G.R. No. L-51546 - Gabucan vs. Manta

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51546)

Procedural Posture and Relief in the Supreme Court

The petitioner sought mandamus to compel the lower court to allow his appeal from the dismissal. The Supreme Court treated the petition, in the interest of substantial and speedy justice, as both an appeal under R.A. No. 5440 and a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the probate court correctly dismissed the probate proceeding on the ground that the notarially acknowledged will lacked the thirty-centavo documentary stamp.

Statutory Provision at Issue and Its Proper Effect

The Court analyzed section 238 of the Tax Code (as characterized in the decision), which provides that an instrument required to be stamped and signed, issued, accepted, or transferred without the requisite stamp “shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled.” The statute further prohibits a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths from adding his jurat or acknowledgment to any document subject to documentary stamp tax unless the proper documentary stamps are affixed and cancelled.

Legal Error by the Probate Court

The Supreme Court held that the probate court erred in construing the absence of the documentary stamp as meaning that “there was no will and testament to probate” and that the proceeding “must of necessity be dismissed.” The Court emphasized that the statutory consequence of absence of the stamp is temporary non-admissibility or non-recordability “until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled.” Thus the proper response by the probate court was not outright dismissal, but to require or permit the proponent to affix the requisite stamp and to proceed with admissibility thereafter.

Controlling Precedent and Remedial Practice

The decision relied on precedent recognizing that documentary stamps may be affixed when the taxable document is presented in evidence (Del Castillo v. Madrilena), and that where a promissory note lacks a documentary stamp the court should allow the plaintiff to tender a stamp to supply the deficiency (Rodriguez v. Martinez). The Court also cited authorities holding that the lack of documentary stamp does not invalidate the document itself (Azarraga v. Rodriguez; Cia. General de Tabacos v. Jeanjaquet; Delgado and Figueroa v. Amenabar), supporting the remedial approach of permitting affixation rather than treating the unstamped instrument as nonexistent.

Holding and Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the probate court’s dismissal of the petition for probate. The Court directed the lower court to decide the matter on its merits in light of the parties’ evidence. The judgm

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-51546)

Case Citation and Panel

Reported at 180 Phil. 588; 76 OG No. 39, 7223 (September 29, 1980).
Designated SECOND DIVISION; docketed G.R. No. 51546 with date bracketed as January 28, 1980 in the source.
Decision authored by AQUINO, J.
Concurrence by Barredo (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos, JJ., who concur.

Procedural Posture

Proceeding originated in the Court of First Instance of Camiguin as Special Proceeding No. 41 for the probate of the will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan.
On December 28, 1977 the trial court entered a "decision" dismissing the proceeding, which the trial court erroneously characterized as an "action."
Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court by means of a petition for mandamus to compel the lower court to allow petitioner's appeal from its decision.
In this Court's resolution of January 21, 1980, the petition for mandamus was treated, in the interest of substantial and speedy justice, as (a) an appeal under Republic Act No. 5440 and (b) a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

The proceeding sought probate of a notarial will of the late Rogaciano Gabucan.
The probate court dismissed the proceeding because the notarial acknowledgment in the will did not bear a thirty-centavo documentary stamp.
The probate court assumed that the notarial acknowledgment of the will was subject to the thirty-centavo documentary stamp tax fixed in section 225 of the Tax Code (referred to in the source as now section 237 of the 1977 Tax Code).
The probate court held, citing section 238 of the Tax Code (referred to as now section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code), that a document required to be stamped and signed without being duly stamped "shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled."
Petitioner manifested that he had already attached the documentary stamp to the original of the will, but the respondent Judge refused to reconsider the dismissal.

Statutory Provision Quoted in the Decision

The Court quoted the statutory provision at issue as follows (identified in the source as section 238, now section 250 of the 1977 Tax Code):
- "SEC. 238. Effect of failure to stamp taxable document. - An instrument, document, or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted, or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled."
- The Court also quoted: "No notary public or other officer authorized to