Facts:

This case involves petitioners Erlinda Talan and Yap O. Teck, alias Antonio Yap, who are common-law spouses. On February 16, 1955, Erlinda was granted a permit by the Office of the Mayor of Basilan City to operate a sari-sari store business, starting with capital of P500, primarily selling cigarettes in Balobo, Lamitan, Basilan City. Yap O. Teck, a permanent immigrant from China, first arrived in the Philippines in 1947. He resided in Davao City, later moved to Zamboanga, and subsequently settled in Lamitan, Basilan. During this time, he held specific immigration documents and had also married a Chinese woman in Amoy, China, albeit briefly returning to the Philippines before this marriage.

Five days post the issuance of Erlinda's business permit, on February 20, 1955, she and Yap began living together as common-law spouses. On January 14, 1969, Erlinda applied for a new permit as a general merchant in the public market of Lamitan, with capital raised to P2,000. Erlinda’s bus

...

Facts:

Background and Permits

• Erlinda Talan, a Filipino citizen, operated a sari-sari store business in Basilan City.

- On February 16, 1955, she was granted a permit by the Office of the Mayor of Basilan City to engage in the sari-sari store business, primarily for selling cigarettes at Balobo, Lamitan. - Later, on January 14, 1969, she secured a permit to operate as a general merchant with a capital of P2,000 in the public market of Lamitan. - Entered the Philippines in 1947 and held valid identification documents (ICR and ACR) dating from 1947 and 1950 respectively. - Despite a brief return to China in 1951 where he married a Chinese woman, his arrival and continuous residence in the Philippines placed him under the purview of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law.

Commencement of Common-Law Cohabitation and Business Operations

• Erlinda Talan and Yap O. Teck began living in a common-law relationship on February 20, 1955, just five days after Talan obtained her mayor’s permit.
• Following their cohabitation, the business underwent changes:

- Talan’s original sari-sari store was later modified into a general merchandise store. - In her affidavit during police investigation on February 2, 1957, Talan admitted:

Allegations and Prosecution

• Based on the affidavit, report of the Secret Service, and evidence by the field investigator, the Prosecutor of the Anti-Dummy Board filed charges against the petitioners.

- The information alleged that Erlinda Talan, by virtue of her holding a business license, allowed her non-Filipino common-law husband, Yap O. Teck, to participate in the retail business. - Talan’s act of permitting Yap O. Teck to aid in the business constituted a violation of Section 2-A of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law. - Yap O. Teck, by managing and taking part in the operation of the business, had actively assisted, abetted, and acted in violation of the law.

Trial, Judgment, and Appeal

• After trial, on October 20, 1970, the trial court found both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

- They were sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment, fined P5,000 each, and ordered Yap O. Teck’s deportation after serving his sentence. - On September 7, 1973, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judgment.

Issue:

Whether Erlinda Talan violated the Retail Trade Nationalization Law by allowing her non-Filipino common-law husband, Yap O. Teck, to actively participate in and contribute capital to her retail business.

• The determination of whether the capital used in the business was exclusively derived from Talan’s paraphernal property.
• Whether the contribution of Yap O. Teck constitutes direct or indirect participation in the retail trade in contravention of Section 2-A of Republic Act 1180.
• Whether the management and operational role played by Yap O. Teck, as admitted in Talan’s affidavit, amounts to unlawfully aiding in the planning and management of the business.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)