RAMCAR, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. RAFAEL SUMADCHAT, OPERATOR OF THE R. SUMADCHAT CUSTOMS BONDED WAREHOUSE NO. 258, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Plaintiff, Ramcar, Inc., seeks the reversal of an or­der of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, dismissing the former’s complaint
“without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file an appropriate action
against the proper party.”

Stripped of non-essentials, it is alleged in the afore­mentioned
complaint that, on or about
December 9, 1963, a shipment of 1,390 ingots of 7% antemonial
lead, imported by the plaintiff from Jack Hilton (Metals) Pty. Ltd. of
Australia, had arrived at Pier 9, South Harbor, Manila; that, without
plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, 601 ingots valued at P16,000 were taken by
representatives of the customs warehouse of defendant Rafael Sumadchat and that, upon demand made by the plaintiff,
defendant not only refused to deliver said 601 ingots, but, also, demanded
payment of P7,270.85 “supposedly representing storage and other charges
due to him as customs warehouseman,” despite plaintiff’s offer to pay said
charges under protest.  It is prayed in
the complaint that the defendant be ordered to deliver said ingots to the
plaintiff, or, else, to pay the sum of P16,000, as the
value thereof, with interest at the legal rate, in addition to attorney’s fees.

Upon being summoned, the defendant moved to dismiss the
complaint.  In support of his motion, the
defendant averred that, having been imported into the Philippines, the ingots
in question were under the exclusive and absolute possession, custody, control
and disposition of the Bureau of Customs, pursuant to the Tariff and Customs
Code, Republic Act No. 1937, particularly sections 1201, 1202, 1204 and 1206
thereof; that, pursuant to section 604 of said Code, “the Bureau of
Customs” moreover, “shall, for customs purposes, have ex­clusive
control, direction and management of custom-houses, warehouses x x x and other premises in the
respective ports of entry x x x“;
that, by Declaration of Abandonment No. 254-65, made pursuant to section 1802
of the aforementioned Code, the Bureau of Customs had, on December 13, 1965,
declared said lead ingots abandoned; that said lead ingots were sold by the
Bureau of Customs at public auction, on January 27, 1966, under Sale Lot No.
26; and that, as a consequence, said lead ingots were delivered, on February 7,
1966, to the buyer thereof, one Marcelo S. Cruz, in whose favor the Bureau of
Customs had authorized the re­lease thereof “through a gate pass
issued” by said office.

Acting upon said motion, the lower court dismissed the complaint
“without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file an appropriate action
against the proper party.” Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff who
maintains:  (1) that, it be­ing conceded
that the lead ingots in question had been de­posited in defendant’s warehouse,
defendant is under obli­gation to deliver the goods to the plaintiff, or, else,
to pay the value thereof, plus damages; and (2) that, in passing upon the
motion to dismiss, the trial court had no “right to consider facts not
alleged and/or discernible from the com­plaint.”

Plaintiff has not contested, however, the facts upon which the
motion was predicated.^[1]
Pursuant thereto, upon arrival at the port of Manila, coming from Australia,
from which they had been imported by the plaintiff, the lead ingots in question
were by law under the possession, custody, control and disposition of the
Bureau of Customs.  They were stored by
the Customs Arrastre Service – an agent of said
Bureau – in defendant’s warehouse, which is, likewise, sub­ject to the control,
direction and management of said office. 
The latter, in turn, in the exercise of its functions under the law;
subsequently declared the lead ingots abandoned, later sold them at public
auction to the highest bidder, Marcelo S. Cruz, and then caused the lead ingots
to be delivered to him.

Considering that there is no contractual relation between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and that the latter had held and later released
the lead ingots under the authority and by order of the Bureau of Customs, the
validity of the acts of which has not been impugned, it is clear that plaintiff
has no cause of action against the defendant.

This appeal being patently devoid of merit, the order appealed
from is hereby affirmed, with treble costs against plaintiff-appellant, Ramcar, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Ruperto v. Fernando, 83 Phil. 943, 944-945; Canite v. Madrigal, L-17836, Aug. 30, 1962; Saguinsin v. Lindayag,
L-17759, Dec. 17, 1962; Solancho v. Ramos,
L-20408, April 27, 1967.