Title
Alcantara vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 192536
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2017
Alcantara challenged BIR's tax assessment and property forfeiture, but SC ruled RTC lacked jurisdiction; CTA proper venue due to tax dispute.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192536)

Factual Background

Alcantara was the owner of a 301 square meter parcel of land in Buhangin, Davao City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-113015. The BIR conducted an assessment regarding his income taxes for the years 1982 and 1983. Despite attempts by the BIR to contact Alcantara regarding alleged deficiencies totaling P32,076.52, he did not respond, leading to the issuance of a Warrant of Distraint and Levy in 1991, followed by a Notice of Seizure of Real Property and a Declaration of Forfeiture. The property was sold at a public auction to Maximo Lagahit in 1995. Alcantara, upon discovering the forfeiture and sale, instituted a legal action seeking the reconveyance of his property.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Alcantara's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with the BIR prior to filing a lawsuit. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling, stating that Alcantara should have sought administrative relief by filing a protest against the assessment and a claim for refund before approaching the courts.

Jurisdictional Issues

Central to the dispute is whether the RTC correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. Alcantara argued that his case involved a declaration of nullity of the TCTs and, thus, fell within the RTC's jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. However, the CA and the Supreme Court maintained he was effectively contesting the BIR's tax assessments, which are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) as established under Republic Act No. 1125.

Rulings and Legal Basis

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that Alcantara's failure to take necessary administrative steps, as outlined in Sections 229 and 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code, resulted in the finality of the tax assessments. The Court noted that these legislative provisions require a taxpayer to protest assessments and seek refunds p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.