On  June  11,  1954, the  petitioners paid  the required municipal license  to  the City Treasurer  of  Dumaguete and have since engaged  in  the retail business  in  Dumaguete  City.  However, on June 12,  1954,  the respondent City Mayor addressed to  the herein petitioners the following letter:

"This is in connection with the permit dated June  5, 1954  issued by this Office in your favor for the purpose of opening a business as General Merchant and peddler of watches and  jewelries in  the City.

In relation thereto, I am quoting hereunder a telegram dated June 10, 1954,  received by the  undersigned  from  the  Honorable, the Executive  Secretary, viz:

'Reurs third instance do  not  issue new permits as under approved nationalization bill pending consideration by the President only those licensed to engage in the retail  business  on or before May fifteen nineteen  fifty-four  will be allowed to continue stop opening branches or transfer of business from the  municipality to  another should not be allowed if  such opening or  transfer requires new license'

By virtue of this directive,  I regret to advise you that, unless the President vetoes the Nationalization Bill on or before  June  20,  1954, which is the deadline for; him to act on measures passed by Congress, your permit shall automatically be ineffective, hence, revoked, and your business considered closed."

On July 20, 1954, which was the deadline for the payment of all taxes  and licenses, the petitioners wanted to pay all of them to the City Treasurer of Dumaguete,  but the latter refused to receive such payment unless a written statement  in writing could be had from  the respondent Mayor  allowing them to  make such  payment.   The petitioners then requested the Mayor to issue such a statement, but the latter refused  to  do  so  on the ground  that  the petitioners could  no longer operate in  view of  the  order of the  Executive  Secretary mentioned in the  aforequoted communication of the Mayor to the petitioners.

Because of the refusal of the City Treasurer  of Dumaguete to  let  the  petitioners  pay  the necessary  taxes  for their business and because the Mayor was about to  order the closing of their store located  at  W. A.  Jones  St.. Dumaguete  City,  the petitioners  initiated  the present petition in the Court of First Instance of Negros  Oriental, wherein they prayed for a clear declaration of their rights, if  any, under the  provisions  of  Republic Act  No. 1180 otherwise  known as the Retail Business Act, and for  the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction  against  the respondent City Mayor of Dumaguete to prohibit him from issuing an  order  for the closing  of their store mentioned above.

After the  parties had  joined issues  and the  case duly, heard,  the court rendered its  decision, the  dispositive part of which  is  as follows;

"Premises considered, the Court is  of the opinion and so holds that: (1)  The "Cebu Department Store*'  owned and operated by Petitioners and opened to the public on  June 11, 1951, is a new retail business in  Dumaguete City and as such was not in existence  in this City on May 15, 1954;  (2) Petitioners  do not fall within the exception provided for in paragraph 1 of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180, in so far as the Government  of Dumaguete  City is concerned; (3)  There is no necessity for construing the provisions of the last paragraph of the same  Section 1, as prayed for, the reason being that said provisions are not pertinent and relevant to the situation covered  by their  Petition;  and  (4) In  the  event that respondent Mayor shall order the closure of the business of Petitioners, such action shall  be valid and legal,  being  in accordance with the provisions  of the "Retail Business  Act".

Not satisfied  with  the decision, the petitioners perfected their appeal and now seeks its  reversal on the ground that the trial court erred:

1. In holding  that  petitioners-appellants are not entitled  to continue "with their  retail business in Dumaguete  City, as such transfer  made by them from Cebu City  to  Dumaguete City if  allowed would defeat the very  purpose  for   which  Republic 1180 was granted;
   
2. In holding that  the  transfer' of  petitioners-appellants' retail business from Cebu  City to Dumaguete  City was done at their risk since by virtue of  the nationwide publicity of the law given by leading newspapers they should have been aware of the same;
   
3. In holding that  the "Cehu  Department Store" of petitioners-appellants in Dumaguete City is a new business; and
   
4. In  holding that  should respondent-appellee order the  closing of the store of petitioners-appellants, the same would be valid and legal, being in accordance with  Republic  Act 1180."

The question raised in the case at bar calls for the construction and application of Section 1 of Republic Act 1180 and Section 199 of  the  Internal Revenue  Code which reads as  follows:

"Section 1. (Republic Act 1180.)   No  person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, and  no  association, partnership,  or corporation, the capital  of which is not wholly owned by citizens of the  Philippines, shall engage directly  or indirectly in the  retail business: Provided, That a person who is not  a citizen  of the Philippines, or  an association, partnership,  or  corporation, not wholly owned by  citizens of the Philippines, which is actually engaged in the said business on May 15,  1954, shall be entitled to continue to engage therein, unless its  license is forfeited in  accordance herewith, until  his  death  or voluntary retirement from  said business, in  the case of  a  natural person,  and for a period of  ten years from the  date of the approval of this  Act  or until the expiration  of the term of the association or  partnership, or  of the  corporate existence  of the corporation, whichever  event comes first in the case  of juridical persons. Failure to renew a  license  to  engage retail business shall  be considered voluntary retirement.

"The license of any person who  is not a citizen of the Philippines and of any association, partnership or corporation not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines to engage in retail business, shall be forfeited for any violation of any provision of laws on nationalization, economic  control, weights  and measures, and labor  and  other laws relating to trade, commerce, and industry.

"No license shall  be  issued to any person  who is not a citizen of the Philippines and to any association, partnership or corporation not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines,  actually engaged in the retail business, to establish  or open  additional stores or branches for retail business."

"Sec. 199.  (Internal  Revenue Code.)  Removal of business to other location. Any business for which the privilege tax has been paid may,  subject to  the  regulations of the  Department  of Finance, be removed and  continued in  any  other  place without payment of additional  tax during the  term for which the payment was made."

It  is an undisputed  fact that prior to the1 approval  of Republic Act  1180, the  petitioners  were alien merchants actually engaged  in the retail business and, under the provisions of said  act, those actually  engaged  in  the  retail business  at the time it was  approved shall  be entitled to continue  to engage  in  the business  unless their  license is forfeited in  accordance with law, or until the death of the retail merchant or his  voluntary retirement from business, in the case  of natural persons, and for a  period  of  ten years from the date of the approval  of said act or until the expiration of  the association or  partnership,  or of the corporate existence of the corporation,  whichever  event comes first,  in the case of juridical persons."  There  can be no doubt, therefore,  that under  the  provisions  of  the aforequoted law,  the herein petitioners have right to continue their business and  to  secure  the corresponding licenses therefor.  There   arises,  however,   the   question whether  under the provisions  of Republic  Act  1180  the petitioners  could  be considered as  having retired  voluntarily from business   because they  closed their  store  in Cebu City  and transferred   it to Dumaguete  City.  But the  evidence on  record  shows  that when the petitioners closed their business in Cebu City, their intention was not to retire  voluntarily from  business, but only, to transfer it to  Dumaguete City in view of the failing condition of their  business in  Cebu  City.

The trial court dismissed the  petition  on two principal grounds:  (1) That the petitioners cannot validly transfer their  business from Cebu to Dumaguete; and (2) That the "Cebu Department Store" of petitioners in Dumaguete City is "a  new business, a new enterprise in the City of Dumaguete  and one that  was not existing therein  on May 15, 1954."  It overlooked entirely, however, the clear provision of Section 199 of the Internal Revenue  Code, quoted above, which has not been  repealed either expressly or impliedly by Republic Act 1180, and the fact that the petitioners, before transferring their business from Cebu to Dumaguete, secured the annotation of such transfer on the reverse side of the privilege tax, Exhibit "A".  The  legality of  such transfer,  therefore, can in no wise be  questioned and consequently petitioners' business in Dumaguete should not be considered as a new one in  the contemplation of the aforementioned Republic Act 1180.  We do not lose sight of the fact that, under the last paragraph of  Section 1 of Republic Act 1180, the  establishment  or opening of additional stores or branches for retail business is prohibited, and that no license therefor shall be issued to any person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, or to  any association, partnership  or corporation not wholly owned by citizens  of the Philippines.   But, in this particular  case,  we find that the "Cebu Department Store" of the petitioners in  Dumaguete is not an additional store or branch of their  Department Store in Cebu City, which was closed,  so the provisions of the last  paragraph  of section 1  of  Republic Act  1180 is not applicable to  the case.

Accordingly, we hold that, under the law governing the case,  the  petitioners are entitled to engage in the retail business in Dumaguete City and to secure the corresponding license therefor and to pay the  taxes due thereon.

Wherefore, the  decision appealed  from is hereby  reversed  and the  preliminary injunction issued in this case made permanent, enjoining the respondent Mayor not  to close the petitioner's  store and ordering him to issue the corresponding license for their store, without costs.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo,  Labrador, Conception, Reyes,  J. B.  L., and Felix, JJ., concur.