Casanovas v Hord
GR No. 3473, March 22, 1907
FACTS:
In January 1897, the Spanish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the royal decree of May 14, 1867,
granted J. Casanovas certain mines in the Province of Ambos Camarines. They were so considered by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were by him said to fall within the provisions of Section 134 of Act 1189 which imposes an annual tax and an ad valorem tax on all valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to April 11th, 1899. The Commissioner, JNO S. Hord, imposed upon these properties the tax mentioned in Section 134, which Casanovas paid under protest.
ISSUE:
Is Section 134 valid?
RULING:
No, the concessions granted by the Government of Spain to the plaintiff, constitute contracts between the parties; that
section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law impairs the obligation of these contracts, and is therefore void as to them.
The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and Casanovas. Furthermore, the section conflicts with Section 60 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which indicate that concessions can be cancelled only by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisites for their retention in the laws under which they were granted. The grounds were not shown nor claimed in the case.
GR No. 3473, March 22, 1907
FACTS:
In January 1897, the Spanish Government, in accordance with the provisions of the royal decree of May 14, 1867,
granted J. Casanovas certain mines in the Province of Ambos Camarines. They were so considered by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were by him said to fall within the provisions of Section 134 of Act 1189 which imposes an annual tax and an ad valorem tax on all valid perfected mining concessions granted prior to April 11th, 1899. The Commissioner, JNO S. Hord, imposed upon these properties the tax mentioned in Section 134, which Casanovas paid under protest.
ISSUE:
Is Section 134 valid?
RULING:
No, the concessions granted by the Government of Spain to the plaintiff, constitute contracts between the parties; that
section 134 of the Internal Revenue Law impairs the obligation of these contracts, and is therefore void as to them.
The deed constituted a contract between the Spanish Government and Casanovas. Furthermore, the section conflicts with Section 60 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which indicate that concessions can be cancelled only by reason of illegality in the procedure by which they were obtained, or for failure to comply with the conditions prescribed as requisites for their retention in the laws under which they were granted. The grounds were not shown nor claimed in the case.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment