G.R. No. L-31364. March 30, 1979. MISAEL P. VERA, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and JAIME ARANETA, as Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 14, Bureau of Internal Revenue, petitioners, vs. 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.
FACTS

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and a Regional Director filed a Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes against the estate of Luis D. Tongoy for deficiency income taxes for 1963 and 1964, totaling P3,254.80 with surcharges and interest. This motion was filed in the intestate estate proceedings on June 3, 1969. The estate administrator opposed the motion solely on the ground that the claim was barred under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, which governs the statute of non-claims in estate proceedings.
The respondent Judge sustained the opposition and dismissed the government’s motion in an order dated July 29, 1969. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. The petitioners thus elevated the case via certiorari, arguing that the lower court erred in applying the statute of non-claims to bar the government’s tax claim.

ISSUE

Whether the statute of non-claims under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court bars the claim of the government for unpaid taxes against a decedent’s estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature of tax claims and the principle of statutory construction. Section 5, Rule 86 enumerates specific claims that must be filed within the time limit in the notice to avoid being barred forever, such as claims arising from contracts, funeral expenses, last sickness expenses, and money judgments. Crucially, it does not mention claims created by law, like taxes.
Applying the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of those specific claims implies the exclusion of others not mentioned, such as tax obligations. The assessment, collection, and prescription of taxes are governed exclusively by the National Internal Revenue Code (Sections 331 and 332), not by the Rules of Court on non-claims. The Court cited precedent (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ilagan Electric & Ice Plant) holding that tax matters are controlled by the Tax Code. Furthermore, it reiterated the doctrine from Pineda vs. CFI of Tayabas that taxes assessed against an estate need not be submitted through the ordinary claims process and can be enforced by court order upon motion.
Taxes, as the lifeblood of the government, enjoy a preferential status. Claims for taxes may be collected even after the estate’s distribution, with heirs liable proportionately. Even assuming arguendo that Rule 86 applied, Section 2 allows a court, for equitable cause, to permit a late-filed claim before a distribution order is entered—a condition met here, as the motion was filed before distribution. Therefore, the government’s claim was not barred and should be allowed. The estate was ordered to pay the assessed amount.