G.R. No. L-28821 December 19, 1980
LILIA YUSAY GONZALES, as Judicial Co-Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late MATIAS YUSAY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an assessment for estate and inheritance taxes against the intestate estate of Matias Yusay. Petitioner Lilia Yusay Gonzales, as co-administratrix, filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 777, contesting the assessment on the ground of prescription. The CTA initially ruled in her favor, but the Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court. In G.R. No. L-19495, the Supreme Court reversed the CTA and affirmed the tax assessment, ordering petitioner to pay the taxes personally, without prejudice to reimbursement from her co-administratrix. After this decision became final, the Commissioner filed a motion for execution with the CTA.
Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that execution should be sought from the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where the intestate estate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 459) were pending, and not from the CTA. The CTA granted the motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file the instant petition for certiorari, alleging that the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the execution of the Supreme Court’s final decision in G.R. No. L-19495.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CTA did not commit any abuse of discretion, much less a grave one, in ordering the execution. The legal logic is clear and procedural. The CTA acquired jurisdiction over the tax dispute when petitioner herself initiated CTA Case No. 777. The Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. L-19495, which reversed the CTA and affirmed the tax assessment, became the final judgment to be enforced. Upon remand of the case records, it was the CTA’s ministerial duty under the Rules of Court to issue the writ of execution to enforce that final judgment.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that execution should proceed through the intestate court. It noted that the estate properties had already been distributed pursuant to a project of partition affirmed by the Supreme Court in a prior case. The closure of the intestate proceedings, if it occurred, was erroneous as distribution should not have been allowed without payment of estate taxes. More importantly, requiring the tax decision to be filed as a money claim in the probate court would be an impractical, circuitous, and dilatory procedure, leading to further unjustified delay in the collection of taxes due for nearly three decades. The petition was merely intended to delay payment, and the CTA correctly performed its duty to execute the final judgment.