THE AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE ALDANESE, INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
is an action brought by the plaintiff company against the defendant for
the recovery of 91 bales of paper, or its value amounting to P8,560.56,
with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the complaint,
with the costs.

The defendant alleges that he cannot deliver
said goods, nor is he liable therefor, because said 91 bales of paper
are subject to forfeiture under the provisions of subsection (m), section 1363 of the Administrative Code; wherefore he prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

The
Court of First Instance of Manila, after trial and submission of the
case, rendered judgment as prayed for in the complaint.

The defendant took this appeal from said judgment and in his brief assigns the following errors:

“1. The finding that the ‘Cooperative Agricola de Filipinas’ is not the consignee of the merchandise described in the complaint

“2. The admission of additional evidence without the consent of the defendant.

“3. The holding that said merchandise is not subject to forfeiture.

“4. The holding that the defendant is liable to the plain tiff for the payment of P8,560.56, with legal interest thereon.”

The first assignment of error is based on that paragraph of the
stipulation of facts which says that the “Cooperativa Agricola de
Filipinas” is “the consignee thereof as per manifest of the importing vessel.”

But it is not the contents of the manifest of the carrier, but the bill
of lading, that determines who the consignee is, and the bill of
lading, copy of which, Exhibit A, is attached to the complaint, was
issued to the order of the shipper or his assigns, and it does not
appear in any manner whatsoever, that the “Cooperativa Agricola de
Filipinas” is the shipper or the assignee of said bill of lading. What
appears admitted in the stipulation of facts (par. 4) is that the
shipper of the merchandise in question transferred the bill of lading
to the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, and this bank in turn
transferred it to the herein plaintiff for value.

As to the
second error assigned, we do not find it of any merit, for it does not
appear from the record that the trial court has committed an abuse of
discretion in permitting the introduction of additional evidence, even
though it amended the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties.
That is no abuse of discretion where, as in the instant case, such
amendment of the stipulation was for the purpose of bringing to the
knowledge of the court all the facts pertinent to, and necessary for,
the better solution of the principal questions involved in the case.
Moreover, the nondelivery of the merchandise to the assignee in
insolvency of the “Cooperativa Agricola de Filipinas,” an important
point in the case, appears in a letter sent by E. E. Elser to the
defendant, set out in the motion of the Attorney-General in the case of
E. E. Elser vs. Asia Banking Corporation, which motion was filed June 27, 1923, some months after the original stipulation.

In support of the third assignment of error, the appellant insists that
the merchandise in question is subject to seizure because while it was
pledged by the “Cooperativa Agricola” yet the pledge is void. We are
not concerned here with the determination of the question whether such
pledge was void or not. The fact is that it was held valid in a final
judgment of a competent court in favor of the Asia Banking Corporation,
the possessor of the merchandise, which, in view of that judgment,
cannot be deprived of the possession thereof.

If such a
pledge was void, it was incumbent upon the defendant, interested in the
seizure of the merchandise, to take the steps leading to the judicial
declaration of its nullity, and not upon the herein plaintiff, holder
in good faith and in due course of the bill of lading of said
merchandise, innocent of the fraud alleged to have been committed by
the “Cooperativa Agricola de Filipinas,” and fully protected by the law
in its rights.

As the “Cooperativa Agricola de Filipinas” on
whose fraud the seizure was based, had no longer the possession of the
merchandise, which possession was held by the Asia Banking Corporation
by virtue of a pledge judicially declared valid, so it results that
such merchandise was neither under the custody of the customs
authorities, nor in the hands of the person who made the illegal
importation or had knowledge thereof. Such a conclusion would be
repugnant to the judgment in its favor declaring the pledge valid.

Therefore, under these facts, the merchandise in question cannot be
held subject to seizure, under the provisions of paragraph (m), subsection 3, section 1363 of the Administrative Code, in connection with sections 1364, 1267 and 1269 of said Code.

The fourth and last error assigned is a consequence of the preceding
ones which we find to be of no merit, and cannot, therefore, be held
committed by the trial court.

The right of the plaintiff, as
holder in due course of the bill of lading of the merchandise in
question being clear, to demand of the defendant the delivery thereof
or the payment of its value, which right is recognized and confirmed by
the trial court, and is not barred by any valid and legal consideration
whatsoever, the judgment appealed from is affirmed without costs. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.