Dizon vs Posadas Jr (57 Phil 465)

Dizon vs Posadas Jr
57 Phil 465 [GR No. L-36770 November 4, 1932]

Facts: Don Felix Dizon died on April 21, 1928. Before his death, he made a gift inter vivos in favor of the plaintiff Luis W. Dizon of all his property according to a deed of a gift of which includes all the property of Don Felix Dizon. The plaintiff did not receive the property of any kind of Don Felix upon the death of the latter. Don Luis is the legitimate and only son of Don Felix. The defendant, collector of internal revenue assess an inheritance tax of Php2,808.73 which Don Luis paid under protest and later filed an action to recover sum of money thus paid. Plaintiff alleged that the inheritance tax is illegal because he received the property, which is the basis of the tax from his father before his death by a deed of gift inter vivos which was duly accepted and registered before the death of his father.

Issue: Whether or not the gift inter vivos is subject to inheritance tax.

Held: Yes. Section 1540 of the administrative code plainly does not tax gifts per se but only when those gifts are made to those who shall prove to be the heirs, devisees, legatees or donees mortis cause of the donor.

In this case, the scanty facts before us may not warrant the inference that the conveyance, acknowledged by the donor 5 days before his death and accepted by the donee one day before the donor’s death, was fraudulently made for the purpose of evading the inheritance tax. But the facts, in our opinion, do not warrant the inference that the transfer was an advancement upon the inheritance which the donee as the sole and forced heir of the donor, would be entitled to receive upon the death of the donor.

Vidal de Roces vs Posadas Jr (58 Phil 108)

Vidal de Roces vs Posadas Jr
58 Phil 108 [GR No. L-34937 March 13, 1933]

Facts: On March 1o and 12, 1925, Esperanza Tuazon, by means of public documents, donated certain parcel of lands situated in Manila to the plaintiffs herein who with their respective husbands accepted them in the same public documents which were duly recorded in the registry of deeds. By virtue of said donations, the plaintiffs took possession of the said lands, received the fruits thereof and obtained the corresponding transfer certificate of title. On January 25, 1926, the donor died in the city of Manila leaving the forced heir and her will which was admitted to probate, she bequeathed to each of the donees the sum of Php5,000. After the estate had been distributed among the instituted legatees and before the delivery of their respective shares, the appellee herein, as collector of internal revenue, ruled that the appellant as donees and legatees should pay as inheritance taxes the sums of Php16,673 and Php13,951.45 respectively. At first, the appellants refused to pay the aforementioned taxes but, at the insistence of the appellee in order not to delay the adjudication of the legacies, they agreed at last to pay them under protest. Hence, plaintiff-appellants filed an action to recover the taxes paid under protest.

Issue: Whether or not inheritance tax should be imposed on donations inter vivos.

Held: Yes. The tax collected by the appellee on the properties donated in 1925 really constitutes an inheritance tax imposed on the transmission of said properties in contemplation or in consideration of the donor’s death and under circumstance that the donees were later instituted as the former’s legatees. For this reason, the law considers such transmission in the form of gifts inter vivos, as advances on the inheritance and nothing therein violates any constitutional provision, in as much as said legislation is within the power of the legislature.

Property subject to inheritance tax – the inheritance tax ordinarily applies to all property within the power of the state to reach passing by will or the laws regulating intestate succession or by gifts inter vivos in the manner designated by statute, whether such property be real or personal, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal.

While a donee inter vivos, who after the predecessor’s death proved to be an heir, legatee or donee mortis causa, would have to pay the tax, another donee inter vivos who did not prove to be an heir, a legatee or a donee mortis causa of the predecessor, would be exempt from such tax.

It may be inferred from the allegations contained in par 2 and 7 thereof that said donations inter vivos were made in consideration of the donor’s death. We refer to the allegations that such transmissions were effected in the month of March 1925, that the donor died in January 1926, and that the donees were instituted legatees in the donor’s will which was admitted in probate. It is from these allegations, especially the last, that we infer a presumption juris tantum that said donations were made mortis causa and, as such are subject to payment of inheritance tax.

Grow Up, they said.

2015 has been more of what they call “Quarter-Life Crisis.” Do we even understand this concept? As defined by www.everything.explained.today:

The quarterlife crisis is a period of life following the major changes of adolescence, usually ranging from the late teens to the early thirties, in which a person begins to feel doubtful about their own lives, brought on by the stress of becoming an adult. The term was coined by analogy with mid-life crisis.

One Thursday night, randomly a friend over dinner asked me, out of the blue, “Nag-quarter-life crisis ka?” And from then on, I wondered, did I? Will I? Should I? I don’t know the answer, I don’t know if I can say then and there or even now that I did not went through that phase of life. May be I don’t care much in the world neither I care much about myself. The real deal is I rarely interact with people which keeps me aways from comparing their life to mine. I am a believer of “Live one day at a time.” What’s important to me is the present for it will dictate my future. I have dreams, goals, plans for my own life but I don’t rush myself to achieving that now.

When we were young, adults tell us to not grow up too fast. They love to baby us and be our cute little gummy bears but when adolescence sets in, especially during the stage when parents love to scold us, they usually are ranting at the back of their heads “Why can’t you grow-up?!” There is a good reason behind this. They want us to step-in their shoes and understand that life is not easy. There are things we want but we can’t have because momma is saving for your college.

People often use interchangeably the term “independence” with this term of growing up. Just like how there are many different kinds of being an independent, there are also different levels of growing up. But in life, in general, growing up does not happen in one snap. Some grew because of the circumstances surrounding them, some as a choice.

So many things happened in my life, not just me but also to the people close to my heart and I guess these triggered me understanding that the what usually Jamie wants, Jamie gets is not always the case. That is still possible though,  I just chose to delay it.

Life is a choice. In life you have to make sacrifices not only for you but most specially for the people you love. 

 

 

 

CIR vs Campos Rueda (42 SCRA 238)

The Collector Of Internal Revenue vs Campos Rueda
42 SCRA 238 [GR No. L-13250 October 29, 1971]

Facts: This is an appeal interposed by herein respondent Antonio Campos Rueda as administrator of the estate of the deceased Doña Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda de Cedeira, from the decision of the petitioner, collector of internal revenue, assessing against and demanding from the former the sum of Php161,874.95 as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes, including interest therein and penalties, on the transfer of intangible personal properties situated in the Philippines and belonging to said Maria Cedeira. She is a spanish national, by reason of her marriage to a spanish citizen and was a resident of Tangier, Morocco from 1931 up to her death on January 2, 1955. At the time of her demise, she left among others, intangible personal properties in the Philippines. On September 29, 1955, respondent filed a provisional estate and inheritance tax return on all the properties of Maria Cedeira. On the same date, petitioner, pending investigation issued an assessment for estate and inheritance tax in the respective amounts of Php111,592.48 and Php 157,791.48 or a total of Php369,383.96 which tax liabilities were paid by respondent. On November 27, 1955, an amended return was filed wherein intangible personal properties with the value of Php396,308.90 were claimed as exempt from taxes. On November 23, 1955, petitioner issued another assessment for estate and inheritance taxes in the amounts of Php 202,262.40 and Php267,402.84 respectively or a total of Php469,665.24. In a letter dated January 11, 1956, respondent denied the request for the exemption on the ground that the law of Tangier is not reciprocal with section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Hence, respondent demanded the payment of the sums of Php239,439.79 representing the deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including ad valorem penalties, surcharges, interest and compromise penalties. In a letter dated February 8, 1956, respondent requested for the reconsideration of the decision denying the claim for the tax exemption. However, the same was denied. The denial was premise on the ground that there was no reciprocity with Tangier, which was moreover a mere principality, not a foreign country.

Issue: Whether or not the intangible personal properties of Maria Cedeira are exempt from estate and inheritance tax.

Held: Yes. The controlling legal provision as noted is a proviso in section 122 of the NIRC. It reads thus:

that no tax shall be collected under this title in respect of intangible personal properties

1. if the decedent at the time of his death was a resident of a foreign country which at the time of his death did not impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of intangible personal properties of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country; or
2. if the laws of the foreign country of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death allow a similar exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of intangible personal properties owned by citizens of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country.

This court commit itself to the doctrine that even a tiny principality, hardly an international personality in the sense did fall under the exempt category.

The expression “foreign country,” was used in the last proviso of section 122 of NIRC refers to a government of that foreign power which although not an international person in the sense of international law does not impose transfer or death upon intangible person properties of our citizens not residing therein whose law allow a similar exemption from such taxes. It is therefore not necessary that Tangier should have been recognized by our government in order to entitle the respondent to the exemption benefits of the proviso of said section 122 of our tax code.

Death: Option or NOT

ARE YOU READY TO DIE?

Bakit may tao na gustong bawiin ang sariling buhay para sa isang maliit na problema kumpara sa taong walang makain sa araw-araw, walang matuluyan pero pinipilit mabuhay ng naayon sa tama?

We all have these struggles in this thing called “LIFE” but hey life is so precious! If you’re unsure, don’t wish to die. If you are not ready yet, don’t wish. If killing yourself ever comes your mind, try to think of the following:

1. Consequences;
2. Why;
3. People who love you.

You may not feel it, you may not see who cares for you but still, look around.

I’m fine dying, really but when instances like “near death experience/s” happen, I think, not the right time, not now. If only killing my life would save someone I love, it’s okay. I am more than willing to die.