CASSANOVAS VS. HORD [8 Phil 125; No.

3473; 22 Mar 1907]

Saturday, January 31, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: The Spanish Govt. by virtue of a royal decree granted the plaintiff
certain mines. The plaintiff is now the owner of those mines. The Collector of
Internal Revenue imposed tax on the properties, contending that they were
valid perfected mine concessions and it falls within the provisions of sec.134 of
Act No. 1189 known as Internal Revenue Act. The plaintiff paid under protest.
He brought an action against the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue to
recover the sum of Php. 9, 600 paid by him as taxes. Judgment was rendered in
favor of the defendant, so the plaintiff appealed.

Issue: Whether or Not Sec. 164 is void or valid.

Held: The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and
the plaintiff. The obligation of which contract wasimpaired by the enactment of
sec. 134 of the Internal Revenue Lawinfringing sec. 5 of the Act of Congress
which provides that “no lawimpairing the obligation of contracts shall be
enacted”. Sec. 134 of the Internal Revenue Law of 1904 is void because it
impairs the obligation of contracts contained in the concessions of mine made
by the Spanish Government. Judgment reversed.