1. The First Notice and FNBS were not prematurely issued. Hence, the same is valid.

2. The respondent (FEATI) contends that the issuance of First Notice and FNBS violated its right to
due process as the same was issued without petitioner having been properly served and timely
received the PAN or FAN.

3. First, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while a mailed letter is deemed received by
the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to
controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the party favored by the presumption
to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee. (Republic v. CA 149 SCRA
351; Gonzalo P. Nava vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 104, January 30, 1965)

4. The facts to be proved to raise this presumption are (a) that the letter was properly addressed with
postage prepaid, and (b) that it was mailed. Once these facts are proved, the presumption is that
the letter was received by the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the
ordinary course of the mail. (Enriquez vs. Sunlife Assurance of Canada, 41 Phil 269; Protectors
Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 386 Phil. 611, 623, 2000)

5. Here, these two (2) presumptions were complied with by the CIR. The facts shows that (a) that
the letter was properly addressed to FEATI University, Inc. (p.9 of the Records) and (b) that FAN
together with FLD dated June 29, 2011 was mailed on the same day and received by FEATI
University Inc. on July 1, 2011. (p. 8 of the Records)

6. Second, there was a proper receipt of the First Notice and FNSB.

7. The Supreme Court held that what is essential to prove the fact of mailing is the registry receipt
issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry return card which would have been signed by the
Petitioner or its authorized representative. (Enriquez vs. Sunlife Assurance of Canada, 41 Phil
269)

8. Here, the First Notice and FNSB were properly received by Mr. Rommel Abella.

9. The Supreme Court held that should the FAN be sent by personal delivery, the taxpayer or his
duly authorized representative shall acknowledge receipt in a duplicate copy, with the following
details: (1) name; (2) signature; (3) designation and authority to act for and in behalf of the
taxpayer, if not received by the taxpayer himself; and (4) date of receipt. (MannaSoft Corporation
v. CIR, CTA Case No. 8745)

10. In the case at bar, the registry receipt bears the name and signature of Mr. Rommel Abella. Thus,
the appearance of his name and signature connotes that there was a constructive receipt of the
First Notice and FNSB issued against the respondent.

11. Therefore, the issuance of First Notice and FNSB was not premature as the Petitioner was able to
prove the presumptions of proper issuance held by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned
cases. Further, the registry receipt bearing the name and signature of Mr. Rommel Abella is
deemed as a constructive receipt of the First Notice and FNSB.