprehendtheassessmentandcollectionofallnational
internalrevenuetaxes,fees,andcharges,andtheenforcementofallforfeitures,
penalties,andfinesconnectedtherewith,includingtheexecutionofjudgmentsinall
casesdecidedinitsfavorbytheCourtofTaxAppealsandtheordinarycourts.Said
Bureaushallalsogiveeffecttoandadministerthesupervisoryandpolicepower
conferredtoitbythisCodeorotherlaws."
Thus, it was in Vera vs. Fernandez[12] that the court recognized the liberal treatment of
claims for taxes charged against the estate of the decedent. Such taxes, we said, were
exemptedfromtheapplicationofthestatuteofnonclaims,andthisisjustifiedbythenecessity
of government funding, immortalized in the maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the
government.Vectigalianervisuntreipublicaetaxesarethesinewsofthestate.

"Taxesassessedagainsttheestateofadeceasedperson,afteradministrationis
opened,neednotbesubmittedtothecommitteeonclaimsintheordinarycourseof
administration.Intheexerciseofitscontrolovertheadministrator,thecourtmay
directthepaymentofsuchtaxesuponmotionshowingthatthetaxeshavebeen
assessedagainsttheestate."
Suchliberaltreatmentofinternalrevenuetaxesintheprobateproceedingsextendssofar,
eventoallowingtheenforcementoftaxobligationsagainsttheheirsofthedecedent,evenafter
distributionoftheestate'sproperties.

"Claimsfortaxes,whetherassessedbeforeorafterthedeathofthedeceased,canbe
collectedfromtheheirsevenafterthedistributionofthepropertiesofthedecedent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

7/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

Theyareexemptedfromtheapplicationofthestatuteofnonclaims.Theheirsshall
beliabletherefor,inproportiontotheirshareintheinheritance."[13]
"Thus,theGovernmenthastwowaysofcollectingthetaxesinquestion.One,by
goingafteralltheheirsandcollectingfromeachoneofthemtheamountofthetax
proportionatetotheinheritancereceived.Anotherremedy,pursuanttothelien
createdbySection315oftheTaxCodeuponallpropertyandrightstoproperty
belongtothetaxpayerforunpaidincometax,isbysubjectingsaidpropertyofthe
estatewhichisinthehandsofanheirortransfereetothepaymentofthetaxduethe
estate.(CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.Pineda,21SCRA105,September
15,1967.)
Fromtheforegoing,itisdiscerniblethattheapprovalofthecourt,sittinginprobate,orasa
settlementtribunaloverthedeceasedisnotamandatoryrequirementinthecollectionofestate
taxes.ItcannotthereforebearguedthattheTaxBureauerredinproceedingwiththelevying
and sale of the properties allegedly owned by the late President, on the ground that it was
requiredtoseekfirsttheprobatecourt'ssanction.ThereisnothingintheTaxCode,andinthe
pertinent remedial laws that implies the necessity of the probate or estate settlement court's
approvalofthestate'sclaimforestatetaxes,beforethesamecanbeenforcedandcollected.
Onthecontrary,underSection87oftheNIRC,itistheprobateorsettlementcourtwhichis
biddennottoauthorizetheexecutororjudicialadministratorofthedecedent'sestatetodeliver
anydistributivesharetoanypartyinterestedintheestate,unlessitisshownaCertificationby
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the estate taxes have been paid. This provision
disprovesthepetitioner'scontentionthatitistheprobatecourtwhichapprovestheassessment
andcollectionoftheestatetax.
IfthereisanyissueastothevalidityoftheBIR'sdecisiontoassesstheestatetaxes,this
shouldhavebeenpursuedthroughtheproperadministrativeandjudicialavenuesprovidedfor
bylaw.
Section229oftheNIRCtellsushow:

"Sec.229.Protestingofassessment.WhentheCommissionerofInternalRevenue
orhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativefindsthatpropertaxesshouldbeassessed,he
shallfirstnotifythetaxpayerofhisfindings.Withinaperiodtobeprescribedby
implementingregulations,thetaxpayershallberequiredtorespondtosaidnotice.If
thetaxpayerfailstorespond,theCommissionershallissueanassessmentbasedon
hisfindings.
Suchassessmentmaybeprotestedadministrativelybyfilingarequestfor
reconsiderationorreinvestigationinsuchformandmannerasmaybeprescribedby
implementingregulationswithin(30)daysfromreceiptoftheassessment
otherwise,theassessmentshallbecomefinalandunappealable.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

8/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

Iftheprotestisdeniedinwholeorinpart,theindividual,associationorcorporation
adverselyaffectedbythedecisionontheprotestmayappealtotheCourtofTax
Appealswithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofsaiddecisionotherwise,the
decisionshallbecomefinal,executoryanddemandable.(AsinsertedbyP.D.1773)"
Apartfromfailingtofiletherequiredestatetaxreturnwithinthetimerequiredforthefiling
of the same, petitioner, and the other heirs never questioned the assessments served upon
them,allowingthesametolapseintofinality,andpromptingtheBIRtocollectthesaidtaxesby
levyinguponthepropertiesleftbyPresidentMarcos.
Petitioner submits, however, that "while the assessment of taxes may have been validly
undertakenbytheGovernment,collectionthereofmayhavebeendoneinviolationofthelaw.
Thus, the manner and method in which the latter is enforced may be questioned separately,
and irrespective of the finality of the former, because the Government does not have the
unbridleddiscretiontoenforcecollectionwithoutregardtotheclearprovisionoflaw."[14]
Petitioner specifically points out that applying Memorandum Circular No. 3868,
implementingSections318and324oftheoldtaxcode(RepublicAct5203),theBIR'sNotices
of Levy on the Marcos properties, were issued beyond the allowed period, and are therefore
nullandvoid:

"...theNoticesofLevyonRealProperty(Annexes0toNNofAnnexCofthis
Petition)insatisfactionofsaidassessmentswerestillissuedbyrespondentswell
beyondtheperiodmandatedinRevenueMemorandumCircularNo.3868.These
NoticesofLevywereissuedonlyon22February1993and20May1993whenat
leastseventeen(17)monthshadalreadylapsedfromthelastserviceoftax
assessmenton12September1991.Asnonoticesofdistraintofpersonalproperty
werefirstissuedbyrespondents,thelattershouldhavecompliedwithRevenue
MemorandumCircularNo.3868andissuedtheseNoticesofLevynotearlierthan
three(3)monthsnorlaterthansix(6)monthsfrom12September1991.In
accordancewiththeCircular,respondentsonlyhaduntil12March1992(thelast
dayofthesixthmonth)withinwhichtoissuetheseNoticesofLevy.TheNoticesof
Levy,havingbeenissuedbeyondtheperiodallowedbylaw,arethusvoidandofno
effect."[15]
We hold otherwise. The Notices of Levy upon real property were issued within the
prescriptive period and in accordance with the provisions of the present Tax Code. The
deficiencytaxassessment,havingalreadybecomefinal,executory,anddemandable,thesame
cannowbecollectedthroughthesummaryremedyofdistraintorlevypursuanttoSection205
oftheNIRC.
The applicable provision in regard to the prescriptive period for the assessment and
collection of tax deficiency in this instance is Article 223 of the NIRC, which pertinently
provides:

"Sec.223.Exceptionsastoaperiodoflimitationofassessmentandcollectionof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

9/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

taxes.(a)Inthecaseofafalseorfraudulentreturnwithintenttoevadetaxorofa
failuretofileareturn,thetaxmaybeassessed,oraproceedingincourtforthe
collectionofsuchtaxmaybebegunwithoutassessment,atanytimewithinten(10)
yearsafterthediscoveryofthefalsity,fraud,oromission:Provided,That,inafraud
assessmentwhichhasbecomefinalandexecutory,thefactoffraudshallbe
judiciallytakencognizanceofinthecivilorcriminalactionforthecollection
thereof.
xxx

(c)Anyinternalrevenuetaxwhichhasbeenassessedwithintheperiodoflimitation
aboveprescribed,maybecollectedbydistraintorlevyorbyaproceedingincourt
withinthreeyearsfollowingtheassessmentofthetax.
xxx
The omission to file an estate tax return, and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal
the assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioner's cause, as under the abovecited
provision,incaseoffailuretofileareturn,thetaxmaybeassessedatanytimewithintenyears
aftertheomission,andanytaxsoassessedmaybecollectedbylevyuponrealpropertywithin
threeyearsfollowingtheassessmentofthetax.Sincetheestatetaxassessmenthadbecome
finalandunappealablebythepetitioner'sdefaultasregardsprotestingthevalidityofthesaid
assessment,thereisnownoreasonwhytheBIRcannotcontinuewiththecollectionofthesaid
tax. Any objection against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue
pavedinSection229oftheNIRConprotestsonassessmentsofinternalrevenuetaxes.
Petitioner further argues that "the numerous pending court cases questioning the late
president'sownershiporinterestsinseveralproperties(bothrealandpersonal)makethetotal
value of his estate, and the consequent estate tax due, incapable of exact pecuniary
determinationatthistime.Thus,respondents'assessmentoftheestatetaxandtheirissuance
oftheNoticesofLevyandsaleareprematureandoppressive."Hepointsoutthependencyof
Sandiganbayan Civil Case Nos. 00010034 and 0141, which were filed by the government to
question the ownership and interests of the late President in real and personal properties
located within and outside the Philippines. Petitioner, however, omits to allege whether the
propertieslevieduponbytheBIRinthecollectionofestatetaxesuponthedecedent'sestate
wereamongthoseinvolvedinthesaidcasespendingintheSandiganbayan.Indeed,thecourt
isatalossastohowthesecasesarerelevanttothematteratissue.The mere fact that the
decedenthaspendingcasesinvolvingillgottenwealthdoesnotaffecttheenforcementoftax
assessmentsoverthepropertiesindubitablyincludedinhisestate.
PetitioneralsoexpresseshisreservationastotheproprietyoftheBIR'stotalassessment
ofP23,292,607,638.00,statingthatthisamountdeviatesfromthefindingsoftheDepartmentof
Justice's Panel of Prosecutors as per its resolution of 20 September 1991. Allegedly, this is
clear evidence of the uncertainty on the part of the Government as to the total value of the
estateofthelatePresident.
Thisis,toourmind,thepetitioner'slastditchefforttoassailtheassessmentofestatetax
whichhadalreadybecomefinalandunappealable.
ItisnottheDepartmentofJusticewhichisthegovernmentagencytaskedtodeterminethe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

10/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

amount of taxes due upon the subject estate, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue[16] whose
determinations and assessments are presumed correct and made in good faith.[17] The
taxpayerhasthedutyofprovingotherwise.Intheabsenceofproofofanyirregularitiesinthe
performanceofofficialduties,anassessmentwillnotbedisturbed.Evenanassessmentbased
onestimatesisprimafacievalidandlawfulwhereitdoesnotappeartohavebeenarrivedat
arbitrarilyorcapriciously.Theburdenofproofisuponthecomplainingpartytoshowclearlythat
theassessmentiserroneous.Failuretopresentproofoferrorintheassessmentwilljustifythe
judicial affirmance of said assessment.[18] In this instance, petitioner has not pointed out one
single provision in the Memorandum of the Special Audit Team which gave rise to the
questioned assessment, which bears a trace of falsity. Indeed, the petitioner's attack on the
assessmentbearsmainlyontheallegedimprobableandunconscionableamountofthetaxes
charged. But mere rhetoric cannot supply the basis for the charge of impropriety of the
assessmentsmade.
Moreover,theseobjectionstotheassessmentsshouldhavebeenraised,consideringthe
ampleremediesaffordedthetaxpayerbytheTaxCode,withtheBureauofInternalRevenue
andtheCourtofTaxAppeals,asdescribedearlier,andcannotberaisednowviaPetitionfor
Certiorari, under the pretext of grave abuse of discretion. The course of action taken by the
petitioner reflects his disregard or even repugnance of the established institutions for
governance in the scheme of a wellordered society. The subject tax assessments having
becomefinal,executoryandenforceable,thesamecannolongerbecontestedbymeansofa
disguisedprotest.Inthemain,Certiorari may not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or
remedy.[19]Thisjudicialpolicybecomesmorepronouncedinviewoftheabsenceofsufficient
attackagainsttheactuationsofgovernment.
OnthematterofsufficiencyofserviceofNoticesofAssessmenttothepetitioner,wefind
therespondentappellatecourt'spronouncementssoundandresilienttopetitioner'sattacks.

"Anentgrounds3(b)and(B)bothalleging/claiminglackofnoticeWefind,after
consideringthefactsandcircumstances,aswellasevidences,thattherewas
sufficient,constructiveand/oractualnoticeofassessments,levyandsale,sentto
hereinpetitionerFerdinand"Bongbong"MarcosaswellastohismotherMrs.
ImeldaMarcos.
Evenifwearetoruleoutthenoticesofassessmentspersonallygiventothe
caretakerofMrs.Marcosatthelatter'slastknownaddress,onAugust26,1991and
September12,1991,aswellasthenoticesofassessmentpersonallygiventothe
caretakerofpetitioneralsoathislastknownaddressonSeptember12,1991the
subsequentnoticesgiventhereaftercouldnolongerbeignoredastheyweresentat
atimewhenpetitionerwasalreadyhereinthePhilippines,andataplacewheresaid
noticeswouldsurelybecalledtopetitioner'sattention,andreceivedbyresponsible
personsofsufficientageanddiscretion.
Thus,onOctober20,1992,formalassessmentnoticeswereserveduponMrs.
Marcosc/othepetitioner,athisoffice,HouseofRepresentatives,Batasan
Pambansa,Q.C.(Annexes"A","A1","A2","A3"pp.207210,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

11/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

Comment/MemorandumofOSG).Moreover,anoticetotaxpayerdatedOctober8,
1992invitingMrs.Marcostoaconferencerelativetohertaxliabilities,was
furnishedthecounselofMrs.MarcosDeanAntonioCoronel(Annex"B",p.211,
ibid).Thereafter,copiesofNoticeswerealsoserveduponMrs.ImeldaMarcos,the
petitionerandtheircounsel"DeBorja,Medialdea,Ata,Bello,GuevarraandSerapio
LawOffice",onApril7,1993andJune10,1993.DespitealloftheseNotices,
petitionerneverliftedafingertoprotesttheassessments,(uponwhichtheLevyand
saleofpropertieswerebased),norappealedthesametotheCourtofTaxAppeals.
TherebeingsufficientserviceofNoticestohereinpetitioner(andhismother)andit
appearingthatpetitionercontinuouslyignoredsaidNoticesdespiteseveral
opportunitiesgivenhimtofileaprotestandtothereafterappealtotheCourtofTax
Appeals,thetaxassessmentssubjectofthiscase,uponwhichthelevyandsaleof
propertieswerebased,couldnolongerbecontested(directlyorindirectly)viathis
instantpetitionforcertiorari."[20]
Petitioner argues that all the questioned Notices of Levy, however, must be nullified for
havingbeenissuedwithoutvalidlyservingcopiesthereoftothepetitioner.Asamandatoryheir
of the decedent, petitioner avers that he has an interest in the subject estate, and notices of
levyuponitspropertiesshouldhavebeenserveduponhim.
Wedonotagree.Inthecaseofnoticesoflevyissuedtosatisfythedelinquentestatetax,
thedelinquenttaxpayeristheEstateofthedecedent,andnotnecessarily,andexclusively,the
petitionerasheirofthedeceased.Inthesamevein,inthematterofincometaxdelinquencyof
the late president and his spouse, petitioner is not the taxpayer liable. Thus, it follows that
service of notices of levy in satisfaction of these tax delinquencies upon the petitioner is not
requiredbylaw,asunderSection213oftheNIRC,whichpertinentlystates:
"xxx

...Levyshallbeeffectedbywritinguponsaidcertificateadescriptionofthe
propertyuponwhichlevyismade.Atthesametime,writtennoticeofthelevyshall
bemailedtoorservedupontheRegisterofDeedsoftheprovinceorcitywherethe
propertyislocatedanduponthedelinquenttaxpayer,orifhebeabsentfromthe
Philippines,tohisagentorthemanagerofthebusinessinrespecttowhichthe
liabilityarose,oriftherebenone,totheoccupantofthepropertyinquestion.
xxx"
The foregoing notwithstanding, the record shows that notices of warrants of distraint and
levyofsalewerefurnishedthecounselofpetitioneronApril7,1993,andJune10,1993,and
thepetitionerhimselfonApril12,1993athisofficeattheBatasangPambansa.[21]Wecannot
therefore, countenance petitioner's insistence that he was denied due process. Where there
was an opportunity to raise objections to government action, and such opportunity was
disregarded, for no justifiable reason, the party claiming oppression then becomes the
oppressoroftheorderlyfunctionsofgovernment.Hewhocomestocourtmustcomewithclean
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

12/13

2/1/2016

MarcosIIvsCA:120880:June5,1997:J.Torres,Jr:SecondDivision

hands.Otherwise, he not only taints his name, but ridicules the very structure of established
authority.
INVIEWWHEREOF,theCourtRESOLVEDtoDENYthepresentpetition.TheDecisionof
theCourtofAppealsdatedNovember29,1994isherebyAFFIRMEDinallrespects.
SOORDERED.
Regalado,(Chairman),Romero,Puno,andMendoza,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyAssociateJusticeAsaaliS.Isnani,ChairmanJusticesCoronaIbaySomeraandCeliaLipanaReyes,

concurring.
[2]Annex"A",Petition,p.80,Rollo.
[3]CommissionerofInternalRevenuevs.Algue,Inc.,et.al.,G.R.No.L28896,February17,1988,158SCRA9.
[4]G.R.No.L18994,June29,8SCRA443.
[5]AcebedovsAbesamis,G.R.No.102380,18January1993,217SCRA186.
[6]Reyesvs.Ysip,G.R.No.7516,May12,1955,97Phil11.
[7]Gaasvs.Fortich,G.R.No.3154,Dec.28,1929,54Phil.196.,
[8]Torresvs.Javier,May24,191634Phil382.
[9]Pecsonvs.Mediavillo,G.R.No.7890,September29,1914,28Phil81
[10]BorromeoHerreravs.Borromeo,et.al.,L41171,July23,1982.
[11]85C.J.S.#1191,pp.10561057.
[12]No.L31364,March30,1979,89SCRA199.
[13]Pinedavs.CourtofFirstInstanceofTayabas,G.R.No.30921,February16,1929,52Phil805Governmentvs.

Pamintuan,G.R.No.33139,October11,1930,55Phil13.
[14]Petition,p.50,Rollo.
[15]Ibid.,pp.5758.
[16]Section16,NationalInternalRevenueCode.
[17]Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 6741,January 31, 1956, 98 Phil

290CIRvs.ConstructionResourcesAsia,Inc.,G.R.No.98230,November25,1986,145SCRA671Sy
Povs.CourtofTaxAppeals,et.al., G.R. No. L81446, August 18, 1988, 164 SCRA 524 CIR vs. Bohol
LandTransportationCo.,58O.G.2407(1960).
[18]Gutierrezvs.Villegas,G.R.No.L17117,July31,1963,8SCRA527.
[19]DelaPazvs.Panis,G.R.No.57023,June22,1995,245SCRA242.
[20]CourtofAppealsDecision,pp.1213,Rollo.
[21]AffidavitofServicebytheRevenueOfficeroftheCollectionandEnforcementDivisionoftheBIR,Annex"D",

Comment/MemorandumoftheCommissionerofInternalRevenueintheCourtofAppeals.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm

13/13