Case Digest (G.R. No. 123273)
Facts:
In March 1925, Esperanza Tuazon executed public deeds donating parcels of land in Manila to Concepcion Vidal de Roces (with her husband Marcos Roces) and Elvira Vidal de Richards (with her husband), all of whom accepted in the same instruments. The donations were recorded in the Registry of Deeds, and the donees took possession, collected rents, and secured transfer certificates of title. On January 5, 1926, the donor died in Manila without forced heirs; her will, admitted to probate, bequeathed each donee the sum of ₱5,000. Before delivering the legacies, the Collector of Internal Revenue, Juan Posadas, Jr., assessed inheritance tax under Section 1540 of the Administrative Code, demanding ₱16,673.00 from Roces (₱15,191.48 on the gift and ₱1,481.52 on the legacy) and ₱13,951.45 from Richards (₱12,388.95 on the gift and ₱1,462.50 on the legacy). The plaintiffs paid these amounts under protest and sued to recover them. The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the defendant’Case Digest (G.R. No. 123273)
Facts:
- Parties and cause of action
- Plaintiffs: Concepcion Vidal de Roces (and husband Marcos Roces) and Elvira Vidal de Richards.
- Defendant: Juan Posadas, Jr., Collector of Internal Revenue. Plaintiffs seek recovery of inheritance taxes paid under protest.
- Donation and acceptance
- On March 10 and 12, 1925, Esperanza Tuazon donated parcels of land in Manila to the plaintiffs by public deeds, which plaintiffs accepted and recorded.
- Plaintiffs took possession, received fruits, and obtained transfer certificates of title.
- Death and legacy
- Donor died January 5, 1926, leaving no forced heir.
- Her will, admitted to probate, bequeathed P5,000 to each donee.
- Tax assessment and procedural history
- Collector assessed inheritance tax:
- Concepcion: P15,191.48 on donation; P1,481.52 on legacy (total P16,673).
- Elvira: P12,388.95 on donation; P1,462.50 on legacy (total P13,951.45).
- Plaintiffs paid under protest. Appellee demurred for failure to state a cause of action; trial court sustained demurrer, ordered amendment; plaintiffs did not amend and action was dismissed.
- Appellate contentions
- Section 1540, Administrative Code, allegedly excludes inter vivos donations or is unconstitutional for:
- Violating Jones Law single‐subject rule.
- Exceeding legislative power to tax inter vivos gifts.
- Violating uniformity of taxation.
- Appellee invoked Tuason v. Posadas (54 Phil. 289) to include inter vivos gifts.
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 1540, Administrative Code—whether “all gifts” includes inter vivos donations generally or only those in contemplation of death.
- Constitutionality of section 1540 under:
- Jones Law single‐subject requirement.
- Legislative power to tax property transmissions inter vivos.
- Uniformity clause of the Constitution.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)