Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stastcon W2-4

    Uploaded by

    Miida Macaindig
    3 views1 page
    1) The appellant argued that the war profits tax law was unconstitutional because it was retroactive, violating due process. However, the court found the tax was both a property tax and income tax, which are not considered unconstitutional when applied retroactively. 2) The appellant also argued that Olimpio Fernandez's estate should not be taxed because he died before the law was passed. The court rejected this, noting he profited from the war and his death should not relieve his estate from the tax. 3) The appellant's final argument that the properties should be taxed separately was also rejected, as there was no evidence the properties were not conjugal and therefore considered jointly owned by the husband and wife under

    Original Description:

    case digest in statcon

    Original Title

    STASTCON W2-4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The appellant argued that the war profits tax law was unconstitutional because it was retroactive, violating due process. However, the court found the tax was both a property tax and income tax, which are not considered unconstitutional when applied retroactively. 2) The appellant also argued that Olimpio Fernandez's estate should not be taxed because he died before the law was passed. The court rejected this, noting he profited from the war and his death should not relieve his estate from the tax. 3) The appellant's final argument that the properties should be taxed separately was also rejected, as there was no evidence the properties were not conjugal and therefore considered jointly owned by the husband and wife under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views1 page

    Stastcon W2-4

    Uploaded by

    Miida Macaindig
    1) The appellant argued that the war profits tax law was unconstitutional because it was retroactive, violating due process. However, the court found the tax was both a property tax and income tax, which are not considered unconstitutional when applied retroactively. 2) The appellant also argued that Olimpio Fernandez's estate should not be taxed because he died before the law was passed. The court rejected this, noting he profited from the war and his death should not relieve his estate from the tax. 3) The appellant's final argument that the properties should be taxed separately was also rejected, as there was no evidence the properties were not conjugal and therefore considered jointly owned by the husband and wife under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.]


    Testate Estate o !L"#$"! %ERNAN&E', (e)ease(. RE$*BL"C !% T+E
    $+"L"$$"NES, )amat- Appellee, /s. ANGEL"NA !ASAN 0&A &E %ERNAN&E',
    $R"SC"LLA !. %ERNAN&E', a( ESTELA !. %ERNAN&E', Oppositors-Appellants.
    %ACTS
    Olimpio Fernandez and his wife Angelina Oasan had a net worth of P8,600 on December 8,
    191! D"ring the #apanese occ"pation the spo"ses ac$"ired se%eral real properties, and at the
    time of his death on Febr"ar& 11, 19' he had a net worth of P(1,89! )he *ollector of
    +nternal e%en"e assessed a war profits ta- on the estate of the deceased at P.,61!60, which
    his administratri- ref"sed to pa&!
    "SS*ES
    a the "nconstit"tionalit& of the war profits ta- law for the reason that it is retroacti%e2
    es%irt"allawlibrar+// chan

    b the inapplicabilit& of said law to the estate of the deceased Olimpio Fernandez, beca"se
    robles%irt"alawlibrar&

    the law ta-es indi%id"als2 and chanrobles%irt"alawlibrar&

    c the separate ta-ation of the estate of the deceased Olimpio Fernandez from that of his
    wife3s, beca"se Olimpio Fernandez died before the law was passed!
    RULING:
    (A )Appellant 3s contention that the law is in%alid or "nconstit"tional beca"se it acts
    retroacti%el&, th"s %iolating the d"e process of law cla"se, is not s"pported b& reason or
    a"thorit&! )he ta-, insofar as applicable to the estate of the deceased Olimpio Fernandez, is
    both a propert& ta- and a ta- on income! +t is a propert& ta- in relation to the properties that
    Fernandez had in December, 191 and it is an income ta- in relation to the properties which
    les%irt"alawlibrar&

    he p"rchased d"ring the #apanese occ"pation! +n both cases, howe%er, the war profits ta- ma&
    not be considered as "nconstit"tional!
    )he doctrine of "nconstit"tionalit& raised b& Appellant is based on the prohibition against e-
    post facto laws! 4"t this prohibition applies onl& to criminal or penal matters, and not to laws
    which concern ci%il matters or proceedings generall&, or which affect or reg"late ci%il or
    pri%ate rights !
    b )he contention that the deceased Olimpio Fernandez or his estate sho"ld not be
    responsible beca"se he died in 19' and was no longer li%ing when the law was enacted at a
    later date, in 196, is absol"tel& witho"t merit! Fernandez died immediatel& before the
    liberation and the act"al cessation of hostilities! 5e profited b& the war2 there is no reason chan robles%irt"alawlibrar&

    wh& the incident of his death sho"ld relie%e his estate from the ta-!
    * )he last contention is also witho"t merit! )he propert& which Olimpio Fernandez was
    possessed of in December, 191 is pres"med to be con"gal propert& and so are the properties
    which were ac$"ired b& him d"ring the war, beca"se at that time he was married! )here is no
    claim or e%idence to s"pport the claim that an& of the properties were paraphernal properties
    of the wife2 so the pres"mption stands that the& were con"gal properties of the h"sband
    chan robles%irt"alawlibrar&

    and wife! 7nder these circ"mstances the& cannot be considered as properties belonging to
    two indi%id"als, each of which shall be s"bect to the ta- independentl& of the other!

    You might also like