This  is  an appeal  under section 18, of  paragraph  4, Republic Act No. 1125, by the Collector of Internal Revenue, from that  part  of the judgment rendered  by the Court  of Tax  Appeals holding  Orlando V.  Calsado free from income tax liability for the year 1949.

The appellant  refused to recognize the appellee as head of a family  within the meaning of  section 23 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code  (Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended by Republic Act No. 590)  and assessed his income tax liability for the years  1947 at P9.41, 1949 at P40.19, 1950  at P55 and 1951 at P19.67  (pp.  6,  29, record of  the  case; Exhibit 5).  The appellee admitted his income tax liability for the  years 1947 and 1951  in the respective  amounts  assessed but  denied liability for the years 1949 and 1950 on the ground that,  as an unmarried head of a family with a brother below 21  years  old mainly  dependent upon  him for support,  his  exemptions are over and above his  net income.   He paid under protest the sum of P55. Thereafter  he sought to  recover the sum thus paid  (Exhibits B,  E  & F).  The  appellant denied his request  on the ground  that the appellee did not actually  maintain  a house and exercise family control over his dependents, and  insisted on  collecting from  him the unpaid sums assessed and  penalties thereunder (Exhibit 5).  He appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.  Upon an  agreed statement  of facts,  the  Court  held that

* * * the claim for refund  of the sum of P55.00 as  income tax for 1950  alleged to have been  illegally  and erroneously  collected is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction  of this  Court to entertain the same^.[1] With  respect to the tax assessment of P40.10 for the year  1949, still  uncollected and  protested, the respondent's assessment therefor is hereby reversed  and petitioner is hereby declared free from liability thereto.   Without pronouncement as to costs.

The  Collector  of  Internal  Revenue has  appealed.  The Court of  Tax Appeals  found:

In the income  tax return filed by the  petitioner  for the year 1949  (Exh. "2")» it appears that  petitioner  had a taxable net income of F2,339.50;  and in his income tax  return  for the year 1950,  (Exh. "3"), there appears a taxable net  income of P2.892.00. The petitioner has a brother, Abelardo Calsado, then 19 years of age in 1949 and  a sister,  Angeles Calsado of  legal  age, both of whom lived with petitioner and were fully dependent on the latter for  education and support during the taxable years 1949 and 1950. (Pars. 2 and 3,  Stipulation  of  Facts).   The  tax  assessment of P55.00 for 1950 has been paid under protest on  May 15 and  August 15, 1951, under Official Receipt, Nos. 90788 and 348042 respectively, and refund thereof has been requested  on May 16, 1951, (Exhibit "F", and par. 8,  Stipulation of Facts).  Furthermore, the  assessment  for the year  1949,  in the sum of P40.19 has  also been contested by petitioner (Exhibit "A", par. 9, Stipulation  of  Facts).

The decision of the  respondent  regarding the claim for refund and the protest on the assessment  (Exhibit "5")  from  which appeal has been taken is dated February 15, 1955, but it does not appear in the record nor has evidence been adduced as to when petitioner received a copy of  the said  decision.  However,  we assume  that the petitioner filed his petition for  review within the 80-day period  following the receipt  of  the said decision,

As provided1 for by the Income Tax Law, the personal  exemption then enforced in 1949 for an unmarried person was  P1,000.00  and P2,000.00 (P2,500.00, see Republic Act No. 82) for a married person or head of  a family  and in  the year 1950, the personal  exemption allowed  an unmarried person was  P1,800.00,  and for a married person or head of a family, P3,000.00.

*  *  * that during the taxable years 1949 and l©50,  the petitioner had two  dependents,  one a minor brother  and the other a  sister, both being  fully dependent upon him for  support and education; that petitioner and his dependents rented a home for their residence in Pasay; that both dependents were  jobless;  that  during 1949 and  1950, petitioner's father was earning a meager monthly salary of P110.00 and was  in  turn supporting his  wife and  two  minor children,  all of whom were  likewise wholly dependent  upon petitioner's father for support;  that  on  account of the financial  limitation of petitioner's father, the father seldom, if  at all, sent money to his  son and daughter in Manila living with petitioner;  and that the  petitioner  having the  means  to do  so out  of  his monthly income of P225.0O, he undertook to provide the entire support of his brother and sister first above-mentioned, then under his control.

And it held

* * * that under  the facts as  stated above, the  petitioner is included within  the  term "head  of a family"  as contemplated in section 23,  paragraph  (b) of the Tax Code,  as implemented by Revenue Regulations No. 2.  We believe that the petitioner, under the circumstances was at least legally obliged to give  support to his minor brother, in view of the financial inability of his  parents to so provide support  (Arts. 294, 295 and 299, Civil  Code)  and having  actually  maintained  such  support, placed the  petitioner squarely within the purview of the aforecited provisions  of the Tax Code.  The petitioner is therefore entitled  to claim the benefits of the corresponding personal exemption as "head  of a  family" for the years 1949 and  1950, with the result that considering these exemptions  in relations of the income of petitioner as declared in his income  tax  returns  (Exhs.  "2"  and "3"),  the latter  has no taxable  income upon which  an  income tax  liability may arise.

Section  23  (b)  of the National Internal Revenue Code, as  amended, defines  the  term "head of  a family" as  follows:

* * * For the purpose of this section, the  term  "head of  a family" includes  an unmarried  man or woman with  one or both parents, or  one  or more brothers or sisters, or one or more legitimate, recognized natural, or adopted children  dependent upon  him or  her  for their chief  support  where  such  brothers,  sisters, or children are less than twenty-one years of age * * *.

For  an unmarried individual to  fall within  the term "head of  a family"  under the  aforequoted provision, it is  enough  that he has  either of the  following who is dependent upon him for his chief  support: a father or mother or both, one  or more brothers or sisters, one or more legitimate, recognized  natural or  adopted  children, provided  that  such  brother,  sister  or  child is  less than 21 years  of age.  The Court of Tax Appeals found "that during the taxable years  1949  and 1950,  the petitioner (now  appellee)  had  two dependents, one a  minor brother and the other a sister, both being fully  dependent upon him for  support  and education;  *  *  *."  The  fact  that his father is  still  alive and continues to exercise parental authority  over his minor children is of no moment.   All that the law requires in order that an unmarried individual may be considered as head of a family is that the relatives enumerated be dependent upon him for their chief support.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Condepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia,  concur.

---

^[1] Section 306,  Commonwealth Act No. 466.