8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 1/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

Holy See vs. Rosario Jr. 

238 SCRA 524

FACTS: A piece of real property was acquired by the Holy See by way of donation from

the Archdiocese of Manila. The purpose was to construct the official place of residence of the Papal uncio. Later! the Holy See sold the property on condition that it will e"ict the

squatters therein. #or failure to comply with the condition! the Holy See was sued. It

mo"ed to dismiss on the ground of state immunity.

ISSUE: $hether respondent trial court has %urisdiction o"er petitioner being a foreign

state en%oying so"ereign immunity.

HELD: The &epublic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status if a foreign

so"ereign! the Holy See! through its Ambassador! the Papal uncio! has had diplomatic

representations with the Philippine 'o"ernment since ()*+.

The pri"ilege of so"ereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by thememorandum and certification of the ,epartment of #oreign Affairs. The ,#A has

formally inter"ened in this case and officially certified that the -mbassy of the Holy Seeis a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the &epublic of the Philippines eempt from

local %urisdiction and entitled to all the rights! pri"ileges and immunities of a diplomatic

mission or embassy in this country. The determination of the eecuti"e arm ofgo"ernment that a state or instrumentality is entitled to so"ereign or diplomatic immunity

is a political question that is conclusi"e upon the courts.

$here the plea of immunity is recogni/ed and affirmed by the eecuti"e branch! it is theduty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the eecuti"e arm of the

go"ernment in conducting the country0s foreign relations.

&epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

- 1A2

 

G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994

THE HOLY SEE, petitioner,vs.THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as res!"!#$ J%"$e o& '(e Re$!o#a)Tr!a) *o%r' o& +aa'!, Bra#c( -1 a#" STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERRISES,IN*., respondents.

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 2/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

Padilla Law Office for petitioner.

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent.

 

UIASON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari  under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court toreverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and Septemer 19, 1991of the Re!ional Trial Court, "ran#h 61, $a%ati, $etro $anila in Civil Case &o. 90'1().

The Order dated June 20, 1991 denied the motion of petitioner to dismiss the#omplaint in Civil Case &o. 90'1(), *hile the Order dated Septemer 19, 1991denied the motion for re#onsideration of the June 20,1991 Order.

+etitioner is the ol- See *ho eer#ises soverei!nt- over the /ati#an Cit- inRome, tal-, and is represented in the +hilippines - the +apal &un#io.

+rivate respondent, Starri!ht Sales nterprises, n#., is a domesti# #orporationen!a!ed in the real estate usiness.

This petition arose from a #ontrovers- over a par#el of land #onsistin! of 6,000suare meters 34ot 5', Transfer Certifi#ate of Title &o. )9007 lo#ated in the$uni#ipalit- of +ara8aue, $etro $anila and re!istered in the name of petitioner.

Said 4ot 5' is #onti!uous to 4ots 5'" and 5' *hi#h are #overed - TransferCertifi#ates of Title &os. 2:110( and 265)(( respe#tivel- and re!istered in thename of the +hilippine Realt- Corporation 3+RC7.

The three lots *ere sold to Ramon 4i#up, throu!h $s!r. omin!o . Cirilos, Jr.,a#tin! as a!ent to the sellers. 4ater, 4i#up assi!ned his ri!hts to the sale toprivate respondent.

n vie* of the refusal of the suatters to va#ate the lots sold to privaterespondent, a dispute arose as to *ho of the parties has the responsiilit- ofevi#tin! and #learin! the land of suatters. Compli#atin! the relations of the

parties *as the sale - petitioner of 4ot 5' to Tropi#ana +roperties andevelopment Corporation 3Tropi#ana7.

On Januar- 2), 1990, private respondent filed a #omplaint *ith the Re!ional TrialCourt, "ran#h 61, $a%ati, $etro $anila for annulment of the sale of the threepar#els of land, and spe#ifi# performan#e and dama!es a!ainst petitioner,

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 3/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

represented - the +apal &un#io, and three other defendants; namel-, $s!r.omin!o . Cirilos, Jr., the +RC and Tropi#ana 3Civil Case &o.90'1()7.

The #omplaint alle!ed that; 317 on pril 1:, 19((, $s!r. Cirilos, Jr., on ehalf of

petitioner and the +RC, a!reed to sell to Ramon 4i#up 4ots 5', 5'" and 5' atthe pri#e of +1,20.00 per suare meters< 327 the a!reement to sell *as made onthe #ondition that earnest mone- of +100,000.00 e paid - 4i#up to the sellers,and that the sellers #lear the said lots of suatters *ho *ere then o##up-in! thesame< 3)7 4i#up paid the earnest mone- to $s!r. Cirilos< 37 in the same month,4i#up assi!ned his ri!hts over the propert- to private respondent and informedthe sellers of the said assi!nment< 357 thereafter, private respondent demandedfrom $s!r. Cirilos that the sellers fulfill their underta%in! and #lear the propert- ofsuatters< ho*ever, $s!r. Cirilos informed private respondent of the suatters=refusal to va#ate the lots, proposin! instead either that private respondentunderta%e the evi#tion or that the earnest mone- e returned to the latter< 367

private respondent #ounterproposed that if it *ould underta%e the evi#tion of thesuatters, the pur#hase pri#e of the lots should e redu#ed from +1,20.00 to+1,150.00 per suare meter< 3:7 $s!r. Cirilos returned the earnest mone- of+100,000.00 and *rote private respondent !ivin! it seven da-s from re#eipt ofthe letter to pa- the ori!inal pur#hase pri#e in #ash< 3(7 private respondent sentthe earnest mone- a#% to the sellers, ut later dis#overed that on $ar#h )0,19(9, petitioner and the +RC, *ithout noti#e to private respondent, sold the lotsto Tropi#ana, as eviden#ed - t*o separate eeds of Sale, one over 4ot 5',and another over 4ots 5'" and 5'< and that the sellers= transfer #ertifi#ate of titleover the lots *ere #an#elled, transferred and re!istered in the name ofTropi#ana< 397 Tropi#ana indu#ed petitioner and the +RC to sell the lots to it and

thus enri#hed itself at the epense of private respondent< 3107 private respondentdemanded the res#ission of the sale to Tropi#ana and the re#onve-an#e of thelots, to no avail< and 3117 private respondent is *illin! and ale to #ompl- *ith theterms of the #ontra#t to sell and has a#tuall- made plans to develop the lots intoa to*nhouse pro>e#t, ut in vie* of the sellers= rea#h, it lost profits of not lessthan +)0,000.000.00.

+rivate respondent thus pra-ed for; 317 the annulment of the eeds of Saleet*een petitioner and the +RC on the one hand, and Tropi#ana on the other< 327the re#onve-an#e of the lots in uestion< 3)7 spe#ifi# performan#e of thea!reement to sell et*een it and the o*ners of the lots< and 37 dama!es.

On June (, 1990, petitioner and $s!r. Cirilos separatel- moved to dismiss the#omplaint ? petitioner for la#% of >urisdi#tion ased on soverei!n immunit- fromsuit, and $s!r. Cirilos for ein! an improper part-. n opposition to the motion*as filed - private respondent.

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 4/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

On June 20, 1991, the trial #ourt issued an order den-in!, amon! others,petitioner=s motion to dismiss after findin! that petitioner @shed off AitsB soverei!nimmunit- - enterin! into the usiness #ontra#t in uestion@ 3Rollo, pp. 20'217.

On Jul- 12, 1991, petitioner moved for re#onsideration of the order. On u!ust

)0, 1991, petitioner filed a @$otion for a earin! for the Sole +urpose ofstalishin! a#tual lle!ation for #laim of mmunit- as a Jurisdi#tional efense.@So as to fa#ilitate the determination of its defense of soverei!n immunit-,petitioner pra-ed that a hearin! e #ondu#ted to allo* it to estalish #ertain fa#tsupon *hi#h the said defense is ased. +rivate respondent opposed this motionas *ell as the motion for re#onsideration.

On O#toer 1, 1991, the trial #ourt issued an order deferrin! the resolution on themotion for re#onsideration until after trial on the merits and dire#tin! petitioner tofile its ans*er 3Rollo, p. 227.

+etitioner forth*ith elevated the matter to us. n its petition, petitioner invo%es theprivile!e of soverei!n immunit- onl- on its o*n ehalf and on ehalf of its offi#ialrepresentative, the +apal &un#io.

On e#emer 9, 1991, a $otion for ntervention *as filed efore us - theepartment of orei!n ffairs, #laimin! that it has a le!al interest in the out#omeof the #ase as re!ards the diplomati# immunit- of petitioner, and that it @adopts -referen#e, the alle!ations #ontained in the petition of the ol- See insofar as the-refer to ar!uments relative to its #laim of soverei!n immunit- from suit@ 3Rollo, p.(:7.

+rivate respondent opposed the intervention of the epartment of orei!n ffairs. n #omplian#e *ith the resolution of this Court, oth parties and theepartment of orei!n ffairs sumitted their respe#tive memoranda.

  preliminar- matter to e threshed out is the pro#edural issue of *hether thepetition for certiorari  under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court #an e availedof to uestion the order den-in! petitioner=s motion to dismiss. The !eneral rule isthat an order den-in! a motion to dismiss is not revie*ale - the appellate#ourts, the remed- of the movant ein! to file his ans*er and to pro#eed *ith thehearin! efore the trial #ourt. "ut the !eneral rule admits of e#eptions, and oneof these is *hen it is ver- #lear in the re#ords that the trial #ourt has noalternative ut to dismiss the #omplaint 3+hilippine &ational "an% v. lorendo,206 SCR 5(2 A1992B< Da!ada v. Civil Servi#e Commission, 216 SCR 11A1992B. n su#h a #ase, it *ould e a sheer *aste of time and ener!- to reuirethe parties to under!o the ri!ors of a trial.

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 5/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

The other pro#edural uestion raised - private respondent is the personalit- orle!al interest of the epartment of orei!n ffairs to intervene in the #ase inehalf of the ol- See 3Rollo, pp. 1(6'1907.

n +uli# nternational 4a*, *hen a state or international a!en#- *ishes to plead

soverei!n or diplomati# immunit- in a forei!n #ourt, it reuests the orei!n Offi#eof the state *here it is sued to #onve- to the #ourt that said defendant is entitledto immunit-.

n the Enited States, the pro#edure follo*ed is the pro#ess of @su!!estion,@*here the forei!n state or the international or!aniFation sued in an meri#an#ourt reuests the Se#retar- of State to ma%e a determination as to *hether it isentitled to immunit-. f the Se#retar- of State finds that the defendant is immunefrom suit, he, in turn, as%s the ttorne- General to sumit to the #ourt a@su!!estion@ that the defendant is entitled to immunit-. n n!land, a similarpro#edure is follo*ed, onl- the orei!n Offi#e issues a #ertifi#ation to that effe#t

instead of sumittin! a @su!!estion@ 3O=Connell, nternational 4a* 1)0 A1965B<&ote; mmunit- from Suit of orei!n Soverei!n nstrumentalities and Oli!ations,50 Hale 4a* Journal 10(( A191B7.

n the +hilippines, the pra#ti#e is for the forei!n !overnment or the internationalor!aniFation to first se#ure an ee#utive endorsement of its #laim of soverei!n ordiplomati# immunit-. "ut ho* the +hilippine orei!n Offi#e #onve-s itsendorsement to the #ourts varies. n International Catolic Migration Co!!issionv. Calle"a, 190 SCR 1)0 319907, the Se#retar- of orei!n ffairs >ust sent aletter dire#tl- to the Se#retar- of 4aor and mplo-ment, informin! the latter thatthe respondent'emplo-er #ould not e sued e#ause it en>o-ed diplomati#

immunit-. n #orld $ealt Organi%ation v. 'uino, ( SCR 22 319:27, theSe#retar- of orei!n ffairs sent the trial #ourt a tele!ram to that effe#t. n (aer v.)i%on, 5: SCR 1 319:7, the E.S. mass- as%ed the Se#retar- of orei!n

 ffairs to reuest the Soli#itor General to ma%e, in ehalf of the Commander ofthe Enited States &aval "ase at Olon!apo Cit-, Damales, a @su!!estion@ torespondent Jud!e. The Soli#itor General emodied the @su!!estion@ in a$anifestation and $emorandum as a!icus curiae.

n the #ase at en#h, the epartment of orei!n ffairs, throu!h the Offi#e of4e!al ffairs moved *ith this Court to e allo*ed to intervene on the side ofpetitioner. The Court allo*ed the said epartment to file its memorandum insupport of petitioner=s #laim of soverei!n immunit-.

n some #ases, the defense of soverei!n immunit- *as sumitted dire#tl- to thelo#al #ourts - the respondents throu!h their private #ounsels 3RauiFa v."radford, :5 +hil. 50 A195B< $iuiaas v. +hilippine'R-u%-us Command, (0 +hil.262 A19(B< Enited States of meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2 SCR 6 A1990B and#ompanion #ases7. n #ases *here the forei!n states -pass the orei!n Offi#e,

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 6/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

the #ourts #an inuire into the fa#ts and ma%e their o*n determination as to thenature of the a#ts and transa#tions involved.

The urden of the petition is that respondent trial #ourt has no >urisdi#tion overpetitioner, ein! a forei!n state en>o-in! soverei!n immunit-. On the other hand,private respondent insists that the do#trine of non'suailit- is not an-moreasolute and that petitioner has divested itself of su#h a #loa% *hen, of its o*nfree *ill, it entered into a #ommer#ial transa#tion for the sale of a par#el of landlo#ated in the +hilippines.

 . )e $oly See

"efore *e determine the issue of petitioner=s non'suailit-, a rief loo% into itsstatus as a soverei!n state is in order.

"efore the anneation of the +apal States - tal- in 1(:0, the +ope *as themonar#h and he, as the ol- See, *as #onsidered a su>e#t of nternational 4a*.Iith the loss of the +apal States and the limitation of the territor- under the ol-See to an area of 10(.: a#res, the position of the ol- See in nternational 4a*e#ame #ontroversial 3Salon!a and Hap, +uli# nternational 4a* )6'): A1992B7.

n 1929, tal- and the ol- See entered into the 4ateran Treat-, *here tal-re#o!niFed the e#lusive dominion and soverei!n >urisdi#tion of the ol- Seeover the /ati#an Cit-. t also re#o!niFed the ri!ht of the ol- See to re#eiveforei!n diplomats, to send its o*n diplomats to forei!n #ountries, and to enter intotreaties a##ordin! to nternational 4a* 3Gar#ia, uestions and +rolems nnternational 4a*, +uli# and +rivate (1 A19(B7.

The 4ateran Treat- estalished the statehood of the /ati#an Cit- @for the purposeof assurin! to the ol- See asolute and visile independen#e and of!uaranteein! to it indisputale soverei!nt- also in the field of internationalrelations@ 3O=Connell, nternational 4a* )11 A1965B7.

n vie* of the *ordin!s of the 4ateran Treat-, it is diffi#ult to determine *hetherthe statehood is vested in the ol- See or in the /ati#an Cit-. Some *riters evensu!!ested that the treat- #reated t*o international persons ? the ol- See and/ati#an Cit- 3Salon!a and Hap, supra, ):7.

The /ati#an Cit- fits into none of the estalished #ate!ories of states, and theattriution to it of @soverei!nt-@ must e made in a sense different from that in*hi#h it is applied to other states 3en*i#%, nternational 4a* 12'125 A19(B<CruF, nternational 4a* ): A1991B7. n a #ommunit- of national states, the /ati#anCit- represents an entit- or!aniFed not for politi#al ut for e##lesiasti#al purposesand international o>e#ts. espite its siFe and o>e#t, the /ati#an Cit- has an

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 7/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

independent !overnment of its o*n, *ith the +ope, *ho is also head of theRoman Catholi# Chur#h, as the ol- See or ead of State, in #onformit- *ith itstraditions, and the demands of its mission in the *orld. ndeed, the *orld'*ideinterests and a#tivities of the /ati#an Cit- are su#h as to ma%e it in a sense an@international state@ 3en*i#%, supra., 125< Kelsen, +rin#iples of nternational 4a*

160 A1956B7.

One authorit- *rote that the re#o!nition of the /ati#an Cit- as a state hassi!nifi#ant impli#ation ? that it is possile for an- entit- pursuin! o>e#tsessentiall- different from those pursued - states to e invested *ithinternational personalit- 3KunF, The Status of the ol- See in nternational 4a*,6 The meri#an Journal of nternational 4a* )0( A1952B7.

nasmu#h as the +ope prefers to #ondu#t forei!n relations and enter intotransa#tions as the ol- See and not in the name of the /ati#an Cit-, one #an#on#lude that in the +ope=s o*n vie*, it is the ol- See that is the international

person.

The Repuli# of the +hilippines has a##orded the ol- See the status of a forei!nsoverei!n. The ol- See, throu!h its massador, the +apal &un#io, has haddiplomati# representations *ith the +hilippine !overnment sin#e 195: 3Rollo, p.(:7. This appears to e the universal pra#ti#e in international relations.

". Sovereign I!!unity 

 s epressed in Se#tion 2 of rti#le of the 19(: Constitution, *e have adoptedthe !enerall- a##epted prin#iples of nternational 4a*. ven *ithout this

affirmation, su#h prin#iples of nternational 4a* are deemed in#orporated as partof the la* of the land as a #ondition and #onseuen#e of our admission in theso#iet- of nations 3Enited States of meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2 SCR 6 A1990B7.

There are t*o #onfli#tin! #on#epts of soverei!n immunit-, ea#h *idel- held andfirml- estalished. ##ordin! to the #lassi#al or asolute theor-, a soverei!n#annot, *ithout its #onsent, e made a respondent in the #ourts of anothersoverei!n. ##ordin! to the ne*er or restri#tive theor-, the immunit- of thesoverei!n is re#o!niFed onl- *ith re!ard to puli# a#ts or a#ts  "ure i!perii of astate, ut not *ith re!ard to private a#ts or a#ts  "ure gestionis3Enited States of meri#a v. RuiF, 1)6 SCR (: A19(:B< Couia and efensor'

Santia!o, +uli# nternational 4a* 19 A19(B7.

Some states passed le!islation to serve as !uidelines for the ee#utive or >udi#ialdetermination *hen an a#t ma- e #onsidered as  "ure gestionis. The EnitedStates passed the orei!n Soverei!n mmunities #t of 19:6, *hi#h defines a#ommer#ial a#tivit- as @either a re!ular #ourse of #ommer#ial #ondu#t or aparti#ular #ommer#ial transa#tion or a#t.@ urthermore, the la* de#lared that the@#ommer#ial #hara#ter of the a#tivit- shall e determined - referen#e to the

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 8/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

nature of the #ourse of #ondu#t or parti#ular transa#tion or a#t, rather than -referen#e to its purpose.@ The Canadian +arliament ena#ted in 19(2 an #t to+rovide or State mmunit- in Canadian Courts. The #t defines a @#ommer#iala#tivit-@ as an- parti#ular transa#tion, a#t or #ondu#t or an- re!ular #ourse of#ondu#t that - reason of its nature, is of a @#ommer#ial #hara#ter.@

The restri#tive theor-, *hi#h is intended to e a solution to the host of prolemsinvolvin! the issue of soverei!n immunit-, has #reated prolems of its o*n. 4e!altreatises and the de#isions in #ountries *hi#h follo* the restri#tive theor- havediffi#ult- in #hara#teriFin! *hether a #ontra#t of a soverei!n state *ith a privatepart- is an a#t "ure gestionis or an a#t "ure i!perii .

The restri#tive theor- #ame aout e#ause of the entr- of soverei!n states intopurel- #ommer#ial a#tivities remotel- #onne#ted *ith the dis#har!e of!overnmental fun#tions. This is parti#ularl- true *ith respe#t to the Communiststates *hi#h too% #ontrol of nationaliFed usiness a#tivities and international

tradin!.

This Court has #onsidered the follo*in! transa#tions - a forei!n state *ithprivate parties as a#ts "ure i!perii ; 317 the lease - a forei!n !overnment ofapartment uildin!s for use of its militar- offi#ers 3S-uia v. 4opeF, ( +hil. )12A199B< 327 the #ondu#t of puli# iddin! for the repair of a *harf at a EnitedStates &aval Station 3Enited States of meri#a v. RuiF, supra.7< and 3)7 the#han!e of emplo-ment status of ase emplo-ees 3Sanders v. /eridiano, 162SCR (( A19((B7.

On the other hand, this Court has #onsidered the follo*in! transa#tions - a

forei!n state *ith private parties as a#ts "ure gestionis; 317 the hirin! of a #oo% inthe re#reation #enter, #onsistin! of three restaurants, a #afeteria, a a%er-, astore, and a #offee and pastr- shop at the John a- ir Station in "a!uio Cit-, to#ater to meri#an servi#emen and the !eneral puli# 3Enited States of meri#a v.Rodri!o, 1(2 SCR 6 A1990B7< and 327 the iddin! for the operation of arershops in Clar% ir "ase in n!eles Cit- 3Enited States of meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2SCR 6 A1990B7. The operation of the restaurants and other fa#ilities open tothe !eneral puli# is undoutedl- for profit as a #ommer#ial and not a!overnmental a#tivit-. "- enterin! into the emplo-ment #ontra#t *ith the #oo% inthe dis#har!e of its proprietar- fun#tion, the Enited States !overnment impliedl-divested itself of its soverei!n immunit- from suit.

n the asen#e of le!islation definin! *hat a#tivities and transa#tions shall e#onsidered @#ommer#ial@ and as #onstitutin! a#ts "ure gestionis, *e have to#ome out *ith our o*n !uidelines, tentative the- ma- e.

Certainl-, the mere enterin! into a #ontra#t - a forei!n state *ith a private part-#annot e the ultimate test. Su#h an a#t #an onl- e the start of the inuir-. Thelo!i#al uestion is *hether the forei!n state is en!a!ed in the a#tivit- in the

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 9/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

re!ular #ourse of usiness. f the forei!n state is not en!a!ed re!ularl- in ausiness or trade, the parti#ular a#t or transa#tion must then e tested - itsnature. f the a#t is in pursuit of a soverei!n a#tivit-, or an in#ident thereof, then itis an a#t "ure i!perii , espe#iall- *hen it is not underta%en for !ain or profit.

 s held in *nited States of !erica v. +uinto, 3supra7;

There is no uestion that the Enited States of meri#a, li%e an- other state, *ille deemed to have impliedl- *aived its non'suailit- if it has entered into a#ontra#t in its proprietar- or private #apa#it-. t is onl- *hen the #ontra#t involvesits soverei!n or !overnmental #apa#it- that no su#h *aiver ma- e implied.

n the #ase at en#h, if petitioner has ou!ht and sold lands in the ordinar-#ourse of a real estate usiness, surel- the said transa#tion #an e #ate!oriFedas an a#t "ure gestionis. o*ever, petitioner has denied that the a#uisition andsuseuent disposal of 4ot 5' *ere made for profit ut #laimed that it a#uiredsaid propert- for the site of its mission or the postoli# &un#iature in the

+hilippines. +rivate respondent failed to dispute said #laim.

4ot 5' *as a#uired - petitioner as a donation from the r#hdio#ese of $anila.The donation *as made not for #ommer#ial purpose, ut for the use of petitionerto #onstru#t thereon the offi#ial pla#e of residen#e of the +apal &un#io. The ri!htof a forei!n soverei!n to a#uire propert-, real or personal, in a re#eivin! state,ne#essar- for the #reation and maintenan#e of its diplomati# mission, isre#o!niFed in the 1961 /ienna Convention on iplomati# Relations 3rts. 20'227.This treat- *as #on#urred in - the +hilippine Senate and entered into for#e inthe +hilippines on &ovemer 15, 1965.

n rti#le )13a7 of the Convention, a diplomati# envo- is !ranted immunit- fromthe #ivil and administrative >urisdi#tion of the re#eivin! state over an- real a#tionrelatin! to private immovale propert- situated in the territor- of the re#eivin!state *hi#h the envo- holds on ehalf of the sendin! state for the purposes of themission. f this immunit- is provided for a diplomati# envo-, *ith all the morereason should immunit- e re#o!niFed as re!ards the soverei!n itself, *hi#h inthis #ase is the ol- See.

The de#ision to transfer the propert- and the suseuent disposal thereof areli%e*ise #lothed *ith a !overnmental #hara#ter. +etitioner did not sell 4ot5' for profit or !ain. t merel- *anted to dispose off the same e#ause the

suatters livin! thereon made it almost impossile for petitioner to use it for thepurpose of the donation. The fa#t that suatters have o##upied and are stillo##up-in! the lot, and that the- stuornl- refuse to leave the premises, haseen admitted - private respondent in its #omplaint 3Rollo, pp. 26, 2:7.

The issue of petitioner=s non'suailit- #an e determined - the trial #ourt *ithout!oin! to trial in the li!ht of the pleadin!s, parti#ularl- the admission of privaterespondent. "esides, the privile!e of soverei!n immunit- in this #ase *as

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 10/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

suffi#ientl- estalished - the $emorandum and Certifi#ation of the epartmentof orei!n ffairs. s the department tas%ed *ith the #ondu#t of the +hilippines=forei!n relations 3dministrative Code of 19(:, "oo% /, Title , Se#. )7, theepartment of orei!n ffairs has formall- intervened in this #ase and offi#iall-#ertified that the mass- of the ol- See is a dul- a##redited diplomati# mission

to the Repuli# of the +hilippines eempt from lo#al >urisdi#tion and entitled to allthe ri!hts, privile!es and immunities of a diplomati# mission or emass- in this#ountr- 3Rollo, pp. 156'15:7. The determination of the ee#utive arm of!overnment that a state or instrumentalit- is entitled to soverei!n or diplomati#immunit- is a politi#al uestion that is #on#lusive upon the #ourts 3nternationalCatholi# $i!ration Commission v. Calle>a, 190 SCR 1)0 A1990B7. Ihere theplea of immunit- is re#o!niFed and affirmed - the ee#utive ran#h, it is thedut- of the #ourts to a##ept this #laim so as not to emarrass the ee#utive armof the !overnment in #ondu#tin! the #ountr-=s forei!n relations 3Iorld ealthOr!aniFation v. uino, ( SCR 22 A19:2B7. s in International CatolicMigration Co!!ission and in #orld $ealt Organi%ation, *e aide - the

#ertifi#ation of the epartment of orei!n ffairs.

Ordinaril-, the pro#edure *ould e to remand the #ase and order the trial #ourt to#ondu#t a hearin! to estalish the fa#ts alle!ed - petitioner in its motion. n vie*of said #ertifi#ation, su#h pro#edure *ould ho*ever e pointless and undul-#ir#uitous 3Orti!as L Co. 4td. +artnership v. Jud!e Tirso /elas#o, G.R. &o.10965, Jul- 25, 1997.

/

+rivate respondent is not left *ithout an- le!al remed- for the redress of its!rievan#es. Ender oth +uli# nternational 4a* and Transnational 4a*, a person*ho feels a!!rieved - the a#ts of a forei!n soverei!n #an as% his o*n!overnment to espouse his #ause throu!h diplomati# #hannels.

+rivate respondent #an as% the +hilippine !overnment, throu!h the orei!nOffi#e, to espouse its #laims a!ainst the ol- See. ts first tas% is to persuade the+hilippine !overnment to ta%e up *ith the ol- See the validit- of its #laims. Of#ourse, the orei!n Offi#e shall first ma%e a determination of the impa#t of itsespousal on the relations et*een the +hilippine !overnment and the ol- See3Houn!, Re!edies of Private Clai!ants gainst oreign States, Sele#tedReadin!s on +rote#tion - 4a* of +rivate orei!n nvestments 905, 919 A196B7.On#e the +hilippine !overnment de#ides to espouse the #laim, the latter #easesto e a private #ause.

 ##ordin! to the +ermanent Court of nternational Justi#e, the forerunner of thenternational Court of Justi#e;

"- ta%in! up the #ase of one of its su>e#ts and - reportin! to diplomati# a#tionor international >udi#ial pro#eedin!s on his ehalf, a State is in realit- assertin! itso*n ri!hts ? its ri!ht to ensure, in the person of its su>e#ts, respe#t for the rules

8/11/2019 Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/introduction-to-law-and-the-legal-profession 11/11

Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

of international la* 3The $avrommatis +alestine Con#essions, 1 udson, IorldCourt Reports 29), )02 A192B7.

IROR, the petition for certiorari  is GR&T and the #omplaint in CivilCase &o. 90'1() a!ainst petitioner is S$SS.

SO ORR.

-arvasa, C.., (idin, Regalado, /avide, r., Ro!ero, (ellosillo, Melo, Puno,0itug, 1apunan and Mendo%a, ., concur.

Padilla, ., took no part.

eliciano, ., is on leave.

The Lawphil Pro%ect 3 Arellano Law #oundation