# 6 CIR v.

PINEDA
GR No. L-22734, September 15, 1967
21 SCRA 105

FACTS:

Atanasio Pineda died, survived by his wife, Felicisima Bagtas, and 15 children, the eldest of whom is Atty.
Manuel Pineda. Estate proceedings were had in Court so that the estate was divided among and awarded to
the heirs. Atty Pineda's share amounted to about P2,500.00. After the estate proceedings were closed, the
BIR investigated the income tax liability of the estate for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 and it found
that the corresponding income tax returns were not filed. Thereupon, the representative of the Collector of
Internal Revenue filed said returns for the estate issued an assessment and charged the full amount to the
inheritance due to Atty. Pineda who argued that he is liable only to extent of his proportional share in the
inheritance.

ISSUE: Whether the Government can require Manuel Pineda to pay the full amount of the tax assessed

RULING:

Yes. The Government can require Atty. Pineda to pay the full amount of the taxes assessed.
The reason is that the Government has a lien on the P2,500.00 received by him from the estate as his share
in the inheritance, for unpaid income taxes for which said estate is liable. By virtue of such lien, the
Government has the right to subject the property in Pineda's possession to satisfy the income tax
assessment. After such payment, Pineda will have a right of contribution from his co-heirs, to achieve an
adjustment of the proper share of each heir in the distributable estate.

All told, the Government has two ways of collecting the tax in question. One, by going after all the heirs
and collecting from each one of them the amount of the tax proportionate to the inheritance received; and
second, is by subjecting said property of the estate which is in the hands of an heir or transferee to the
payment of the tax due. This second remedy is the very avenue the Government took in this case to collect
the tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue should be given, in instances like the case at bar, the necessary
discretion to avail itself of the most expeditious way to collect the tax as may be envisioned in the
particular provision of the Tax Code above quoted, because taxes are the lifeblood of government and their
prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.

Two persons liable for payment of estate tax:

1. Executor or administrator;
2. Heirs up to the extent of their inheritance
#7 VERA v. FERNANDEZ
GR No. L-31364 March 30, 1979
89 SCRA 199

FACTS:

The BIR filed on July 29, 1969 a motion for allowance of claim and for payment of taxes representing the
estate's tax deficiencies in 1963 to 1964 in the intestate proceedings of Luis Tongoy. The administrator
opposed arguing that the claim was already barred by the statute of limitation, Section 2 and Section 5 of
Rule 86 of the Rules of Court which provides that all claims for money against the decedent, arising from
contracts, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses
and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be
filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever.

ISSUE: Does the statute of non-claims of the Rules of Court bar the claim of the government for unpaid
taxes?

HELD:

No. The reason for the more liberal treatment of claims for taxes against a decedent's estate in the form of
exception from the application of the statute of non-claims, is not hard to find. Taxes are the lifeblood of the
Government and their prompt and certain availability are imperious need. (CIR vs. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105).
Upon taxation depends the Government ability to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To
safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of government officials entrusted with the collection of taxes
should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment to the people, in the same manner as private persons may
be made to suffer individually on account of his own negligence, the presumption being that they take good
care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to government officials with respect to matters not of
their own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the government's exception, as a general rule,
from the operation of the principle of estoppel.