Veronica Sanchez vs.

The Collector of Internal

Revenue
Plaintiff, appellant
Padilla, Sol.
Cansino ,Jr

defendant, appellee ( Solicitor Ambrosio

Esmeraldo Umali and Roman

Ponente : Reyes, JB
Nature: An appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Manila
Facts: Veronica Sanchez constructed her 4 door accessoria
purposely for rent or profit; that she had been continuously
leasing the same to third persons since its construction in
1947; that she manages her property herself; and that said
leased holding appears to her main source of livelihood; she is
engaged in the leasing of real estate, and she is a real estate
dealer.
The building has an assessed value of 21,540, and the land
assessed at 7,980; a total of 29,540. In 1949, she derived an
income of 7,540 annually, She runs a small dry good store in
Pasay market with an income of 1, 300 annually.
In early part of 1951, CIR made a demanded upon the
appellant for the payment of 163.51 as income tax for the
yr 1950, and 637as real estate dealers tax for the year
1946 to 1950 , plus the sum of 50 pesos as compromise. The
appellant paid the taxes demanded under protest. Oct 16, 1951
she filed and action against CIR in the court of first instance.
Issue:
1. Whether Veronica Sanchez is a real estate dealer.
2. Whether she is entitled for a refund of the taxes she paid.
Ruling of CFI:

1. after trial the court found the appellant to be such

an estate dealer as defined by section194 of National
Internal Revenue Code, amended by RA 42 and 588,
and declared the collection of taxes in question is
legal and in accordance with the said provisions.
CTA
The appellant claims a refund of the amount of 825.00
allegedly paid by her to CIR as real estate tax., it appears that
the sum of 163.31 corresponds to her income tax for the yr 1949,
so the amount actually involved herein is only 637, paid by
Sanchez as real estate tax dealer by the yr 1946-1950.
RA No. 588 took effect only on Sept 22, 1950, while the tax in
question by the appellant for the year 1946- 1950.
Ruling:
Considering, therefore, that the appellant constructed her 4 door
accessoria purposely for rent or profit, that she continuously
leasing the same for the third persons since its construction in
1947; that she manages her property by herself; and that said
leased holding appears to be her main source of livelihood, she is
engaged in the leasing of real estate, and is a real estate
dealer as defined by section 194 of the IRC, as amended
by RA 42.
Real estate dealers includes all the persons who for their
own account engaged in the sale of lands, buildings or
interest therein or in leasing real estate. RA 42
Appellant Contention:
That she is already paying real estate tax on her property, as
well as income tax on the income derive therefrom, so that to

further subject its rental to the real estate tax , amount to double
taxation.
Ruling: in the case of Pp cvs. Mendaros
It is well settled rule that a license tax may be levied
upon a business or occupation although the land or
property used therein subject to property tax, and that
the state may collect an ad valorem tax on property used
in a calling, and at the same time impose a license tax on
the pursuit on a latter kind of tax being in a sense of
double tax.
The evidence shows that the apartment house was
constructed 1947, real estate tax was paid from 1946 to
1950, wherefore the appellant is entitled to a refund for
the year 1946, amounting to 37.50 pesos, decision with
modification, ordering the CIR to refund the Veronica
Sanchez the amount of 37.50 pesos.