TAXATION 2

SY 2018- 2019 (2nd Semester)

Course Outline (UPDATED November 7, 2018)
Professor: JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, CPA

Course Description

A study on the provisions relating to estate taxes, donor's taxes, value added tax, other
percentage taxes, excise taxes on certain goods and documentary stamp tax including tax remedies as
provided by the National Internal Revenue Codes. The topics on local taxation, real property taxation,
tariff and customs code as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals are included.

PART I

Reference:
1. NIRC
2. Fundamentals of Taxation
3. Revenue Regulation 12-2018, January 25, 2018 (Estate & Donor’s Taxes)
4. Revenue Regulation 13-2018, March 15, 2018 (VAT)

1. ESTATE TAX (Sec. 84-97, NIRC)

a. Lorenzo vs. Posadas, 64 Phil. 353
b. Dizon vs. Posadas, 57 Phil. 465
c. Villa de Roces vs. Posadas, 58 Phil. 108
d. Collector vs. Fisher, L-11621, January 28, 1961
e. Wells Fargo vs. Collector, 70 Phil. 505
f. Velilla vs. Posadas, 62 Phil. 624
g. Collector vs. Lara, 102 Phil. 813
h. Delpher vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 349
i. Gallardo vs. Morales, 107 Phil. 903
j. BPI vs. Posadas, 56 Phil. 215
k. Marcos II vs. CA, G.R. No. 120880, June 5, 1997
l. Balboa vs. Fanales, 51 Phil. 498
m. Vera vs. Navarro, 79 SCRA 408
n. Ozaeta vs. Palanca, 101 Phil. 976
o. Sison vs. Teodoro, 100 Phil. 1056
p. Vera vs. Fernandez, 89 SCRA 199
q. Estate of Hilario Ruiz vs. CA, 252 SCRA 541
r. Elegado vs. CTA, 1 73 SCRA 285
s. Commissioner vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 104
t. Gonzales vs. CTA, 101 SCRA 633
u. CIR vs. CA, G.R. No. 123206, March 22, 2000
v. Dizon vs. CTA, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008

2. DONOR'S TAX (Sec. 98 - 104, NIRC)

a. Pirovano vs. Commissioner, 14 SCRA 832
b. Lladoc vs. Commissioner, 14 SCRA 293
c. TANG HO vs. CA, 97 Phil. 890

3. VALUE ADDED TAX (Sec. 105-115, NIRC)

a. Tolentino v. CIR, 23 5 SCRA 630
b. Tolentino v. CIR, GR No. 11545 5, October 30, 1995
c. ABAKADA v. Ermita, GR No. 168056, September 1, 2005
d. Are reimbursements subject to VAT? CIR v Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125355,March
30, 2000. See also RMC 9-2006, January 25, 2006; clarifying amount subject to VAT of
brokers; RMC No. 39-2007, January 22, 2007
e. American Express v. Commissioner, CA GR SP 62727, February 28, 2002 (zero rated sale of
service), SC GR 152609, June 28, 2005
f. CIR v. Burmeister and Wain, GR No. 153205, January 22, 2007
 g. CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, July 28, 2006 (No VAT on sale not made in trade
or business)
h. CIR v. Seagate Technology Phils., GR No. 153811, February 11, 2005(effectively zero-rated
transactions with PEZA)
i. Microsoft Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 180173, April 6, 2011
j. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 178697,November
17, 2010.
k. KEPCO Philippines Corporation v. CIR, G.R. No. 181858, November 24, 2010
l. AT & T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R . No. 182364, August 3, 2010
m. Silicon Philippines, Inc. v. CIR , G.R . No. 172378, January 12, 2011
n. Renato V. Diaz and Aurora Timbol v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 193007, July 19, 2011
o. PAGCOR v. BIR,G.R. No. 172087, March 15, 2011
p. (1) Atlas v. CIR , G.R . Nos. 141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007
(2) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, G.R. No.184823,
October 6, 2010
(3) Mirant v. CIR , C.R . No. 172129, September 12, 2008
(4) CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R . No. 187485, February 12, 2013
(5) CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R. No. 187485, October 8, 2013
120 + 30 Rule
Counting of the 2 year period to claim VAT Refund
Doctrine of Operative Act
q. Fort Bonifacio Devt. Corp. v. CIR, G.R. Nos. 158885 and 170680, April 2, 2009
r. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Benguet Corporation, G.R. Nos. 134587 and 134588.
July 8, 2005
s. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc. et al, G.R . No. 183505,
February 26, 2010
t. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Philippine American Accident Insurance
Company, et al., G.R. No. 141658, March 18, 2005

4. OTHER PERCENTAGETAXES (Sec. 116-128,NIRC)

Sec. 116 Tax on persons exempt from VAT
Sec. 117-118 Carriers tax as amended by RA 9377 (July 1, 2005)
Revenue Regulations No. 11-2011 (20 July 2011) - Revenue Regulations Defining
Gross Receipts for Common Carrier's Tax for International Carriers pursuant to
Section 118 of the Tax Code Amending Sec. 10 of Revenue Regulations No. 15
2002
Sec. 119 Tax on franchises
Sec. 120 Overseas communications tax
Sec. 121 Tax on banks and financial intermediaries as amended by RA 7716 & RA
9238(China Banking Corp. v. CTA, SC GR 146749, June 10, 2003 (base of 5% GRT
on interest income), RA 9238 as implemented by RR 9-2004 (GRT on banks),RA
9337, effective July 1, 2005 on increase of GRT to 7% on other income of banks)
Sec. 122 Tax on finance companies (BIR Ruling, August 16, 199 0 on credit card companies
as amended by RA 9238)
Sec. 123 Tax on Insurance premiums, as amended by RA 10001
Sec. 124 Tax on agents of foreign insurance companies
Sec. 125 Amusement taxes (RMC 8-88, February 19, 1888, p. 785, Nolledo)
Sec. 126 Tax on winnings
Sec. 127 Percentage tax on IPOs
Sec. 128 Payment of percentage taxes

a. Rev. Regs. 6-2001, July 31, 2001

b. Republic of the Philippines v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, G.R. No. 158085,
October 14, 2005
c. CIR v. Lhuiller, SC GR 150947, July 15, 2003 (pawnshop are not lending investors)
d. First Planters Pawnshop, Inc. v CIR, G.R. No. 174134, July 30, 2008
e. RR 10-2004, 5% GRT on pawnshops (beginning January 2004); also Money Shops or Forex
Shops (RR 4-2007)
f. CIR vs. Solidbank Corp., G.R. No. 148191, Nov. 25, 2003
 g. CIR vs. Bank of Commerce, G.R . No. 149636, June 8, 2005
h. CIR vs. BPI, G.R. No. 147375, June 26, 2006
i. CIR vs. City Trust Investment Phils./Asianbank Corp. vs. CIR, G.R . No. 139786, G.R. No.
140857 , Sept. 27, 2006
j. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, G.R. No. 158085,
Oct. 14, 2005
k. Phil. Basketball Association vs. CTA, G.R. No. 119122, Aug. 8, 2000

5. EXCISE TAXES ON CERTAIN GOODS (Sec. 129-172, NIRC)

Chapters 1 and 2
 Sec. 129 to Sec. 140, NIRC, as amended by RA 933 4 (January 1, 2005), implemented by RR
12-2004 and RR 3-2006, implementing guidelines on revised tax rates on alcohol, etc.
(January 3, 2006)

Chapter 3 - Excise tax on alcohol products

 RA 9334, implemented by RR 12-2004
 Philippines-Taxes on Distilled Spirits WTD/S396/AB/R and WT/DS403/AB/R, December
21, 2011

Chapter 4 - Excise tax on tobacco products

 Sec. 144 - 147, NIRC
 RA 7654 - revised excise tax on cigars and cigarettes RR 22-2003 - cigarettes
 RR-9334 implemented by RR 12-2004
 British American Tobacco v Jose Camacho et al., G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008;
motion for reconsideration, April 15, 2009

Chapters 5 and 6 - Excise tax on petroleum products and miscellaneous articles

 Sec. 148 - 150, NIRC as amended by RA 9337 effective July 1, 2005 (deleting excise tax on
certain petroleum products)
 RR 4-2003 , January 29, 2003, Revised Regulations on Excise Tax of Automobiles
amended RR 14-99, October 13, 1999 (before Amendment by RA No. 9224)
 Exxonmobil Petroleum and Chemical Holdings, Inc. Philippine Branch v CIR, G.R. No.
180909, January 19, 2011
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R.
No.188497. April 23, 2012
 Phil. Geothermal, Inc. vs. CIR , G.R . No. 154028, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 308
 SILKAIR Pte. Ltd. vs. CIR, G.R. No. 173594, Feb. 6, 2008
 Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. CIR, G.R. No. 122472, Oct. 20, 2005

Chapter 7 - Excise tax on mineral products

 Sec. 151, NIRC as amended by RA 7729, June 2, 1994
 RA 8240, revision of excise taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages
 Revenue Regulations 1-97, December 13, 1996, method of computing specific tax on
cigars and cigarettes
 Excise tax on cars, RA 9224, October 2003
 RR 25-2003, new rules implementing RA 9224
 Revenue Regulations 2-97, Specific tax on beer and alcoholic drinks
 RR 9-2003, February 17, 2003, amending RR 1-9 7 and RR 2-97, excise tax on alcohol
products, cigars and cigarettes
 RR 7-2002, June 4, 2002, revalidation of issued permits to establishments subject to
excise tax
6. DOCUMENTARYSTAMP TAX (Sec . 1 73-201, NIRC)
a. Del Rosario vs. Hamoy, L-77154, June 30, 1987
b. CIR vs. Fireman's Fund, L-30644, March 9, 1 987
c. CIR vs. Heald Lumber, 10 SCRA 376
d. Gabucan vs. Manta, 95 SCRA 752

7. REMEDIES (Sec . 202 -231,NIRC)

a. Revenue Regulations No. 18-2013, November 28, 2013 (Tax Assesments)
b. Sec. 4, NIRC, Power of Secretary of Finance to review rulings of CIR as implemented by
RMC 44-2201, October 11, 2001 and DOF Order 7-02, May 7,2002
c. Sec. 6 - Sec. 17, NIRC
d. Cases:
1. RP v. CTA & Nielson & Co., GR L-38540, 149 SCRA 351Demand letter/follow-up
letter for payment of taxes considered notice of assessment.
2. Collector v. Bautista, L-12250, L-12259, May 27, 1959 Notice of Assessment
deemed made when notice is released, mailed and does not require that notice
be received within 3 years period
3. CIR v. Metro Star Superama, Inc., G.R . No. 185371, December 8, 2010.
4. Republic v. Ricarte, GR L-46893, November 12, 1985 (action to assess prescribed
since there was no proof that notice was sent)
5. i) Advertising Associates v. CTA, 133 SCRA 765, p. 939, Nolledo. Reviewable
decision of CIR is where he directs taxpayers to appeal to CTA not mere issuances
of warrants of distraint and levy
ii) CIR v. Union Shipping, GR 66160, May 21, 1990. Demand to pay deficiency tax
considered final decision of CIR
iii) Surigao Electric v. CTA, 57 SCRA 523. CIR should categorically state whether
order is final determination so that it can be appealed to CTA
6. i) CIR v. Isabela Cultural Corporation, GR 135210, July 11,2001. Final demand
letter from BIR is tantamount to denial of request for reconsideration which is
therefore appealable to CTA
ii) Oceanic Wireless Network v. CIR, GR 148380, December 9, 2005. Final
demand letter from Accounts Receivable Division Head was final decision of the
CIR and constituted appealable decision to CTA
7. Gibbs v. Commissioner, L-17406, November 29 , 1965 (period to file refund claim)
and Gibbs v. Collector, GR No. L-13453, February 29,1960 (2-year period is
absolute)
(If income of taxpayer is withheld at source he is deemed to have paid his tax
liability at the end of the tax year. It is from this date that the 2-year period will
run.)
8. CIR v. TMX Sales & CTA, GR 83736, January 16, 1992 (when to count 2-year period
if on installment basis ). If TP pays income tax on quarterly basis , the 2-year
period is counted from the time of filing final adjustment return.
9. Commissioner v. Philamlife Insurance Co., GR 105208, May 29, 1995. Obiter by
Justice Vitug referring the 10-year period on taxes not erroneously /illegally paid.
Likewise, the claim must be filed within 2 years regardless of supervening cause.
Also, this case, Pacific Pro., Ltd. Case (GR 68013, November 12, 1984) counting of
two-year prescriptive period for filing claim for refund of overpaid corporate
income tax starts from time final adjustment return is filed.
10. United Airlines v. CIR , G.R. No. 178788, September 29, 2010
11. CIR v. Wyeth, GR 762281, September 30, 1991. (Sec. 222 & 223request for
reinvestigation suspends the 5-year period for collection of tax.
12. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CTA, 108 SCRA 143 (non-retroactivity of rulings)
requiring 3 years back taxes after previous circular violated Sec. 246
13. Emilio S. Lim v. Court of Appeals, GR L-48134-37, October 18, 1990. Prescriptive
period to file criminal case under Sec. 281, NIRC, 5 years from failure to pay tax
after notice and demand.
14. Commissioner v. Court of Appeals, Lucio Tan, et al., GR 119322, June 4, 1996.
15. Commissioner v. Court of Tax Appeals and Fortune Tobacco, GR119761, August
29, 1996.
16. CIR v. Pascor Realty& Development Corp., GR 128315, June 29, 1999.
Assessment not necessary before filing criminal complaint for tax evasion based
on Sec. 222 itself.
17. CIR v Lascona Land Co., Inc. CA-G.R. SP No. 58061. October 25, 2005 When to
elevate assessment to CTA
18. San Agustin v. CIR, GR 138485, September 10, 2001. TP can appeal a disputed
assessment despite payment of deficiency tax. Filing of refund not necessary for
this purpose.
 19. Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. CIR, GR 162852, December 16, 2004. Waiver
ofprescription must be executed properly per RMO 20-90, otherwise, invalid.
20. CIR v. Phil. Global Communications, GR No.167146, October 31,
2006.Prescriptive period to collect taxes assessed by CIR.
21. RCBC v. CIR, GR No. 168498, April 24, 2007. Options for disputing
taxassessment mutually exclusive under Section 227.
22. BPI v. CIR, GR No. 174942. Suspension of collection requires request
forreinvestigation to be granted.
23. Petron Corporation v. CIR, G.R . No. 180385, July 28, 2010.
24. CIR v. Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 177279, October 13, 2010
25. Estate of Juliana Diez Vda. De Gabriel v. CIR, GR No. 15554E, January 27, 2004
e. Regulations
 Revenue Regulations 12-85, November 27, 1985 Revenue Regulations 2-90, May
25, 1990
 RR 12-99 implementing the provisions of the NIRC, Sec. 6, 7, 204, 228, 247,248
and 249 on assessments of taxes and civil penalties and interest and
extrajudicial settlement of taxpayers criminal violation under RMO 1-90
 Revenue Regulations 2-78
 RMC 48-90, April 23, 1990 (counting of 3-year period of 365 x 3 regardless of leap
year and Asianbank v. Commissioner, CTA Case No. 6095, October 9, 2001)

1. CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corp. G.R . No. 166387, January 19, 2009
2. CIR v. FMF Development Corp. G.R. No. 167765, June 3 0, 2008
3. FEBTC v. CIR ,G.R . No. 138919, May 2, 2006
4. CIR v. Azucena Reyes, G.R. No. 159694, January 27, 2006
5. Judy Anne L. Santos v. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 173 176, August 26, 2008
6. Fitness by Design, Inc. v. CIR , G.R . No. 177982, October 17, 2008
7. Asia International v. Parayno, 540 SCRA 536 (2007)
8. British American Tobacco v. Camacho, 562 SCRA 511 (2008)
9. Atlas v. CIR , G.R . Nos. 141104 & 148763, June 8, 2007
10. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, G.R. No.
184823, October 6, 2010
11. Mirant v. CIR, C.R. No. 172129, September 12, 2008
12. CIR v. San Roque, etc., G.R. No. 187485, February 12, 2013 CIR v. San Roque, etc.,
G.R. No. 187485, October 8, 2013

 120 + 30 Rule
 Counting of the 2 year period to claim VAT Refund
 Doctrine of Operative Act

8. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS (Sec . 232-246, NIRC)

a. Thomson Shirt Factory vs. Collector, CTA Case No. 377, August 27, 1963
b. Lim HoaTing vs. Central Collector, 104 Phil. 573

9. STATUTORY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES (Sec. 247-282, NIRC)

a. Manila B. Castro vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R . No. L-12174, April 26, 1962
b. Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R. No. L-9408, October 31, 1956
c. CIR vs. City Trust Banking Corp., et al., G.R. No. 106611, July 21, 1994
d. Collector vs. Clement, G.R. No. L-12194, January 24, 1959
e. Collector vs. Solano, G.R. No. L-11475, July 31, 1958
f. Bisaya Land Transportation Co. Inc. vs. Collector, G.R. No. L-12100, May 29, 1959
g. Alfredo Bollozos vs. CTA, et al., G.R. No. L-16441
h. Republic vs. Pedro B. Patanao, G.R. No. L-22356, July 21, 1967
i. People vs. Gregorio Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July 29, 1959
j. Philippine International Fair, Inc. vs. Collector, G.R. Nos. L-12928 and L-12932, March
31,1962
k. People vs. Ildefonso Tierra, G.R . Nos. L-17177 to 17180, December 28, 1964
l. People vs. Gregorio Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July 29, 1959
PART II

1. LOCAL TAXATION (R.A. 7160)

Section 5, Article X, 1987 Constitution
Local Government Code

a. Section 128 - 196 (LGC )

b. Alejandro Ty v. Hon. Trampe& Municipal Assessor of Pasig, GR 117577, December 1,1995
c. Rule XXX, Art. 217 - 287 (Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government
Code)
d. Local Finance Circular 1 - 93 (banks)
e. Local Finance Circular 2-93 (insurance companies)
f. Local Finance Circular 3-93 (finance companies)
g. Memo Circular 92-02, January 16, 1992, issued by the Department of Interior and Local
Government
h. Memo Circular 5-93, October 22, 1993, issued by the Department of Finance
i. Sec. Drilon v. Mayor Lim, GR 112497, August 4, 1994, Manila Tax Ordinance
j. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. City of Manila, GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006 (validity of
Manila Tax Ordinance)
k. International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. City of Manila, CTA A.C. No. 11, May 22,
2006 (Manila Tax Ordinance Sec. 21(A) - Double Taxation)
l. Phil. Match Co., Ltd. v. City of Cebu, 81 SCRA 99, January 18, 1999 (situs of payment of
local business tax)
m. PLDT v. City of Davao, GR No. 143867, March 25, 2003. (PLDT liable to franchise tax
imposed by city)
n. Palma Development Corp. v. Municipality of Malangas , GR 152492, October 16, 2003
o. PLDT v. Province of Laguna, GR 151899, August 16, 2005
p. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condo. Corp., SC GR 154993, October 25, 2005 (condominium
corporation is not business entity)
q. Ericsson Telecoms Inc. v. City of Pasig, GR No. 176667, November 22, 2007
r. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Hon. Mauricio B. Ambaloc in his capacity as the
Provincial Treasurer of Benguet, G. R . No. 180639, June 29, 2010
s. Angeles City v. Angeles City Electric Corporation and Regional Trial Court Branch 57,
Angeles City, G.R. No. 166134, June 29, 2010
t. Mactan vs. Marcos, G.R . No. 1 20082, Sept. 11, 1 996
u. City Gov't. of San Pablo vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 127708, March 25,1999
v. Prov. Of Bulacan vs. CA, G.R. No. 126232, Nov. 27, 1998
w. First Phil. Ind. Corp. vs. CTA , G.R . No. 125948, Dec. 29,1998
x. Manila Electric vs. Province of Laguna, G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999
y. PBA vs. CA, G.R. No. 119122, Aug. 8, 2000
z. Valley Trading Co. vs. CFI of Isabela , 171 SCRA 501
aa. Estanislao vs. Costales, 196 SCRA 853
bb. Batangas Power Corp. v. Batangas City, G.R. No. 152675, April 28, 2004
cc. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco, G.R. No. 158881, April 16, 2008
dd. Pelizloy Realty Corp. v. Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, April 10, 2013
ee. City of Manila v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc, G.R. No. 181845, August 4, 2009
ff. Mobil Phils., Inc. v. Makati, G.R. No. 154092, July 14, 2005
gg. Spouses Plaza v. Lustiva, G.R. No. 172909, March 5, 2014
hh. Drilon v. Mayor Lim, G.R. No.112497, August 4, 1994
ii. Jardine Davies Insurance Brokers v. Aliposa, G.R. No. 118900, February 27, 2003

2. REAL PROPERTY TAXATION (R.A . 7160)

Section 197-294 (Local Government Code)
Article 415, Civil Code of the Philippines

 Sec. 197 - 283 Local Government Code

 Definition of Machinery and Equipment
 Sec. 199 Local Government Code
 Sec. 299 Implementing Rules and Regulations
  Sec. 202 Declaration of real property
 Sec. 215 - 216 Classes of real property
 Sec. 218 Assessment levels
 Sec. 226 - 230 Local Board Assessment Appeals Central Board Assessment Appeals
 Sec. 232 - 235 Rates of levy
 Sec. 234 Exemption from real property tax
 Sec. 237 Idle lands
 Sec. 250- 251 Payment of real property taxes and discounts
 Sec. 252 Protest
 Sec. 255 Interest on unpaid taxes
 Sec. 270 Period to collect real property taxes

CASES:
a. Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, GR 144104, June 29, 2004 (Exemption based
on actual use)
b. Mactan Airport Authority v. Pres. Marcos, GR 120082, September 11, 199 6 (Exemption
from real property tax lifted by RA 7160 (LGC))
c. Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 15 5650, July 20, 2006
(Exemption from RPT of MIAA)
d. Quezon City Gov't. v. BayanTel Corp., GR No. 162015, March 6, 2006
e. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 166838, June 15,2011
f. Ty vs. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, Dec. 1, 1995
g. Callanta vs. Ombudsman, G.R . No. 11523-74, Jan. 30, 1998
h. Mactan vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 120082, Sept. 11, 1996
i. Testate Estate of Concordia Lim vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 90639, Feb. 21,1990
j. Mindanao Bus vs. CDO, G.R. No.L-17870, Sept. 29, 1962
k. Caltes vs. CBAA, G.R. No. L-47943, May 31, 1982
l. Meralco vs. CBAA, G.R. No. L-46245, May 31, 1982
m. City of Baguio vs. Busuego, G.R. No. L-29772, Sept. 18, 1980
n. SSS vs. City of Bacolod, G.R. No. L-35726, July 21, 1982
o. BOAAvs. Samar Mining, G.R. No. L-28034, Feb. 27, 1971
p. City Treasurer of QC vs. CA, G.R. No. 120974, Dec. 22, 1997
q. NPC vs. Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 25, CDO, G.R . No. 72477, Oct. 16, 1990
r. Reyes vs. Almanzor, G.R. No. 4983 9 - 46, April 26, 1991
s. Pecson vs. CA, G.R. No. 105360, May 25, 1993
t. Mathay vs. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 102319, Dec. 16, 1993
u. Patalinghug vs. CA, G.R. No. 104786, Jan. 27, 1994
v. Sesbreño vs. CBAA, G.R. No. 1065 88, March 24, 1997
w. Lopez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, Feb. 19, 1993
x. Cag. Robina vs. CA, G.R. No. 122451, Oct. 12, 2000
y. Light Rail Transit vs. CBAA, G.R. No. 127616, Oct. 12, 2000

3. CUSTOM MODERNIZATION AND TARIFF ACT (R.A. 10863) CASES

1. CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

a. R.V. Marzan Freight, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128064, March 4, 2004
- Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs
b. Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 297
- Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
c. Bureau of Customs vs. Nelson Ogario, G.R. No. 138081, March 30, 2000
d. De Joya VS. Lantin, G.R. No. 24037, April 27, 1967
e. Air Manila vs. Balatbat, G.R. No. L-29064, April 20, 1971
f. Ortega vs. SSS, G.R. 176150, June 25, 2008
- Quantum of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
g. Feeder International Line vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 842
- Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings
h. Narciso vs. Court of Tax Appeals, Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-104627,
October 6, 1995
- Collector Act as Tribunal when Setting in Forfeiture Proceedings
 i. Carrara Marble Phils. vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 129680, September
1, 1999
- Grounds for Issuance of Warrant of Seizure
- Judicial Affidavit Rule can be Applied in Forfeiture Proceedings
Note: Judicial Affidavit Rule
j. Commissioner of Customs vs. Manila Star Ferry, G.R. No. L-31776 to 78, October
21, 1993
- Forfeiture Proceedings are in Nature of Proceedings in Rem
k. Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 138 SCRA 581
l. C.F. Sharp & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 22 SCRA 760
m. Transglobe International, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126634, January 25,
1999
- The District Collector may settle a Pending Case of Seizure with the approval of
the Commissioner of Customs
- Redemption of Forfeited Property when not allowed
n. Daud vs. Collector of Customs of the Port of Zamboanga City, G.R. No. L-24003,
November 28, 1975

2. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
a. Commissioner vs. Planters Products, G.R. No. 82018, March 16, 1989
- Decision of the Collector of Customs not appealable to City; Exception
b. Rufino Lopez & Sons vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-9274, February 1, 1951
c. Carbonilla vs. Board of Airlines Representatives, G.R. No. 193247, September 11,
2011
d. Office of the President, Commissioner of Customs vs. Board of Airlines
Representatives, G.R. No. 194276, September 11, 2011

3. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS

a. Remigio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145422-23, January 18, 2002
b. Rodriguez and Tomas Ngo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115218, September 18,
1995
c. Collector of Customs vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. L-65418, September
25, 1989

Note: Like the Old Tariff and Customs Code, CMTA does not provide any prescriptive period,on
violations of its provision. The applicable Statute of Limitation is Act No. 3326 as amended by Act
No. 3763.

Read also:
1. P. D. No. 857 (PPA)
2. R. A. No. 1731 (Port Fees)
3. Meaning of Demurrage Charges
4. PPA vs. Renato Fuentes, G.R. No. 91259, April 6, 1991
- Nature of Port Charges
5. ILLUH ASAALI VS. COC, L-24170 2/28/69
- Hot pursuit
6. COC VS. MANILA STARR FERRY, 227 SCRA 317
- Smuggling
7. VIDUYA VS. BERDIGO, 73 SCRA 553
- Attachment not allowed
8. BASTIDA VS. COC, G.R NO. L - 20411 10/24/70
9. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COC, 9 SCRA 429
- Doctrine of EAR exception
10. CHIA VS. ACTING COC G. R. L - 43810 9/26/1989
- Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
11. Republic vs. CFI of Manila, 213 SCRA 222
12. FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE VS. CA, 197 SCRA 842
4. COURTOF TAX APPEALS (R.A. No. 1125 as amended)
1. Rep. vs. Lim Tian Teng, 16 SCRA 584
2. CIR vs. Alikpala, L-32542, Nov. 26, 1970
3. CIR vs. Ayala, L-29485, May 31, 1976
4. CIR vs. Gonzales, L-19495, Nov. 24, 1966
5. Surigao Electric vs. CTA, L-25289, June 28, 1974
6. COCvs. Planters Product, 82018, March 16, 1989
7. DYPAC vs. CTA, L-31369, Oct. 18, 1977
8. Morales vs. CIR, L-16759, aug. 31, 1966
9. Tuazon &Legarda Vs. CIR , L-18552, Sept. 30, 1965
10. Roman Catholic vs. CIR, L-16683, Jan. 31, 1 962
11. CIR vs. Union Shipping, No. 661 60, May 21, 1990
12. Yabes vs. Flojo, L-46954, July 20, 1982
13. CIR vs. Concepcion , L-23912, March 15, 1968
14. Aguinaldo vs. CIR, L-29790, Feb. 25, 1982
15. CIR vs. Procter, No. 66838, April 15, 1988
16. CIR vs. Procter, No. 66838, Dec. 2, 1991 Resolution
17. Plaridel vs. CIR, L-21520, Dec. 11, 1967
18. CIR vs. Wander, No. 68375, April 18, 1988
19. Abra Valley vs. Aquino, L-39086, June 15, 1988
20. COCvs. Cloribel, 19 SCRA 234
21. Pantoja vs. David, 1 SCRA 608
22. Filipinas Investment vs. COMM, 20 SCRA 50
23. Advertising Asso. vs. CA, G.R . No. 59758, Dec. 26, 1984