ANICIA CADIZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE CHIEF, GENERAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, JOHN DOE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the complaint in this case, lifting a writ
of replevin
therein issued and ordering plaintiff herein, Anicia
Cadiz, to turn over the car involved in the case to the Col­lector of Customs.

The subject-matter hereof is a 1962 Chrysler car, which had been
imported, tax-free, pursuant to the PI-US Military Bases Agreement, by T/Sgt.
John A. Cheffler, a member of the United States Air
Force stationed at Clark Air Base, Pam­panga.  On June
22, 1964, Cheffler sold the car to one
Leonardo Alcantara, who is not tax-exempt.  The ownership of the car seems to have passed
subsequently to other persons, none of whom appears to be tax free.  Up to now, the duties for the im­portation of
said car have not been paid.

On April 22, 1965, upon
the application of representatives of the General Affairs Administration,
Department of National Defense, as duly authorized agents of the Bureau of
Customs, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, issued, there­fore, a
Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Manila Seizure Iden­tification No. 8585,
pursuant to which said car was seized from one, Carlos Robes, who was in
possession thereof, by said agents of the Collector of Customs, for alleged
violation of Section 2530 m-(1) to (5) in relation to Section 2301, of Republic
Act 1937, and Section 190, in relation to Section 6, of Commonwealth
Act No. 466, as amended, as well as the Motor Vehicle Law.  Soon, thereafter, or on May 11,
1965, Anicia Cadiz – hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff –
commenced, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
the present action for replevin, against the
Secretary of National Defense and the Chief, General Affairs Administration,
Department of National Defense, upon the ground that she is the owner of said car.  Upon the posting of P28,000 bond, the lower
court issued the corresponding writ of replevin on May 12, 1965, and petitioner secured possession of the car.
Presently, or on May 26 and 27, 1965, the Collector of Customs sought leave to
intervene and filed a motion to dis­miss and to lift the
writ of replevin, upon the ground that the trial
court has no jurisdiction over the case and that plaintiff has no cause of
action, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  Despite plaintiff’s opposition, the lower
court granted said motion and dismissed the complaint.  A reconsideration of the order to this effect having been denied, plaintiff interposed present
appeal.

The same should not be entertained, however, because the order appealed from has not been included in
the record on appeal^[1] and the same does not contain “such
data as will show that the appeal was perfected on
time,” in violation of Section 6 Rule
41, of the Rules of Court^[2]

At any rate, the issue in this case is the validity of the
warrant of seizure issued by the Collector of Customs for al­leged violation of
the Revised Tariff Customs Code3 and of
the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, and the deter­mination of
such issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals,4 Indeed, under circumstances practic­ally identical
to those obtaining in the case at bar, this Court held in Acting Collector of
Customs vs. Caluag.5

“The petition, raising the fundamental issue of jurisdiction,
is meritorious.  The suit filed with
respondent Judge was ‘to review and nullify what­ever has already
been done by respondent (herein petitioner) without and/or in excess of their
juris­diction,’ namely, the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention,
and the execution thereof by the NBI agents.

xxx                                                                                                          xxx                                                                                                       xxx

“Respondent Calalang no doubt has the
right to question the legality of the seizure action com­menced by the Customs
authorities.  For this however she
must go to the proper court, namely, the Court of Tax Appeals since its jurisdiction to re­view
seizure cases necessarily includes all ques­tions affecting the legality or
illegality of a seizure. Since the Court of First Instance, was without
juris­diction to entertain the petition of respondent Calalang
in the first place, it could not validly issue the ancillary writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction therein applied for.

“Respondent however submits the argument, sanctioned by the
trial court, that Sec. 7 of Re­public Act No. 1125 is not applicable,
considering that there is no decision yet of the Commissioner of Customs which
can be subject of appeal to the Court
of Tax Appeals.  The submission is not
only without merit but even argues against respondents cause.  In Acting Collector v. De la Rama, L-26076, February 26, 1965, ruling
on the same contention, We held that such absence only shows that the party
affected did not exhaust administrative remedies.  x x x Furthermore, some additional remedies were immediately
available to respondent: (1) to secure the release of the seized car upon the
filing of a sufficient bond with the Customs Collector and/or (2) to file a protest with the Custom Collector. x x x”6

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against the plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L.,Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano,
JJ., concur.

Dizon and
Zaldivar, JJ., did
not take part.

^[1]
Shell Co. v. Santos,
L-21989, November 12, 1966.

^[2]
Jocson v.
Robles, L-23433, February 10, 1968; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development
Corporation v. Progres­sive Labor Association, L-27125, Res. September 15,
1967; Araneta v. Madrigal & Co., et al., 26227-28, October 25, 1966;
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Santos, et al, L-26387, Res. September 27, 1966;
and Government of the Philippines v. Antonio, L-23736, October 19, 1965.

3
Republic Act No. 1937.

4
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125; Millarez v.
Amparo, L-8364, June 30, 1955; Namarco v.
Macadaeg, L-10030, January 18, 1956; Gov’t. of the
Phil. I v. Gale, 24 Phil. 95, 99; Commissioner ozf
Customs v. Encarnacion, 50 O.G. 3560.

5
L-23925, May 24, 1967.

6
Underscoring ours.