G.R. No. L-52221, January 30, 1987
KANEO SOTOYAMA, MIKIO NAWA, FUJICO NAWA and MASAYOSHI IWAMA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.

FACTS

Petitioners, all Japanese nationals, arrived in the Philippines as tourists. Upon their scheduled departure from Manila International Airport on January 11, 1976, acting on confidential information, customs examiners conducted a search. Petitioners initially denied carrying foreign currency. The search of their luggage and persons, however, yielded a total of US$104,615.00 and Japanese Yen in substantial amounts concealed in suitcases, clothing, and shoes. When questioned, petitioners stated the currencies came from “Japan” but failed to produce any permit or authorization from the Central Bank to export them. The currencies were seized for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 265, in relation to the Tariff and Customs Code. The Collector of Customs ordered forfeiture, affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and later by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the forfeiture of the foreign currencies seized from petitioners was valid, considering their claim that the currencies were brought into the Philippines from Japan and their challenge to the applicable regulations.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture. The legal logic centered on the presumption provided by Section 2530(f) of the Revised Tariff and Customs Code, which states that any article on a vessel or aircraft from a foreign country, found concealed on a person, is presumed to have been unlawfully imported unless the contrary is shown. Petitioners, as claimants, bore the burden of proving lawful importation. Their mere verbal claim that the money came from Japan, unsupported by documentary evidence like a customs declaration upon entry, was insufficient to overcome this statutory presumption. The Court rejected the argument that subsequent Central Bank Circulars repealed the relevant provision of Circular No. 265, finding the prohibition against unauthorized export of foreign currency remained in force. Furthermore, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CTA’s denial of a new trial. Petitioners had waived a trial de novo before the CTA and submitted the case on the pleadings and existing records; they could not later claim newly discovered evidence due to their own lack of diligence in presenting available proof at the proper time. The forfeiture was a valid exercise of customs authority to enforce currency control laws.