Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 420 views

    Vidal de Roces Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    1. The plaintiffs appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their case challenging inheritance taxes assessed on donations they received from a donor who later died. 2. The majority held that Section 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations made during the donor's lifetime but in contemplation of death, as such donations are considered "advances on inheritance." 3. The dissent argued that Section 1540 does not establish a legal presumption that lifetime donations are made in contemplation of death, and the nature and circumstances of donations inter vivos indicate they should be presumed not made mortis causa unless proven otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vidal de Roces Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    420 views3 pages
    1. The plaintiffs appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their case challenging inheritance taxes assessed on donations they received from a donor who later died. 2. The majority held that Section 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations made during the donor's lifetime but in contemplation of death, as such donations are considered "advances on inheritance." 3. The dissent argued that Section 1540 does not establish a legal presumption that lifetime donations are made in contemplation of death, and the nature and circumstances of donations inter vivos indicate they should be presumed not made mortis causa unless proven otherwise.

    Original Title

    Vidal de Roces vs Posadas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The plaintiffs appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their case challenging inheritance taxes assessed on donations they received from a donor who later died. 2. The majority held that Section 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations made during the donor's lifetime but in contemplation of death, as such donations are considered "advances on inheritance." 3. The dissent argued that Section 1540 does not establish a legal presumption that lifetime donations are made in contemplation of death, and the nature and circumstances of donations inter vivos indicate they should be presumed not made mortis causa unless proven otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    420 views3 pages

    Vidal de Roces Vs Posadas

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    1. The plaintiffs appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their case challenging inheritance taxes assessed on donations they received from a donor who later died. 2. The majority held that Section 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations made during the donor's lifetime but in contemplation of death, as such donations are considered "advances on inheritance." 3. The dissent argued that Section 1540 does not establish a legal presumption that lifetime donations are made in contemplation of death, and the nature and circumstances of donations inter vivos indicate they should be presumed not made mortis causa unless proven otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The case discusses whether donations inter vivos should be subject to inheritance tax under Section 1540 of the Administrative Code. It also discusses different types of presumptions.

    The main issue in the case was whether or not Section 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations inter vivos for the purposes of inheritance tax.

    The case discusses two types of presumptions: presumption of law or of right, and presumption formed by the judge from circumstances. Presumption of law is established in codes, while the latter is inferred from facts of the case.

    G.R. No.

    L-34937             March 13, 1933

    CONCEPCION VIDAL DE ROCES and her husband, 


    MARCOS ROCES, and ELVIRA VIDAL DE RICHARDS, plaintiff-appellants, 
    vs.
    JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee.

    FACTS:

    On March 10 and 12, 1925, Esperanza Tuazon donated certain parcels of land situated in Manila to
    the plaintiffs herein, who accepted them.

    On January 5, 1926, the donor died in the City of Manila without leaving any forced heir and her will
    which was admitted to probate, she bequeathed to each of the donees the sum of P5,000.

    After the estate had been distributed among the instituted legatees and before delivery of their
    respective shares, the appellee herein, as Collector of Internal Revenue, ruled that the appellants,
    as donees and legatees, should pay as inheritance tax the sums of P16,673 and P13,951.45,
    respectively under Sec. 1540 of the Administrative Code.

    At first the appellants refused to pay the aforementioned taxes but, at the insistence of the appellee
    and in order not to delay the adjudication of the legacies, they agreed at last, to pay them under
    protest.

    The appellee filed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged therein were not
    sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer and ordered the
    amendment of the complaint which the appellants failed to do, causing the dismissal of the action on
    the ground that the appellants did not really have a right of action.

    Plaintiffs appealed on the ground that the demurrer interposed by the appellee was sustained
    without sufficient ground.

    SEC. 1540. Additions of gifts and advances. — After the aforementioned deductions have
    been made, there shall be added to the resulting amount the value of all gifts or advances
    made by the predecessor to any those who, after his death, shall prove to be his heirs,
    devisees, legatees, or donees mortis causa.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not Sec. 1540 of the Administrative Code includes donations inter vivos
    2. If Sec. 1540 includes donations inter vivos, whether or not it is unconstitutional on the basis
    of:
    a. The title of the law should not embrace more than one subject, and that the subject
    should be expressed in the title thereof
    b. The Legislature has no authority to impose inheritance tax on donations inter vivos
    c. It contravences the fundamental rule of Uniformity of Taxation

    HELD:

    1. The gifts referred to in section 1540 of the Revised Administration Code are, obviously, those
    donations inter vivos that take effect immediately or during the lifetime of the donor but are
    made in consideration or in contemplation of death. Gifts inter vivos, the transmission of
    which is not made in contemplation of the donor's death should not be understood as
    included within the said legal provision for the reason that it would amount to imposing a
    direct tax on property and not on the transmission thereof, which act does not come within
    the scope of the provisions contained in Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code
    which deals expressly with the tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitions mortis
    causa.

    2. A. Its provisions are perfectly summarized in the heading, "Tax on Inheritance, etc." which is
    the title of Article XI. Furthermore, the constitutional provision cited should not be strictly
    construed as to make it necessary that the title contain a full index to all the contents of the
    law. It is sufficient if the language used therein is expressed in such a way that in case of
    doubt it would afford a means of determining the legislators intention. Lastly, in a compilation
    of laws such as the Administrative Code, it is but natural and proper that provisions referring
    to diverse matters should be found.

    B. The tax collected by the appellee on the properties donated in 1925 really constitutes an
    inheritance tax imposed on the transmission of said properties in contemplation or in
    consideration of the donor's death and under the circumstance that the donees were later
    instituted as the former's legatees. For this reason, the law considers such transmissions in
    the form of gifts inter vivos, as advances on inheritance and nothing therein violates any
    constitutional provision, inasmuch as said legislation is within the power of the Legislature.

    C. It equally subjects to the same tax all of those donees who later become heirs, legatees
    or donees mortis causa by the will of the donor. There would be a repugnant and arbitrary
    exception if the provisions of the law were not applicable to all donees of the same kind. In
    the case cited above, it was said: "At any rate the argument adduced against its
    constitutionality, which is the lack of Uniformity, does not seem to be well founded. It was
    said that under such an interpretation, while a donee inter vivos who, after the
    predecessor's death proved to be an heir, a legatee, or a donee mortis causa, would have
    to pay the tax, another donee inter vivos who did not prove to he an heir, a legatee, or a
    donee mortis causa of the predecessor, would be exempt from such a tax. But as these are
    two different cases, the principle of uniformity is inapplicable to them."

    VILLAREAL, dissent

    Presumptions are of two kinds: One determined by law which is also called presumption of law or of
    right; and another which is formed by the judge from circumstances antecedent to, coincident with or
    subsequent to the principal fact under investigation, which is also called presumption of
    man (presuncion de hombre).

    The Civil Code as well as the code of Civil Procedure establishes presumptions juris et de
    jure and juris tantum which the courts should take into account in deciding questions of law
    submitted to them for decision. The presumption which majority opinion wishes to draw from said
    section 1540 of the Administrative Code can neither be found in this Code nor in any of the
    aforementioned Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, said presumption cannot be
    called legal or of law. Neither can it be called a presumption of man (presuncion de
    hombre) inasmuch as the majority opinion did not infer it from circumstances antecedent to,
    coincident with or subsequent to the principal fact with is the donation itself. In view of the nature,
    mode of making and effects of donations inter vivos, the contrary presumption would be more
    reasonable and logical; in other words, donations inter vivos made to persons who are not forced
    heirs, but who are instituted legatees in the donor's will, should be presumed as not made mortis
    causa, unless the contrary is proven. In the case under consideration, the burden of the proof rests
    with the person who contends that the donation inter vivos has been made mortis causa.

    You might also like