9.

Gallardo v Morales
FACTS:
In accordance with a compromise agreemen, a decision was rendered therein by the Court of First Instance
of Manila, on February 3, 1956, sentencing defendant Morales to pay to plaintiff Gallardo P7,000.00. In due
course, the corresponding writ of execution was issued and delivered to the Sheriff of Manila, who, on
August 8, 1956, garnished and levied execution on the sum of P7,000.00, out of the P30,000.00 due from
the Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., to said defendant, as beneficiary under a personal accident policy
issued by said company to defendant’s husband, Luis Morales, who died, on August 26, 1950, by
assassination.
Defendant asked the sheriff to quash and lift said garnishment or levy on execution.

ISSUE:
whether a personal accident insurance which "insures for injuries and/or death as a result of murder or
assault or attempt thereat" is a life insurance, within the purview of Rule 39, section 12, subdivision (k), of
the Rules of Court, exempting from execution.
RULING
Yes.
Indeed, it has been held that statutes of this nature seek to enable the head of the family to secure his
widow and children from becoming a burden upon the community and, accordingly, should merit a liberal
interpretation.
exemption statutes or rules should be liberally construed with a view to giving effect to their beneficent and
humane purpose. To this end, every reasonable doubt as to whether a given property is or is not exempt
should be resolved in favor of exemption

Collector of Internal Revenue.R.150. being the proceeds of the insurance policy on the life of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze.10. is conjugal property inasmuch as it does not appear to have exclusively belonged to him or to his wife 2. or January 16.209 paid by the plaintiff under protest. until his death on February 2. 1914. the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate as the beneficiary. if delivered to the testamentary administrator of the former as part of the assets of said estate under probate administration. whether the amount thereof is paraphernal or community property. if they belong to the assured exclusively. 1931 FACTS: The present complaint seeks to recover from the defendant Juan Posadas. and it is immaterial that the insured was domiciled in these Islands or outside. which is the amount of an insurance policy on the deceased's life. BPI v Posadas G. all the money used for paying the premiums. No. Yes. 2. the judgment appealed from is reversed. in its capacity of administrator of the estate of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze. 1929.. With the exception of the premium for the first year covering the period from January 14. by reason of its ownership. Jr. L-34583 October 22. or when the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze married the plaintiff-appellant Rosario Gelano.. wherein his own estate was named the beneficiary. 1913 to January 14. ISSUES: 1. whether an insurance policy on said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze's life was. after deducting the proportional part corresponding to the first premium . e. as inheritance tax upon the sum of P20. and the defendant is ordered to return to the plaintiff the one-half of the tax collected upon the amount of P20. i. the amount of P1.150. from the second year. 1914. Wherefore. subject to the inheritance tax RULING: 1. are subject to the inheritance tax according to the law on the matter.

for and in consideration of the sum of P950. Bataan. 926. Balboa v Farrales G. Farrales does not infringe said prohibition. 1926. 2874. under the provisions of Act No. Farrales. No.R. The moment the plaintiff had received a certificate from the Government and had done all that was necessary under the law to secure his patent. ordering the latter to return to the plaintiff the land ISSUE: which of the two Acts — 926 and 2874 — shall be applied in determining whether the sale in question is valid or not? RULING: Act 926 applies and the sale is valid. His right had already vested prior to the issuance of the patent. On July 1. 1928 FACTS: Sometime in the year 1913. the plaintiff commenced the present action for the purpose of having said sale declared null and void on the ground of lack of consent on his part and fraud on the part of the defendant. covering a tract of land in Culis. and his rights to the land cannot be affected by a subsequent law or by a subsequent grant by the Government to any other person. and consequently said sale is valid and binding. trial judge rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. L-27059 February 14. and on the further ground that said sale was contrary to. 10619. On August 11. . It follows.12. 2874. and in violation of the provisions of section 116 of Act No. No. sold said land to the defendant Cecilio L. therefore that the sale of the land in question by the plaintiff Buenventura Balboa to the defendant Cecilio L. and should be given full force and effect. said Act No. 1919. 926 was repealed by Act No. 1924. On March 6. Hermosa. the plaintiff Buenaventura Balboa filled with the Bureau of Lands an application for homestead. said Buenaventura Balboa. his right had become vested before the patent was issued.

among others. was meant to be the joint and solidary liability of the heirs of a decedent. the case ultimately came to the Supreme Court. 5 By the express terms of Article 1249 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. to the extent of the benefits received.5 million. Yes. The deceased. 1966. 1977 FACTS: Elsie M. 1966 without a child.000. shares) properties located in the mentioned court (3) Does the assignment of a certificate of time deposit to the comissioner of Internal Revenue for the purpose of paying t I hereby the estate tax constitute payment of such tax? (4) Should the herein respondent heirs be held liable for the payment of surcharge and interest on the amount (P700. No. the use of this medium to clear an obligation will "produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed. left a last will and testament giving properties to several persons. After several reassessments. The Interest charge for 1% per month imposed under Section 101 (a) (1) of the Tax Code is essentially a commotion to the State for delay in the payment of the tax due thereto The estate cannot likewise be exempted from the payment of the 5% surcharge imposed by Section 101 (c) of the Tax Code . or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. namely. of each heir. said share of the latter consisting of personal (cash deposits and. ISSUES: (1) Should the herein respondent heirs be required to pay first the inheritance tax before the probate court may authorize the delivery of the hereditary share pertaining to each of them? (2) Are the respondent heirs herein who are citizens and residents of the Philippines liable for the payment of the Philippine inheritance tax corresponding to the hereditary share of another heir who is a citizen and resident of the United States of America. An analysis of our tax statutes supplies no sufficient indication that the inheritance tax. the payment of the inheritance tax should be taken as'the individual responsibility. L-27745 October 18. a time deposit certificate is a mercantile document and is essentially a promissory note. Judge Tan was appointed as executor of the testate estate of Elsie M. Vera v Navarro G. No." Consequently. In a letter. 4. 3. Judge Tan informed the Commissioner that the testate estate was worth about ten million (P10 million) pesos and that the estate and inheritance taxes due thereon were about P9. however.00) should still be considered outstanding. as a rule.13. the distribution of a decedent's assets may only be ordered under any of the following three circumstances. is paid.00) representing the face value of time deposit certificates assigned to the Commissioner which could not be converted into cash? RULING: yes (1) No. the value of the said certificates (P700. (1) when the inheritance tax. Gaches without a bond. Gaches died on March 9. (2) who bond a suffered bond is given to meet the payment of the tax and all the other options of the nature enumerated in the above-cited provision.R. etc. This was not complied with (2) No. dated June 3.000.

Whoever may have contracted the services of the accountants. 1955. The court below denied this motion. G. The Rules require that the administrator should submit an inventory of the properties of the estate within three months from his appointment . the sum of P3. 1957 Ozaeta v Palanca FACTS: On May 5.14.R. on the ground that the services covered by the fees of the accounting firm were rendered to the former special administrator Philippine Trust Company ISSUE: whether the services rendered to the special administrator named in the will. No.650. tax consultations in 1950 to 1954. prior to his qualification as such. Ozaeta before his appointment or the Philippine Trust. become binding on the estate upon his qualification There is no question that the services rendered were for the benefit of the estate. L-9776 July 31. are chargeable against the estate. The general rule is that acts done by an executor in the interest of his trust. and preparation of income tax returns for 1953 and 1954. RULING: Yes. previous to his actual appointment as such and at his instance. Gorres. Velayo & Co. for services rendered in taking inventory of assets in 1950. such services were for the benefit of the estate and have redounded to the estate's benefit. the special administrator filed a petition in court for authority to pay the accounting firm of Sycip. whether it was Mr.

No. four years after the testator’s death. RULING: 1. The law clearly limits the allowance to “widow and children” and does not extend it to the deceased’s grandchildren. all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity. 1992. unless the distributees. grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the decedent’s estate. He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents’ properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased. it was private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes who filed before the Regional Trial Court. . Ruiz executed a holographic will naming as his heirs his only son. Pasig.17. private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes. after admitting the will to probate but before payment of the estate’s debts and obligations. No. a petition for the probate and approval of Hilario Ruiz’s will and for the issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond Ruiz ISSUE: whether the probate court. rendering a true account of his administration. conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs. No.R. No. and (3) to grant possession of all properties of the estate to the executor of the will. No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above-mentioned has been made or provided for. On April 12. 1988. Be that as it may. or any of them. regardless of their minority or incapacity. (2) to order the release of the titles to certain heirs. 118671. and his three granddaughters. give a bond. in a sum to be fixed by the court. has the authority: (1) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate for the support of the testator’s grandchildren. On June 29. Hilario Ruiz died. The right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised “so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of administration. January 29. his adopted daughter. 3. the expenses of administration. Estate of Hilario Ruiz v CA G. 1996 FACTS: Hilario M. 2. propriety and justness. Edmond Ruiz. the amount of the obligations and estate tax. Branch 156.

Jose Leon Gonzales and Juana F.166. No.166. It is ordinary income. . inherited from their mother. Gonzales submitted to the Court of Tax Appeals a joint petition seeking a refund. and may not be treated as part of the capital gain. and this requirement is mandatory. No.166. and (2) Whether or not the sum of P89.61 which each of the petitioners received as interest on the value of the land expropriated is taxable as ordinary income. this time of the amount of P86. along with four other co-heirs. 1956. is embraced within the meaning of the term 'sale' or 'disposition of property'" and the definition of gross income laid down by Section 29 of the Tax Code of the Philippines. [982. In fact. the authorities support the conclusion that for income tax purposes.] square meters which they.00 may be properly entertained. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not petitioners' claim for refund of the total of P86. 1965 FACTS: Both petitioners Jose and Juana Gonzales are co-heirs and co-owners. Gonzales v CTA G.309. the requirement of prior timely claim for refund of the sum of P86.20. (one-sixth each) of a tract of land of 871."the acquisition by the Government of private properties through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.00 for each of the two petitioners.00 had not been met in this case. and not as capital gain. interest does not form part of the price paid by the Government in condemnation proceedings. RULING: 1. L-14532 May 26. said properties being justly compensated.R. so much so that non-compliance therewith bars the action 2. The demand for refund must precede the suit. We also adhered to the view that the transfer of property through condemnation proceedings is a sale or exchange and that profit from the transaction constitutes capital gain. So on November 15.

. is fatal to its cause 2. Dizon v CTA G. Whether the actual claims of the aforementioned creditors may be fully allowed as deductions from the gross estate of Jose despite the fact that the said claims were reduced or condoned through compromise agreements entered into by the Estate with its creditors Or Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the CTA in the latter's determination of the deficiency estate tax imposed against the Estate. U. Thereafter. This is called the date-of-death valuation rule. Petitioner alleged that several requests for extension of the period to file the required estate tax return were granted by the BIR since the assets of the estate. 2008 FACTS: On November 7. despite CTA's directives. and should be made the basis of. and 2. the presentation of the BIR's evidence is not a mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of BIR's claims against the Estate. No. The probate court then appointed retired Supreme Court Justice Arsenio P. Fernandez (Jose) died. RULING: 1.22. respectively. as held in Propstra v. Yes. ISSUES: 1. Yes. as well as the claims against it. While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence.S.R. where a lien claimed against the estate was certain and enforceable on the date of the decedent's death. a petition for the probate of his will was filed with Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (probate court). 1987. The claims existing at the time of death are significant to. determined and identified. Dizon (petitioner) as Special and Assistant Special Administrator. had yet to be collated. The BIR's failure to formally offer these pieces of evidence. 140944 April 30. the determination of allowable deductions. the fact that the claimant subsequently settled for lesser amount did not preclude the estate from deducting the entire amount of the claim for estate tax purposes. of the Estate of Jose (Estate). Also. Jose P. as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves and are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice.. Whether or not the CTA and the CA gravely erred in allowing the admission of the pieces of evidence which were not formally offered by the BIR. Atty. Rafael Arsenio P. Dizon (Justice Dizon) and petitioner.