REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

In the Oriental Mindoro Court of First Instance, in June 1958, the Republic
of the Philippines filed against Victoriano Medrano, Sr., a complaint to recover
the sums of P4,827.00 and P3,864.00 as deficiency income tax and-additional
deficiency income tax for the year 1949, plus surcharge and interest.

The complaint alleged that on September 26, 1953, and October 29, 1954, the
Collector of Internal Revenue had made the above assessments, notices of which
were served upon defendant together with requests for payment thereof. Further
alleging failure of defendant to contest the assessments before the Court of Tax
Appeals in accordance with Republic Act No. 1125, and refusal to pay the same
notwithstanding repeated demands, the complainant prayed for judgment with
costs.

Instead of answering, the defendant submitted a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the court had no jurisdiction, the matter being properly cognizable
by the Court of Tax Appeals. Sustaining the motion, the court dismissed the
case. After failing to convince the court to reconsider its order of dismissal,
the plaintiff appealed in due time.

In view of our decision in Republic vs. Del Rosario, 105 Phil., 277;
57 Off. Gaz. (31) 5543, the instant appeal must be declared to be meritorious.
That was a suit filed in the court of first instance of Manila to
recover deficiency income tax assessed by the Collector of Internal Revenue,
which became, final and enforceable because the Del Rosarios had failed to
question such assessments before the Court of Tax Appeals. Upon motion of
defendants, the court of first instance dismissed the complaint “without
prejudice to its presentation to the Court of Tax Appeals.” The Government
appealed, contending that the Manila court had jurisdiction to adjudicate. We
sustained such appeal. Holding the matter was not a disputed assessment
cognizable by the Tax Appeals Court, we remanded the record to the Manila court
for further proceedings. Paraphrasing the words of Mr. Justice Padilla, who
wrote a unanimous decision, we may say: the case of the appellee does not come
under sec. 7, Republic Act 1125 (jurisdiction of Tax Appeals Court) because he
has not appealed from the assessment of the Collector of Internal Revenue. His
failure thus to appeal made the assessment final and executory, and demandable.
His refusal to pay it now does not render the assessment a disputable one for
the Tax Appeals Court to adjudicate. (See also Uy Ham vs. Republic, G.
R. L-13809, October 20, 1959.)

Accordingly, the dismissal order will be reversed and the record remanded to
the court below for appropriate action. Costs against appellee.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Ordered reversed and record remanded to court below for proper
action.