7/24/2019 GRP vs Pamintuan

1/3

G.R. No. L-33139 October 11, 1930

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellants,vs.JOSE MA. PAMINTAN, ET AL.,defendants-appellees.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellant.Jose Ma.Cavanna for appellees.

VILLA-REAL, J.:

This is an appeal taken by the Government of the Philippine Islands from the judgment of the Courtof First Instane of !anila dismissing its omplaint and absolving the defendants, "ithout osts. Insupport of the appeal the follo"ing alleged errors have been assigned to the ourt belo" in its

judgment#

$. The lo"er ourt erred in holding that the failure of the plaintiff to file its laim "ith theommittee on laims and appraisals barred it from olleting the ta% in &uestions in thisation.

'. The lo"er ourt erred in holding that this ase is governed by the priniple laid do"n in thease of the Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Inhausti ( Co. )'* Phil., +$.

+. The lo"er ourt erred in absolving the defendants from the omplaint and in denying theplaintiffs motion for ne" trial.

The present ase "as submitted to the ourt belo" upon the follo"ing agreed statement of fats#

I. That on February '/, $0'1, Florentino Pamintuan, represented by 2. 3. 4amire5 or hisattorney-in-fat harged "ith the administration of his property, filed inome-ta% return for theyear $0$0, paying the amount of P 6/'.00 on the basis of said return, and the additional sumof P$$.1$ as a result of a subse&uent assessment reeived from the Colletor of Internal4evenue.

II. That on 7pril '*, $0', Florentino Pamintuan died in 8ashington, 9. C., :. ;. 7., leavingthe defendants herein as his heirs.

III. That on 7pril '*, $0', intestate proeedings "ere instituted in the Court of First Instaneof !anila in ivil ase

7/24/2019 GRP vs Pamintuan

2/3

presentation and determination of all laims and redits against the estate of the deeasedPamintuan.

3I. That on 9eember $, $0', the above-mentioned ommittee rendered its report "hih"as duly approved by the ourt, and in "hih report it appears that he only laims presentedand that "ere approved "ere those of Tomasa Centeno, 2ose, Pa5, Caridad, and . That during the pendeny of the intestate proeedings, the administrator filed inome-ta%returns for the estate of the deeased orresponding to the years $0' and $0'6.

>. That the intestate proeedings in ivil ase II. That the defendants annot disprove that the deeased Florentino Pamintuan made aprofit of P$$,111 in the sale of the house referred to in paragraph >l hereof beause theyhave destroyed the voluminous reords and evidenes regarding the sale in &uestion andother similar transations "hih might sho" repairs on the house, ommissions, and othere%penses tending to redue the profit obtained as mentioned above.

>III. That demand for the payment of the inome ta% referred to herein "as made onFebruary '*, $0'/, on the defendants but they refused and still refuse to pay the same either

in full or in part.

8ith regard to the first assignment of error, this ourt held in Pineda vs. Court of First Instane ofTayabas and Colletor of Internal 4evenue )' Phil., =1+#

To reply to these ontentions in turn , "e observe that, "hile there are a fe" ourts that havee%pressed themselves to the effet that a laim for ta%es due to the Government should bepresented like other laims to the ommittee appointed for the purpose of passing upon

7/24/2019 GRP vs Pamintuan

3/3

laims, the lear "eight of judiial authority is to the effet that laims for ta%es andassessments, "hether assessed before or after the death of the deedent, are not re&uiredto be presented to the ommittee. )'* C. 2., +'A People vs. ?lvera, *+ Cal., *0'A @anokvs.8hittemore, 1 Cal., ''A Findley vs. Taylor, 0/ Io"a, *'1A Bogue vs.aughlin,$*0 8is.,'/$A *1 . 4. 7. D