Marcos II vs. CA

G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997

FERDINAND R. MARCOS II, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and HERMINIA D. DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Ferdinand R. Marcos II, the eldest son of the decedent, questions the actuations of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in assessing, and collecting through the summary remedy of Levy on Real Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon the estate and properties of his father, despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the will of the late president.

Petitioner had filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with an application for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order seeking to among others to —

Annul and set aside the Notices of Levy on real property issued by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

ISSUE:

Whether the pendency of probate proceedings over the estate of the deceased does preclude the assessment and collection of taxes.

RULING:

No. The pendency of probate proceedings over the estate of the deceased does not preclude the assessment and collection of taxes.

Thus, it is discernible that the approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a settlement tribunal over the deceased is not a mandatory requirement in the collection of estate taxes. It cannot therefore be argued that the Tax Bureau erred in proceeding with the levying and sale of the properties allegedly owned by the late President, on the ground that it was required to seek first the probate court's sanction. There is nothing in the Tax Code, and in the pertinent remedial laws that implies the necessity of the probate or estate settlement court's approval of the state's claim for estate taxes, before the same can be enforced and collected.

Moreover, it has been repeatedly observed, and not without merit, that the enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes, is of paramount importance for the sustenance of government. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved.