GR L 25150; (September, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968
ANICIA CADIZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and THE CHIEF, GENERAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, JOHN DOE, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
A 1962 Chrysler car was imported tax-free under the PI-US Military Bases Agreement by T/Sgt. John A. Cheffler, a member of the U.S. Air Force. On June 22, 1964, Cheffler sold the car to Leonardo Alcantara, who was not tax-exempt. Ownership subsequently passed to other non-tax-exempt persons, and the import duties remained unpaid. On April 22, 1965, upon application by agents of the Bureau of Customs, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention for the car, which was then seized from possessor Carlos Robes for alleged violations of customs and revenue laws. On May 11, 1965, Anicia Cadiz, claiming ownership, filed an action for replevin in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of the General Affairs Administration. The lower court issued a writ of replevin, and Cadiz took possession of the car. The Collector of Customs intervened, filing a motion to dismiss and to lift the writ, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that Cadiz failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the replevin action challenging the validity of the customs seizure warrant.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The validity of a warrant of seizure issued by the Collector of Customs for alleged violations of the Revised Tariff and Customs Code and the National Internal Revenue Code falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. Citing the precedent in Acting Collector of Customs vs. Caluag, the Court held that the affected party must seek review in the proper court, the Court of Tax Appeals, whose jurisdiction over seizure cases includes all questions affecting their legality. The absence of a prior decision by the Commissioner of Customs only indicates a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, such as filing a protest with the Customs Collector or securing the car’s release by posting a bond. The appeal was also technically defective for not including the appealed order in the record on appeal and for failing to show the appeal was perfected on time.