THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. ALFONSO FAVIS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals reversing
the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue imposing an
assessment of P2,511.00 against the Favis Car Exchange.

It
appears that in a letter dated January 20, 1953, the United States Navy
informed the Collector of Internal Revenue that Lt. H. N. Maragidas of
the U. S. Navy, Cavite City, sold one Chevrolet, Tudor Sedan, Fleetline
de Luxe 1950, bearing engine serial No. HAM 198779, body serial No. 14
HKD-66495 to the Favis Car Exchange of Manila. Accordingly, a letter of
demand dated April 29, 1953 was sent by the Collector of Internal
Revenue to the said car exchange demanding payment of the sum of P2,511
representing sales tax on the aforesaid car. On receipt of the said
letter of demand, Arturo Favis, proprietor of the Car Exchange
protested against the assessment and demanded a reinvestigation of the
case. After due hearing, the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue was of the opinion that the Favis Car Exchange was the
purchaser for value of the car in question and therefore recommended
the collection of the sum of P2,511 from the same. On December 17,
1953, Alfonso Favis, a brother of Arturo Favis, requested for a
reconsideration and rehearing of the case. A rehearing was granted and
at its termination the investigating staff found that the claim that
Alfonso Favis loaned P4,500 to Jose Crisologo and the latter brought
the car with the said money was only a devise to circumvent the
collection of the tax. On November 20, 1954, the collector of Internal
Revenue issued a warrant of distraint and levy on appellee-company to
collect the aforesaid obligation. Alfonso Favis on March 12, 1955,
filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals and after due
hearing the decision under appeal was rendered.

Appellant
contends that it has been amply shown that the original purchaser of
the car was the Favis Car Exchange and that Jose Crisologo was its
dummy; that the testimony of Revenue Agent Mingoa attests to the fact
that the money used in the purchase by Crisologo was the loan obtained
from Alfonso Favis, a brother of Arturo Favis, the owner of the Favis
Car Exchange; that there was the admission by Crisologo to said Agent
Mingoa that the real buyer was the Favis Car Exchange.

Appellant’s evidence to support its theory, of the case is too weak to
constitute reversible error. In the first place the Deed of Sale (Exh.
“E”) between Lt. Maragidas and Jose Crisologo clearly named Crisologo
as the vendee. Secondly, the loan was made by Alfonso Favis who was and
is not an owner of appellee car exchange. Thirdly, the admission by
Crisologo as testified to by Agent Mingoa regarding the identity of the
buyer in that transaction with Lt. Maragidas cannot be received without
reservation in view of the natural impulse of every man to protect
himself from any liability. Had said Crisologo himself been presented
in court and subjected to cross examination, this Court may have given
the same some value. Considering further the disposition of the said
car after Crisologo’s purchase, the same having been sold then by
Crisologo to the Luneta Motors Company without appellee car exchange’s
intervention whatsoever, we are more than convinced that Crisologo was
the real purchaser from Lt. Maragidas. “Purchase in one’s own name with
another’s money generally gives title to the purchaser, that is to him
who appears in the deed to have made the purchase in his own name.”
(see case of Enriquez vs. Olaguer, 25 Phil. 641)

The
decision under consideration having been found in order, the same is
hereby affirmed without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.