Insular Lumber Company, petitioner

vs
Court of Tax Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondents
G.R. No. L-31057, May 29, 1981, 104 SCRA 710
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
vs
Court of Tax Appeals and Insular Lumber Company
G.R. No. L-31137, May 29, 1981, 104 SCRA 710
Facts:
Republic Act No. 1435 Allowing partial tax refund to forest and mining concessionaire, allowing
companys engage in forest and mining to refund partial tax five years counted from the year
1956. Insular Lumber Company (Company) sent a letter to Bureau of Internal Revenue to refund
the said tax. Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) denied the claim, for it is said that the said refund
only covers five years from 1956 onwards.

Issue:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 1435 is unconstitutional?
Whether or not there is vagueness in Republic Act No. 1435?

Held:
1. Republic Act No. 1435 is not unconstitutional, since it only embraced one subject and Section
5 of the law is in effect a partial exemption from the imposed increased tax, which has reference
to specific tax on oil and fuel, is nor, a deviation from the general subject of the law. The primary
purpose of the aforeqouted constitutional provision is to prohibit duplicity in legislation the title
of which might completely fail to apprise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope and
consequences of the law or its operation. Therefore in the incident in hand RA 1435 does bear
any doubt that it may be considered unconstitutional.
2. There is no vagueness in Republic Act No. 1435 since it is clearly state that the during the five
years from June 18, 1952 fifty per centrum of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded and
the said tax exemption already expired on June 14, 1961. When the law is clear and
unambiguous, there is no occasion that the courts seeking legislative intent, the law must be
taken as it is. But the prescription period claiming the refund is from January 1, 1963 to April 29,
1963 and therefore the claim of the Company is already prescribed. Therefore this court agreed
with the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeal that the claim that the claim of the Company is
already prescribed and they are not entitled on the said refund due to the prescription period of
the same.
Floriv E. Villalobos
JD M-1