8/10/2019 1.10-1.16 (1)

1/5

BPI vs. Posadas 1.10

FACTS:

BPI, as administrator of the estate of deceased Adolphe Schuetze, appealed to CFI Manila

absolin! defendant, Collector of Internal "eenue, from the complaint filed a!ainst him in

recoerin! the inheritance ta# amountin! to P1$0% paid b& the plaintiff, "osario 'elano (da deSchuetze, under protest, and sum of P$0,1)0 representin! the proceeds of the insurance polic& of

the deceased.

ISSUE: *+ the plaintiff is entitled to the proceeds of the insurance.

HELD:

SC ruled that-1the proceeds of a life/insurance polic& pa&able to the insureds estate, on hich

the premiums ere paid b& the con2u!al partnership, constitute communit& propert&, and belon!

one/half to the husband and the other half to the ife, e#clusiel&3 -$if the premiums ere paid

partl& ith paraphernal and partl& con2u!al funds, the proceeds are li4eise in li4e proportionparaphernal in part and con2u!al in part3 and -5the proceeds of a life/insurance polic& pa&able to

the insureds estate as the beneficiar&, if deliered to the testamentar& administrator of the former

as part of the assets of said estate under probate administration, are sub2ect to the inheritance ta#

accordin! to the la on the matter, if the& belon! to the assured e#clusiel&, and it is immaterial

that the insured as domiciled in these Islands or outside.

6ence, the defendant as ordered to return to the plaintiff one/half of the ta# collected upon the

amount of P$0,1)0, bein! the proceeds of the insurance polic& on the life of the late Adolphe

+scar Schuetze, after deductin! the proportional part correspondin! to the first premium.

8/10/2019 1.10-1.16 (1)

2/5

Marcos II s CA 1.11

FAC7S8 Bon!bon! Marcos sou!ht for the reersal of the rulin! of the Court of Appeals to !rant

CI"s petition to le& the properties of the late Pres. Marcos to coer the pa&ment of his ta#delin9uencies durin! the period of his e#ile in the :S. 7he Marcos famil& as assessed b& the

BI" after it failed to file estate ta# returns. 6oeer the assessment ere not protestedadministratiel& b& Mrs. Marcos and the heirs of the late president so that the& became final and

unappealable after the period for filin! of opposition has prescribed. Marcos contends that the

properties could not be leied to coer the ta# dues because the& are still pendin! probate ith the

court, and settlement of ta# deficiencies could not be had, unless there is an order b& the probate

court or until the probate proceedin!s are terminated.

Petitioner also pointed out that appl&in! Memorandum Circular o. 5;/

8/10/2019 1.10-1.16 (1)

3/5

(era s aarro 1.15

FAC7S

ud!e 7an as appointed as the e#ecutor of the estate of >lsie 'aches. 6e Preliminaril&submitted a motion for adance pa&ment of alloances inheritance >tc pendin! the finalit& of

probate of the ill. 6e maintained that there are sufficient assets to coer hateer liabilit& to the!oernment for ta#es and other char!e. 7he Commissioner opposed this motion and shoed some

proof of claims For estate ta#es and inheritance ta#es. 7he court then disapproed the motion of

7an. +n a later date, 7an paid the ta#es due but there as deficienc& in pa&ment of the inheritance

ta#es. :pon pa&ment, he moed a!ain that he be alloed to pa& adance inheritance, alloances,

etc. 7his time, the court alloed him to do so. 7he Commissioner tried to oppose this but to no

aail. 6e then tried to !arnish the ban4 accounts of the estate but asnDt able to do so due to the

9uic4 thin4in! of tan to hae the rit of !arnishment dischar!e.

Issue8 can the estate be distributed?

"ulin!8 :nder the proisions of the "ules of Court, to!ether ith the proision in the ta# code,

the distribution of a decedentDs assets ma& onl& be ordered under the folloin! circumstances -1hen the inheritance ta#, amon! others is paid -$ hen a sufficient bond is !ien to meet the

pa&ment of the inheritance ta# and all other obli!ation of the nature enumerated -5 hen the

pa&ment of the said ta# and all the other obli!ations mentioned in the rule has been proide for.

on f these ere present hen the 9uestioned orders ere issued at the case at bar. +n the issueof attorne&Ds fees, these should be shouldered b& the heirs and not b& the estate. 7he attorne&Ds

fees pa&able ere not for the benefit of the estate and thus, need not be paid b& the estate.

8/10/2019 1.10-1.16 (1)

4/5

Sison s 7eodoro 1.1)

Facts8

1. 7he CFI of Manila hich had 2urisdiction oer the estate of Mar!arita @aid, issued an order

appointin! appellantCarlos Moran Sison as 2udicial administrator ithout compensation after

filin! a bond. After enterin! into his duties as administrator, he filed an accountin! of his

administration hich included items as an e#pense of administration the premiums he paid on his

bond.

$. +ne of the heirs, herein appellee arcisa 7eodoro, ob2ected to the approal of the items. 7he

court approed the report but disalloed the items ob2ected to on the !round that these cannot be

considered as e#penses of administration. Moran Sison filed a motion for reconsideration but as

denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not an executor or judca! ad"nstrator can va!d!# char$e the

%re"u"s on hs &ond as an ex%ense o' ad"nstraton a$anst the estate

().

7he premiums paid b& an e#ecutor or administrator serin! ithout a compensation for his bond

cannot be char!ed a!ainst the estate. Further Sec. of "ule ;< of the "ules of Court does not

authorize the e#ecutor or administrator to char!e to the estate the mone& spent for the bond. As

held in the case of Sulit . Santos -)< Phil

8/10/2019 1.10-1.16 (1)

5/5

(era s Fernandez 1.1