G.R. No.

L-68385 May 12, 1989

ILDEFONSO O. ELEGADO, as Ancillary Administrator of the Testate Estate of the late

WARREN TAYLOR GRAHAM, petitioner
vs.
HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE respondents.

Facts:

 Warren Taylor Graham, an American national, died in Oregon, U.S.A. on March 14,
1976, leaving certain shares of stock in the Philippines.
 Ward Graham, the son of the decedent, filed an estate tax return on September 16, 1976,
with the Philippine Revenue Representative in San Francisco, U.S.A.
 The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the decedent's estate an estate tax in the
amount of P96,509.35 on February 9, 1978.
 The assessment was protested on March 7, 1978, but was denied on July 7, 1978. No
further action was taken by the estate in pursuit of the protest.
 On January 18, 1977, the decedent's will was admitted to probate in the Circuit Court of
Oregon, and Ildefonso Elegado was appointed as the attorney-in-fact for the allowance of
the will in the Philippines.
 The petitioner commenced probate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
and the will was allowed on December 18, 1978, with the petitioner as ancillary
administrator.
 The petitioner filed a second estate tax return on June 4, 1980, and the Commissioner
imposed an assessment on the estate in the amount of P72,948.87.
 This assessment was protested on August 13, 1980.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on grounds of
jurisdiction and lack of a cause of action.
Ruling:
The dismissal of the appeal was justified.
Ratio:
The cancellation of the second assessment rendered the petition moot and academic, as there was
no more assessment to review.
The first assessment had already become final and executory and could no longer be questioned.
The petitioner's argument that the first assessment was invalid due to the ignorance of the foreign
lawyers was deemed unfounded, as ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone from
compliance.
The petitioner should have appealed the denial of the protest to the Court of Tax Appeals within
the reglementary period, but failed to do so.
Conclusion:
The court denied the petition and upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the assessment of
estate tax on the shares of stock left by the decedent.
In view of the finality of the first assessment, the petitioner cannot now raise the question of its
validity before this Court any more than he could have done so before the Court of Tax Appeals.
What the estate of the decedent should have done earlier, following the denial of its protest on July
7, 1978, was to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within the reglementary period of 30 days after it
received notice of said denial. It was in such appeal that the petitioner could then have raised the
first two issues he now raises without basis in the present petition.