IN RE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED PEDRO LIM. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PATROCINIO LIM DE BAUTISTA, ADMINISTRATRIX AND APPELLANT.

The facts of the case were stipulated by the parties as follows:

“1. That the deceased Don Pedro Lim died intestate
in the City of Manila on October 6, 1927, having left real properties
consisting of two hundred and ninety-two (292) hectares of rice land in
common and undivided ownership with his sisters Adela Lim, de Sioco,
Patrocinio Lim de Bautista and Dolores Lim de Rodriguez and his nephew
Armando Lim, situated in the Provinces of Tarlac and Nueva Ecija; 2.
That proceedings for the distribution of the estate of the deceased
were instituted in this court on June 5, 1929 by the applicant
Patrocinio Lim de Bautista who on the 5th day of the same month and
year was appointed administratrix of the said estate; 3. That on March
18, 1930, Messrs. Bernardo C. Garcia and Jorge A. Rumbawa were
appointed commissioners of claims and appraisal, who after having
qualified themselves for the said office, on March 19, 1930, ordered
the publication of notices in the newspaper La Defensa that
the commission was to meet for a period of six (6) months from the said
date to hear claims against the estate and appraise the properties left
by the deceased, the said period of six (6) months not having been
extended at any time by this court; 4. That on June 16, 1932, that is
one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-seven (27) days after the
expiration of the commission of said commissioners of claims and
appraisal, they presented their report to this court wherein they made
it appear that they have assessed the real properties left by the
deceased above referred to in the sum of P131,400; 5. That on June 21,
1932, the court approved the report of the commissioners of claims and
appraisal mentioned in the preceding paragraph and relieved them of
their duties as such commissioners; 6. That the administratrix filed
her inheritance tax return with the Collector of Internal Revenue on
July 5, 1932, which is hereto attached as Exhibit A; 7. That the
Collector of Internal Revenue considering said value of P131,400 fixed
by the commissioners of claims and appraisal assessed against the heirs
of the deceased Don Pedro Lim an inheritance tax in the sum of
P15,173.02, plus an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from
April 7, 1928 to July 5, 1932 amounting to P2,864.66, and a compromise
surcharge of P10 for not having filed the said inheritance tax return
within six (6) months from the date of the death of the deceased. This
assessment appears in the inheritance tax return hereto attached and
made a part hereof as Exhibit B; 8. That on March 4, 1933, the
Collector of Internal Revenue required the administratrix in writing to
pay to the treasurer of the City of Manila on or before March 31, 1933
the sum of P7,817.68 which is the total sum of the inheritance tax
assessed by the said Collector; 9. That the administratrix refused and
still refuses to pay the total sum of P7,817.68 alleging that the real
properties left by the deceased are not worth the sum of P131,400 and
that neither she nor the heirs should pay interest on the inheritance
tax assessed on the basis of this valuation from April 7, 1928 to July
5, 1932; 10. That on July 30, 1932, that is one (1) year, ten (10)
months and eleven (11) days after their commission had expired and
after they had been relieved by the court as such commissioners, the
said commissioners of claims and appraisal submitted an amended report,
dated July 25, 1932, wherein they reduced the assessment of the real
properties above mentioned from P131,400 to P103,000; 11. That this
court, on May X9, 1933, denied the motion presented by the attorney for
the administratrix, dated March 14, 1933, and ordered the
administratrix to pay the inheritance tax taking as a basis the
assessment of the real properties made by the commissioners in the sum
of P131,400; 12. That the assessed value of the real properties left by
the deceased consisting of two hundred and ninety-two (292) hectares
above referred to was at the time of the death of the deceased
P98,439.18; 13. That the project of partition was submitted in this
case on July 21, 1932 and approved by this court on August 1, 1932,”

The incident which gave rise to the resolution appealed from
originated from the motion of October 10, 1934, filed by the
administratrix through her attorney, praying that, pursuant to the
doctrine laid down by this court in the case of the Intestate estate of
the deceased Tomas Siy Cong Bieng (alias Siy Chong Lin), G. R. No. 40921,^[1]
a hearing be held on a date to be fixed, after notice to the Collector
of Internal Revenue, for the purpose of determining the exact amount to
be paid as inheritance tax by the heirs. In paragraph 3 of said motion,
the administratrix alleged that the Collector of Internal Revenue
claims the value of the property, which must serve as the basis for
determining the tax, to be P131,400, which is the same value fixed by
the commissioners on appraisal in their first report, while the heirs
maintain that the true value thereof should be P103,430.73, which is
the value fixed by said commissioners in their second report. In this
appeal, however, the administratrix has changed her mind, because she
contends that the value of the property upon which the inheritance tax
should be based is P98,439.18, being the assessed value of the property
of the intestate estate.

In the first and second assignments of error, it is contended that
the court erred in fixing the true value of the property at the amount
specified by the commissioners in their first report of June 16,1932,
and approved by the court on the 21st of said month and year, instead
of the assessed value thereof. The reasons alleged consist in that the
assessment is excessive; that the commissioners reduced the value
thereof, to P103,000 in their ajnended report of July 25, 1932, and
that when said functionaries submitted their first report, they no
longer had authority as such because 1 year, 8 months and 27 days had
already elapsed from the date their commission expired to that on which
they submitted their first report.

Both assignments of error would sufficiently be refuted on all
their grounds by merely stating that the questions raised therein
already constitute res judicata in view of the fact that the
court, in considering the motion filed by the administratrix on March
14,1933, praying that the value of the property of the intestate estate
on which the inheritance tax should be levied be fixed at P103,000,
declared in its order of May 19, 1933, that the value thereof should be
P131,400 and ordered the administratrix to pay the inheritance tax
fixed by the Collector of Internal Revenue upon the basis of said
amount., As the order had not been appealed from by anybody, it became
final and is binding upon the administratrix and the heirs.

Section 1542 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended,
provides that for the purpose of determining the value of the real
property subject to the payment of inheritance tax, the assessed value
thereof as shown by the tax rolls should be taken as the minimum. There
is no law providing that the assessed value must necessarily be the
basis of the tax. On the other hand, sections 668 and 669 of the Code
of Civil Procedure require the appointment of commissioners on
appraisal to appraise the estate of a deceased person and, generally,
it is the amount fixed by them that is taken into account and serves as
the basis for the settlement and distribution of the inheritance. As
the value of the real property of the deceased had been fixed at
P131,400 by the commissioners appointed, no error was committed when
the Collector of Internal Revenue adopted it as the basis for
determining the inheritance tax and the court ordered the tax so
determined to be paid by the administratrix.

The contention that the commissioners reduced said value to
P103,000 is without merit because when they did so they no longer had
authority and were not acting as such commissioners, inasmuch as their
appointments had expired and the court had relieved them of their
duties in its order of June 21, 1932. The contention that the first
report of the commissioners is of no legal value because it was
submitted after the expiration of the period fixed by the court for the
committee to act, is likewise untenable. While it is true that the
first report was submitted after the lapse of said period, as it was
approved without objection on the part of the administratrix and the
heirs, it must be understood that the court had extended the original
period, which it could legally do in accordance with sections 689 and
690 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The third assignment of error is a mere corollary of the two former
assignments and, therefore, the foregoing conclusions are equally
applicable thereto with the effect that the inheritance tax so fixed is
correct and in accordance with law.

In the fourth assignment of error, the administratrix questions the
charging of interest on the tax fixed, corresponding to the period from
April 7, 1928, to July 5, 1932, plus the interest accruing thereon from
the latter date until the tax is paid. The period of six months within
which the inheritance tax ought to have been paid expired on April 6,
1928. The administratrix presented the inheritance tax return and the
Collector of Internal Revenue assessed the amount of the tax on July
5,1932, Section 1544, paragraph (b), of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by section 3 of Act No. B606, provides,
among other things, that the inheritance tax return must be filed
within six months after the death of the predecessor in interest and
the. tax paid within 20 days after service of assessment notice, except
when testamentary or intestate proceedings have been instituted prior
to the expiration of said period, in which case the return must be
filed by the executor or administrator within 30 days after the date of
approval by the court of the schedule of partition and the tax paid
within 20 days after service of assessment notice by the Collector of
Internal Revenue. In cases where no schedule of partition is presented,
or if presented, is not approved or acted upon by the court within a
period of 18 months from the date of the institution of the special
proceeding, then the Collector of Internal Revenue shall assess the
tax, file the tax return for the taxpayer and demand payment thereof
from the executor or administrator within 20 days after service of the
notice of assessment. If the tax is not paid within the time
prescribed, a surcharge of 25 per cent and interest at the rate of 12
per cent per annum to be counted from the date of the delinquency,
shall be charged. The predecessor in interest died on October 6,1927.
The period of six months within which to pay the tax expired on April
6, 1928. The intestate proceeding was not instituted until June 5,
1929, or more than one and a half years after the death of the
predecessor in interest. Since the administratrix became delinquent
from April 7, 1928, because, as already seen, she had failed to pay the
tax within six months after the death of the predecessor in interest,
she is bound to pay the interest fixed by law from said date to the
date on which the tax was assessed and notice thereof served by the
Collector of Internal Revenue, which took place on July 5, 1932, plus
the interest accruing thereon from the latter date until the tax is
fully paid. This court, therefore, concludes that the fourth assignment
of error is unfounded.

The fifth and last assignment of error refers to the resolution
appealed from and to the court’s denial of the motion for a new trial.
It is a corollary of the former assignments of error already considered
and decided. This court sees no necessity of again passing upon it
“because it would only mean a repetition of what has already been
stated.

In view of all the foregoing reasons, the resolution appealed from
is affirmed, with the costs of this instance to the
administratrix-appellant. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.