CTA Case No. 121 (Resolution)

HEPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COU RT OF TAX APPEALS HANILA COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY, Pe t i t i o n e r , versus - C.T. A. CASE NO. 121 THE COLLECTOR OF INT&T.tNAL REVENUE, Respondent . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RE S 0 LUT I 0 N This involves a "Hotion to Dismiss 11 filed by res- pondent on the gr ound that this Court l acks jurisdiction to ent Artain the 11Petition For Review" . The movant con- tends that the petition fof r eview having been filed on April 29, 1955, which is mor e than two years after pay- ment of the taxes alleged to have been illegally and erroneously collected, this Court has no jurisdiction over this action . A careful analysis and study of the record of this case has disclosed tha t tae amounts sought to be refunded, have been collected and paid to the respondent on three different dates as follows: May 15, 1951, ? 4,333 . 39 per Official Receipt No. A-89348; September 16, 1951, ~500 .00 per Official Receipt No . A-350886 ; and May 15, 1952, ~,423 . 50 per Official Receipt No . A- 34431 (Par. 2, Pe- tition for Review) . This fact is also corroborated by the l etter sent by counsel for the petitioner, Attorney Antonio Ojeda dated November 15, 1952, addressed to the respondent Collector of Internal Revenue and marked as Annex A 11 11 of the herein petition for review, under which l ett er the p3 t itioner was claiming for the refund of the said taxes paid. It is therefore very cl ear and apparent from the face of the pl eading filed by the petitioner that from lYJay 15, 1951, September 15, 1951 and Hay 15, 1952 , when the sums of �4,333 . 39: ?500,00 , and ?2 ,423 . 50, were res- pectively collected by the respondent, up to April 29, 1955, when the petition fo r review has been filed and docketed before this Court , more than two years had lapsed. Since an action for the refund of taxes must be fi l ed within two y ears from the payment thereof pur- suant to section 306 of the Tax Code, which r equirement , in repeated pronouncements made by the Supreme Court and this Court, has been held to be substantive and jurisdic- tional (Berme jo "� Collector of Int ernal Revenue, G. R. No . L-302 9, July 25 , 1950; vJee Poco v . Posadas 64 Phil., 640), the failure to comply with this condition, is, we believe, fatal and bar s the claim of the petitioner . PREMISES CONSIDERED, thi s Court is of the opinion and so holds that the motion to dismiss is well taken, 104

RESOLUTION - C. T.A. CASE NO . 121 - 2- and the "Petition for Review" should be as it is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED . Man ila , Philippines , December 19, 1955 . (SGD . ) :tviARIANO NABLE Presiding Judge I CONCUR : (SGD.) AUGUSTO M. LUCIANO As so cia te Judge Associate Judge ROMAN M. UMALI concur s in a separate opinion . E-Cr/ 1- 5- 56 . 105