CTA Case No. 399 (Resolution)

,1 ' / l'lEPUBLIC OP' THE PHILIPPINEI COUHT OF TAX APPEALS MANli.A C . H.LOS LEDES I'vlA , as Adminis - C. T. A. trator of the Estate of the CASE NO . 399 deceased Julio Ledesma, Petitioner, - versus - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVE~.i'l)lJE I Respondent . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RES 0 LUT I 0 N On August 7, 1957, petitioner filed a petition praying that "should the Court of First Instance of � Negros Occidental dismiss respondent's claim for pay- ment of the assessment in question in the said S pe- cial Proceedings No. 1994, instead of transferring it to this Courti petitioner be given an extension of fifteen days from receipt by him or the undersigned counsel of the order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oc cidental to that effect within which to file the petition for review of the assessment in question ." In this connection, counsel for respondent in- terpos~d a "Motion to Dismiss" on the grounds that there is an - action pending between the same parties and that the complaint states no cause of action. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Julio Ledesma was assessed ~y the Collector of In - ternal ftevenue on January 17, 1955, for deficiency income taxes for 1949 in the sum of �43 ,378o97 . The tax was not paid during his lifetime, hence the Col-

RESOLUTION - C.I.A. CASE NO. 399 - 2- l~ctor filed a proof of claim on January 30, 1957 in Special Proceedings No o 1994 entitled "Intestate Estate of ~he Deceased Julio Ledesma", belore the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, which claim is now pending hearing before said court. While waiting for the hearing and resolution of said claim before the Court of First Instance of Ne-gros Occ i- dental, > petitioner asked for a reinvestigation of his tax liability before the Bureau of Internal Revenue which was denied by r es pondent on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with certain require- ments . This decision was received by petitioner on July 9, 1957 and on August 7, 1957, he filed the pre - sent petition. A perusal of the petition for review reveals the fact that petitioner is not appealing any deci- sion or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue . Moreover, in his oppesition to the motion to dismiss (p . 1, Memorandum), petitioner categorically admits that �the allegations of the petition do not esta- blish a cause for review but merely set forth the facts and that neither does the prayer ask for a re- view of the disputed assessmentn, but that it merely I presented an alternative request. From the above, it is obvious that we can not assume jurisdiction over this petition, in view of the fact that it does � not fall under any of the cases enumerated under sec- tion 7 of Republic , ct No. 1125 which defines this

/' RESOLUTION - Co T.Ao CASE t'JO .. 399 -3- Court's jurisdictiono - IN VIEW OF THE FOHEGOING 9 let the above- entitled case be 9 as it is hereby dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, with costs against petitionero S 0 ORDERED o Manila , Philippines 9 October 14; 1957o ~-- ~-<-a~ M.L\R'fAiiD l~BLE - Presiding Judge I CONCUI1.~ RO IAN Ivi. Vi'/IALI Associate Judge I concur in the rlesult: �