CTA Case No. 4276 (Decision)

HEPUBLIC OF THE PI1ILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY LEILANI C. DIAZ, C.T.A. CASE NO. 4276 F'F? t:. it. i on P t'- \1 r..-7! ,,.. r::; l..t ~::; ~-�� BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, REVENUE REGION NO. 11 - B; and/or CRISP IN G. APOLINAR, n<-:-:�? "; p C) n c:l ,.,.? l""l t:. " ~-~ -��� ..�.. ..... DEC I I 0 N :i.n "'� mu t:.io n l'')r" ' l '7H H, thF'! ..::. .�::. ;t t:. l�lE? pF! t�i t .i on for r e v i e ~ on the ground uf .:.i u r�� .i ~=:; c:l.i. c:: t:.:i. u n .. l���l c-:�? r::: on t:. c?n c:l �::; t: hi:'\ t t: h f::? in t: hi '"; :i ~::; un t:.E' n ,:,, I:J J F�? <:=; :i.n c e t. hf:�~ as s e ss me nt h as n ot bee n c:li s putec:l ur protested p i...l. t'�� s u <::~nt:. t �. n Gr~c:: t: :i.orl :::!::!.9����� (.) of t .h(0' 1\l ,,,,t:i.on .::~ J. I n t r=- t���nal Re v enue Cuc:l e as amenc:lec:l by Pre s identi a l Decree No. 1. '77::=!:, ,:J ;:~nu;,,r�� y 14, 1.90.1.; h c-:�'nc (::.>, t .hE�?t'" P co uld nnt br-:~ c.":\ n y dp c:: .i.~::;.i.nn th.:~t. m.::1y bE�? ''''PP~'?i':\l;..;-,bl r.::! to th i s Cour-t a s cont e mp l a ted in Section 7 ( ~) of Republic:: Act Nn~ 8

DECISI ON CTA CAS E NO. 4 2 76 We aqree with respondent. The pertinent fact s as alleged in the petition s;u r� v i v .i. n<] L~ :i. �f E' � ~ th ;:,,F \-<1 i . t h hEh� the mi. nor�� � son ~ .. b~lq E�' t .hE' 1'". are the heirs of Dan:i.lo C. Di.az who died intestate in D;:~v,"'n C.i. t .y on FE�'bt""l.li:H � y "1 ~ 1. 9Fl4 , l e;::~v :i.rHJ among ot.hF�'I'"" p ,,. n p F:' ��� t :i. f.�~ s; , 1 i:":\nc:l comp1��� i s.i.nq 7. 70:::;7 hr�-~c:: "l: t:\I'""E~~'.; :i.rl Ta 1 i':\nc:l<:'\nq ~ Di:":\V�':\0 Ci t.y, per TCT Cln FF~ hr�� u;,1r� y ' 1�, lctDEl, t.he Bin F~f,~q:i.on;:,,J. Of�fic::!:? 1.1. -�-r:<, t .hr �ouqh Cl"� :i.~; p.i.n (.'lpolin ;:,,r � ,,,, ~; levyin<J nff:i.c:eJ'"�~ s;<-:�~ :i. ::-~ r-:-)d t.l�lF�) ,,, f or�� E�'rn<?n t ..i. on !i�~ c:l P�"' r. c E' l u �f l <:\nd to !i2n f o r� c::e ' F�' ~:; t:. ,::\ t .F:~ pu 1'.. po 1' .. t. !i,~ c:ll y i:'\q;:~.i.n~'..;t. with notice to s <?ll the s ame at public:: auction. vJ h .i. 1 "~ p F:~ t :i. tiC) n F~ I'"" c\ v e I'""~; t ,., ;:~ t. 0 n F F~ b I'"" u i :\ I'"" y ~5 ~ .1. 9F3El ~3 hE�~ had p l E!t~clE�'cl \-<j :i. t h t:. h E~ B IF~ nE-~q i c:Jn "~ l U �f �f i. c e .1. .1. ..... B t .h ,,.. u u q h Cr.. i s>p .i n A p o l .i n <:1 r. �f n r. a r�<:'~ c:: n n s .i. c:l E-~ 1'.. at :i. on 0 1'"" l' .. ec,::~Jl the seizure of t .hf:c' pr� oper� ty, no r.. PqUE�)~::; t for.. r.. Pc nns :i. dE~ r.. ;:,, t ion o �f t hP '"' �f O l'" f.�:�'rnE~n t .i c1n ed assessment was h nwPver mad~ with rPsponc:lent be fo re petitioner appea l ed to t h is Court on May 30, 1988. Clbv.i.ou. ~; l y, a s sE-~ssrnr~n t . not h avi n q been pl'"" utr.;~ str~d Ol'.. COn t:F'Si t.E~cl, therP cnulcl not be a 9

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4276 ::::. d e ci s ion on a di s puted a ssess me nt that may be appea l e d to this Court. (Pl e a se s ee Candyman Incorporated vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue , CT"P1 Ca s e No. � .1.8 7:2 ~ ,J �'=H'll.t.:H -y :.20 ~ :.l.970; The Philippine American Life Insurance Company, Inc. vs. The Hon. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ~ CTA Und e r Section 7(.1.) o �f f\ E0public:: A c t . No � .1..1.25 ~ what :i.s r� evi.F.~ wable by th.i~::; Cour.. t on "'' p pr?<.:l 1 :i. s; c:l E�~ c: is; i. CJn CJ �f the Commissioner of Inte rnal Revenue on a c:lisputec:l Thu s , it h as b een h e ld: T h (:�? 1 a ~�J con fe r.. r �.i. nq j u r.. i �::;c:li. c t .ion o n t .h t:�' C ou r. t o �f Tax Appeal s i s found in flE~ c t:..i u n 7 o'f R epubli c: A c t .1..1. 2 5, thf? Pf�') r� t i n E�~n t. p i:'lt'" t. o'f whi c h s tates~ " E>E C. 7 .. ,.'lu r .i :==:<:!.ict .i o n. - The Court of T ax App ea l s s h a ll e x erc i s e t:,~ :-: c:lu. �::; .i.V E~ j u r.. i~:; cl:i. c: tion t .n t'" f::�~Vi(? Y.J by a ppea l a s h e rein prov id e d - ns II ( .1. ) {.J. f:.>'.�.�. .t��..,-� .l� <'.) / <'.) �( t h e Co.l.le r::: t o r (now Commi s sioner) of In t .ern.:'l l Rev enue in c a s e s .invCJlv.inq d .i s pu tE~d a ss r-.:~~=; ~; mc-::~n t <::; , r� f!.>�f un d s o 'f .in ter.. n r.,, 1 t'" f:.~venu(;? t :a :.:ec.:;, fee~~::; or� o t h e r� c:h,;,,r.. gf:>s.; , pen .::l l t:. ies imposed in r.. e l .:At..i.on thereto~ or.. other rna t ters ar�isin(J und('? r- the N.7:\t:ion.:Al Inter-nal F:ev~:?nue CodE:> or.. othf.�?r- 1 aw or part of l aw admini s tered by the Bureau The wor.. d ''dr.~c.i.~s .ion s '' in p r.:~r.. agrap h .1., Se ction 7 o �f Re pub 1 i c: Ac: t:. 1..1.25 ~ quoted �'Above, har:; bf?E?n .i.nt('?r.. pr"f? ted to me e:m t.tu?. 10

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4276 cl q (::j. s .i u Jl..~....P t .J:, Ll E~...J::; c:> f.T.!J.n .i .~~i..~~ J..q u.~::~ r:....P t . Iu J.~. ~:!J. �~. L R<=.~Y f.~.r.l .l...\.P. g 1:l ......:.Ltl.~.........P.r :.c:J t(P.f:�..t......cl:f..... .....ttJP. .....t9.:::P.~Y.~.r.. 99 2\ i .r:l.S..t the . ~.22P~S.JTJ�r:l.:~~? � :: :: :�:" (Emphasis ours) ( Commi ssioner of Interna l Revenue vs. Leonar do S. Villa and the Court of . Ta x Appe a is ; ~� 1::_-23988 , �. Janu ary 2~ 1968, 22 SCRA 3.) Unc:I E�~r- !~)c-.~c:: t:ion :::r. J9 ��- (.) (no\.'J f.3E�c::tiun 270) of t h E~ b f�~ pi'"CJt(�:"r::;tr:.~d .:~dminist l�-c:~t:.ivE�'ly by �f i l i n q .:�~ r�e qur~st I'"E>c:: CJn s;, :.i.d P r�� ,;:, t ion CJ I'" ;�� e in v E~ s t .i q .:.~ t i on within th.i. r t y ( ~:r,o) d .:~y~::; �f r�orn r-ec E�~ i p t of t. hE~ assessrnen t ; ot. hE~I��� \.'Ji sE~, i t bE�C:CHTlE�~�:; f:i.ni::l l <.:lnd un,'!lppealc':lble. And i �f th e pl... nt:.E~ r:;t i s cl(;~ n.i.r:~d i n \.'Jhol��~ or�� i n p.::1r t~ the taxpaye r adversely affected by the dec::.i.s.i.on on t h e pl�- ot.E~f::;t. rn c::\'f i: lppF:' �'='l t.o t : h r.-:> Cour�� t oi' �ri:':l:: Appea l s w.i.t.h.i.n thi1���ty (::~;o) dc:,,y~:;; fr. om r��p c(;~ipt of the Sc':l.i.rl dr.-:>c:::i.~;inn; t .h E> dr:~c::.i.s; iun s; ha 11 become f i n a l , , f.'~>:cc::ut.o r�� y and c:IPrn.::\ndc::lhl e. It thur:; bf:0yo nd doubt that the the rPquest for reconsideration or rcin vcstiqat inn is the decision on the disputed assessment w h ic h i s <.~ ppe,,~J.ablE~ to t h i s Court . Consequr.~ntly, i �f the ass.;essment .i.s-, not �form.-::~l l y contested or protested administrative l y, as what. happE'nf.?d .in �.: hE�~ c:as.;E? at be:1r- ~ the t:.a:-:payer- has n o r�� .i.~Jht. to .::lppP.c\1. 11

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4276 ..... ~) ..... IN VlEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review filed in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction at petit i one r' s .c.' o. sts. SO ORDERED. Que zo n City, Metro Ma nila, Jaqnuary 27, 1 9 89. AMANTE F; F't���r-:.,~5 .idir J . ROAQUIN CERT I F I CAT I 0 N I h(�:~ lr'E�'b y C:t.~r t.i. 'fy t h a t t h i s dr�~c.i.~:;;:i. on reached a'fter d u e con s ultation among t h e me mbers of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance wit h Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitu tion. F'r- t.~sidinq ,Juclqe Court of Tax Appeals 12