3/22/2020 [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased.

ceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claima…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

September 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search
Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 >

September 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9141.
ChanRobles On-Line September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO
Bar Review FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
claimant-Appellee, vs. ANGELINA OASAN VDA DE
FERNANDEZ, PRISCILLA O. FERNANDEZ, and ESTELA O.
FERNANDEZ, Oppositors-Appellants.:

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.]
Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, claimant-Appellee, vs. ANGELINA OASAN VDA
DE FERNANDEZ, PRISCILLA O. FERNANDEZ, and ESTELA O.
FERNANDEZ, Oppositors-Appellants.

DECISION
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals sustaining the
validity of a tax amoun ng to P7,614.60 against the estate of
Olimpio Fernandez under the War Profits Tax Law (Republic Act No.
55).
September-1956
Olimpio Fernandez and his wife Angelina Oasan had a net worth of
Jurisprudence
P8,600 on December 8, 1941. During the Japanese occupa on the
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956septemberdecisions.php?id=303 1/10
3/22/2020 [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claima…

spouses acquired several real proper es, and at the me of his

death on February 11, 1945 he had a net worth of P31,489. The
Collector of Internal Revenue assessed a war profits tax on the
[G.R. No. L-9414. estate of the deceased at P7,614.60, which his administratrix
September 7, 1956.]
refused to pay. The case was brought to the Court of Tax Appeals
which sustained the validity and legality of the assessment. The
CIRIACO SAN administratrix has appealed this decision to this Court.
ANTONIO, Petitioner, The most important ques ons raised by the Appellant are: (a) the chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

vs. ASUNCION uncons tu onality of the war profits tax law for the reason that it is
retroac ve; (b) the inapplicability of said law to the estate of the
ESPINOLA,
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

deceased Olimpio Fernandez, because the law taxes individuals; chan

Respondent. and (c) the separate taxa on of the estate of the deceased
roblesvirtualawlibrary

Olimpio Fernandez from that of his wife’s, because Olimpio

Fernandez died before the law was passed.
[G.R. No. L-9695.
Appellant’s conten on that the law is invalid or uncons tu onal
September 10, 1956.] because it acts retroac vely, thus viola ng the due process of law
In the matter of the clause, is not supported by reason or authority. The tax, insofar as
estate of PETRONILA applicable to the estate of the deceased Olimpio Fernandez, is both
a property tax and a tax on income. It is a property tax in rela on to
BAGA, Appellee, vs. the proper es that Fernandez had in December, 1941; and it is an
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL income tax in rela on to the proper es which he purchased during
the Japanese occupa on. In both cases, however, the war profits tax
BANK, Appellant.
may not be considered as uncons tu onal.
The doctrine of uncons tu onality raised by Appellant is based on
[G.R. No. L-9182. the prohibi on against ex post facto laws. But this prohibi on
September 12, 1956.] applies only to criminal or penal ma ers, and not to laws which
concern civil ma ers or proceedings generally, or which affect or
OPERATORS, regulate civil or private rights (Ex parte Garland, 18 Law Ed., 366; chan

INCORPORATED, 16 C.J. S., 889-891).

roblesvirtualawlibrary

Appellant, vs. JOSE “At an early day it was se led by authorita ve decisions, in
PELAGIO and VICENTE
opposi on to what might seem the more natural and obvious
meaning of the term ex post facto, that in their scope and purpose
LAGMAN, Appellee. these provisions were confined to laws respec ng criminal
punishments, and had no rela on whatever to retrospec ve
legisla on of any other descrip on. And it has, therefore, been
[G.R. No. L-9895.
repeatedly held, that retrospec ve laws, when not of a criminal
September 12, 1956.] nature, do not come in conflict with the na onal Cons tu on,
VALENTIN GABALDON, unless obnoxious to its provisions on other grounds than their
respec ve character.” (1 Cooley, Cons tu onal Limita ons, 544-
Petitioner, vs. 545.)
COMMISSION ON We have applied the above principle in the cases of Mekin vs. Wolf,
ELECTIONS, 2 Phil. 74 and Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 47 Off. Gaz., No. 11, 5613,
5616.
Respondent.
It has also been held that property taxes and benefit assessments
on real estate, retroac vely applied, are not open to the objec on
[G.R. No. L-9565. that they infringe upon the due process of law clause of the
September 14, 1956.] Cons tu on (Wagner vs. Bal more, 239 U. S. 207, 60 L. Ed. 230); chan

that taxes on income are not subject to the cons tu onal

YU KI LAM, ET AL.,
roblesvirtualawlibrary

objec on because of their retroac vity. The universal prac ce has

Petitioners, vs. NENA been to increase taxes on incomes already earned; yet chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

notwithstanding this retroac ve opera on, income taxes have not

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956septemberdecisions.php?id=303 2/10
3/22/2020 [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claima…

MICALLER, ET AL., been successfully assailed as invalid. The uniform ruling of the
courts in the United States has been to reject the conten on that
Respondents. the retroac ve applica on of revenue acts is a denial of the due
process guaranteed by the Fi h Amendment (Welch vs. Henry, 305
[G.R. No. L-9785. U. S. 134, 83 L. Ed. 87).

September 19, 1956.] It has also been held that in order to declare a tax as transgressing
the cons tu onal limita on, it must be so harsh and oppressive in
MARIANO H. DE JOYA, its retroac ve applica on (Idem.). But we hold that far from being
ET AL., Petitioners, vs. unjust or harsh and oppressive our war profits tax is both wise and
just. The last Pacific war and the Japanese occupa on of the Islands
THE COURT OF FIRST
have wrought divergent effects upon the different sectors of the
INSTANCE OF RIZAL, popula on. The quiet and the mid, who were afraid to go out of
PASAY CITY BRANCH, their homes or who refused to have any dealings with the enemy,
stopped from exercising their callings or professions, losing their
presided over by the incomes; and they supported themselves with proper es they
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Hon. Judge EMILIO already owned, selling these from me to me to raise funds with
which to purchase their daily needs. These were reduced to penury
RILLORAZA,
and want. But the bold and the daring, as well as those who were
Respondent. callous to the cri cism of being collaborators, engaged in trading in
all forms or sorts of commodi es, from foodstuffs to war materials,
earning fabulous incomes and acquiring proper es with their
[G.R. Nos. L-8497
earnings. Those who were able to retain their proper es found
& L-8517. September themselves possessed of increased wealth because infla on set in,
21, 1956.] BATANGAS
the currency dropped in value and proper es soared in prices. It
would have been unrealis c for the legislature to have ignored all
TRANSPORTATION these facts and circumstances. A er the war it could not, with
COMPANY and jus ce to all concerned, appor on the expenses of government
equally on all the people irrespec ve of the vicissitudes of war,
LAGUNA-TAYABAS
equally on those who had their proper es decimated as on those
BUS COMPANY, who had become fabulously rich a er the war. Those who were
Petitioners, vs. BIÑAN fortunate to increase their wealth during the troubulous period of
the war were made to contribute a por on of their newly-acquired
TRANSPORTATION wealth for the maintenance of the government and defray its
COMPANY, and JOSE expenses. Those who in turn were reduced to penury or whose
incomes suffered reduc ons could not be compelled to share in the
SILVA, Respondents.
expenses to the same extent as those who grew rich. This in effect
is what the legislature did when it enacted the War Profits Tax Law.
[G.R. No. L-9141. The law may not be considered harsh and oppressive because the
force of its impact fell on those who had amassed wealth or
September 25, 1956.] increased their wealth during the war, but did not touch the less
Testate Estate of fortunate. The policy followed is the same as that which underlies
the Income Tax Law, imposing the burden upon those who have and
OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ,
relieving those who have not. No one can dare challenge the law as
deceased. REPUBLIC harsh and oppressive. We declare it to be just and sound and
OF THE PHILIPPINES, overrule the objec on thereto on the ground of uncons tu onality.
claimant-Appellee, vs. The conten on that the deceased Olimpio Fernandez or his estate
should not be responsible because he died in 1945 and was no
ANGELINA OASAN
longer living when the law was enacted at a later date, in 1946, is
VDA DE FERNANDEZ, absolutely without merit. Fernandez died immediately before the
PRISCILLA O. libera on and the actual cessa on of hos li es. He profited by the
war; there is no reason why the incident of his death should
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

FERNANDEZ, and relieve his estate from the tax. On this ma er we agree with the
ESTELA O. Court of Tax Appeals that the provisions of sec on 18 of the Internal
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956septemberdecisions.php?id=303 3/10
3/22/2020 [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claima…

FERNANDEZ, Revenue Code have been incorporated in Republic Act No. 55 by

virtue of Sec on 9 thereof, which provides:
Oppositors-Appellants.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SEC. 9. Administra ve remedies. — All administra ve, special and

general provisions of law, including the laws in rela on to the
[G.R. No. L-9145. assessment, remission, collec on and refund of na onal internal
September 25, 1956.] revenue taxes, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, are
hereby extended and made applicable to all the provisions of this
MAXIMA FELIPE, law, and to the tax herein imposed.”
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Under sec on 84 of the Na onal Internal Revenue Code, the term
PONCIANA DE LA “person” means an individual, a trust, estate, corpora on, or a duly
registered general co-partnership. If the individual is already dead,
CRUZ, ET AL.,
property or estate le by him should be subject to the tax in the
Defendants- same manner as if he were alive.
Appellants. The last conten on is also without merit. The property which
Olimpio Fernandez was possessed of in December, 1941 is
presumed to be conjugal property and so are the proper es which
[G.R. No. L-9305.
were acquired by him during the war, because at that me he was
September 25, 1956.] married. There is no claim or evidence to support the claim that any
GEORGE EDWARD of the proper es were paraphernal proper es of the wife; so the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

presump on stands that they were conjugal proper es of the

KOSTER INC., husband and wife. Under these circumstances they cannot be
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. considered as proper es belonging to two individuals, each of
which shall be subject to the tax independently of the other.
JOSE C. ZULUETA,
For the foregoing considera ons, the judgment appealed from is
Defendant-Appellant.
hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellants.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bau sta Angelo, Concepcion,

[G.R. No. L-9334.
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.
September 25, 1956.]
HEIRS OF MARIANO
ARROYO
SINGBENGCO,
Petitioners, vs. THE
HON. FRANCISCO Back to Home | Back to Main

ARELLANO, ETC., ET
AL., Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-7210.

September 26, 1956.]
OLIMPIA OBISPO and
FELICIANO CARPIO,
Petitioners, vs.
REMEDIOS OBISPO,
CONRADO ALINEA and
THE COURT OF
APPEALS (Second
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956septemberdecisions.php?id=303 4/10