You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ca1d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[CITY OF MANILA v. WIDOW OF TAN-AUCO](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ca1d?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:ca1d}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 6439, Dec 28, 1912 ]

CITY OF MANILA v. WIDOW OF TAN-AUCO +

DECISION

23 Phil. 638

[ G.R. No. 6439, December 28, 1912 ]

THE CITY OF MANILA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE WIDOW OF TAN-AUCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

D E C I S I O N

MAPA, J.:

The plaintiff in this  case endeavors to collect from  the defendant the sum of P300, the amount of the second quarterly payment, corresponding to the year 1909, for a first-class liquor license issued to the defendant for the period of one year.
 
The defendant refuses  to pay the said quarterly installment, on the ground that before the commencement of that second quarter she had ceased to  conduct the business for which the license had been granted.
 
The court rendered judgment absolving the defendant, without special finding as to costs.
 
The issue brought before this court for its consideration is purely one of law, to wit, whether  a license of the said class, granted to a tradesman for the period of one year, implies for him one single annual obligation, an  obligation to pay the total sum corresponding to the year of the license, even though he does not conduct his business during the whole of the said period.  Section 17 of Act No. 59, passed by the Philippine Commission,  provides: 

"Licenses for periods of  one  year may be issued to any person or  persons of  good character,  authorizing him  or them to keep in stock and sell or give away fermented malt, vinous,  and spirituous liquors in  quantities of one gallon (three and seventy-eight one-hundredths liters)  or more, upon payment in advance of the sum of one thousand two hundred pesos.  A license of this class shall be  known  as a 'first-class wholesale  liquor license, and  it shall  be unlawful for any person or persons to sell or otherwise dispose of fermented malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors at  wholesale without such license   *   *  *"

By Act No. 59, just cited, it is clearly seen that  first-class wholesale liquor  licenses must necessarily  be issued for a period  of not less than one  year and upon the payment in advance of the sum  of P1,200.   In accordance with that Act, a first-class wholesale liquor license imposes upon the dealer the obligation of  paying the  said sum of P1,200 in advance.   Act No. 95, which  subsequently amended Act No. 59, reads as follows: 

"Licenses for periods of one year may  be issued to any person or persons of good character, authorizing him or them to keep in stock and sell or give away fermented malt, vinous,  and spirituous liquors in quantities of one  gallon (three and  seventy-eight  one-hundredths liters)  or more, upon payment in advance of the sum  of twelve hundred pesos; but such licenses may be paid in advance in four quarterly installments of three hundred pesos each,  at the election of the license  *   *  *."

This amendatory Act No. 95, has confirmed the "entirety" of the obligation to pay the sum of P1,200 for a first-class wholesale liquor  license.   The only change  in  regard to this  point, made by Act No. 95, was that of granting the dealer an accommodation in the payment of the license by allowing him to pay, if he so chose, in four equal installments the sum of P1,200, which is the amount required, and not a lesser one, to obtain the said first-class wholesale liquor license.  Act No. 95 merely allows facilities for the payment of the Pl,200 of the license, but has not modified the obligation, for it is one single obligation to pay the said sum, although the licensee may at his election pay the same in four installments, which is a benefit introduced in  behalf of the dealer and must not be confounded with the obligation  to pay the whole sum of P1,200 for the license, which, as before stated,  may not  be granted for a period of  less than one year.

It being one single obligation to pay  the Pl,200 for the license before mentioned, the plaintiff is entitled to  collect the sum  demanded in the complaint.

The judgment appealed  from is reversed and the defendant is sentenced to pay to the plaintiff the  sum of P300 demanded in  the complaint, together with legal interest thereon from April 1, 1909.  No express finding is made as to the costs.

Arellano,  C.  J., Torres,  Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and  Trent., JJ., concur..


tags