18. MARCOS II vs CA FACTS: Petitioner Ferdinand R.

Marcos II, the eldest son of the decedent, questions the actuations of the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue in assessing, and collecting through the summary remedy of Levy on Real Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon the estate and properties of his father, despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the will of the late president. Petitioner had filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with an application for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order seeking to Annul and set aside the Notices of Levy on real property issued by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Annul and set aside the Notices of Sale; Enjoin the Head Revenue Executive Assistant Director II (Collection Service), from proceeding with the Auction of the real properties covered by Notices of Sale. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision ruling that the deficiency assessments for estate and income tax made upon the petitioner and the estate of the deceased President Marcos have already become final and unappealable, and may thus be enforced by the summary remedy of levying upon the properties of the late President, as was done by the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent court erred in ruling that the summary tax remedies resorted to by the government are not affected and precluded by the pendency of the probate of the will. HELD: The enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes is of paramount importance for the sustenance of government. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved. 19. National Power Corporation vs City of Cabanatuan FACTS: City of Cabanatuan filed a collection suit against NAPOCOR, a government-owned and controlled corporation demanding that the latter pay the assessed franchise tax due, plus surcharge and interest. It alleged that NAPOCORs exemption from local taxes has already been withdrawn by the Local Government Code. Petitioner submits that the charter of the NPC, being a valid exercise of police power, should prevail over the LGC. It alleges that the power of the local government to impose franchise tax is subordinate to petitioner's exemption from taxation; "police power being the most pervasive, the least limitable and most demanding of all powers, including the power of taxation. ISSUE: Whether NAPOCOR is liable to pay annual franchise tax to the City of Cabanatuan. HELD: Yes. They are liable to pay annual franchise tax to the city of Cabanatuan. Taxation assumes even greater significance with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Thenceforth, the power to tax is no longer vested exclusively on Congress; local legislative bodies are now given direct authority to levy taxes, fees and other charges pursuant to Article X, section 5 of the 1987 Constitution. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the

state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people. 20. Gomez vs Palomar FACTS: Petitioner Benjamin Gomez mailed a letter at the post office in San Fernando, Pampanga. It did not bear the special anti-TB stamp required by the RA 1635. It was returned to the petitioner. Petitioner now assails the constitutionality of the statute claiming that RA 1635 otherwise known as the Anti-TB Stamp law is violative of the equal protection clause because it constitutes mail users into a class for the purpose of the tax while leaving untaxed the rest of the population and that even among postal patrons the statute discriminatorily grants exemptions. The law in question requires an additional 5 centavo stamp for every mail being posted, and no mail shall be delivered unless bearing the said stamp. ISSUE: Whether or not the tax in question is invalid because it is not levied for a public purpose as no special benefits accrue to mail users as taxpayers. HELD: The eradication of a dreaded disease is a public purpose, but if by public purpose the petitioner means benefit to a taxpayer as a return for what he pays, then it is sufficient answer to say that the only benefit to which the taxpayer is constitutionally entitled is that derived from his enjoyment of the privileges of living in an organized society, established and safeguarded by the devotion of taxes to public purposes.