LAPULAPU FOUNDATION VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 126006. January 29, 2004]

SYNOPSIS:
The disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
mail still holds in this case. The denial of petitioner Tan as to the signature in the receipt of the
demand letter is self-serving since he cannot provide any evidence to support its claim. Further such
denial cannot prevail over the registry return cards which constitute documentary evidence and which
enjoy the presumption that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the letter duly
directed and mailed was received in the regular course of business.
FACTS:
This case stemmed when petitioner Elias Q. Tan, then President Lapulapu
Foundation,Inc., obtained four loans from Allied Banking Corporation covered by
four promissory notes in the amounts of P100, 000 each. When the entire obligation
became due, it was not paid despite demands by the bank. The Bank filed with the
RTC a complaint seeking payment by Lapulapu Foundation and Elias Tan, jointly and
solidarily, of the sum representing their loan obligation, exclusive of interests, penalty
charges, attorney’s fees and costs
In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner Foundation denied incurring
indebtedness from the respondent Bank alleging that the loans were obtained by
petitioner Tan in his personal capacity, for his own use and benefit and it never
authorized petitioner Tan to co-sign in his capacity as its President any promissory
note thus it never benefited, directly or indirectly, therefrom. The petitioner
Foundation then interposed a cross-claim against petitioner Tan alleging that he,
having exceeded his authority, should be solely liable for said loans, and a
counterclaim against the respondent Bank for damages and attorney’s fees.
For his part, petitioner Tan admitted that he contracted the loans from the
respondent Bank in his personal capacity. The parties, however, agreed that the loans
were to be paid from the proceeds of petitioner Tans shares of common stocks in the
Lapulapu Industries Corporation, a real estate firm. The loans were covered by
promissory notes which were automatically renewable every year at an amount
including unpaid interests, until such time as petitioner Tan was able to pay the same
from the proceeds of his aforesaid shares.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor the Allied Banking Corporation and
Requiring the Elias Q. Tan and Lapulapu Foundation, Inc., to pay jointly and
solidarily litigation expenses of P1, 000.00 plus costs of the suit.
On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the court a quo by
deleting the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the respondent Bank for being
without basis.
Further, the CA found that there are two (2) demand letters on different dates was
made by the respondent Bank, asking settlement of the obligation were sent and was
received by the petitioners as shown by the registry return cards presented during trial
in the court a quo.
However it was denied by the petitioner and did not recognize the signatures thereon.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence presented by the petitioner is enough to overcome the
disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of mail (par. V, Section 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)
Held: NO, the presumption still holds.
There is no dispute that the promissory notes had already matured. However, the
petitioners insist that the loans had not become due and demandable as they deny
receipt of the respondent Banks demand letters. When presented the registry return
cards during the trial, petitioner Tan claimed that he did not recognize the signatures
thereon. The petitioner’s allegation and denial are self-serving. They cannot prevail
over the registry return cards which constitute documentary evidence and which enjoy
the presumption that, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, these
were regularly issued by the postal officials in the performance of their official duty
and that they acted in good faith. Further, as the CA correctly opined, mails are
presumed to have been properly delivered and received by the addressee in the regular
course of the mail. As the CA noted, there is no showing that the addresses on the
registry return cards were wrong. It is the petitioner’s burden to overcome the
presumptions by sufficient evidence, and other than their barefaced denial, the
petitioners failed to support their claim that they did not receive the demand letters;
therefore, no prior demand was made on them by the respondent Bank.
 BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES INC.
VS
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G. R. No. 157064
SYNOPSIS:

When a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary

course of mail, this is still merely a disputable presumption subject
to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the burden upon the party favored
by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee.
In this case petitioner denies receiving the assessment notice, and the respondent was unable to present
substantial evidence that such notice was, indeed, mailed or sent by the respondent before
the BIRs right to assess had prescribed and that said notice was received by the petitioner. The
respondent presented the BIR record book where the name of the taxpayer, the kind of tax assessed,
the registry receipt number and the date of mailing were noted. The BIR records custodian,
Ingrid Versola, also testified that she made the entries therein were not based on her personal
knowledge as she did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the assessment
notice. The petitioner presented evidence which is sufficient to debunk the said presumption.

FACTS:
Petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) is a
corporation engaged in the trading of securities. On 14 April 1988, petitioner filed its
Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1987. After an audit investigation
conducted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment for deficiency income tax in the amount
of P826,698.31.
This assessment was covered by Formal Assessment Notice No. FAN-1-87-91-
000649 dated 1 February 1991, which, respondent alleges, was sent to petitioner
through registered mail on 6 February 1991. However, petitioner denies receiving the
formal assessment notice.

On 17 March 1992, petitioner was served with a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy to
enforce collection of the deficiency income tax for the year 1987. Petitioner filed a
formal protest, dated 25 March 1992, against the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy,
requesting for its cancellation. On 3 July 1998, petitioner received a letter dated 30
April 1998 from the respondent denying the protest with finality.
On 31 July 1998, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA. After due notice
and hearing, the CTA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on 17 May 2000. The
CTA ruled on the primary issue of prescription and found it unnecessary to decide the
issues on the validity and propriety of the assessment. It maintained that while a mailed
letter is deemed received by the addressee in the course of mail, this is merely a disputable
presumption. It reasoned that the direct denial of the petitioner shifts the burden of
proof to the respondent that the mailed letter was actually received by the
petitioner. The CTA found the BIR records submitted by the respondent immaterial,
self-serving, and therefore insufficient to prove that the assessment notice was mailed
and duly received by the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence presented by the petitioner is enough to overcome the
disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of mail (par. V, Section 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)

HELD:
YES, the Court ruled that when a mail matter is sent by registered mail, there exists a
presumption, set forth under Section 3(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that it was
received in the regular course of mail. The facts to be proved in order to raise this
presumption are: (a) that the letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid; and
(b) that it was mailed. While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the
ordinary course of mail, this is still merely a disputable presumption subject
to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the burden upon the
party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received
by the addressee.
In the present case, petitioner denies receiving the assessment notice, and the
respondent was unable to present substantial evidence that such notice was, indeed,
mailed or sent by the respondent before the BIRs right to assess had prescribed and
that said notice was received by the petitioner. The respondent presented the BIR
record book where the name of the taxpayer, the kind of tax assessed, the registry
receipt number and the date of mailing were noted. The BIR records custodian,
Ingrid Versola, also testified that she made the entries therein were not based on her
personal knowledge as she did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and
mailed the assessment notice. Nor was it stated in the transcript of stenographic
notes how and from whom she obtained the pertinent information. Moreover, she did
not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports from persons under a legal duty to
submit the same. Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 finds no application in the present
case. Thus, the evidence offered by respondent does not qualify as an exception to the
rule against hearsay evidence.
 PROTECTOR'S SERVICES, INC
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE
(Land Mark CASE)
[G.R. No. 118176. April 12, 2000]

SYNOPSIS:

The disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
mail still holds in this case. The petitioner claims that it only receives 2 assessments out 3
assessments for tax deficiency issued by the BIR. The Supreme Court held that the
1985 assessment which petitioner denied as having been received was negated when
the respondent introduced documentary evidence showing that it was mailed by
registered mail. It was further buttressed by the testimony of witness Mr. Arnold C.
Larroza, Chief Administrative Branch Mailing Section, Rev. Region No. 4B-1,
Quezon City that the 1983, 1984 and 1985 assessments were placed in one envelope
when it was mailed by registered mail. Presumably, it was received in the regular
course of the mail. ... The facts to be proved to raise this presumption are (a) that the
letter was properly addressed with postage prepaid; and (b) that it was mailed. Once
these facts are proved, the presumption is that the letter was received by the addressee
as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary course of the mails.
Such being the case, this Court cannot be made to believe that the 1985 assessment
which incidentally has a substantially greater amount involved was not received by the
petitioner

Facts:
Petitioner was assessed for deficiency percentage taxes including surcharges, penalties
and interests thereon for the year 1983, 1984 and 1985. Respondent Commissioner
sent by registered mail, demand letters for payment of the aforesaid assessments.
However, petitioner alleged that on December 10, 1987, it only received Demand
Letter for the years 1983 and 1984, respectively. It denied receiving any notice of
deficiency percentage tax for the year 1985.

Petitioner sent a protest letter dated January 02, 1988, to the BIR regarding the 1983
and 1984 assessments. Without formally acting on the petitioner's protest, the BIR
sent a follow-up letter dated July 12, 1988, ordering the settlement of taxes based on
its computation. The total unsettled tax amounted to two million, eight hundred fifty-
one thousand, eight hundred five pesos and sixteen centavos (P2,851,805.16).

July 22, 1988, petitioner filed its second protest on the 1983 and 1984 percentage
taxes, and included, for the first time, its protest against the 1985 assessment
contending that the 1985 assessment is already prescribed since the said demand was
never received by the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the evidence presented by the petitioner is enough to overcome the
disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of mail (par. V, Section 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)

HELD: NO, the assessment letter may be presumed to have been received by
petitioner.

The Supreme Court held that the 1985 assessment which petitioner denied as having
been received was negated when the respondent introduced documentary evidence
showing that it was mailed by registered mail. It was further buttressed by the
testimony of witness Mr. Arnold C. Larroza, Chief Administrative Branch Mailing
Section, Rev. Region No. 4B-1, Quezon City that the 1983, 1984 and 1985
assessments were placed in one envelope when it was mailed by registered mail.
Presumably, it was received in the regular course of the mail. ... The facts to be proved
to raise this presumption are (a) that the letter was properly addressed with postage
prepaid; and (b) that it was mailed. Once these facts are proved, the presumption is
that the letter was received by the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted
to him in the ordinary course of the mails. Such being the case, this Court cannot be
made to believe that the 1985 assessment which incidentally has a substantially greater
amount involved was not received by the petitioner. Hence, the same assessment is
also considered final and unappealable for failure of the petitioner to protest the same
within the reglementary period provided by law.