Title
Smith, Bell and Co. vs. Natividad
Case
G.R. No. 15574
Decision Date
Sep 17, 1919
Smith, Bell & Co. sought Philippine registry for its vessel, Bato, but was denied under Act No. 2761, which restricts registry to corporations with wholly Filipino or U.S. ownership. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling it a valid exercise of police power to protect domestic commerce and national interests, denying the petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 15574)

Petition and Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed for mandamus to compel the Collector to issue a Philippine registry certificate. The Attorney‑General, representing the Collector, demurred on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action. The material facts were admitted for decision. The central legal challenge was to the constitutionality of Act No. 2761 (Philippine Legislature, Feb. 23, 1918) insofar as it conditions registry in the coastwise trade on citizenship composition of corporate ownership.

Material Facts

Smith, Bell & Co. is organized under Philippine law but has a majority of alien (British) stockholders. The Bato, owned by the corporation, is over fifteen gross tons and was brought to Cebu for coastwise commerce. The Collector refused registration because not all of the corporation’s stockholders were citizens of either the United States or the Philippine Islands. Act No. 2761 had amended Administrative Code provisions governing Philippine registry and related requirements.

Applicable Legal and Constitutional Framework

Primary federal delegations and constraints: (a) Act of Congress of April 29, 1908 (delegating to the Philippine government the authority to adopt regulations governing transportation between Philippine ports until Congress authorized U.S. registry for Philippine‑owned vessels); (b) the Jones Law (Act of Congress of August 29, 1916), especially section 3 (due process/equal protection guarantee), sections 6–8 and 10 (continuation of laws and grant of general legislative power to the Philippine Legislature subject to the Act), and section 31 (continuation of nonconflicting laws). Local law: Administrative Code provisions as amended by Act No. 2761 (sections 1172, 1176, 1202).

Text and Effect of Act No. 2761

Act No. 2761 amended Administrative Code section 1172 to define “domestic ownership” for purposes of Philippine registry by excluding vessels owned by entities with alien stockholders except where ownership is vested in (a) citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippines, (b) citizens of the United States residing in the Philippines, or (c) corporations composed wholly of citizens of the Philippines, of the United States, or both and created under U.S., state, or Philippine law, subject to residency of a duly authorized officer, managing agent, or master in the Philippines. Sections 1176 and 1202 were amended to empower the Collector to investigate legitimacy/domestic ownership before issuing or retaining a registry and to limit the number of non‑citizen officers/engineers on Philippine vessels, respectively.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether Act No. 2761 is a valid exercise of Philippine legislative power, i.e., whether the Philippine Legislature may lawfully deny Philippine coastwise registry to corporations that have alien stockholders, without violating the due process and equal protection guarantees of the applicable organic law.

The Court’s Conclusion on Legislative Authority

The Court found abundant delegation and authority for such local regulation: the 1908 Act expressly authorized the Philippine government to regulate intra‑Insular transport pending congressional action; the Jones Law granted general legislative power to the Philippine Legislature (subject to its provisions). The principle that Acts of the United States operate in the Philippines only to the extent expressly extended likewise supported insular legislative autonomy in this domain. Accordingly, the Legislature possessed the competency to enact Act No. 2761.

Due Process and Equal Protection Analysis

The Court treated the first paragraph of the Philippine Bill of Rights (as embodied in the Jones Law) as functionally equivalent to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees, applying the same principles: the term “person” includes aliens and corporations, and classifications affecting corporations must rest on reasonable grounds and not be arbitrary. The petitioner argued Act No. 2761 denied equal protection and deprived useful property rights without due process by depriving the corporation of the practical benefits of ownership. The Court acknowledged precedents invalidating arbitrary discrimination against aliens but emphasized recognized exceptions permitting differential treatment when justified by legitimate public interests.

Recognized Exceptions and Application to Act No. 2761

The Court identified established exceptions permitting discriminatory legislation as compatible with due process/equal protection: valid exercises of police power to protect health, morals, order, industry and resources; regulation of the public domain and common property to reserve use to citizens; and limitation of employment on public works to citizens. Applying those principles to the Philippine context, the Court accepted that regulation of coastwise navigation in an archipelagic territory of over three thousand islands implicates security, commerce, and the public domain. Steamship li

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.