REPUBLIC vs. CA, and NIELSON & CO.,INC.

149 SCRA 351

Facts:

The petitioner sought the review on certiorari of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
reversing the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Manila which ordered private respondent
Nielson & Co., Inc. to pay the Government the amount of P11,496.00 as ad valorem tax, occupation fees,
additional residence tax and 25% surcharge for late payment, for the years 1949 to 1952. Petitioner
claims that the demand letter of 16 July 1955 showed an imprint indicating that the original thereof was
released and mailed on 4 August 1955 by the Chief, Records Section of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
and that the original letter was not returned to said Bureau; thus, said demand letter must be
considered to have been received by the private respondent. According to petitioner, if service is made
by ordinary mail, unless the actual date of receipt is shown, service is deemed complete and effective
upon the expiration of five (5) days after mailing. As the letter of demand dated 16 July 1955 was
actually mailed to private respondent, there arises the presumption that the letter was received by
private respondent in the absence of evidence to the contrary. More so, where private respondent did
not offer any evidence, except the self-serving testimony of its witness, that it had not received the
original copy of the demand letter dated 16 July 1955.

Issue:

Whether or not the notice of assessment or demand was properly served to the respondent

Whether the receipt by the respondent of the succeeding follow-up demand notices be construed as
receipt of the original demand.

Ruling:

No. As correctly observed by the respondent court in its appealed decision, while the contention of
petitioner is correct that a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of
mail, still this is merely a disputable presumption, subject to controversion, and a direct denial of the
receipt thereof shifts the burden upon the party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed
letter was indeed received by the addressee. Since petitioner has not adduced proof that private
respondent had in fact received the demand letter of 16 July 1955, it cannot be assumed that private
respondent received said letter.

Yes. Records show that petitioner wrote private respondent a follow-up letter dated 19 September
1956, reiterating its demand for the payment of taxes as originally demanded in petitioner's letter dated
16 July 1955. This follow-up letter is considered a notice of assessment in itself which was duly received
by private respondent in accordance with its own admission. And consequently, under Section 7 of
Republic Act No. 1125, the assessment is appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the letter. The taxpayer's failure to appeal in due time, as in the case at bar,
makes the assessment in question final, executory and demandable. Thus, private respondent is now
barred from disputing the correctness of the assessment or from invoking any defense that would
reopen the question of its liability on the merits.

In a suit for collection of internal revenue taxes, as in this case, where the assessment has already
become final and executory, the action to collect is akin to an action to enforce a judgment. No inquiry
can be made therein as to the merits of the original case or the justness of the judgment relied upon. ...

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is hereby reversed. The decision of the Court a quo is hereby
reinstated. No costs.

SO ORDERED.