CASE DIGEST: TALAN and YAP v. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 37704. January 30, 1989)

G.R. No. 37704. January 30, 1989. ERLINDA TALAN and YAP O. TECK alias ANTONIO YAP, Petitioners, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. 

FACTS: 

Erlinda Talan was engaged in the retail trade business, a sari-sari store. Her common-law husband is Antonio Yap, a Chinese national. They have been living together and have a child and another on the way. Talan’s sari-sari store eventually became general merchandise with the help of her common-law husband. Later, they a case was filed against them for violation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law because Yap was disqualified to engage in retail trade business but was allowed and permitted by Talan to directly or indirectly engage in the latter’s business. Hence this petition. 

ISSUE: 

Did Petitioners violate Retail Trade Nationalization Law?

RULING: 

Yes, Petitioners violated the Retail Trade Nationalization Law because Antonio Yap, a Chinese national, was also engaged in the retail trade business of his common-law wife.

In Retail Trade Nationalization Law, the enjoyment of a right, privilege, property, or business expressly reserved to citizens who have a common-law relationship with an alien constitutes prima facie evidence of a violation.

Here, when Antonio Yap actively managed the business of Talan, he is indeed engaged in the retail trade business. Therefore, Yap violated Retail Trade Law for directly engaging in the retail trade business and Talan for permitting her non-Filipino common-law husband Yap to engage directly or indirectly in the retail trade business.