2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 022

1356 E EC E A A ED
Re blic . Acebed

No. L-20477. March 29, 1968.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, . FELIX

B. ACEBEDO, defendant-appellee.

Ta a i ; P e c i i ; Re e f ei e iga i . T e defe da
af e ece ea e e ce a ed f a e e a .T ee
e de ce a e e a c de ed ac ed . T e e Ac
C ec f I e a Re e e ed a a a fd a a d e f e
f a f ea e e .T ee a f - f a a .T e
e e f e e a dd e d e f e e d f
a ac f c ec .
Same; Same; Wai e f a e f limi a i . T e de a c ec
c d be a b ed e defe da a a . H e e ad bee
eeded e ,a d e e a ede e f ce e f e a
ab b a f e ea ded b a . B Oc . 4, 1955, e a
e ea ad e a ed ce e a e e e a ade.
Pec ad a ead e , a be e e e c ec
. e ad a e e e e ae a. T e e a e f e
a e ed b e defe da c d e e e e f ac ,
f de e a c a e be e ec ed e a e- ea
e d c c d be c e ced.

APPEAL from an order of dismissal of the Co rt of First Instance of

Manila. Morfe, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Co rt.

Solici o Gene al for plaintiff-appellant.
Angel C. Fac ndo for defendant-appellee.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

This is a s it for collection of de cienc income ta for the ear

1948 in the amo nt of P5,962.83. The corresponding notice of
assessment as iss ed on September 24, 1949. The complaint as
led on December 27, 1961. After the defendant led his ans er b t
before trial started

1357
. a. . / a / /00000177970 9 8995 3 b 003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 1/5
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 022

. 22, A C 29, 1968 1357

Re blic . Acebed

he mo ed to dismiss on the gro nd of prescription. The co rt

recei ed e idence on the motion, and on September 1, 1962 iss ed
an order nding the same meritorio s and hence dismissing the
complaint. The case is before s on appeal b the plaintiff from the
order of dismissal.
The stat te of limitations hich go erns this case is Section 332,
s bsection (c), of the National Internal Re en e Code, hich reads:

"SEC. 332. E e a e d f a f a e e a d
c ec f a e.
"
"
"(c) W e e e a e e f a e a - e e e a a bee ade
e e d f a ab e e c bed c a a be c ec ed b
d a e b a ceed c ,b f be (1)
e ea af e e a e e f e a , (2) ee a fa
e d f c ec a eed b e C ec f I e a
Re e e a d e a a e bef e e e a f c e ea e d. T e
e d a eed a be e e ded b b e e a ee e
ade bef e e e a f e e d e a eed ."

The present s it as not beg n ithin e ears after the assessment

of the ta , hich as in 1949. Was it, ho e er, beg n prior to the
e piration of an period for collection agreed pon in riting b the
Commissioner of Internal Re en e and the defendant before the
e piration of s ch e- ear period? The onl e idence of s ch
ritten agreement, in the form of a " ai er of the stat te of
limitations" signed b the defendant, is E hibit U (also E h. 4),
dated December 17, 1959. B t this ai er as ineffecti e beca se it
as e ec ted be ond the original e- ear limitation.
The plaintiff contends that the period of prescription as
s spended b the defendant's ario s req ests for rein estigation or
reconsideration of the ta assessment. The trial co rt rejected this
contention, sa ing that a mere req est for rein estigation or
reconsideration of an assessment does not ha e the effect of s ch
s spension. The r ling is logical, other ise there o ld be no point
to the legal req irement that the e tension of the original period be
agreed pon in riting.

1358

1358 E EC E A A ED
Re blic . Acebed

. a. . / a / /00000177970 9 8995 3 b 003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 2/5

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 022

To be s re, this legal pro ision, according to some decisions of this

Co rt, does not r le o t a sit ation here the ta pa er ma be in
estoppel to claim prescription. Th s e said in Commissioner of
Internal Re en e s. Consolidated Mining Co., L-11527, No . 25,
1958:

" T e e a e ca e e e e e a a a e a be e e ed f
e e defe e f e c e e f e a e a ed
a e b e ea ed e e e ac eG e e
a bee , f d ea , e aded e c ec a e
fee a e de a d a ea ab e a aa e ce
ea b eG e e ." (I a c ed.)

Like ise, hen a ta pa er asks f or a rein estigation of the ta

assessment iss ed to him and s ch rein estigation is made, on the
basis of hich the Go ernment makes another assessment, the e-
ear period ithin hich an action f or collection ma be
commenced sho ld be co nted from this last assessment. (Rep blic
s. Lope , L-18007, March 30, 1963; Commissioner . Sison, et al.,
L-13739, April 30, 1963.)
In the case at bar, the defendant, after recei ing the assessment
notice of September 24, 1949, asked for a rein estigation thereof on
October 11, 1949 (E h. A). There is no e idence that this req est
as considered or acted pon. In fact, on October 23, 1950 the then
Collector of Internal Re en e iss ed a arrant of distraint and le
for the f ll amo nt of the, assessment (E h. D), b t there as no
follo p of this arrant. Conseq entl , the req est for
rein estigation did not s spend the r nning of the period for ling
an action for collection. The ne t comm nication of record is a letter
signed for the defendant b one Troadio Concha and dated October
6, 1951, again, req esting a rein estigation of his ta liabilit (E h.
B), Nothing came ,of this req est either. Then on Febr ar 9, 1954,
the defendant's la ers rote the Collector of Internal Re en e
informing him that the books of their client ere read at their of ce
for e amination (E h. C). The repl as dated more than a ear
later, or on October 4, 1955, hen the Collector bestirred himself for
the rst time in connection ith the rein estigation so ght, and
req ired that the defendant spe-

1359

. 22, A C 29, 1968 1359

Re blic . Acebed

cit his objections to the assessment and e ec te "the enclosed

forms for ai er of the stat te of limitations." (E h. E). The last part
of the letter as a arning that nless the ai er " as accomplished

. a. . / a / /00000177970 9 8995 3 b 003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 3/5

2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 022

and s bmitted ithin 10 da s the collection of the de cienc ta es

o ld be enforced b means of the remedies pro ided for b la ."
It ill be noted that p to October 4, 1955 the dela in collection
co ld not be attrib ted to the defendant at all. His req ests in fact
had been nheeded ntil then, and there as nothing to impede
enforcement of the ta liabilit b an of the means pro ided b la .
B October 4, 1955, more than e ears had elapsed since the
assessment in q estion as made, and hence prescription had
alread set in, making s bseq ent e ents in connection ith the said
assessment entirel immaterial. E en the ritten ai er of the
stat te signed b the defendant on December 17, 1959 co ld no
longer re i e the right of action, for nder the la s ch ai er m st
be e ec ted ithin the original , e- ear period ithin hich s it
co ld be commenced.
The order appealed from is af rmed, itho t prono ncement as
to costs.

Re e , J.B.L., Ac g. C.J., Di on, Beng on, J.P., Zaldi a ,

Sanche , Angele and Fe nando, JJ., conc r.
Ca o, J., did not take part.

O de af med.

Note. Partial pa ment, tho gh it c onstit tes an ac

kno ledgment of the ta obligation, is not a ai er in riting ithin
the meaning of Section 332 (c) of the National Internal Re en e
Code. Neither does it pro ide a gro nd for nding the ta pa er in
estoppel to claim prescription of the right to collect the ta , for the
Go ernment is not thereb "pers aded to postpone collection to
make him feel that the demand as not nreasonable or that no
harassment or inj stice is meant" (Co de o . Gonda, L-22369,
October 15, 1966, 18 SCRA 331).
Repeated req ests for re-in estigation and repeated req ests for
e tension of time to pa ha e, ho e er, been held to ha e the effect
of s spending the r nning of the

1360

1360 E EC E A A ED
Re blic . Re blic S e & I a ce C ., I c.

prescripti e period. (Re blic . A cache, L-15547, Feb. 29, 1964).

The same effect as gi en to a ta pa er's petition for clari cation in
Commi ione of In e nal Reen e . Ca i ol S bdi i ion, Inc., L-
18993, April 30, 1964.
For a case pholding the legalit of req iring ai er of the
stat te of limitations before a petition for rein estigation ma be
granted, see Re blic . Lim Tian Teng Son & Co., Inc., L-21731,
March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 584.
. a. . / a / /00000177970 9 8995 3 b 003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 4/5
2/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 022

____________

C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.

. a. . / a / /00000177970 9 8995 3 b 003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 5/5