G.R. No. L-21707 - Acar vs. Rosal

Plaintiff Yu Goat Alias Tasio Young filed an action for replevin asserting ownership over cartons of cigarettes.

He claimed to own 40 cartons of “Camel” and 66 cartons of “Chesterfield” cigarettes, purportedly purchased in Butuan, Agusan, valued at P746.40.
Although the complaint identifies a specific number of cartons based on brands, the relief prayed also refers to the return of all 196 cartons, suggesting a possible discrepancy in the count or inclusion of additional packages.

Defendant Restituto Hugo, in his capacity as acting Collector of Customs at the port of Tacloban, Leyte, seized said cartons.

On 23 October 1950, the defendant seized the cartons and retained them without any legal justification as alleged by the plaintiff.
On 26 October 1950, after ordering their forfeiture, the defendant set a public auction of the cartons at 9:00 a.m. on 22 November at the Customs House in Tacloban, Leyte.
The seizure was purportedly based on the claim that the cigarettes, being of foreign origin, were subject to control under the Import Control Law because:

The plaintiff failed to show that the cartons were legally imported into the Philippines.
There were no internal revenue stamps affixed to the packages, a requirement for releasing imported merchandise from customs custody.

Plaintiff sought a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the impending public auction and to secure his property.
He also prayed that the defendant be instructed to return the cigarette cartons and to pay the costs, asserting that there was no other speedy and adequate remedy available.
A preliminary injunction was indeed issued subject to the filing of a bond of P200.

On 5 December 1950, the defendant filed an answer, asserting his authority as acting Collector of Customs and justifying the seizure under sections of the Revised Administrative Code.
The answer was later withdrawn by the provincial fiscal and replaced by a motion to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds:

The provincial fiscal argued that the Court of First Instance of Leyte was not the proper venue.
He contended that the seizure and forfeiture had been duly approved by the Commissioner of Customs on 2 November 1950.
The applicable provisions (sections 1363 e, f, g and m(1), 1378, 1383, and 1385 of the Revised Administrative Code) indicated that the case should have been removed or filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The Court ruled that the motion to dismiss, being filed after the filing of the defendant's answer, was untimely but set the case for hearing.
An “amended answer” was later submitted by the provincial fiscal, reiterating the jurisdictional challenge.
The case was set for hearing, and on 20 January 1951, the motion to dismiss was denied in open court.
The provincial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration on 1 February 1951, which was also denied after the defendant failed to present further evidence to justify the seizure.

Whether the Court of First Instance of Leyte had proper jurisdiction over the replevin action.
Whether the plaintiff should instead have filed or removed the action to the Court of First Instance of Manila in compliance with section 1383 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss (and subsequently the motion for reconsideration) constitutes a final and appealable judgment.
Whether an interlocutory order such as this can be the basis for an appeal under the applicable rules.

Whether the seizure of the cigarette cartons was proper given the requirements of the Import Control Law, particularly the affixing of internal revenue stamps.
Whether the approval of the forfeiture by the Commissioner of Customs on 2 November 1950 effectively rendered the seizure and forfeiture legal.