Dr. Anastacio L. Deiparine, et al. vs. <- Case No, et al.

DECISION

Petitioner Anastacio L. Defparine is the sur- viving spouse and duly appointed adainistrator of the testate estate of his deceased wife, Beatriz Angeles Deiparine, who died in Talisay, Cebu, on April 12, 1950, ‘It appears that on April 10, 1951, the peti- tioner filed with the respondent, thru the Provincial Revenue Agent at Cebu City, the Estate and Inheritance Tax Return for the estate of his deceased wife, Beatriz Angeles Veiparine. On the basis of said return, the respondent, on June 5, 1952, issued an Estate and In+ heritance Tax Assessment Notice, Exhibit A (p. 28, an rec.), demanding the payment of the total sum of ¥4,404,12, itemized as follows;

Estaté tax. ©s0eee200 0 6 « © £14345,4 - Inherftance tax:

Anastactio De ine .P 109.66 Romuio Deipar eooe 1,296.25 Juanita Angeles ese 1,652.72 TOTAL ecooseseeoses Se . SRRRBCTERIR wc ee 4,404.12

—* Ga

btn ded bh CeTsAy CASE NO, 264 “2 Later, or wore particularly, on June 9, 1952, Juanita Angeles Agéran, sister of the deceased Seatriz Angeles Defparine, filed with the respondent, thru the Provincial Hevenue Agent at doac, Mar induque, a separate and an independent Estate and Inheritance Tax Return for the estate of her late sister, Seatriz Angeles Deiparine, On the basis of the secoad seturn, the respondent, on August 14, 1954, issued an Estate and Inheritance Tax Assessment Notice, Exhibit 8 (p. 389, BIK rec.) demanding the payment of the total sum of #16,978.99, itemized as follows:

BState tax ecccosccescece # 1,494.91 71,345.49 for late wi tetene eeeesnees eto eeaeene 67,27 interest from Compromise fer ne no- tice of death eeerecaree 5.00 se tor late PSYMONE ceccccseccccess £0.00 TOTAL .ccccccvecsesccoseseccesece F 25,065.55

Inheritance Tax:

Komulo Deiparine esscoe F 9,419.18 Juanita LOS cccccees 1,990.

Tomas

ANGELES ceccocecs 9,01 Lais Hidalgo eeeeeveves 3,34 Juliane Hidaigo eeentes 3.34 Amando Angeles eoveseoce 2.50 Librado Angeles csceces TOTAL ccccvcccccecess #11,426,75 % surcharge on #3,058.63 for late ®@eeeevaescseosavee 152.93 i interest from —Lf12/32 to 9/15/54 woe 3,313.76 Compromise for late PRYDONE wccscvesseveces eee eg OO

TOTAL SPSCSESOHSESOH EHO TEBESEOS A499 13244

TOTAL AMQUNT DUE AND

COLLECT ISLE seeeesceetse eos eeetene 216,279,292 624

DECISION «

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 ~ ge The petitioner protested against the second estate and inheritence tax assessment. In a letter dated September 6, 1954, Exhibit G (p. 98 BIR rec.), he informed the respondent that Romulo Leiparine who was made to appear in the second tax return filed oy his sister-in-law, Juanita Angeles Agaran, as @ stranger to the estate is in truth and in fact his legitimate son begotten with his deceased wife Seatriz Angeles Deiparine. The petitioner then requested for the re- consideration of the second estate and inberitance tax assessment which was based on the said second tax re- turn and at the same time, he expressed his willingness to pay the estate and inheritance taxes as assessed on June 5, 1952, tn the total amount of ,404,12, In a letter, Exhibit I (p. 145 SIR rec.) dated March 20, 1956, the respondent denied petitioner's request for reconsideratton f{nforming him thet after a careful study of the matter, he found Aomulo Deiparine to be a Stranger to the decedent Seetriz Angeles Dei- parine. Respondent therefore requested the payment of the sum of #19,989,21, as transfer taxes and their in- crements computed 4s follows:

Estate tax wescsccseseses ® 1,494.91 = PEREREETE s00ss 20020es 74,75 1,494.91 from 1/12/52 death) eveese oes eves 5.00 Compromise for late POYMOENT wevosescrcceece ee fe BO TOTAL eeeeceeeocoeneecaereceeaneeoeoee * 2,372.01

DECISION «

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 aie Inheritance TOK conccoces #11, 426.75 SH surcharge ccccccsecces "S71. 34 1é monthly 1 on $11,426, | from Compromise for late payment @eeeaseossesees ee OD TOTAL coccccvcsvscvcssccssessess $17,617.20

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND

COLLECT ISLE @eseeneeseeonveaeeenes £19,282,.2) The respondent demanded irom the petitioner the payaent of the above stated assessed amount within ten

(10) days from receipt of the assessment, to the City Treasurer of Cebu City, with the warning that unlees payment was made within the said period, the collection thereof would be enforced by warrant of distraint and levy. Hence, on April lé, 1956, the petitioner filed his petition for review with this Court.

The petitioner in open court (pp. 19-21, t.s.ne) as well as in his memorandua (pp. 4-5) admits the cor- rectness of the estate tax assessment as well as the inheritance tax assessment with respect to the other six beneficiaries of the will except as regards Aomulo Deiparine who, it is claimed, is a legitimate son of the deceased Jeatriz Angeles Velparine and as such, should therefore be reqiired to pay the original ine heritance tax assessment as embodied in Exhibit A, in the amount of £1,296.25, which was computed on the basis of the rate corresponding to legitimate children under Section 96 (a) of the Tax Code.

The respondent, on the other hand maintains, relying solely on the Estate and Inheritance [ax ie- 626 ony

DECISION

e 5 « turn (pp. 61-62 BIR rec.) filed on June 9, 1952 by Juanita Angeles Agaran in Marinduque, and her letter, Exhibit 12~A (pp. 154-155 BIA rec.) to Prov incial ' Bevenue Agent Fidel Alberto of Oriental Mindoro dated September 3, 1955, that Romulo Defparine as stranger te the estate of the deceased Beatriz Angeles Deiparine should be made to pay the ftveefold rete of inheritance tax corresponding to strangers which amounts to P9,419.18 as prescribed by Section 86 (e) of the Tax Code.

The only question for us to decide, therefore, which is one of fact, is whether or not Romulo Detparine is a legitimate son of the deceased Seatriz Angeles Defparine for the purpose cf applying the corresponding rate of inheritance tex prescribed under Section 86 (a) or (e) of the Tax Code.

We find the evidence presented by the petitioner in support of hfs contentfon regarding the status of Romulo Detparine es e legitimate son of the deceased Beatriz Angeles Defparine sufficiently strong and con- vineing. In an order, Exhibit C, dated May 27, 1950, of the prebete court in Special Proceedings No. 651i, Court of First Instance of Cebu, admitting te probate the last will and testament of the decessed Beatriz Angeles Detparine, Romlo Deiparine was declared to be a gon of the testatrix. On June 24, 1950, 4 motion for reconsideration (Exhibit D) of said order was filed by Juanita Angeles Agaran, but for reasons of her own, she voluntarily withdrew her motion en June 30, 1950 , ( - or:.c:rs Ia - C.T. A.

E

• 264 - 6 - ( xhib t E) .

The or or of th probat court, xhi.bi't C , declarin to ulo Deiparinc to e a l g "timet• son of th deceas B atr z n les D ~ par · n egott n ~/ her pouae, th pet ton r re·n, has no co final, no ~p~eal th r to hav ng been ter• t•d parti s.

by any of th in- In addition, the potitioner pr entary evidence, xh bit J-1 p. 96 nt d as docu• c.)

• tch is a photo; rap f ir . c 0 0 ip rine, ia ued on July 21, 1 gistr of th .un ·cip lity of yth C'vil - • (n ity of c ou) c.oo.

hi I h of tt irth c rtific t ~ w au i o vic .c t r t was .,houn t t ~atis- f ctio. o his 4 , a), ul 2 r that t or! n itt irth appe ring i, th proof of f lt tlo of l of ourt) and th tion on t rt o ivil e 1 t r 1 i t i t h 1 • lost c.

s pon- of . t in t

Offic

d lt 0 ce s d otr z ·p rin • · xhibit J'-1, of t 1v 1 th r cord of uff ci nt nd c rt nly, the record o th appearing in the recora$ o t e Civil egistrar of the n1e tpal1ty of bu, e , or a cer- ., 62 D .r ..

• 264 t1f1e copy th reof, as n the case at · ar, 1s the beat avid nee to abo n prove the aterntty ancV r paternity of o ulo alp~rin • hat as en ade ev!de ee y law, thia Court u t cone1d r.

A

rega.rds th o o l

Dei•

parine. it is wor hy to etat t t To •• erilles.

who i• now 73 years old, waa present• •• wltneaa for the petitioner.

t s ff.e that n1c:1pal urer o C • e fr

1912 to 1934J

t. ~ •• such nlctpal treasurer he sa the original of h irth certificate o • lo Dei r •J t at he sl ne th or gin l of th a id blrt c r ~ · !e t ' o~o ra h o his al ature ppeara. on xhlb t J•l.

• 0 ca • a law

Z'

co • gr ate 0 wit u of In ernal ..

venue • 1 7 t e re en , waa also pr ..

a en ted y t tit on r •• a wit ••• e tea 1 tt'at • a to 1nveet1~ate e ata • nd i n- eritanc t X 11 11ty Ot t 8 8 t t etrlz A •1•• Delpar • n bet: helrSf t at f.n • c:

rse of hia invest! atlon, be aaw a ex 1n t the birth certificate of o lo elparin • ri in 1 of d o ·n the same to be enuine; a th t 1n h report to t e collector of In • nal venue, xbi it L (p. 24 r c. } • c;onsl ere lo eip 1ne s • son of he dec ased The petitioner also au ltta ii oc nt ry proof to support his cl& that eip in i 629

DECTSIGN =

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 the son of his wife, the late Beatriz Angeles Del- parine, his income tax returns, Exhibits U, V and W for the years 1948, 1950 and 1951, respectively.

In all these income tax returns, Romulo Deiparine wes made to eppear as the son of the petitioner with hie deceased wife, Beatriz Angeles Deiparine.

In addition, the petitioner also submit ted testimenial evidence to prove that Remulo Veiparine | is the son and has continuously possessed the status of a legitimate child of the deceased Seatriz Angeles Delparine. An array of aix (6) competent and reliaole witnesses were presented to establish this fact, namely,

(1) Prudencio Youd, Administrator of “Patria de Cebu", by virtue of an appointment signed by the Archbishop of Cebus (2) Narciso Alifio, an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue since 1931; (3) Emerenc{ana Campo, an attendant in Dr. Deiparine's Clinic; (4) Dr. Cesar Filoteo, @ preminent practicing physician and Dean, College of Medicine, Southwestern Colleges; (5) br. Anastacio L. Defparine, the petitioner herein and the husband of the late Beatriz Angeles Defparine; and (6) Romulo Deiparine whose maternal filiation is in ques- tion in the present case.

We deem it unnecessary to summarize in deteil what all these witnesses testified to on the witness stand, It shall suffice to mention the fact that Dr. Cesar Filoteo a well known practitioner of Cebu City and Emerenciane Campo testified that they saw the late ‘ 630 ‘Albany ~ enn ei ROARS tn ANDRA tent ecb nen

DEC To IGN «

G.T.A. CASE NO, 264 = 9 «= Beatriz Angeles Deiparine give birth to a baby boy who was later on christened as Romulo Deflparines that Emerenciana Gampo took care of Komulo Deiparine when the latter was still a child; that Dr. Cesar Filoteo is the baptismal godfather of Romulo Defperine, the sponsor of the latter's marriage, and the baptismal godfather of Romulo Detparine’s son; andithat they both saw Romulo Deiparine grow from childhood to man- hood. .

AS stated above, both Dr. Anastacio L. Defparine and Homulo Deiparine took the witness stand, Dr. Anastacio L. Deiparine, the petitioner herein and the husband of the late Seatriz Angeles Deiparine, stated in clear and unmistékable terms that Romulo Defparine is his son with his wife, the late Beatriz Angeles Detmrine; that he was the doctor who assisted his wife when the latter gave birth to Romulo Detparine; that Or. Cesar Filoteo and Emerenciana Campo were pre- sent when Aomulo Deiparine was born and that he reared up Romulo Deiparine and spent for his support and edu- cation from the time he was borny and that up to the present, he is still supporting Nomulo Detparine who is now 24 years old.

Undoubtedly, no man is in a better position to know and s&@y as to who {fs the son of Dr, Anastacio L. Deiparine with his legitimate wife than Dr. Deiparine himself, And with more reason should we be fnelined to believe Ur. Anastacio L. Deiparine in the instant GeTeAs GASE NO, 264 - lO - case, considering the fact that Romulo Deiparine also testified that from the time he saw the light of reason,he had always recognized Dr. Anastacio L. Deiparine as his father and the late Beatriz Angeles Defparine as his mother; that they nursed hia, feed him, supported him and sent him to school until he graduated with the degree of Doctor of Mee dicine. | The witnesses for the petitioner were subjected te a detatled and searching cross-examination by counsel for the respondent. However, they remained positive and sure as to thefr declarations, and all in all, thefr testimonies are clear and convincing as to leave no room for doubt thet Aomulo Deiperine is in truth and in fact the legitimate son of the dee ceased Beatriz Angeles Defparine. [he respondent on the other hand utterly failed to present evidence to sustain its claim to the contrary. As a matter of fact, the respondent did not even present Juanita Angeles Ageran, his sole {nformant regarding the filia«- tion of Romule Deiparine, nor did he advance any valid and plausible reason for not placing said material wit- ness on the witness stand to sustain his contention that Romulo Defparine is not related in any way to the dee ceased seatriz Angeles Deiparine as is naturally to be expected under the circumstances.

The petitioner on the other hand has shown by concrete evidence that Juanita Angeles Agaran, upon

632 | C23

tee L

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 oe Li« whose sole and uncorrovorated information the rese pondent based his finding that Romulo Deiparine is a total stranger to the deceased #eatriz Angeles Deiparine, that since the death of the latter, she (Juanita Angeles Angaran) had always been hostile towards the petitioner herein, presumably because her share in the inherftance from the testate estate of her deceased sister was not as much as she expected, As& above stated, she filed on June 24, 1950, with the probate court a motion for reconsideration of the Gourt’s order admitting the will of the deceased Beatriz Angeles Defparine to probate and declaring Romulo Deiparine to be a4 legitimate son of the testse trix only to withdraw said motion six (6) days later for reasons of her own before the probate court could act upon it. On January 27, 1953 the said Juanita Angeles Agaran filed a complaint against the peti- tioner hereia in Cf{vil Case No, 927, Court of First Instance of Marinduque, for breach of contract, and notwithstanding the noneappearance of the petitioner as defendant in said case or his atterney during the trial, the Court of First Instance of Marinduque in a decision, Exhibit F, dismissed the cowolaint for lack of merit.

With these long line of decumentary and testie menial evidence for the petitioner regerding the status of Aomulo Detparine as a legitimate son ef the spouses Anastacio L, Deiparine and Seatriz angeles Deiparine oa the one hand and the lack of positive and concrete it, ? °?

SA €&

633

DEC Is TON «

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 - 12 « evidence for the respondent on the other to sustain the contrary, we find ourselves with no other altere native but to sustain the contention of petitioner thet Romulo Defparine is his son begotten by his de- ceased wife Seatriz Angeles Deiparine,

WHEREFORE, finding Romulo Deiparine to be the legitimate son of the deceased Besteiz Angeles Deipar ine and the petitioner herein, Dr. Anastacio L. Defparine, the rate of inheritance tax that should be applied ts that provided for legitimate children under Section 86

(a) of our Tax Code and aot the five-fold rate appli- cable to strangers as beneficiaries of the estate under Section 86 (e) of the same Code, It appears that on the estate and inheritance tax liability of the estate of the late Geatriz Angeles Deiparine and her heirs, the petitioner has already made the following payments on the dates and in the amounts indiceted below as evidenced by Offic{fal de- ceipts, Exhibits T, Tel, T=2, Estate tax:

August 17, 1955 ... #1,150,.00 Inheritance tax:

November 23, 1956 ..cccccsseses 1405,91 TOTAL Seeeeseeseecesesceseved £3_249,37 The inheritance tax due and demandable from the share received by Romulo Defparine ts act #9,419.15 inasauch as he is not « stranger to the deceased, but only the sum of +1,296.25 as previously assessed by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner Anasjgc io L. Deiperine

Ca]

634

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO, 264 . o 19 « is hereby ordered to pay the Collector of Internal Revenue the total amount of #4,419.04 as estate and inheritance taxes ttemized as follows: Estate tax sugenogesorsconeases #1,494,91 or late paynent on #] PL ccccoscesesocecs 74,75 monthl :

From 1/12/52 to

17/55 on 91,494.91 cescese F 642,81 From 8/17, te 10/1 on P344,.91 eeececese eee 2O TOTAL eeenveeee een ecacececseane #2,219.37 Less: Amounts previously paid:

pAb -4 essen enaenes ? 1,150.00 17/35 secccccces — 699046 1,843.46 ® 375.91 Inheritance tax:

i De ine .. ?1,296.25 990, 88 eee 1 — eevee . eo} yw Taw < pe 3.34 Amando Angeles .... 2.50 con yy one # 3,303.82 «57, the correct and uncontested amount as- SaEeeS Seeeees ae See otmas heirs, was included in the notice and demand of March 20, 1956 cccccscseseces 100, 37 1® monthi :

From to

on 23, 82 —— #1,817.10 11/20/57 on P1,897.91 cocceee eee Pei) TOTAL covvcccceccosesessces 5,449.04 Less: Amount paid on 11/23/56.. _1,405,9)

DECISION « ’

G.T.A, CASE NO, 264 636

Clg

- Brew a arte oa tes oe a