MARCOS II V CA

Facts: On September 29, 1989, former President Ferdinand Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

On June 27, 1990, a Special Tax Audit Team was created to conduct investigations and examinations of the tax liabilities and obligations of the late President, as well as that of his family, associates and “cronies”. Said audit team conducted its investigation with a Memorandum dated July 26, 1991. The investigation disclosed that the Marcoses failed to file a written notice of the death of the decedent, an estate tax returns, as well as several income tax returns covering the years 1982 to 1986, all in violation of the NIRC.

Subsequently criminal charges were field against Mrs. Imelda Marcos for violations of Sections 82, 83 and 84 of the NIRC.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue thereby caused the preparation and filing of the Estate Tax Return for the estate of the late president, for the years 1985 and 1986, and the income tax returns of petitioner Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos II for the years 1982 to 1985. The CIR avers that copies of the deficiency estate and income tax assessments were all personally and constructively served upon Imelda Marcos and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos II (through their caretakers) at their last known address.

The deficiency tax assessments were not protested administratively by Mrs. Marcos and the other heirs of the late President within 30 days from service of said assessments.

On February 22, 1993, the BIR Commissioner issued 22 notices of levy on real property against certain parcels of land owned by the Marcoses – to satisfy the alleged estate tax and deficiency income taxes on spouses Marcos.

On June 25, 1993, petitioner Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos II field the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.


Issue: Whether or not in case of failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal.


Held: The omission to file an estate tax return and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioners cause, as under Sec. 223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at any time within 10 years after the omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real property within 3 years following the assessment of the tax. Since the estate tax assessment had become final and unappealable by the petitioner’s default as regards protesting the validity of said assessment, there is now no reason why the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said tax. Any objection against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue paved in Section 229 of the NIRC on protests on assessments of internal revenue taxes (now Sec. 228, 1997 NIRC)