Lopez, Virnadette L.

LAW 1932250

FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL AND STEWART TAIT, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. JAMES J. RAFFERTY,
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT,

G.R. No. 10572, December 21, 1915

FACTS: The case is divided in two parts; (1) that relating to the power of the court to restrain by
injunction the collection of the tax complained of, and (2) that relating to the validity of those
provisions of subsection (b) of section 100 of Act No. 2339, conferring power upon the
Collector of Internal Revenue to remove any sign, signboard, or billboard upon the ground
that the same is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance.

ISSUES: Whether or not it is valid for tax collectors to subject personal properties for injunction for
payment of taxes?

RULING: Yes, it is valid for the tax collectors to subject the personal property of a taxpayer in order to
satisfy his tax payments. With regard to due process, it is settled law in the United States that
"due process of law-' in respect to the Government does not always require, the same
process that is required between citizens, though it generally implies and includes regular
allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to some well settled course of judicial
proceedings.

A citizen's property, both real and personal, may be taken, and usually is taken, by the
government in payment of its taxes without any judicial proceedings whatever. In this country,
as well as in the United States, the officer charged with the collection of taxes is authorized to
seize and sell the property of delinquent taxpayers without applying to the courts for
assistance, and the constitutionality of the law authorizing this procedure never has been
seriously questioned. (City of Philadelphia vs. Diehlj, The Collector)