Gonzales-Asdala vs. Metrobank
GR#257982
Feb. 23, 2023
 
Highlights
-Loan taken by the wife with land as collateral.  Mortgage redemption was taken by the wife.  But the husband died.  Now the wife wanted to MRI to apply to the balance of the Loan.
-No Receipts Issued
-The only proof of payment of MRI is the debit memo by the bank
-Property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal.  The presumption of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing evidence. (359 Phil 519 [1998]).
 
-Since petitioner failed to present strict proof of her husband’s exclusive ownership over the property, Metrobank, the lower courts, and SC cannot be faulted for relying on the TCT, the sole document presented by petitioner.  After all, the question of whether petitioner was able to adduce proof to overthrow the presumption of conjugality is a factual issue best addressed the trial court.  I cannot be over-emphasized that factual determination of the trial courts, especially when confirmed by the appellate court are accorded great weight by the Court and, as a rule, will not be disturbed on appeal, except for the most compelling reasons. (Ko v. Aramburo, 816 Phil 121, 134 [2017])
 
The insured under the MRI is the petitioner.
It may not be amiss to state that Section 3 of The Insurance Code provides that the consent of the spouse is not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy taken out by the married person on his or her life.
 
Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:
Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effect insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract….
 
The court a quo likewise correctly found that the documents for the procurement of the MRI were signed by the plaintiff-appellant herself, and the Certificate of Group Life Insurance was issued only in her name.  these documents sufficiently establish that the plaintiff-appellant is the only name insured under the MRI.  Furthermore, Metrobank has shown, that it is not disputed, that the payment of the insurance premium was source from the savings account under the name of the plaintiff-appellant alone.
 
Metrobank as able to convincingly prove that it was plaintiff-appellant alone who applied for the insurance in connection with the housing loan.

Gonzales-Asdala vs. Metrobank
GR#257982
Feb. 23, 2023
 
Highlights
-Loan taken by the wife with land as collateral.  Mortgage redemption was taken by the wife.  But the husband died.  Now the wife wanted to MRI to apply to the balance of the Loan.
-No Receipts Issued
-The only proof of payment of MRI is the debit memo by the bank
-Property acquired during marriage is presumed conjugal.  The presumption of conjugality is rebuttable, but only with strong, clear and convincing evidence. (359 Phil 519 [1998]).
 
-Since petitioner failed to present strict proof of her husband’s exclusive ownership over the property, Metrobank, the lower courts, and SC cannot be faulted for relying on the TCT, the sole document presented by petitioner.  After all, the question of whether petitioner was able to adduce proof to overthrow the presumption of conjugality is a factual issue best addressed the trial court.  I cannot be over-emphasized that factual determination of the trial courts, especially when confirmed by the appellate court are accorded great weight by the Court and, as a rule, will not be disturbed on appeal, except for the most compelling reasons. (Ko v. Aramburo, 816 Phil 121, 134 [2017])
 
The insured under the MRI is the petitioner.
It may not be amiss to state that Section 3 of The Insurance Code provides that the consent of the spouse is not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy taken out by the married person on his or her life.
 
Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:
Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effect insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract….
 
The court a quo likewise correctly found that the documents for the procurement of the MRI were signed by the plaintiff-appellant herself, and the Certificate of Group Life Insurance was issued only in her name.  these documents sufficiently establish that the plaintiff-appellant is the only name insured under the MRI.  Furthermore, Metrobank has shown, that it is not disputed, that the payment of the insurance premium was source from the savings account under the name of the plaintiff-appellant alone.
 
Metrobank as able to convincingly prove that it was plaintiff-appellant alone who applied for the insurance in connection with the housing loan.

Filing of Annual ITR and Payment
RMC 32-2023 

(See Attached)

  RMC No. 32-2023-AnnualFilingPayment-April172023.pdf (Size: 124.26 KB / Downloads: 0)

SEC Grant of Amnesty for Non-Filing/Late Filing of GIS, AFS and Non-Compliance of MC 28 s. 2020

  SEC-Grant-Of-Amnesty-AFS-GIS-2023MCNo02_.pdf (Size: 5.71 MB / Downloads: 0)

YAP Vs. BIR, CTA NO. 10019
March 9, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

Implied Denial
In instance when respondent (BIR) without categorically deciding the taxpayer's protest or request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes an action for collection in the ordinary courts, the Supreme Court has considered this an implied denial.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. , 241 Phil. 829 ( 1988) [Per J . Cruz,
First Division]

Remedy of the Taxpayer
The taxpayer's remedy then was to appeal to this Court within thirty (30) days from the date that it was notified of the warrant or collection suit.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc., G.R. No.
225809, March 17, 2021.

A Collection Letter having the character of finality.  Same character on Warrant of Distraint and Levy.

Undeclared Purchases and Expenses Should Not Be Treated As Income
The said undeclared purchases and expenses, even when the same are truly undeclared, should not be automatically treated as income, to which income tax should be imposed.

Income in tax law is an amount of money coming to a person within a specified time, whether as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment. It means cash or its equivalent. It is gain derived and severed from capital, from labor or from both combined. Income is profit or gain or the flow of wealth. The determining factor for the imposition of income tax is whether any gain or profit was
derived from a transaction.

It is apparent that in a purchase or expense transaction, no amount of money comes to a taxpayer; instead, money is spent out by the latter. In other words, the said taxpayer does not derive any gain or profit from the transaction.

Deduction from Income Tax
It must be emphasized that for income tax purposes, a taxpayer is free to deduct from its gross income a
lesser amount, or not to claim any deduction at all. What is prohibited by the income tax law is to claim a deduction beyond the amount authorized therein.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., et seq. , G.R. Nos. L-
19727 and L-19903, May 20, 1965.

Thus, even when a taxpayer has not claimed purchases and expenses, or declared a lesser amount thereof, in the Income Tax Return, such action is allowed, and shall not necessarily result in the imposition of income tax on the undeclared or underdeclared purchases.

In the same vein, just as no income tax should be imposed on the supposed undeclared purchases and expenses of petitioner, no VAT should likewise be imposed thereon.

VAT
VAT is a tax on transactions, imposed at every stage of the distribution process on the sale, barter, exchange of goods or property, and on the performance of services, even in the absence of profit attributable thereto. It is a tax imposed on each sale of goods or services in the course of trade or business, or importation of goods as they pass along the production and distribution chain. The VAT is a tax on consumption, an indirect tax that the provider of goods or services may pass on to his/her customers. The seller is the one statutorily liable for the payment of the VAT. In other words, the party directly liable for the payment of the tax is the seller, not the purchaser.

Moreover, it must be stressed that VAT is imposed on the "gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged" and is "to be paid by the seller or transferor.

For sure, when one purchases or spends, such person is deemed the buyer of the goods and/ or services, and logically not the seller of the same. Such being the case, no VAT imposition should likewise arise from petitioner's supposed undeclared purchases and expenses for taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013.

YAP Vs. BIR, CTA NO. 10019
March 9, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

VAT
VAT is a tax on transactions, imposed at every stage of the distribution process on the sale, barter, exchange of goods or property, and on the performance of services, even in the absence of profit attributable thereto. It is a tax imposed on each sale of goods or services in the course of trade or business, or importation of goods as they pass along the production and distribution chain. The VAT is a tax on consumption, an indirect tax that the provider of goods or services may pass on to his/her customers. The seller is the one statutorily liable for the payment of the VAT. In other words, the party directly liable for the payment of the tax is the seller, not the purchaser.

Moreover, it must be stressed that VAT is imposed on the "gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged" and is "to be paid by the seller or transferor.

For sure, when one purchases or spends, such person is deemed the buyer of the goods and/ or services, and logically not the seller of the same. Such being the case, no VAT imposition should likewise arise from petitioner's supposed undeclared purchases and expenses for taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013.

YAP Vs. BIR, CTA NO. 10019
March 9, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

Deduction from Income Tax
It must be emphasized that for income tax purposes, a taxpayer is free to deduct from its gross income a lesser amount, or not to claim any deduction at all. What is prohibited by the income tax law is to claim a deduction beyond the amount authorized therein.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., et seq. , G.R. Nos. L-
19727 and L-19903, May 20, 1965.

Thus, even when a taxpayer has not claimed purchases and expenses, or declared a lesser amount thereof, in the Income Tax Return, such action is allowed, and shall not necessarily result in the imposition of income tax on the undeclared or underdeclared purchases.

In the same vein, just as no income tax should be imposed on the supposed undeclared purchases and expenses of petitioner, no VAT should likewise be imposed thereon.

YAP Vs. BIR, CTA NO. 10019
March 9, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

Undeclared Purchases and Expenses Should Not Be Treated As Income
The said undeclared purchases and expenses, even when the same are truly undeclared, should not be automatically treated as income, to which income tax should be imposed.

Income in tax law is an amount of money coming to a person within a specified time, whether as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment. It means cash or its equivalent. It is gain derived and severed from capital, from labor or from both combined. Income is profit or gain or the flow of wealth. The determining factor for the imposition of income tax is whether any gain or profit was
derived from a transaction.

It is apparent that in a purchase or expense transaction, no amount of money comes to a taxpayer; instead, money is spent out by the latter. In other words, the said taxpayer does not derive any gain or profit from the transaction.

YAP Vs. BIR, CTA NO. 10019
March 9, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

Implied Denial
In instance when respondent (BIR) without categorically deciding the taxpayer's protest or request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes an action for collection in the ordinary courts, the Supreme Court has considered this an implied denial.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc. , 241 Phil. 829 ( 1988) [Per J . Cruz,
First Division]

Remedy of the Taxpayer
The taxpayer's remedy then was to appeal to this Court within thirty (30) days from the date that it was notified of the warrant or collection suit.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. South Entertainment Gallery, Inc., G.R. No.
225809, March 17, 2021.

A Collection Letter having the character of finality.  Same character on Warrant of Distraint and Levy.

G.R. No. 231267
Feb. 13, 2023
 
Direct assault – 2nd Form (Elements)/Art. 148 of the RPC.