DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

share of each heir in the distributable estate.

All told, the Government has two ways of collecting the tax in question. One, by going after all the
heirs and collecting from each one of them the amount of the tax proportionate to the inheritance
received. This remedy was adopted in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Pamintuan, supra. In
said case, the Government filed an action against all the heirs for the collection of the tax. This
action rests on the concept that hereditary property consists only of that part which remains after
the settlement of all lawful claims against the estate, for the settlement of which the entire estate is
first liable. The reason why in case suit is filed against all the heirs the tax due from the estate is
levied proportionately against them is to achieve thereby two results: first, payment of the tax; and
second, adjustment of the shares of each heir in the distributed estate as lessened by the tax.

Another remedy, pursuant to the lien created by Section 315 of the Tax Code upon all property and
rights to property belonging to the taxpayer for unpaid income tax, is by subjecting said property of
the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the payment of the tax due, the estate.
This second remedy is the very avenue the Government took in this case to collect the tax. The
Bureau of Internal Revenue should be given, in instances like the case at bar, the necessary
discretion to avail itself of the most expeditious way to collect the tax as may be envisioned in the
particular provision of the Tax Code above quoted, because taxes are the lifeblood of government
and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. And as afore-stated in this case the
suit seeks to achieve only one objective: payment of the tax. The adjustment of the respective shares
due to the heirs from the inheritance, as lessened by the tax, is left to await the suit for contribution
by the heir from whom the Government recovered said tax.

MISAEL P. VERA, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and JAIME ARANETA, as Regional

Director, Revenue Region No. 14, Bureau of Internal Revenue, PETITIONERS, -versus- HON.
JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch V, and
FRANCIS A. TONGOY, Administrator of the Estate of the late LUIS D. TONGOY, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. L-31364, FIRST DIVISION, March 30, 1979, DE CASTRO, J.

The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of
exception from the application of the statute of non-claims is not hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of
the Government and their prompt and certain availability are imperious need. Upon taxation depends
the Government ability to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To safeguard such
interest, neglect or omission of government officials entrusted with the collection of taxes should not
be allowed to bring harm or detriment to the people, in the same manner as private persons may be
made to suffer individually on account of his own negligence, the presumption being that they take
good care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to government officials with respect to
matters not of their own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the government's exception,
as a general rule, from the operation of the principle of estoppel.

In the instant case, petitioners filed an application (Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of
Payment of Taxes) which, though filed after the expiration of the time previously limited but before an
order of the distribution is entered, should have been granted by the respondent court, in the absence
of any valid ground, as none was shown, justifying denial of the motion, especially considering that it
was for allowance Of claim for taxes due from the estate, which in effect represents a claim of the
people at large, the only reason given for the denial that the claim was filed out of the previously
limited period, sustaining thereby private respondents' contention, erroneously as has been
demonstrated.

FACTS:

Appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, in Special Proceedings
No. 7794, entitled: "Intestate Estate of Luis D. Tongoy," the first dated July 29, 1969 dismissing the
Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes by the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines against the Estate of the late Luis D. Tongoy, for deficiency income taxes
for the years 1963 and 1964 of the decedent in the total amount of P3,254.80, inclusive 5%
surcharge, 1% monthly interest and compromise penalties. The second, dated October 7, 1969,
denying the Motion for reconsideration of the Order of dismissal.

25