014 Polido vs. CA

Polido vs CA
G.R. No. 170632 / July 10, 2007 / Carpio-Morales, J./Tax2-Estate Tax/JMB
NATURE
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS
Certiorari and Prohibition

Eugenia D. Polido
Hon. Court of Appeals and Mariano P. Gasat
SUMMARY. Wife wants to withdraw from hers and her late husbands joint
account but was contested by Gasat who claims to be their adopted child,
on the ground of NIRC 97 prohibiting such withdrawal without complying
with certain requirements as provided for by law. Gasat later on withdrew
is claim of being an adopted child but nevertheless claimed that Eugenia
still cannot withdraw from the joint account as she had not complied with
the requirements and that he is an heir of said property. The SC sided with
Gasat and
DOCTRINE. If a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who
maintained a bank deposit account alone, or jointly with another, it shall
not allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account unless the
Commissioner had certified that the taxes imposed thereon by this Title
have been paid; Provided, however, That the administrator of the estate or
any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon authorization by the
Commissioner, withdraw an amount not exceeding P20,000 without the
said certification. (NIRC 97)
FACTS.
After the death of her husband Jacinto Polido, Eugenia Polido tried to
withdraw the joint savings deposit they maintained at the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) but failed because Mariano Gasat, who claimed to be
the couples adopted child, objected.
Eugenia prayed for the ff. reliefs:
1. A writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining Gasat and all
persons acting under him from preventing the officers or employees of PNB
from releasing in favor of the plaintiff the money deposited with the said
bank upon posting of a bond by the plaintiff in an amount to be fixed by
the Court.
2. To declare Gasat not a adopted child of Jacinto.
3. Payment of attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
Mariano Gasats counterclaim:
1. Claims to be the adopted child of Jacinto and annexed a photocopy of an
order of the MTC declaring said adoption and a copy of a certification from
the MTC clerk of court that said decree has been furnished to the local civil
registrar and said decree had become final and executory; and that
petitioner cannot withdraw any amount from the bank account because
she should follow legal procedures governing settlement of the estate of a
deceased, unless a competent court issues an order allowing her to
withdraw from said account.
2. That the properties subject of inheritance are exclusive properties of
Jacinto, the same having been inherited by his late father Narciso.
3. That the Estate of Narciso was inherited by his 2 children, namely,

JACINTO POLIDO and PETRA R GASAT, also deceased and the latter was
survived by her husband and 7 children of which the MARIANO is one.
Gasat subsequently withdrew his allegation of being an adopted
child. He prays for partition and for Eugenia to file her Estate Tax Returns.
Trial Court: denied Gasats prayers and granted Eugenias motion for
judgment on the pleadings due to Gasat having admitted the main
allegation of Eugenia that he is not an adopted child of Jacinto.
CA: dismissed Gasats appeal for having failed to pay the docket fees.
Gasat claims that he was jobless and had to borrow money at an exorbitant
interest rate in order to raise the docket fee.
CA on MR: admitted Gasats docket fee. While the payment of the
prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, its nonpayment at the
time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as
long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period moreso, when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to
abide by the rules prescribing such payment.
Hence, present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the CA committed GAD in relaxing the rule on payment of
docket fees on the ground of substantial justice. NO.
First, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only
discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be
used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great
deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.
2. WON the trial court erred in granting Eugenias motion for
judgment on the pleading. YES.
Gasats Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim raised other issues which
are independent of his claim of adoptive filiation and which would defeat
petitioners main cause of actionfor the court to enjoin Gasat and all
persons acting under him from preventing the officers or employees of
the [PNB] from releasing the deposit to her.
3. (MAIN) WON Eugenia may withdraw from the joint savings
account of her and her late husband? NO.
Eugenia cannot withdraw any amount thereof, because it is a part of the
ESTATE of Jacinto, and as provided for by law, before the bank allows any
withdrawal, the plaintiff has to follow certain procedures required by
other laws governing estate settlement, that is,(a) Payment of Estate
Tax, if any; (b) BIR Tax Clearance; (c) Present a duly published
Extrajudicial Partition executed by the heirs adjudicating said amount to
such heir, unless a competent Court issues an Order allowing the plaintiff
to withdraw [from] said account.
It bears noting that petitioner and her deceased husband Polido were
childless; hence, Gasat, who is a son of Polidos sister Petra P. Gasat,
could inherit from Polido.
Section 97 of the NIRC states:
x x x xIf a bank has knowledge of the death of a person, who
maintained a bank deposit account alone, or jointly with another, it shall
not allow any withdrawal from the said deposit account unless the
Commissioner had certified that the taxes imposed thereon by this Title
have been paid; Provided, however, That the administrator of the estate
or any one (1) of the heirs of the decedent may, upon authorization by
the Commissioner, withdraw an amount not exceeding P20,000 without
the said certification. For this purpose, all withdrawal slips shall contain a
statement to the effect that all of the joint depositors are still living at the
time of withdrawal by any one of the joint depositors and such statement
shall be under oath by the said depositors.
DECISION.
Petition denied. Case remanded to the trial court.
NOTES.
Though this case was raised only on the ground of certiorari and
prohibition with regard to the docket fee issue, instead of remanding the
case to the appellate court, the SC, in the interest of speedy dispensation
of justice, especially given that the main issue is a question of law,
passed on the merits of the appeal of Gasat and not just the issue on
WON the CA committed GAD in relaxing the rule on payment of docket
fees.

014 Polido vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

014 Polido vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

014 Polido vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polido vs CA

G.R. No. 170632 / July 10, 2007 / Carpio-Morales, J./Tax2-Estate Tax/JMB

Certiorari and Prohibition

3. That the Estate of Narciso was inherited by his 2 children, namely,

You might also like