RURAL BANK OF CALOOCAN, INC. vs.

THE COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. L-32116 April 21 , 1981
DE CASTRO, * J.:
FACTS:
On December 7, 1959, respondent Maxima Castro,
accompanied by Severino Valencia, went to the Rural Bank of
Caloocan to apply for an industrial loan. On December 11,
1959, after the bank approved the loan for the amount of
P3,000.00, Castro, accompanied by the Valencia spouses,
signed a promissory note corresponding to her loan in favor of
the bank. On the same day, December 11, 1959, the Valencia
spouses obtained from the bank an equal amount of loan for
P3,000.00. They signed a promissory note corresponding to
their loan in favor of the bank and had Castro affixed thereon
her signature as co-maker. The two loans were secured by a
real-estate mortgage on Castro's house and lot.
On February 13, 1961, the sheriff of Manila, thru
Acting Chief Deputy Sheriff Basilio Magsambol, sent a notice
of sheriff's sale addressed to Castro, announcing that her
property would be sold at public auction on March 10, 1961 to
satisfy the obligation.
Upon request, the auction sale that was scheduled
for March 10, 1961 was postponed for April 10, 1961. But
when April 10, 1961 was subsequently declared a special
holiday, the sheriff of Manila sold the property covered by
T.C.T. No. 7419 at a public auction sale that was held on April
11, 1961, which was the next succeeding business day
following the special holiday.
Castro prayed for the annulment of sale alleging that
there was fraud on the part of Valencias who induced her to
sign as co-maker of a promissory note since she is a 70-year
old widow who cannot read and write and it was only when
she receive the notice of sheriff, she learned that the
encumbrance on her property was P6000 and not for P3000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the public auction sale was null and
void for transferring the date already set bylaw.
HELD:
The sale is null and void for not having in
accordance with Act 3135 which states that that a notice shall
be given by posting notices of sale for not less than 20 days in
at least 3 public places and if the property is worth more than
P400 such notice shall also be published for in a newspaper of
general circulation in the municipality or city once a week for
3 consecutive weeks The pretermission of a holiday applies
only "where the day, or the last day for doing any act required
or permitted by law falls on a holiday," or when the last day of
a given period for doing an act falls on a holiday. It does not
apply to a day fixed by an office or officer of the government
for an act to be done, as distinguished from a period of time
within which an act should be done. Since April 10, 1961 was
not the day or the last day set by law for the extrajudicial
foreclosure sale, nor the last day of a given period but a date
fixed by the deputy sheriff, the aforesaid sale cannot legally
be made on the next succeeding business day without the
notices of the sale on that day being posted as prescribed in
Section 9, Act No. 3135.
ABS-CBN vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-52306, October 12, 1981
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACRTS:
ABS-CBN Corporation was engaged in the business of
telecasting local as well as foreign films acquired from foreign
corporations not engaged in trade or business within the
Philippines. The applicable law with regards to the income tax
on non-resident corporations is section 24 (b) of the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2343
dated June 20, 1959.
On April 12, 1961, in implementation of the said
provision, the CIR issued General Circular No. V-334. Pursuant
to the foregoing, petitioner dutifully withheld and turned over
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue the amount of 30% of onehalf of the film rentals paid by it to foreign corporations not
engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The last

year that petitioner withheld taxes pursuant to the foregoing

Circular was in 1968.
On June 27, 1968, Republic Act No. 5431 amended
Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code increasing the tax rate from 30
% to 35 % and revising the tax basis from "such amount"
referring to rents, etc. to "gross income,".
On February 8, 1971, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 4-71,
revoking General Circular No. V-334, and holding that the
latter was "erroneous for lack of legal basis," because "the tax
therein prescribed should be based on gross income without
deduction whatever,".
On the basis of this new Circular, CIR issued against
ABS- CBN a letter of assessment and demand requiring them
to pay deficiency withholding income tax on the remitted film
rentals for the years 1965 through 1968 and film royalty as of
the end of 1968 in the total amount of P525,897.06.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent can apply General
Circular No. 4-71 retroactively and issue a deficiency
assessment against petitioner in the amount of P 525,897.06
as deficiency withholding income tax for the years 1965,
1966, 1967 and 1968.
HELD:
No. Sec. 338-A11 (now Sec. 327) of the Tax Code
applies in this case. Rulings or circulars promulgated by the
CIR have no retroactive application where to so apply them
would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The retroactive application
of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 prejudices ABS-CBN since:
a) it was issued only in 1971, or 3 years after 1968, the last
year that petitioner had withheld taxes under General Circular
No. V-334.
b) the assessment and demand on petitioner to pay deficiency
withholding income tax was also made three years after 1968
for a period of time commencing in 1965.
c) ABS-CBN was no longer in a position to withhold taxes due
from foreign corporations because it had already remitted all
film rentals and no longer had any control over them when the
new Circular was issued.
And in so far as the enumerated exceptions (to nonretroactivity) are concerned, ABS-CBN does not fall under any
of them.
LORENZO vs. POSADAS
G.R. No. L-43082, June 18, 1937
LAUREL, J.:
FACTS:
On May 27, 1922, one Thomas Hanley died in
Zamboanga, Zamboanga, leaving a will (Exhibit 5) and
considerable amount of real and personal properties. On June
14, 1922, proceedings for the probate of his will and the
settlement and distribution of his estate were begun in the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The will was admitted
to probate.
On October 4, 1932, Herein petitioner Lorenzo, in his
capacity as trustee of the estate of a certain Thomas Hanley,
deceased, brought an action against respondent Posadas,
Collector of Internal Revenue. Petitioner alleges the
respondent to have exceeded in its tax collection, which, as
assessed by the former, should only be in the amount of
PhP1,434.24 instead of PhP2,052.74. Disregarding the
allegation, respondent filed a motion in the CFI of Zamboanga
praying that the trustee be made to pay such tax. The motion
was granted. Petitioner paid the amount in protest, however
notified the respondent that until a refund is prompted, suit
would be bought for its recovery. Respondent overruled the
protest. Hence, the case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the provisions of Act No. 3606 (Tax
Law) which is favorable to the taxpayer be given retroactive
effect?
HELD:
No. The respondent levied and assessed the
inheritance tax collected from the petitioner under the
provisions of section 1544 of the Revised Administrative Code
as amended by Act No. 3606. However, the latter only

enacted in 1930 not the law in force when the testator died
in 1922. Laws cannot be applied retroactively. The Court
states that it is a well-settled principle that inheritance
taxation is governed by the statue in force at the time of the
death of the decendent. The Court also emphasized that a
statute should be considered as prospective in its operation,

unless the language of the statute clearly demands or

expresses that it shall have retroactive effect Act No. 3606
does not contain any provisions indicating a legislative intent
to give it a retroactive effect. Therefore, the provisions of Act
No. 3606 cannot be applied to the case at bar.