MARCOS II vs.

CA
GR No. 120880, June 5, 1997

General Rule: The approval of the court sitting in probate is not a mandatory requirement in
the collection of estate taxes. In case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at
anytime within 10 years after the omission.

FACTS:
Ferdinand Marcos II sought for the reversal of the ruling of the Court of Appeals to grant CIR's
petition to levy the properties of the late Pres. Marcos to cover the payment of his tax
delinquencies during the period of his exile in the US. The Marcos family was assessed by the
BIR after it failed to file estate tax returns.

However the assessment were not protested administratively by Mrs. Marcos and the heirs of
the late president so that they became final and unappealable after the period for filing of
opposition has prescribed. Marcos contends that the properties could not be levied to cover
the tax dues because they are still pending probate with the court, and settlement of tax
deficiencies could not be had, unless there is an order by the probate court or until the probate
proceedings are terminated.

Petitioner also pointed out that applying Memorandum Circular No. 38-68, the BIR's Notices of
Levy on the Marcos properties were issued beyond the allowed period, and are therefore null
and void.

ISSUE: Are the contentions of Marcos II correct?

HELD:

No, his contentions are incorrect. The Supreme Court held that, from the foregoing, 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.

The deficiency income tax assessments and estate tax assessment are already final and
unappealable -and-the subsequent levy of real properties is a tax remedy resorted to by the
government, sanctioned by Section 213 and 218 of the National Internal Revenue Code. This
summary tax remedy is distinct and separate from the other tax remedies (such as Judicial Civil
actions and Criminal actions), and is not affected or precluded by the pendency of any other tax
remedies instituted by the government.
On the issue of prescription, the omission to file an estate tax return, and the subsequent
failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioner's cause, as
under Sec.223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at anytime
within 10 years after the omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real
property within 3 years (now 5 years) following the assessment of the tax. Since the estate tax
assessment had become final and unappealable by the petitioner's default as regards
protesting the validity of the said assessment, there is no reason why the BIR cannot continue
with the collection of the said tax.