G.R. No.

120880 June 5, 1997

FERDINAND R. MARCOS II,
petitioner,vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE andHERMINIA D. DE GUZMAN,respondents.
Petitioner is the eldest son of the late President Marcos who questions the
assessment of the CIR and collecting through the summary remedy of Levy on Real
Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon the estate and properties of his
father, despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the will of the late
president. Marcos filed a petition for certiorari and Prohibition with an application for
writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the CA
against the issuance of CIR of the notice of Levy on Real Property and sale by public
auction of the said properties. CA ruled the deficiency assessments for estate and
income tax of the late President already become final and unappealable, and may
thus be enforced by the summary remedy of levying upon the properties, hence this
petition. Marcos contended that the pending probate proceeding puts the properties
in custodia legis of the probate court to the exclusion of all other courts and
administrative agencies. BIR argued that the sates authority to collect internal
revenue taxes is paramount.
Issue:Whether or not the State can collect taxes on the estate of the deceased
despite the pending probate proceeding.
Ruling:
The case of Pineda vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas and Collector of Internal
Revenue (52Phil 803), relied upon by the petitioner-appellant is good authority on
the proposition that the court having control over the administration proceedings has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim presented by thegovernment for taxes due and to
order the administrator to pay the tax should it find that the assessment was proper,
and that the tax was legal, due and collectible.Thus, it was in Vera vs. Fernandez that
the court recognized the liberal treatment of claims for taxes charged against the
estate of the decedent. Such taxes, we said, were exempted from the application of
the statute of non-claims, and this is justified by the necessity of government
funding, immortalized in the maxim that taxes are the lifeblood of the government.
Vectigalia nervi sunt rei publicae - taxes are the sinews of the state.
It has been repeatedly observed, and not without merit, that the enforcement of tax
laws and the collection of taxes, is of paramount importance for the sustenance of
government. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected
without unnecessary hindrance. However, such collection should be made in
accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government
itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the
authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the
promotion of the common good, may beachieved. [Marcos II vs. Court of Appeals,
273 SCRA 47(1997)]IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the
present petition.

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan vs. Tan

GR L-81311, 30 June 1988
En Banc, Padilla (J): 12 concur, 2 on leave
Facts: EO 273 was issued by the President of the Philippines which amended the
Revenue Code, adopting the value-added tax (VAT) effective 1 January 1988. Four
petitions assailed the validity of the VAT Law fro being beyond the President to enact;
for being oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and violative of the due
process and equal protection clauses, among others, of the Constitution. The
Integrated Customs Brokers Association particularly contend that it unduly
discriminate against customs brokers (Section 103 [r]) as the amended provision of
the Tax Code provides that service performed in the exercise of profession or calling
(except custom brokers) subject to occupational tax under the Local Tax Code, and
professional services Taxation Law I, 2004 ( 18 )Digests (Berne Guerrero) performed
by registered general professional partnerships are exempt from VAT.
Issue: Whether the E-VAT law discriminates against customs brokers.
Held: The phrase except custom brokers is not meant to discriminate against
custom brokers but to avert a potential conflict between Sections 102 and 103 of
the Tax Code, as amended. The distinction of the customs brokers from the other
professionals who are subject to occupation tax under the Local Tax Code is based
upon material differences, in that the activities of customs brokers partake more of a
business, rather than a profession and were thus subjected to the percentage tax
under Section 174 of the Tax Code prior to its amendment by EO 273. EO 273
abolished the percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT. If the Association did not
protest the classification of customs brokers then, there is no reason why it should
protest now.