PFR_Cases81419.docx - FRIVALDO VS COMELEC(1996 GR No 120295 257 SCRA 727 FACTS Juan G Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won Raul R Lee

PFR_Cases81419.docx - FRIVALDO VS COMELEC(1996 GR No 120295...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 54 pages.

FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC (1996)July 08, 2013GR No. 120295, June 28 1996, 257 SCRA 727FACTS:Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee questioned his citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen.However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled based on his previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship, and had proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of Sorsogon.ISSUE:Whether or not Frivaldo’s repatriation was valid.HELD:The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application to run for governor. The steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are:(1) filing the application;(2) action by the committee; and(3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved.It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact to the date of the filing ofthe application, then it should not have explicitly provided otherwise. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon.G.R. No. L-68385 May 12, 1989ILDEFONSO O. ELEGADO, as Ancillary Administrator of the Testate Estate of the late WARREN TAYLOR GRAHAM,petitionervs.HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUErespondents.Agrava, Lucero & Gineta for petitioners.The Office of the Solictor General for public respondents.
Background image
CRUZ, J.:What the petitioner presents as a rather complicated problem is in reality a very simple question fromthe viewpoint of the Solicitor General. We agree with the latter. There is actually only one issue to be resolved in this action. That issue is whether or not the respondent Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on grounds of jurisdiction and lack of a cause of action.Appeal from what? That indeed is the question.But first the facts.On March 14, 1976, Warren Taylor Graham, an American national formerly resident in the Philippines, died in Oregon, U.S.A.1As he left certain shares of stock in the Philippines, his son, Ward Graham, filed an estate tax return on September 16, 1976, with the Philippine Revenue Representative in San Francisco, U.S.A.2On the basis of this return, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the decedent's estate an estate tax in the amount of P96,509.35 on February 9, 1978.3This assessment was protested on March 7, 1978, by the law firm of Bump, Young and Walker on behalf of the estate .
Background image
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture