Scribd
Upload
72 views1 page

Mail Presumption and Assessment Protests

This document discusses the presumption of receipt of registered mail and requirements for admissibility of official records as evidence. It summarizes: 1) There is a presumption that a letter sent by registered mail was received, but this can be rebutted with a direct denial of receipt, shifting the burden of proof to the sender. 2) For official records to be admissible as evidence, the entry must have been made by a public officer in the performance of their duties with sufficient knowledge of the facts stated. 3) In this case, the entries made did not meet the requirements as the person who made them did not have personal knowledge of preparing and mailing the assessment notice.

Uploaded by

krisnin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views1 page

Mail Presumption and Assessment Protests

This document discusses the presumption of receipt of registered mail and requirements for admissibility of official records as evidence. It summarizes: 1) There is a presumption that a letter sent by registered mail was received, but this can be rebutted with a direct denial of receipt, shifting the burden of proof to the sender. 2) For official records to be admissible as evidence, the entry must have been made by a public officer in the performance of their duties with sufficient knowledge of the facts stated. 3) In this case, the entries made did not meet the requirements as the person who made them did not have personal knowledge of preparing and mailing the assessment notice.

Uploaded by

krisnin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

BARCELON, ROXAS SECURITIES, INC. v.

CIR

AUG. 07, 2006 GR. 157064

When a mail matter is sent by registered mail, there exists a presumption set forth under Sec.
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) 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 contravention, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof
shifts the burden upon the party favoured by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was
indeed received by the addressee.

Entries in official records made in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Where it has been held that an entrant must have personal
knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by persons
under a legal duty to submit the same. There are 3 requisites for admissibility:

a) Entry was made by a public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b) It was made by public officer in the performance of his duties; and
c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of facts by him.

In this case, the entries made by Versola 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.

II. PROTESTING AN ASSESSMENT/ REMEDY BEFORE PAYMENT

A. HOW TO PROTEST OR DISPUTE AN ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATIVELY
SEC. 228 OF NIRC
SEC. 3.1.5, RR 12-99

You might also like