BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 19-000289-0073 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OFTAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10097 BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati City ATTY. FELIX PAUL R. VELASCO III ATTY. SYLVIA R ALMA JOSE ATTY. AYESHA RANIA B. GUILlNG-MATANOG Bureau of Internal Revenue Room 703, Litigation Division BIR National Office Building Sen. Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago Avenue Diliman, Quezon City ATTY. SAMANTHA MAXINE M. TAN OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND LEGAL SERVICES Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Litigation and Administrative Cases Group Room 313 Multi-Storey Building, BSP Complex corner A. Mabini and P. Ocampo, Sr. Streets Malate, Manila GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on May 5, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 6, 2026. ... Atty. Maria J~ Chan-Te Executive ourt III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION BANGKO SENTRAL NG CTA Case No. 10097 PILIPINAS, Members: Petitioner, -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, PJ, Chairperson, REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES,JL COMMISSION�ER OF Promulgated: + INTERNAL REVENUE, .. Respondent. MAY 0 5 2026 q,/ft FtfVI x------------------------------- : ~ -------------x RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO, J. : In the Amended Decision1 dated February 6, 2026, it was found that the real properties assigned by Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) in favor of petitioner was on account of Community Rural Bank of Dalaguete (Cebu), Inc. (CRBD)'s unpaid money obligation due to petitioner. Given that the assignment of said real properties is associated with the conduct of petitioner's business, documents or evidence of said assignment is exempted from imposition of Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) by express provision of Section 199(1) of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended. This impelled Us to grant the refund of illegally collected DST previously paid by petitioner, in this wise: ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review dated June 26, 2019 in CTA Case No. 10097 is GRANTED. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is DIRECTED to REFUND Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the amount of P68,758.95, representing its erroneously or illegally paid DST (inclusive of surcharges, interests, and compromise penalties) when it processed the titling under its name of the properties covered by OCT No. 18346, TCT No. P-1409, and TD No. 28255located in Argao, Cebu. Docket, unpaginated.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10097 SO ORDERED. In its Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Amended Decision promulgated on 06 February 2026), 2 respondent asserts that petitioner's refund should be rejected because the latter failed to establish the basis justifying the allowance thereof. Via Opposition (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 25 February 2026),3 petitioner ripostes that it had duly proven its entitlement to the refund; hence, no reversible error was committed in granting refund of illegally collected DST in its favor. The Motion fails to impress. Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (TPPJ)4is straightforward in that " .. . the standard of proof, even in tax refund claims, is merely preponderance of evidence." Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa v. Aldanese (A ldanese) 5 elaborated on the concepts of preponderance of evidence and burden of evidence, as follows: In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon [petitioner] who must establish their case by preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence. Once [petitione r] m akes o ut a prima facie case in his [o r h e r] favo r in t h e course of the trial, however, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to [respondent] to controvert [petitioner]'s prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of [petitioner] . As discoursed in pages 5-9 of the impugned Amended Decision,6 petitioner's evidence swayed Us that it is entitled to the refund of illegally collected DST on the assignment of properties made by PDIC to it; thus, the burden of evidence is on respondent to negate, much less, tarnish petitioner's evidence. Nay, respondent 2 Id., unpaginated. 3 Id., unpaginated. 4 G.R. No. 257219 (Formerly UDK No. 16941), July 15, 2024. 5 G.R. No. 216587, August 4, 2021. Cita tion omitted . Boldfacing ours. 6 Supra n ote 1.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10097 Page 3 of3 opted not to present evidence in this case. 7 This means that petitioner's evidence is far more superior than respondent's bare assertion. Consistent with TPPI, in relation to Aldanese, petitioner is deserving of a favorable verdict. To be exact, the latter's refund granted in the impugned Amended Decision should be sustained. ACCORDINGLY, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Amended Decision promulgated on 06 February 2026) is DENIED for lack of merit. The Amended Decision dated February 6, 2026 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ~~f.~-F~l~ iV'J MARIAN F. REYES-FAfARDO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: L.~i....__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice HENRY I!!GELES Associate Justice 7 Respondent's Manifestation and Compliance dated June 2, 2021 . Docket, pp. 1064-1066.