This is an  appeal by the Commissioner of Customs from the  decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, the dispositive portion of which  reads:

"FOR  THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, we  are  of the opinion that the forfeiture of the electric range in question under Section 1363 (g.) is illegal.   Accordingly, it is  hereby  ordered that the said article be released to the herein petitioner upon payment of the corresponding  customs duties,  taxes or  charges.  Without pronouncement as to costs."

On  December 10,  1953,  the RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL",  a  unit  of the  Philippine Navy was  dispatched to Japan to transport contingents of the 14th BCT bound for  Pusan,  Korea,  and  carry  Christmas  gifts for  our soldiers there.  It seems that thereafter, it was used for transportation  purposes in connection with the needs of our  soldiers there and made  trips  between Korea  and Japan, so that it  did not return  to  the Philippines  until September 2, 1954.   While in Japan, it loaded 180 cases containing  various  articles  subject  to customs  duties. These articles  have been  classified into.three groups, to wit: "(1) those supposed to be for  the Philippine Army Post Exchange, with an  appraised  value of $24,197.53, (2)  those pertaining to the Philippine Navy Officers  Base Commissary, Cavite,  with an appraised value of $1,590.04, and  (3)  those belonging to  individuals,  consisting of nine Philippine Army and Navy, officers  and  crew  and two private persons, with an appraised value of $1,772.00."

The rest of the facts which  are not  in dispute, as well as the issues involved, particularly the legal  ones, are  well stated in the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals now before us on appeal.  We  are  reproducing pertinent portions of said decision:

"* * *. All these articles were declared forfeited by the Collector of Customs of Manila  for violations  of  the  Customs Law  in a decision rendered on March 18, 1955.

"One of  the cases containing an electric range 'GE' with four burners, brought by  the EPS 'MISAMIS  ORIENTAL'  is consigned to petitioner herein.  The  said article was forfeited  pursuant to Section 1363  (g) of the Administrative Code as an unmanifested cargo.  On appeal to the Commissioner of Customs,  the dispositive portion of  the decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila was affirmed  in  toto; hence this  appeal.

"Section  1363  (g)  of the Administrative  Code, upon which the decree of forfeiture is based, reads as follows:

"Sec. 1363. Property subject to forfeiture under customs laws.   Vessels,  cargo, merchandise,  and other objects  and things shall, under the conditions hereinbelow specified,  be  subject to forfeiture:

'(g) Unmanifested merchandise found  on any vessel, a manifest therefor being required.'

"The only question  to  be  decided is whether or not a manifest is required of the EPS 'MISAMIS ORIENTAL' and, if so, whether or not the aforesaid electric range is  an unmanifested merchandise within  the  meaning of  Section  1363  (g)  of the Administrative Code.

"The law provides that an  'unmanifested merchandise found on any  vessel,  a manifest therefor being required' is subject to forfeiture.  This means that where a vessel is Inquired by law,  or by regulations  promulgated  pursuant  to law, to make  and submit a  manifest  of its cargo to  the customs  authorities  and it fails to do so, merchandise not manifested  shall  be  forfeited. Is the EPS  'MISAMIS  ORIENTAL'  required under  the  Customs Law to make and  submit  to  the customs authorities a manifest of  its cargo?  The Collector  of  Customs of Manila says it is, and he has been  sustained by respondent  Commissioner of Customs.

"It is argued  that Sections  1221,  1225 and  1228  of  the Administrative Code require masters of Government vessels to submit cargo manifests.   Section 1221 provides:

'SEC.  1221. Ports  open to  vessels  engaged in foreign trade   Duty of vessel  to  make entry. Vessels engaged  in  the foreign carrying trade shall touch at ports of entry only, except as otherwise  specially allowed; and every  such  vessel arriving within a customs  collection distinct of the Philippines  from a foreign port shall  make  entry at the  port  of entry for such  district and shall be subject to  the authority of the collector of .customs of the port while within his  jurisdiction.

'The master of any  war vessel or vessel employed by any foreign government  shall  not  be  required to  report and  enter  on arrival in the  Philippines,  unless engaged in the transportation  of merchandise in  the way of trade.

"The term  'report and enter'  appearing in the last paragraph of Section  1221  means,  according to the Collector  of Customs, 'the  entrance  of a  vessel from a foreign port  into  a Philippine port  of  entry as  contemplated  in Section 1225' which reads in part:

'Sec.  1225.  Documents  to be  produced  by  master  upon entry of vessel For the  purpose  of making  entry of a vessel engaged in foreign trade, the master  thereof shall present the following documents, duly certified by him, to the boarding officer of customs.

'(a) The  original manifest  of all cargo destined for the port, to be returned with  boarding  officer's  indorsement.

*      *       *       *      *      *

"And Section 1228 provides:

'Sec. 1228. Manifest required of vessel from foreign port. very vessel from a foreign port  or place  must have on board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her cargo.

'All of the cargo intended to be landed at  a  port in the Philippines must he described  in separate manifests  for each port of call  therein.  Each  manifest shall include  the port  of departure and the port of delivery  with the marks, numbers, quantity, and description of the  packages and the names of the consignees thereof. Every  vessel from  a foreign port or  place must have on board complete  manifests of passengers,  immigrants, and their baggage, in  the prescribed form,  setting forth  their  destination and all particulars required by the immigration laws; and every such vessel shall have prepared for presentation to the proper customs official upon  arrival in  ports of the Philippines  a  complete  list of all ship's stores  then on board.  If the vessel does not carry cargo, passengers, or immigrants,  there must  still be a manifest showing that no  cargo is  carried  from the port of departure to the port of  destination in  the Philippines.

'A cargo manifest shall in no case be changed or altered, except after entry of the vessel,  by means  of  an amendment  by the master, consignee, or agent thereof, under  oath, and  attached to the original manifest.'"

One,  if not  the  main,  reason  given  by  the Court  of Tax Appeals in  holding  that the RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL"  was  not required  to present any  manifest to the  customs  authorities upon its arrival in  Manila  was that Sections 1221, 1225 and 1228 of the Administrative Code  aforequoted are found  under  Article  VI  of  the Customs Law, the title of  which reads:  "Entrance of vessels in foreign trade"; that the said article lays down rules governing  entry of vessels engaged in foreign trade; and that inasmuch as the  navy vessel  in  question  was not engaged in foreign trade  it was not  required to  submit the manifest  provided for  in  section  1225.   The   Tax Court  took the  view  that under said  Article  VI  of the Customs  Law  including the  different  sections   of the Administrative  Code  under  it,  only vessels  engaged in foreign trade are required to submit manifests upon entering  any  Philippine   port.   The  Tax  Court  apparently overlooked the reason behind the requirement of presenting  a manifest and allowed  itself to be swayed by the title  of  the law.  Resort to the title  of a statute as  an aid  in  interpretation  thereof is  an  unsafe  criterion, and is not entitled to much weight.   (50 Am. Jur. 301). The  title  can  be resorted to  as an aid  where there is doubt as to the  meaning of the law or the  intention  of the  legislature in  enacting it, not  otherwise.

The Tax  Court  also  overlooked  or  failed  to give due consideration  to the provisions of Section  1228 which requires that  every vessel from a  foreign port or place must  have  on  board  complete written  or  typewritten manifests  of  all  her  cargoes.  Said  provision  is  quite comprehensive,  if  not all inclusive,  with the  exception perhaps of  vessels  mentioned  in  the  second  paragraph of Section 1221, namely, war vassels or vessels employed by  any  foreign government.   This is  presumably  out  of international  practice.   In our opinion  all  other vessels coming  from  foreign ports, whether  or not  engaged  in foreign  trade, arriving or touching upon any port in the Philippines  should  be  provided with  a manifest which must be presented to the customs authorities.   The reason for requiring  a manifest is  well stated in the brief for the Commissioner of Customs which we quote with favor:

"Whether the  vessel  be engaged in foreign trade  (Sections 1221 and  1225, Revised  Administrative  Code) or not (Section 1228), and even when  the vessel  belongs to the army or the  navy (Section  1234),  the  universal  requirement from a reading of all the foregoing provisions is  that they be provided with a manifest. The reason is obvious,  and must stem from marine experience.  As the  name of the document suggests, a manifest is obviously meant to place  beyond doubt  the  nature  of the  load or of the cargo that  a vessel carries.  The  manifest is therefore  intended to be an indication, if not  an open declaration, that the  vessel is not engaged in  smuggling  or in surreptitious practices  and activities. If the making of a manifest were to  be  a monopoly of vessels engaged in  foreign trade,  it is  plain that other vessels would  be understood as licensed  to engage in undesirable marine activities, a consequence so absurd as to need no  further explanation."

The reason for requiring a manifest in the United States is also stated in the case of U.S. vs. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165:

"The collection  of duties  is not the only purpose of a manifest, as is shown by the requirement of one for outward-bound cargoes and  from  vessels in the  coasting  trade bound for a  port in another collection  *  * * A government  wants to know, without being put to a search, what articles  are brought into the country, and to make up its own mind not only what  duties it will demand, but whether it will  allow  the goods to enter at all.  It would seem  strange  if  it  should  except  from the  manifest demanded those things about which it  has the greatest need to be informed,   if in  that one case it should take a chance  of being able to find what  it forbids  to  come  in,  without  requiring the master to tell what he  knows. It would  seem doubly  strange when, at the same  time, it required  any other person who had knowledge that the forbidden article  was on  the vessel  to report  the fact to the master."  19 USCA. p. 821.

Were we to  confine the requirement about  the preparation  and presentation  of a  manifest  to vessels engaged in  foreign trade,  what  about  private   vessels,   yachts, pleasure  boats or cruisers or steamships on a world cruise for  tourists,  and  ships  chartered for  a special  mission or purpose, all  of which though not engaged  in  foreign trade, nevertheless could bring  into  the country not only dutiable goods, but also articles  of prohibited importation. The customs laws could  not have intended to  exempt all these vessels from the requirement to present a manifest. Then we have Section 1234 of the Revised Administrative Code which we  quote below:

"SEC. 1234. Entry  of transport or supply  ships  of the United States  Army or Navy. The master  or other  officer in charge of a transport  or supply  ship of the United States Army or  Navy, arriving  from a' foreign port at any  port in the  Philippines, shall,  for the purpose  of  making  entry of  his vessel, present a manifest in duplicate, containing the following  information, duly certified by him to the boarding officer or collector of customs:
 "(a) A  list  of  all  supplies  of the United  States Government, for use of the  Army, Navy, or  Public Health Service, or of the Government  of the Republic of the  Philippines.

"(b) A  list of all property of officers and enlisted  men aboard, or of civilians carried as passengers.
" (c) A  list  of all other goods,  wares,  merchandise, or effects on board. 
"(d) A  list of all passengers on board, other than enlisted men of the Army,  Navy, or other department of  service,  giving the name, sex, age, occupation, status, or rank, last permanent residence, port of embarkation, and destination, of each such passenger. The number  of enlisted men on  board  should  be  stated, giving their designation, regiment,  or  department."

In connection with  this legal  provision above quoted, the Commissioner of Customs in his decision  appealed to the Court of Tax  Appeals  said the  following:

"*  *  *. Even before  our  country  attained its independence, and  while the United  States  sovereignty  was  supreme  over the Philippines, the master or other officers in charge of a transport or supply  ship of the United States Army  and Navy was required by law (Sec. 1234 of the Revised Administrative Code) to present to the boarding officer  or the Collector of Customs, a duly certified manifest  in duplicate,  containing, among others,  a  list  of all properties of  officers  and enlisted  men, or of civilians carried  as passengers, and a list  of all other goods,  wares, merchandise, or effects on  board.   To  sustain the proposition that vessels owned by the  government are  not within the pale of the  customs laws and regulations is not only absurd but also fraught with  serious implications, for  the irony thereof is that such  vessels  may bring, unhampered, into this country dutiable and/or prohibited merchandise and  goods, or, to state it bluntly, they may  engage  in  the very activity which  they are called upon to prevent and suppress."

But the Court of Tax Appeals equally held that Section 1234 is  not applicable  to vessels of the  Philippine Navy for  the  reason that  said section applies only to ships of the  United States  Army or Navy,  and that  if  our legislature had really wanted or intended to make its provisions applicable to  our  navy ships, it  should  have  made the corresponding  change or amendment  of the section.  We agree that  it  should  have been  done.   But we believe that there was  no necessity where as in  the present case the  application of said section to  our  navy ships is so clear  and  manifest, considering  that  the  reasons  for requiring a manifest from transport  and  supply ships of the  army and navy of the United States are  and  with more reason applicable to our navy ships to  carry out the policy of the government, and because we have complete control over them.

We therefore believe and hold that the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was required to present a manifest upon its arrival in Manila on September 2,  1954.

The Court of Tax  Appeals, however, believed and found that even if a manifest were required of the RPS "MISAMIS  ORIENTAL",  still,  one was  actually  presented  by one  of its  officers  to customs  authorities  through  one Mr.  Casimiro  de  la Ysla on September  3,  1954.  This, Ysla  denied. And after  carefully studying the evidence on record  and considering  the  circumstances  attending the case, we are inclined to agree with the Collector of Customs and the  Commissioner of Customs who  upheld him that no such manifest required by law was submitted to the customs authorities upon the arrival of  the RPS "MISAMIS  ORIENTAL".

If a manifest had really been delivered to the customs authorities  upon  the  arrival  of the  RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" there  was no  reason  whatsoever  for Ysla to deny  receipt thereof;  and there  would have been  no occasion or  reason for the  Acting Collector of Customs on September  17, 1954  to  write to the  Chief of Staff of the Armed   Forces  of the  Philippines  stating that according to his information "a copy of the ship's manifest covering said cargo  had been secured by that office from the Commanding Officer of  the  vessel"  and request that two copies thereof be furnished the Bureau of Customs. Why  should  the Bureau  of  Customs ask for  copies  of the manifest if as claimed by the  navy authorities such manifest had already been delivered to them?

Again, it had always been the contention and the belief of the navy  authorities that Philippine navy vessels were not required to prepare and deliver this manifest upon their  arrival in the  Philippines from foreign ports.   In fact  there is evidence to the effect that on two  different occasions prior to the arrival of RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" on  September 2, 1954, Philippine  navy  vessels had  arrived  from  abroad with  merchandise presumably for personal  use of officers  and men of  the Philippine navy and  that no  manifest  had  been presented covering said goods,  which  goods never  went through  customs. This belief and attitude of the Philippine navy authorities is reflected in the  letter of Commodore  Francisco, dated October 9, 1954,  answering  the letter  of  inquiry  and request of the Acting Collector of Customs, dated September  17,  1954  wherein  he said:

"In this  connection,  this  Command feels  that  the pertinent provisions of the Revised Administrative  Code relative to vessels coming from foreign  ports  are not  applicable to  vessels of the Philippine Navy as  the same are war vessels, exempted  under Section 1221 of said  code. If your office holds a contrary opinion, a clarification  of this matter is requested."

With this  belief  and attitude  of the  Philippine  navy authorities, it was  not likely that a manifest of the goods carried  by the  RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL"  was  prepared on board while  the boat was still in  Japan, much less was a copy of the  manifest if made, was  delivered to customs authorities.

Furthermore, according to the Commissioner of Customs, we quote from his decision:

"* * * The record shows that the officers of  the RPS 'MISAMIS ORIENTAL' insistently pleaded for the  exemption  of  their vessel from  customs  requirements  regarding the presentation of cargo manifest, perhaps not realizing that laws must be equally enforced among public officers  and  private citizens alike. Besides, to accord the vessel with such exceptional privilege may  result  in government vessels  comprising public  trust and duty  and serving  two incompatible masters the government on one  hand, and  the tax-evader on the other.. Thus the  Government is  rendered helpless in such cases  to prevent its being defrauded of lawful duties and taxes."

If a manifest had already been prepared by the officers of  the ship,  and that  a  copy thereof had  been  presented to  the  customs, why  all this insistence  and  plea,  that they be excused from and  relieved of  the  duty  of  presenting a manifest when they were  found to be without one?

Moreover, if said manifest had  actually been delivered to  customs  authorities  upon the  arrival of  the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" in Manila, then  in the  regular course  of things  the  customs  authorities  would have inspected the  same, assessed customs  duties on them if found dutiable, or  released them if otherwise.  And  yet the  only  time  when  the customs  authorities learned of the  existence  of  the goods and merchandise on board the  RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" was when according to the decision of  the Collector of Customs a confidential information was received in the office  of the Port Patrol Division of the Bureau  regarding the  presence  of commercial goods on board the RPS  "MISAMIS ORIENTAL" and  after interception  by  the  Port  Patrol  Policeman Consorcio  Javier   of  a  truckload  of  cases  leaving the customs zone from the navy boat.   We further quote from the  decision of the  Collector of Customs:

"*  * * To verify  the truth of this information, Col.  Manuel Turingan, then General Supervisor of the Security Division of the Bureau of Customs,  and Atty.  Salvador Mascardo, Chief of the Investigation  Section of the Port  Patrol  Division, went  to Pi^r 5 on  September 6, 1954 where the Philippine Navy boat mentioned above was then  docked.  Upon  arrival thereat, they were met by the  Commanding Officer of the above-named vessel, who, when asked, informed  them that  there  were  really commercial goods on board his ship.  When the merchandise were brought to and examined at the customhouse, they were found to be  not  covered by the  required cargo manifest, bills  of lading, consular invoices, and  Central  Bank licenses  and release certificates.  Hence, the seizure."

Besides, according to the regulations of the Bureau of Customs,  as well as the practice of that office, when a vessel  arrives  from  a  foreign port,  a customs  boarding officer  boards the ship  and a  copy or copies of the cargo manifests  are delivered to him  by the  master  of the vessel, and he makes  a proper  indorsement thereof  including the  date of delivery  to him (boarding officer). And according to Section 1229 of the Revised Administrative  Code,  the master of the vessel shall  immediately mail to the Auditor General a copy of the cargo manifest properly indorsed by the boarding officer.  If as claimed by  the  navy authorities, the  law about cargo manifests had been fully  complied with and  that  a copy  of said manifest was delivered to an officer of  the  Bureau  of Customs who had the  duty of indorsing and dating the same and  that  a copy thereof had  been mailed  to the Auditor General,  it  was  not  explained  why said navy authorities failed to  produce at the hearing  their copy of  said manifest duly  indorsed by  tile boarding officer; neither  did they  try  to subpoena the Auditor General  to produce the copy which should have  been  mailed to him. All these  point  to  the conclusion  that  no  such  cargo manifest was ever delivered  to  the  customs  authorities upon the arrival  of the RPS "MISAMIS ORIENTAL".

In conclusion, we hold that all vessels whether private or  government owned,  including ships of the Philippine navy, coming  from a foreign  port, with the possible exception  of war vessels or vessels employed  by  any foreign government, not  engaged  in the transportation of merchandise in the way of trade, as provided for in the second paragraph  of Section 1221 of the Revised  Administrative Code, are required to prepare and present a  manifest to the customs  authorities upon arrival at any Philippine port.

In view  of the foregoing, the appealed decision  of the Court of Tax Appeals  as regards  the forfeiture of the electric  range in question  is set aside, and the decision of the  Commissioner of  Customs affirming that of the Collector of Customs, as regards the same article is hereby affirmed.  No  costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon,  Reyes, A., Bautista  Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.