G.R. No. L-13407; May 24, 1961
VICENTE TAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARCELINO SARMIENTO, in his capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Tan, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for mandamus to compel City Treasurer Marcelino Sarmiento to issue him a license to continue his retail business. The respondent refused the renewal for the first quarter of 1956, citing Republic Act No. 1180 (The Retail Trade Nationalization Law). The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. It was established that Tan first obtained a retail license on May 22, 1954, which was renewed quarterly until the last quarter of 1955. The law in question took effect on June 19, 1954.
The core factual dispute centered on Tan’s business status on a specific date. The lower court, interpreting the stipulation, found that Tan was not actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954. This date is critical as RA 1180 generally restricts the retail trade to Filipino citizens but provides an exception for non-citizens who were “actually engaged” in such business on or before May 15, 1954.

ISSUE

Whether Vicente Tan, a Chinese citizen, is entitled under RA 1180 to continue engaging in the retail trade based on the license first issued to him on May 22, 1954.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that Tan was not entitled to the license. The legal logic hinges on the strict application of the exception clause in RA 1180. The law unequivocally requires that to qualify for the exception, a non-citizen must have been “actually engaged” in the retail business on the specific deadline of May 15, 1954. The Court upheld the lower court’s factual finding, based on the stipulation, that Tan did not meet this condition. His first license was issued on May 22, 1954, which was after the statutory cutoff.
Tan invoked the case of Kwan Kwai vs. Perdices to support his claim, arguing that the issuance of a license shortly after the deadline should qualify him. The Court distinguished that case, noting that in Kwan Kwai, the petitioner was factually engaged in business prior to May 15, 1954, and had paid taxes covering that period, but his store was destroyed by fire. Tan’s situation was fundamentally different: he had not commenced actual retail operations by the critical date. The prior issuance and renewal of his license by the City Treasurer, beginning on May 22, 1954, was deemed a mistake that the respondent correctly refused to perpetuate. Consequently, Tan fell under the general prohibition of the law and not its exception.