Pabio Law Office

21/05/2026

𝗕𝗜𝗥 𝗟𝗔𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦 “𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗟𝗢𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦” 𝗚𝗨𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗥𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗟𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡; 𝗧𝗔𝗫 𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗔𝗦 𝗙𝗔𝗦𝗧 𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗗𝗔𝗬𝗦

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 47-2026 on May 19, 2026, prescribing new guidelines to simplify the process for closing businesses and cancelling tax registration, as part of the implementation of Republic Act No. 11976, otherwise known as the “Ease of Paying Taxes Act.”

“This is our ‘Ease of Closing Business’ reform,” Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza said. “In line with President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s directive to make government services faster, better, and more responsive, and Finance Secretary Frederick D. Go’s push to make tax administration more investor-friendly and business-friendly, the BIR is making it easier for taxpayers who have already ceased operations to properly close their business and cancel their registration.”

“From improving the ease of doing business and the ease of paying taxes, this reform completes the BIR’s support for businesses through every stage of the business life cycle. If we make it easier to start and operate a business, then the government must also make it easier to properly close BIR registration once operations have already ceased,” he added.

Under RMC No. 47-2026, taxpayers who have already ceased operations may now apply for the closure or cancellation of their registration, either manually or electronically, through the Revenue District Office where their head office or branch is registered.

The Circular simplifies and standardizes documentary requirements. Together with the application form and the surrender of original BIR registration documents and permits previously issued to the business, taxpayers will only be required to submit two other document sets for closure: the list of ending inventory of goods and supplies, including capital goods for VAT-registered taxpayers, and the unused invoices, supplementary documents, and other unutilized accounting forms, together with their inventory.

Under the new guidelines, penalties for non-filing of tax returns shall no longer accrue once the taxpayer submits the complete documentary requirements for the closure or cancellation of registration. To prevent the further accumulation of open cases, the taxpayer’s registered form types shall likewise be placed under “deregistered” status upon submission of the complete requirements. Filing an application for the closure or cancellation of registration, however, does not preclude the Bureau from conducting an audit to determine any outstanding tax liabilities.

In addition, micro taxpayers shall not be subject to mandatory audit for closure and/or cancellation of business registration. Hence, tax clearances will be issued within three (3) working days from submission of complete documentary requirements for those with no open cases or outstanding liabilities. For micro taxpayers with open cases, tax clearance will be issued within three (3) working days from the submission of the complete documentary requirements and the payment of outstanding liabilities, including penalties.

Commissioner Mendoza encouraged taxpayers who have already ceased operations to avail themselves of the streamlined process to avoid the continued accumulation of penalties and to properly update their registration records with the Bureau.

Read the full RMC here:https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RMC%20No.%2047-2026.pdf

22/04/2026

‼️NEW OFFICE ADDRESS‼️
PABIO LAW OFFICE is now located at Barangay Libongao, Kananga, Leyte.

(Near across New Municipal Hall)

We are open during weekdays, and on holidays and saturdays by appointment. ⚖️

14/08/2025

24/07/2025

✅ Extension of BIR deadlines!

21/07/2025

BIR UPDATED CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS ✍️

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

23/06/2025

⚖️

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.