G.R. No. L-3624 December 28, 1951
TAN SENG HOO Y OTROS, recurrentes-apelantes, vs. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, alcalde de la ciudad de Manila, Y OTROS, recurridos-apelados.

FACTS

The petitioners-appellants are Chinese citizens and occupants of market stalls in the public markets of Manila, with licenses issued under Republic Act No. 37 and Department of Finance Order No. 32. They were granted these stalls because there were no Filipino applicants. On May 26, 1949, each received a notification requiring them to vacate their stalls within 24 hours, under threat of forcible ejectment by the police. The petitioners filed a petition for prohibition (Civil Case No. 8180) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the Mayor and his agents from ejecting them. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction on May 30, 1949. On January 6, 1950, after a hearing, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision denying the petition for a writ of prohibition. The petitioners were notified of this decision on January 23, 1950. The following day, the City Treasurer, acting on the Mayor’s order, sent letters to the petitioners ordering them to vacate their stalls within five days. The petitioners appealed the decision. Their license to occupy the stalls, as exemplified by Annex “B” for Tan Ko Lok, was for a term of one year from January 1 to December 31, 1949. By the time the lower court’s decision was rendered on January 6, 1950, their licenses had already expired.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, as aliens, have a right to continue occupying stalls in public markets after the expiration of their one-year licenses and in light of constitutional and statutory provisions nationalizing public services.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The occupancy of a stall in a public market is a privilege reserved for Filipino nationals by constitutional provision (Article XIII, Section 8 of the 1935 Constitution), not an inalienable right. The preference given to an alien under Republic Act No. 37 and Department Order No. 32, when no Filipino applicant exists, is merely an act of condescension or grace, and such tenure is precarious. It is not a strict right and can be canceled by city authorities at any time. The fixation of a one-year term in the license is not redundant; after its expiration, neither an alien nor a Filipino can remain unless the license is renewed. The nationalization of public markets is definitively established by the Constitution. The Court cited various foreign laws and decisions upholding the constitutionality of measures restricting certain occupations, franchises, and privileges to citizens as a legitimate exercise of state power to protect national interests. The petitioners, having obtained their stalls due to a lack of Filipino applicants, must understand they were granted the stalls as a courtesy and not as a matter of right, and cannot complain if ejected for occupying them in contravention of the constitutional prohibition.