GR 44038; (May, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44038; May 18, 1938
Estate of the deceased Claude E. Haygood. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, claimant-appellee, vs. ANNIE LAURIE HAYGOOD, administratrix-appellant.
FACTS
Claude E. Haygood died, and his will was probated. The Collector of Internal Revenue filed a sworn motion in the testamentary proceedings, claiming unpaid merchant’s sales tax and income tax, including surcharges, totaling P6,295.79. The administratrix, Annie Laurie Haygood, opposed the motion, insisting the claim should be presented to the committee on claims and appraisals. The Court of First Instance of Rizal ordered the administratrix to pay the amount. It was admitted that the tax deficiency was discovered after three years from the date the tax returns should have been filed. The lower court issued the order based solely on the Collector’s sworn statement, without requiring a full trial or presentation of evidence, despite the administratrix’s opposition.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in ordering the payment of the tax claim based solely on the sworn statement of the Collector of Internal Revenue, without requiring a trial and presentation of evidence, given that the deficiency was discovered after the three-year period.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court revoked the appealed order and remanded the case for trial. The Court distinguished the applicable procedure based on when the tax deficiency is discovered. If discovered within three years from the date the return should have been filed, the Collector’s sworn statement constitutes prima facie evidence, and the court may summarily order payment, allowing the administrator to pay under protest and sue for recovery. However, if discovered after three years, as in this case, the Collector’s motion is in the nature of a civil suit. Once the administratrix files an opposition and denies the allegations, the prima facie character of the sworn statement is destroyed. The claimant must then prove the claim through competent evidence in a trial. The procedure followed in Knowles vs. Government of the Philippine Islands applies, not that in Pineda vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas.
AI Generated by Armztrong.