You are on page 1of 9

DDDD

DEMAND LETTERS
AND CASE DIGESTS
PRACTICE COURT

APRIL ROSE S. LERIT


4th yr, Juris Doctor
DEMAND TO VACATE

March 15, 2016

TO: MR. FLORANTE BELEN


Brgy. Marcos
San Pablo

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Belen,

This demand letter pertains to a parcel of land planted with trees in your
possession and identified to be Lot No. 16932 with an area of 3,887-square-meter,
located at Brgy. Marcos, San Pablo City Sur and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-36252 in the name of Elvira Alcantara.

This letter will serve as a notice that your possession and occupation of the
portion of said lot are now considered to be unlawful in view of the Transfer Certificate
of Title issued in the name of Elvira Alcantara, the lawful owner thereof. The matter has
already been referred to for mediation/conciliation with the proper barangay authorities
of San Pablo sometime on November 2014 but the same proved to be futile due to your
non-cooperation to settle the matter amicably.

Considering the foregoing, demand is hereby issued for you to VACATE AND
DELIVER the peaceful possession of said lot Spouses Alcantara within THIRTY (30)
days from receipt hereof. Otherwise, we will submit this matter with the court of
competent jurisdiction for decision to protect the property rights of the landowners.

Should you find the need to clarify this matter, please visit the undersigned at
the address indicated below or you may call Tel. No. (054) 472-82-61 during business
hours.

Sincerely yours,

ATTY. APRIL ROSE S. LERIT


Counsel for spouses Elvira and Edwin Alcantara
No. 458, Mines Street, Miranda Ave.
San Pablo

(CIVIL CASE)
SPOUSES ELVIRA ALCANTARA AND EDWIN ALCANTARA, vs. SPOUSES
FLORANTE BELEN
G.R. No. 200204, Apr 25, 2017
SERENO, J.:
DEMAND LETTER

June 2, 2003

TO: MULTINATIONAL TELECOM INVESTORS CORPORATION


(MULTITEL)
FROM: ROLANDO T. CUSTODIO

Dear Sir/Maam,

My client Mr. Rolando T. Custodio has been a good investor to your Corporation
since 2001. However, in October 2002, your Corporation failed to make give the interest
due to him in the said month. In view thereof, he came to me complaining about your
failure to make good to your promise to return his money.

In order to preserve cordial relations and to avoid unnecessary expenses in


litigation, my client decided to inform you, through this demand letter, that this would
be your last chance to honor your commitment.

In case you wish to comply or otherwise demand an agreement, please reach us


through our telephone number (054) 472-82-61 during business hours or pay a visit to
the address herein indicated. Otherwise, much to our regret, we shall be constrained to
bring this matter to court for the protection of our clients rights and interests.

Sincerely yours,

ATTY. APRIL ROSE S. LERIT


Counsel for Rolando T. Custodio
Unit 2/B, Legal Bldg. Quezon City
(054) 472-82-61

(CRIMINAL CASE)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROSARIO BALADJAY
G.R. No. 220458, July 26, 2017
VELASCO, JR., J.:
DEMAND/CLAIM FOR TAX REFUND

January 12, 2005

TO: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE


FROM: CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC

Dear Sir/Maam,

This letter is in compliance with the requirement of a prior claim for refund or
credit under Section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code of the Philippines. As a
mandatory condition, this letter respectfully pertains to an incurred unutilized
creditable input tax. The said tax amounting to 26,574,388.99 is for taxable year 2003.
This letter will likewise serve as a categorical demand for reimbursement of the
aforesaid amount of creditable tax.

The amended quarterly VAT returns are hereby attached. Should the
Commissioner request any further document/s, you please visit the undersigned at the
address indicated below or you may call Tel. No. (054) 472-82-61 during business hours.

Sincerely yours,

ATTY. APRIL ROSE S. LERIT


Counsel for CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL
POWER COMPANY, INC
24/F 6750 Bldg., 6750 Ayala Ave., Mkti. City
(02) 892 0276

(ADMINISTRATIVE CASE)
CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner vs. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
G.R. No. 197526, July 26, 2017
SPOUSES ELVIRA ALCANTARA AND EDWIN ALCANTARA, Petitioners vs.
SPOUSES FLORANTE BELEN, Respondents
G.R. No. 200204, Apr 25, 2017
SERENO, J.:

DOCTRINE: A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title


to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The real purpose of the
Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land and put stop forever to any question
as to the legality of the title.

FACTS: Spouses Alcantara filed before the RTC a Complaint against Spouses Belen for
the quieting of title, reconveyance of possession, and accounting of harvest with
damages. They argued that Spouses Belen, their neighbors, had extended their
possession up to the land titled to them. To support such claim, they alleged that they
were the registered owner of the subject lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-36252. On the other hand, Spouses Belen countered the claim by presenting
a sales agreement called Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa, executed by the true
owner of the land. Further, they presented various Tax Declarations under the name of
their predecessors-in-interest.

After hearing, the regional trial court gave more weight to the certificate of title and Tax
Declarations presented by petitioners, declaring them the absolute owners of Lot No.
16932. Spouses Belen successfully appealed before the Court of Appeals which ruled
that Spouses Alcantara failed to present their claim over the subject land and reversed
the trial courts decision. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether a certificate of title may be sufficiently defeated by tax declarations


and deeds of sale

RULING: NO. Indubitably, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and


incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land and
put stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title. Based on established
jurisprudence, the Court ruled that the certificate of title of is an absolute and
indefeasible evidence of their ownership of the property.

In the present case, the irrelevant Tax Declarations of Spouses Belen cannot defeat TCT
No. T-36252 of Spouses Alcantara, as it is binding and conclusive upon the whole
world. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Spouses Belen do not involve Lot
No. 16932. As correctly assessed by the RTC, the parcel of land described in the
Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa does not correspond to the description of Lot
No. 16932 as contained in the realty's certificate of title.
CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
G.R. No. 197526, July 26, 2017

DOCTRINE: The 120-day and 30-day reglementary periods under Section 112(C) of the
National Internal Revenue Code are both mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance with
these periods renders a judicial claim for refund of creditable input tax premature.

FACTS: CE Luzon is a domestic corporation engaged in the energy industry. In the


course of its operations, CE Luzon incurred unutilized creditable input tax for taxable
year 2003 which was duly reflected in its amended quarterly VAT returns. CE Luzon
then filed before the Bureau of Internal Revenue an administrative claim for refund of
its unutilized creditable input tax. Without waiting for the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue to act on its claim, or for the expiration of 120 days, CE Luzon instituted before
the Court of Tax Appeals a judicial claim for refund of its first quarter unutilized
creditable input tax. On June 24, 2005, CE Luzon received the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue's decision denying its claim for refund of creditable input tax for the second
quarter of 2003. On June 30, 2005, CE Luzon filed before the Court of Tax Appeals a
judicial claim for refund of unutilized creditable input tax for the second to fourth
quarters of taxable year 2003. In its Answer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
asserted that CE Luzon failed to comply with the invoicing requirements under the law.

In its decision, the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division partially granted CE Luzon's
claim. It ruled that both the administrative and judicial claims of CE Luzon were
brought within the two (2)-year prescriptive period but disallowed the amount of
3,084,874.35 to be refunded. Both of the parties moved for reconsideration but both
were denied. Hence, they filed their respective Petitions for Review before the Court of
Tax Appeals En Banc. Attaining an unfavorable decision therefrom, the CE Luzon filed
before the Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of Court of
Tax Appeals En Banc.

ISSUE: Whether CE Luzon Geothermal Power, Inc.'s judicial claims for refund of input
Value Added Tax for taxable year 2003 were filed within the prescriptive period

RULING: Only the second quarter claim was filed on time. Since the creditable input
tax claimed by CE Luzon is not an excessively, erroneously, or illegally collected tax,
Section 112(A) and (C) of the National Internal Revenue Code govern. This provision
provides two (2) possible scenarios. The first is when the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue denies the administrative claim for refund within 120 days. The second is
when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue fails to act within 120 days. Taxpayers
must await either for the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or for the
lapse of 120 days before filing their judicial claims with the Court of Tax Appeals.
Failure to observe the 120-day period renders the judicial claim premature.

In the present case, only CE Luzon's second quarter claim was filed on time. Its claims
for refund of creditable input tax for the first, third, and fourth quarters of taxable year
2003 were filed prematurely. It did not wait for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
to render a decision or for the 120-day period to lapse before elevating its judicial claim
with the Court of Tax Appeals. However, despite its non-compliance with Section
112(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code, CE Luzon's judicial claims are shielded
from the vice of prematurity. Wherefore, the Court ruled that the case should be
remanded to the Court of Tax Appeals for the proper computation of creditable input
tax to which CE Luzon is entitled.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROSARIO BALADJAY,
Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 220458, July 26, 2017
VELASCO, JR., J.:

DOCTRINE: Estafa by means of deceit shall have the following elements: (a) that there must be
a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to the offender's power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage

FACTS: In August 6, 2003, an Information against accused-appellant Baladjay and her


co-accused was filed with the crime of Syndicated Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code in relation to [PD] 1689. The prosecution presented, among
others, Rolando T. Custodio who summarized the following: that sometime in 2001, his
neighbor told him about Multitel, a company which allegedly pays its investors an
interest income of at least five percent (5%) per month. Enticed with the prospective
returns, Rolando invested the amount of Phpl00, 000. 00 in Multitel and received
monthly interest payments, as promised. Thereafter, Rolando met Gladina Baligad
(Gladina), a counselor of Multitel, who explained to him that the company was engaged
in the telecommunications business. Convinced of Gladina's representations regarding
Multitel's legitimacy and her assurances as to its profitability, Rolando increased his
investment in the company to Php2, 000,000.00.

However in 2002, Rolando learned that the accused Baladjay was under investigation.
This prompted him to make his own investigation and later found out that Multitel was
not issued a secondary license by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
deal in securities and solicit investments from the general public. Rolando exerted all
effort to recover his investments after his discovery, but to no avail.

After due hearing, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in Criminal Case No.
03-3261 finding Baladjay guilty of Syndicated Estafa. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the guilty verdict meted by the R TC, but with modification with respect to the
amount of moral damages awarded. Aggrieved, accused-appellant Baladjay elevated
the case before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether all the elements of Syndicated Estafa are present in the instant case

RULING: YES. The accused-appellants were charged with Syndicated Estafa, in


relation to Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Jurisprudence elucidates that
the elements of Estafa by means of deceit under this provision are as follows: (a) that
there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to the offender's power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied
on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with
his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.

Clearly, all the elements of Syndicated Estafa obtain in this case, considering that: (a)
more than five (5) persons are involved in Multitel's grand fraudulent scheme,
including Baladjay and her co-accused - who employed deceit, false pretenses and
representations to the private complainants regarding a supposed lucrative investment
opportunity with Multitel in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false
pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission
of fraud; (c) relying on the false promises and misrepresentations thus employed,
private complainants invested their hard-earned money in Multitel; and (d) Baladjay
and her co-accused defrauded the private complainants, obviously to the latter's
prejudice.

You might also like