Cases (3rd Batch)

7/21/2019 Cases (3rd Batch)

1/39

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-30671 November 28, 1973

REPUBLC O! T"E P"LPPNES, petitioner,

vs."ON. GULLERMO P. #LL$SOR, %& '()*e o+ e Co(r o+ !r& /&%/e o+ Ceb(, Br%/ , T"E PRO#NC$L S"ER!! O! R$L, T"E S"ER!! O! UEON CT%/) T"E S"ER!! O! T"E CT O! M$NL$, T"E CLER4 O! COURT, Co(r o+ !r& /&%/e o+ Ceb(, P. '. 4ENER CO., LT5., G$#NO UNC"U$N, $N5NTERN$TON$L CONSTRUCTON CORPOR$TON, respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioner.

Andres T. Velarde and Marcelo B. Fernan for respondents.

!ERN$N5O, J.:

he Republic of the Philippines in this certiorariand prohibition proceedin! challen!es the validit" of an order issued b" respondent #ud!e $uiller%o P. Villasor, then of theCourt of &irst Instance of Cebu, 'ranch I, 1declarin! a decision final and e(ecutor" and of an alias )rit of e(ecution directed a!ainst the funds of the *r%ed &orces of the

Philippines subse+uentl" issued in pursuance thereof, the alle!ed !round bein! e(cess of urisdiction, or at the ver" least, !rave abuse of discretion. *s thus si%pl" andtersel" put, )ith the facts bein! undisputed and the principle of la) that calls for application indisputable, the outco%e is predictable. he Republic of the Philippines is entitledto the )rits pra"ed for. Respondent #ud!e ou!ht not to have acted thus. he order thus i%pu!ned and the alias )rit of e(ecution %ust be nullified.

In the petition filed b" the Republic of the Philippines on #ul" -, /0/, a su%%ar" of facts )as set forth thus1 2-. On #ul" 3, /0, a decision )as rendered in SpecialProceedin!s No. 4506R in favor of respondents P. #. 7iener Co., 8td., $avino 9nchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and a!ainst the petitioner herein,confir%in! the arbitration a)ard in the a%ount of P,-4,3/0.:;, subect of Special Proceedin!s. al Province, ?ue>on Cit" @as )ell asA Manila to e(ecute the saiddecision. /. Pursuant to the said Order dated #une 4:, /0/, the correspondin! *lias Brit of E(ecution @)as issuedA dated #une 40, /0/, .... ;. On the stren!th of the afore6%entioned *lias Brit of E(ecution dated #une 40, /0/, the Provincial Sheriff of Ri>al respondent herein served notices of !arnish%ent dated #une 4


2/39

*aldivar +"hair%an,- Antonio- Fernande and A/!ino- 00.- conc!r.

Barredo- 0- took no part.


3/39


Manila

=IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 10269 November 11, 1993

5EP$RTMENT O! $GRCULTURE, petitioner,

vs.T"E N$TON$L L$BOR REL$TONS COMMSSON, e %.,respondents.

#o( 1ago Salcedo for private respondents.

#TUG, J.:

&or consideration are the incidents that flo) fro% the fa%iliar doctrine of non6suabilit" of the state.

In this petition for certiorari, the Depart%ent of *!riculture sees to nullif" the Resolution, 1dated 4- Nove%ber //, of the National 8abor Relations Co%%ission N8RC,&ifth Division, Ca!a"an de Oro Cit", den"in! the petition for inunction, prohibition and %anda%!sthat pra"s to enoin per%anentl" the N8RCGs Re!ional *rbitration 'ranch H

and Ca!a"an de Oro Cit" Sheriff fro% enforcin! the decision 2of 3 Ma" // of the E(ecutive 8abor *rbiter and fro% attachin! and e(ecutin! on petitionerGs propert".

he Depart%ent of *!riculture herein petitioner and Sultan Securit" *!enc" entered into a contract3on ; *pril /


4/39

5. he ri!ht of an" of the ud!%ent debtors to clai% rei%burse%ent a!ainst each other for an" pa"%ents %ade in connection )ith the satisfaction of theud!%ents herein is hereb" reco!ni>ed pursuant to the rulin! in the 4agle Sec!rit(case, s!pra. In case of dispute bet)een the ud!%ent debtors, theE(ecutive 8abor *rbiter of the 'ranch of ori!in %a" upon proper petition b" an" of the parties conduct arbitration proceedin!s for the purpose andthereb" render his decision after due notice and hearin!sF

-. &inall", the petition for inunction is )is%issedfor lac of basis. he )rit of preli%inar" inunction previousl" issued is 1ifted andSet Asideand in lieuthereof, a Te%porar( Sta( of 4xec!tionis issued for a period of t)o 4 %onths but not e(tendin! be"ond the last +uarter of calendar "ear //,conditioned upon the postin! of a suret" or supersedeas bond b" petitioner )ithin ten ; da"s fro% notice pursuant to para!raph 3 of this disposition.he %otion to ad%it the co%plaint in intervention is)enied for lac of %erit )hile the %otion to dis%iss the petition filed b" Dut" Sheriff is 5oted

SO ORDERED.

In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner char!es the N8RC )ith !rave abuse of discretion for refusin! to +uash the )rit of e(ecution. he petitioner faults the N8RC forassu%in! urisdiction over a %one" clai% a!ainst the Depart%ent, )hich, it clai%s, falls under the e(clusive urisdiction of the Co%%ission on *udit. More i%portantl", thepetitioner asserts, the N8RC has disre!arded the cardinal rule on the non6suabilit" of the State.

he private respondents, on the other hand, ar!ue that the petitioner has i%pliedl" )aived its i%%unit" fro% suit b" concludin! a service contract )ith Sultan Securit" *!enc".

he basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that 2the State %a" not be sued )ithout its consent,2 7reflects nothin! less than a reco!nition of the soverei!n character ofthe State and an e(press affir%ation of the un)ritten rule effectivel" insulatin! it fro% the urisdiction of courts. 8It is based on the ver" essence of soverei!nt". *s has beenaptl" observed, b" #ustice =ol%es, a soverei!n is e(e%pt fro% suit, not because of an" for%al conception or obsolete theor", but on the lo!ical and practical !round that there

can be no le!al ri!ht as a!ainst the authorit" that %aes the la) on )hich the ri!ht depends. 9rue, the doctrine, not too infre+uentl", is derisivel" called 2the ro"al prero!ativeof dishonest"2 because it !rants the state the prero!ative to defeat an" le!iti%ate clai% a!ainst it b" si%pl" invoin! its non6suabilit". 10Be have had occasion, to e(plain in itsdefense, ho)ever, that a continued adherence to the doctrine of non6suabilit" cannot be deplored, for the loss of !overn%ental efficienc" and the obstacle to the perfor%anceof its %ultifarious functions )ould be far !reater in severit" than the inconvenience that %a" be caused private parties, if such funda%ental principle is to be abandoned andthe availabilit" of udicial re%ed" is not to be accordin!l" restricted. 11

he rule, in an" case, is not reall" absolute for it does not sa" that the state %a" not be sued under an" circu%stances. On the contrar", as correctl" phrased, the doctrine onl"

conve"s, 2the state %a" not be sued )ithout its consentF2 its clear i%port then is that the State %a" at ti%es be sued. 12he StatesG consent %a" be !iven e(pressl" ori%pliedl". E(press consent %a" be %ade throu!h a !eneral la)13or a special la). 1In this urisdiction, the !eneral la) )aivin! the i%%unit" of the state fro% suit is found in

*ct No. 3;


5/39


6/39


Manila

&IRS DIVISION

G.R. No. 7083 M%r 12, 1987

REPUBLC O! T"E P"LPPNES, petitioner6appellee,vs.P$BLO !ELC$NO %/) NTERME5$TE $PPELL$TE COURT, respondents6appellants.

$P,J.:

Petitioner sees the revie) of the decision of the Inter%ediate *ppellate Court dated *pril 3;, /


7/39

'" its caption and its alle!ation and pra"er, the co%plaint is clearl" a suit a!ainst the State, )hich under settled urisprudence is not per%itted, e(cept upon a sho)in! that theState has consented to be sued, either e(pressl" or b" i%plication throu!h the use of statutor" lan!ua!e too plain to be %isinterpreted.2here is no such sho)in! in theinstant case. Borse, the co%plaint itself fails to alle!e the e(istence of such consent. his is a fatal defect, 3and on this basis alone, the co%plaint should have beendis%issed.

he failure of the petitioner to assert the defense of i%%unit" fro% suit )hen the case )as tried before the court a /!o-as alle!ed b" private respondent, is not fatal. It is no)settled that such defense 2%a" be invoed b" the courts s!a sponteat an" sta!e of the proceedin!s.2

Private respondent contends that the consent of petitioner %a" be read fro% the Procla%ation itself, )hen it established the reservation 2 subect to private ri!hts, if an" therebe. 2 Be do not a!ree. No such consent can be dra)n fro% the lan!ua!e of the Procla%ation. he e(clusion of e(istin! private ri!hts fro% the reservation established b"Procla%ation No. /; can not be construed as a )aiver of the i%%unit" of the State fro% suit. Baiver of i%%unit", bein! a dero!ation of soverei!nt", )ill not be inferred li!htl".but %ust be construed instrictissi%i 2!ris. Moreover, the Procla%ation is not a le!islative act. he consent of the State to be sued %ust e%anate fro% statutor" authorit".Baiver of State i%%unit" can onl" be %ade b" an act of the le!islative bod".

Neither is there %erit in respondentGs sub%ission, )hich the respondent appellate court sustained, on the basis of our decision in the Begosacase, 6that the present action isnot a suit a!ainst the State )ithin the rule of State i%%unit" fro% suit, because plaintiff does not see to divest the $overn%ent of an" of its lands or its funds. It is contendedthat the co%plaint involves land not o)ned b" the State, but private land belon!in! to the plaintiff, hence the $overn%ent is not bein! divested of an" of its properties. here isso%e sophistr" involved in this ar!u%ent, since the character of the land sou!ht to be recovered still re%ains to be established, and the plaintiffGs action is directed a!ainst theState precisel" to co%pel the latter to liti!ate the o)nership and possession of the propert". In other )ords, the plaintiff is out to establish that he is the o)ner of the land in+uestion based, incidentall", on an infor%acion posesoriaof dubious value, and he sees to establish his clai% of o)nership b" suin! the Republic of the Philippines in anaction in persona%.

he inscription in the propert" re!istr" of an infor%acion posesoriaunder the Spanish Mort!a!e 8a) )as a %eans provided b" the la) then in force in the Philippines prior tothe transfer of soverei!nt" fro% Spain to the 9nited States of *%erica, to record a clai%antGs actual possession of a piece of land, established throu!h an ex parteproceedin!conducted in accordance )ith prescribed rules. 7Such inscription %erel" furnishes, at best,pri%a facieevidence of the fact that at the ti%e the proceedin! )as held, theclai%ant )as in possession of the land under a clai% of ri!ht as set forth in his application. 8he possessor" infor%ation could ripen into a record of o)nership after the lapseof 4; "ears later reduced to ; "ears, upon the fulfill%ent of the re+uisites prescribed in *rticle 3/3 of the Spanish Mort!a!e 8a).

here is no sho)in! in the case at bar that the infor%acion posesoriaheld b" the respondent had been converted into a record of o)nership. Such possessor" infor%ation,

therefore, re%ained at best %erepri%a facieevidence of possession. 9sin! this possessor" infor%ation, the respondent could have applied for udicial confir%ation ofi%perfect title under the Public 8and *ct, )hich is an action in re%.=o)ever, havin! failed to do so, it is rather late for hi% to pursue this avenue at this ti%e. Respondent %usalso contend, as the records disclose, )ith the fact ad%itted b" hi% and stated in the decision of the Court a /!o that settlers have been occup"in! and cultivatin! the land in+uestion since even before the outbrea of the )ar, )hich puts in !rave doubt his o)n clai% of possession.

Borth" of note is the fact, as pointed out b" the Solicitor $eneral, that the infor%acion posesoriare!istered in the Office of the Re!ister of Deed of Ca%arines Sur onSepte%ber 43, /54 )as a 2reconstituted2 possessor" infor%ationF it )as 2reconstituted fro% the duplicate presented to this office Re!ister of Deeds b" Dr. Pablo &eliciano,2)ithout the sub%ission of proof that the alle!ed duplicate )as authentic or that the ori!inal thereof )as lost. Reconstitution can be validl" %ade onl" in case of loss of theori!inal. 10 hese circu%stances raise !rave doubts as to the authenticit" and validit" of the 2infor%acion posesoria2 relied upon b" respondent &eliciano. *ddin! to the

dubiousness of said docu%ent is the fact that 2possessor" infor%ation calls for an area of onl" ;; hectares,2 11)hereas the land clai%ed b" respondent &eliciano co%prises,30:.:-- hectares, later reduced to -;6/;0: hectares. Courts should be )ar" in acceptin! 2possessor" infor%ation docu%ents, as )ell as other purportedl" old Spanishtitles, as proof of alle!ed o)nership of lands.

B=ERE&ORE, ud!%ent is hereb" rendered reversin! and settin! aside the appealed decision of the Inter%ediate *ppellate Court, dated *pril 3;, /


8/39


Manila

EN '*NC

G.R. No. L-27299 '(/e 27, 1973

URCO 5EL M$R, petitioner and appellee,

vs.T"E P"LPPNE #ETER$NS $5MNSTR$TON, respondent and appellant.

8!irico del Mar in his o'n $ehalf.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar- First Assistant Solicitor General 4s%eraldo 6%ali and Solicitor 4!logio #a/!el Santos for respondent appellant.

C$STRO, J.:

On #une 4;, /0:, ?uirico del Mar hereinafter referred to del Mar filed )ith the Court of &irst Instance of Cebu petition for %anda%!scivil case R6ed !uerrilla or!ani>ation )iththe ran of %aorF that he subse+uentl" obtained an honorable dischar!e fro% the service on October 4;, /:0 on a certificate of per%anent total ph"sical disabilit"F that uponproper clai% presented and after hearin! and adudication, the Philippine Veterans 'oard the PV*Gs predecessor !ranted hi% a %onthl" life pension of P5; effective #anuar"4


9/39

he PV* labors under a %uddled and %istaen appreciation of the aforecited observation. his Court stated in precise lan!ua!e the sole issue for resolution in that case,thus1

Is the PV* e(e%pt fro% the filin! of an appeal bond o resolve this issue, )e %ust initiall" deter%ine )hether the PV* is an a!enc" or instru%entalit"of the Republic of the Philippines, and, in the affir%ative, )hether it e(ercises !overn%ental functions.

Indeed, the decisive point in the afore%entioned case related to the status of the PV* as an a!enc" or instru%entalit" of the Republic of the Philippinese(ercisin! !overn%ental functions as to be entitled to e(e%ption fro% the filin! of the appeal bond per section 0 of Rule : of the Rules of Court, notto the nature of the clai% sou!ht to be enforced b" the private respondent therein del Mar a!ainst the said PV*. hus, in the said case, this Court%ade a len!th" dis+uisition on the histor", develop%ent and or!ani>ation of the PV* to sho) conclusivel" that the sa%e is an entit" or a!enc" of theRepublic of the Philippines perfor%in! !overn%ental functions. rue, this Court referred to the clai% of the private respondent therein as 2a clai% for asu% of %one" a!ainst the $overn%ent, )hich clai%, if adud!ed finall" to be %eritorious, )ould render the Republic of the Philippines liable therefor,2since the funds fro% )hich the clai% )as to be satisfied )ere funds appropriated b" Con!ress for the PV*F but this Court properl" and advisedl"o%itted an" stud" and consideration of the +uestion of suitabilit" or non6suitabilit" of the $overn%ent in connection there)ith.

*s a !eneral proposition, the rule L )ell6settled in this urisdiction L on the i%%unit" of the $overn%ent fro% suit )ithout its consent holds true in all actions resultin! in

2adverse conse+uences on the public treasur", )hether in the disburse%ents of funds or loss of propert".2 Needless to state, in such actions, )hich, in effect, constitute suitsa!ainst the $overn%ent, the court has no option but to dis%iss the%. Nonetheless, the rule ad%its of an e(ception. It finds no application )here a clai%ant institutes an actiona!ainst a functionar" )ho fails to co%pl" )ith his statutor" dut" to release the a%ount clai%ed fro% the public funds alread" appropriated b" statute for the benefit of the said

clai%ant.*s clearl" discernible fro% the circu%stances, the case at bar falls under the e(ception.

4. he second +uestion posed b" the PV* relates to del Mar alle!ed failure to e(haust ad%inistrative re%edies before resortin! to court action. Suffice it to state that )here acase as in the present controvers" L involves a +uestion solel" of a le!al nature, there arises no need for the liti!ant to resort to all ad%inistrative re%edies available to hi%before seein! udicial relief. 6

3. he validit" of section 0 of Re!ulation No. 4 of the 2Rules and Re!ulations on VeteransG 'enefits2 adopted b" the PV* constitutes the core of the present controvers". hesaid section 0 reads as follo)s1

SEC. 0. 4ffect of receipt of 6SVA pension $enefit 9ter%ination, reduction. L *n a)ard of a si%ilar disabilit" co%pensation fro% the 9S Veterans*d%inistration shall be a !round for the cancellation of a disabilit" pension !ranted under the Re!ulation1 Provided- ho'ever, hat if and )hile thedisabilit" co%pensation a)arded b" the 9S Veterans *d%inistration is less than the pension !ranted hereunder, the difference in a%ount shall beassu%ed and paid b" the PV*1 Provided- f!rther, hat upon proper application, the disabilit" a)ard previousl" cancelled %a" be restored upon theter%ination of the 9S Veterans *d%inistration a)ard if the cause of such ter%ination is due to ne!ative %ilitar" service report of the pensioner certifiedb" the 9S Depart%ent of the *r%" and not for an" other valid cause1 Provided, finall(, hat the veteran is %edicall" deter%ined to be still sufferin! fro%the disabilit" for )hich he )as previousl" a)arded a pension. Pa"%ent of pension thus restored shall tae effect or shall co%%ence onl" fro% the dateof approval of restoration and )hen funds beco%e available.

Pursuant to the fore!oin!, the PV* cancelled and discontinued the %onthl" life pension of del Mar reasonin! that the latterGs receipt of a si%ilar pension fro% the 9nited States$overn%ent precluded his eno"in! an" lie benefit fro% the Philippine $overn%ent. he PV* avers that it adopted the afore+uoted section 0 in order to carr" out and

i%ple%ent section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, 7particularl" its e(ceptin! clause. Said section / reads1

SEC. /. he persons %entioned in sections one and t)o hereof )ho are per%anentl" incapacitated fro%)or o)in! to sicness, disease or inuries sustained in line of dut", shall be !iven a life pension of one

hundred pesos a %onth, and ten pesos a %onth for each of his un%arried %inor children belo) ei!hteen"ears of a!e, unless the" are actuall" receivin! a si%ilar pension fro% other $overn%ent funds, and shallreceive, in addition, the necessar" hospitali>ation and %edical care. 8

he PV* reads the phrase 2fro% other $overn%ent funds2 in the e(ceptin! clause of the aforecited provision as necessaril" includin! funds of the 9nited States $overn%ent.*nd )ithout +uestion, the pension del Mar receives fro% the 9nited States Veterans *d%inistration co%es fro% the funds of the 9nited States $overn%ent.

On the other hand, del Mar avers that section 0 of Re!ulation No. 4 ille!all" effects the suspension of the operation of section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, and ar!ues

that under section 4;9of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, the po)er suspend the pa"%ent of the %onthl" life pension a)arded to disabled veteran belon!s e(clusivel" to thePresident of the Philippines, not to the PV* )hich, in the case at bar, ille!all" arro!ated unto itself the said po)er. &urther%ore, del Mar states, the PV* 2deliberatel"%isinterprets2 the phrase fro% other $overn%ent funds2 in e(tendin! its scope to include 9nited States $overn%ent funds.

he principle reco!ni>in! the necessit" of vestin! ad%inistrative authorities )ith the po)er to pro%ul!ate rules and re!ulations to i%ple%ent a !iven statute and to effectual itspolicies, provided such rules and re!ulations confor% to the ter%s and standards prescribed b" the statute as )ell purport to carr" into effect its !eneral policies, constitutes

)ell established doctrine in this urisdiction. 10In Teoxon v. Me%$ers of the Board of Ad%inistrators- Philippine Veterans Ad%inistration- s!prea, this Court fittin!l" stated1 .

... the Constitution li%its the authorit" of the President, in )ho% all e(ecutive po)er resides, to tae care that the la)s be faithfull" e(ecuted. No lesserad%inistrative e(ecutive office or a!enc" then can, contrar" to the e(press lan!ua!e of the Constitution, assert for itself a %ore e(tensive prero!ative.Necessaril", it is bound to observe the constitutional %andate. here %ust be strict co%pliance )ith the le!islative enact%ent. Its ter%s %ust befollo)ed. he statute re+uires adherence to, not departure fro%, its provisions. No deviation is allo)able.

Section of Republic *ct 4005 11e%po)ers the PV* to adopt rules and re!ulations, thus1

SEC. . Policies- r!les and reg!lations. L Subect to e(istin! la)s, the *d%inistration shall have the po)er to pro%ul!ate and issue rules andre!ulations as %a" be found necessar" to !overn its operations and to carr" out that ai%s and purposes of this *ct and of all other la)s to bead%inistered b" the *d%inistration.

Pursuant to this rule %ain! authorit", the PV* L alle!edl"G to i%ple%ent section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended pro%ul!ated its 2Rules andRe!ulations on VeteransG 'enefits,2 section 0 of Re!ulation No. 4 of )hich cancels the disabilit" pension !ranted if the beneficiar" receives a si%ilarco%pensation fro% the 9nited States Veterans *d%inistration. In effect, the PV* b" adoptin! section 0 of Re!ulation No. 4, suspended the operation of


10/39

section /G of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended. his, Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, forbids the PV* to do for it e(pressl" authori>es onl" the President ofthe Philippines to suspend the operation of an" of its provisions 2if and )hen the Con!ress of the 9nited States approves the pendin! $I 'ill of Ri!htsapplicable to the Philippines the provisions of )hich are identical or si%ilar to the provisions of this *ct.2 Clearl" then, section 0 of Re!ulation No. 4 notonl" ne!ates the ver" spirit behind section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, but also contravenes the e(press %andate of section 4; thereof.

he PV*Gs pretense that del Mar case falls under the clause of section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, )hich e(cepts those )ho 2are actuall" receivin! a si%ilar pensionfro% other $overn%ent funds2 fro% the covera!e of said section / L predicated upon its interpretation that the phrase other $overn%ent funds2 includes funds of the 9nitedStates $overn%ent L fails to persuade this Court as a valid ar!u%ent to ustif" its cancellation of del Mar %onthl" life pens Section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, inprovidin! for the e(ceptin! clause, obviousl" intends to prevent the receipt the sa%e beneficiar" of concurrent or %ultiple pensions benefits si%ilar to each other in nature andbasis, althou!h coursed throu!h different depart%ents or a!encies, but paid out of the funds of the sa%e $overn%ent. *n" contrar" interpretation resultin! in the dero!ation othe interests of the beneficiar" )ho lie)ise receives a si%ilar pension paid out funds of other $overn%ents, conflicts )ith the establish a(io% ordainin! the construction ofpension la)s of )ar veterans in favor of those seein! their benefits.

he record of the case at bar bein! co%pletel" bereft of an" indication to sho) the suspension b" the President of the Philippines L pursuant to section 4; of Republic *ct 05a%ended L of the operation of an" of the provisions of the said statute, this Court perforce %ust uphold del Mar clai%s.

:. he rest of the assi!ned errors relate to the alle!e undue interference b" the court a /!o)ith the purel" discretionar" functions of the PV* in the %atter of !rantin!discontinuin! the pension benefits.

he la) concedes to ad%inistrative bodies L lie the PV* L the authorit" to act on and decide clai%s and applications in accordance )ith their ud!%ent, in the e(ercise oftheir adudicator" capacit". 'ecause of their ac+uired e(pertise in specific %atters )ithin the purvie) of their respective urisdictions, the findin!s of these ad%inistrative bodies%erit not onl" !reat )ei!ht but also respect and finalit". 2here is li%it, ho)ever, to such a deference paid to the actuations or such bodies, Clearl", )here there has been afailure to interpret and appl" the statutor" provisions in +uestion, udicial po)er should assert itself. 9nder the theor" of separation of po)er it is to the udiciar", and to the

udiciar" alone, that the final sa" on +uestions of la) in appropriate cases co%in! before it is vested.2 12

*ll told, no roadbloc stands in the )a" of del MarGs de%and for the continuance of his %onthl" life pension.

In vie), ho)ever, of the further a%end%ent b" Con!ress of section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, throu!h Republic *ct 5-53 L the provisions of )hich too effect on#une 4, /0/ L there arises the need to %odif" the ud!%ent a /!oin order to %ae it confor% to the said statute as it no) stands. Republic *ct 5-53, in further a%endin!section / of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, !rants ever" totall" disabled veteran of Borld Bar II 2a life pension of t)o hundred pesos a %onth, and thirt" pesos a %onth for his)ife and each of his un%arried %inor children belo) ei!hteen "ears of a!e.2

*CCORDIN$8, this Court adud!es the appellee ?uirico del Mar entitled to his life pension at the rate of P5; a %onth effective as of *pril /5; to Ma" /5-, per Republic*ct 05F 4 at the rate of P;; a %onth effective as of #une 44, /5- to Ma" /0/, per Republic *ct 05 as a%ended b" Republic *ct /4;F and 3 at the rate of P4;; a %ontheffective as of #une 4, /0/, per Republic *ct 05 as further a%ended b" Republic *ct 5-53. his Court directs the appellant Philippine Veterans *d%inistration to co%puteand then to pa" to the appellee del Mar his past and accu%ulated %onthl" life pension at the afore%entioned statutor" rates.

Re!ardin! the %onthl" livin! allo)ance the appellee del Mar ass for each of his five 2livin! un%arried %inor children belo) ei!hteen "ears of a!e,2 it appearin! that he hasnot filed an" proper application therefor )ith the appellant PV* but si%pl" included the% in his clai% for the restoration of his discontinued %onthl" life pension, the appelleedel Mar %a", if he so desires, co%pl" )ith section 5 of Republic *ct 05, as a%ended, )hich re+uires that 2@*An" person )ho desires to tae advanta!e of the ri!hts andprivile!es provided for in this *ct should file his application2 )ith the Philippine Veterans *d%inistration, and the latter is hereb" ordered to consider and pass upon the %eritsof such application, if filed, particular reference to the entitle%ent +ualifications of intended beneficiaries. No pronounce%ent as to costs.

Makalintal- *aldivar- Fernando- Teehankee Barredo- and 4sg!erra- 00.- conc!r.

Antonio and Makasiar- 00.- took no part.


11/39

G.R. No. L-32667 '%/(%r 31, 1978

P"LPPNE N$TON$L B$N4,petitioner,vs.COURT O! N5USTR$L REL$TONS, G$BREL #. M$N$NS$L$ %/) GLBERT P. LORENO, / & o++% %:% %& %(or;e) 5e:( &er++,respondents.

"onrado 4. Medina for petitioner.

Ga$riel V. Manansala in his o'n $ehalf.

0ose :. Mang!iat- 0r. for respondent "o!rt.

!ERN$N5O, J.:

he issue raised in this certiorari proceedin! is )hether or not an order of the no) defunct respondent Court of Industrial Relations den"in! for lac of %erit petitionerGs %otionto +uash a notice of !arnish%ent can be sti!%ati>ed as a !rave abuse of discretion. Bhat )as sou!ht to be !arnished )as the %one" of the PeopleGs =o%esite and =ousin!Corporation deposited at petitionerGs branch in ?ue>on Cit", to satisf" a decision of respondent Court )hich had beco%e final and e(ecutor". 1* )rit of e(ecution in favor ofprivate respondent $abriel V. Manansala had previousl" been issued. 2=e )as the counsel of the prevailin! part", the 9nited =o%esite E%plo"ees and 8aborers *ssociation,in the afore%entioned case. he validit" of the order assailed is challen!ed on t)o !rounds1 that the appoint%ent of respondent $ilbert P. 8oren>o as authori>ed deput"sheriff to serve the )rit of e(ecution )as contrar" to la) and 4 that the funds subect of the !arnish%ent 2%a" be public in character.2 3In thus den"in! the %otion to +uash,petitioner contended that there )as on the part of respondent Court a failure to abide b" authoritative doctrines a%ountin! to a !rave abuse of discretion. *fter a carefulconsideration of the %atter, it is the conclusion of this ribunal that )hile the authori>ation of respondent 8oren>o to act as special deput" sheriff to serve the notice of!arnish%ent %a" be open to obection, the %ore basic !round that could have been relied upon L not even cate!oricall" raised, petitioner li%itin! itself to the assertion thatthe funds 2could be public2 in character, thus !ivin! rise to the applicabilit" of the funda%ental concept of non6suabilit" L is hardl" persuasive. he PeopleGs =o%esite and=ousin! Corporation had a uridical e(istence enablin! it sue and be sued. Bhatever defect could be attributed therefore to the order den"in! the %otion to +uash could notbe characteri>ed as a !rave abuse of discretion. Moreover, )ith the lapse of ti%e durin! )hich private respondent had been unable to e(ecute a ud!%ent in his favor, the

e+uities are on his side. *ccordin!l", this petition %ust be dis%issed.

he order of *u!ust 40, /-; of respondent Court den"in! the %otion to +uash, subect of this certiorari proceedin!, reads as follo)s1 2he Philippine National 'an %oves to+uash the notice of !arnish%ent served upon its branch in ?ue>on Cit" b" the authori>ed deput" sheriff of this Court. It contends that the service of the notice b" theauthori>ed deput" sheriff of the court contravenes Section of Co%%on)ealth *ct No. ;5, as a%ended )hich reads12 G*ll )rits and processes issued b" the Court shall beserved and e(ecuted free of char!e b" provincial or cit" sheriffs, or b" an" person authori>ed b" this Court, in the sa%e %anner as )rits and processes of Courts of &irstInstance.G &ollo)in! the la), the 'an ar!ues that it is the Sheriff of ?ue>on Cit", and not the Cler of this Court )ho is its E(6Officio Sheriff, that has the authorit" to serve thenotice of !arnish%ent, and that the actual service b" the latter officer of said notice is therefore not in order. he Court finds no %erit in this ar!u%ent. Republic *ct No. :4;has, since #une /, /05, alread" repealed Co%%on)ealth *ct No. ;3, and under this la), it is no) the Cler of this Court that is at the sa%e ti%e the E(6Officio Sheriff. *ssuch E(6Officio Sheriff, the Cler of this Court has therefore the authorit" to issue )rits of e(ecution and notices of !arnish%ent in an area enco%passin! the )hole of thecountr", includin! ?ue>on Cit", since his area of authorit" is coter%inous )ith that of the Court itself, )hich is national in nature. ... *t this sta!e, the Court notes fro% therecord that the appeal to the Supre%e Court b" individual e%plo"ees of P==C )hich +uestions the a)ard of attorne"Gs fees to *tt". $abriel V.

Manansala, has alread" been dis%issed and that the sa%e beca%e final and e(ecutor" on *u!ust /, /-;. here is no lon!er an" reason, therefore, for )ithholdin! action inthis case. @BhereforeA, the %otion to +uash filed b" the Philippine National 'an is denied for lac of %erit. he said 'an is therefore ordered to co%pl" )ithin five da"s fro%receipt )ith the Gnotice of $arnish%entG dated Ma" 0, /-;.2 here )as a %otion for reconsideration filed b" petitioner, but in a resolution dated Septe%ber 44, /-;, it )asdenied. =ence, this certiorari petition.

*s noted at the outset, the petition lacs %erit.

. he plea for settin! aside the notice of !arnish%ent )as pro%ised on the funds of the PeopleGs ho%esite and =ousin! Corporation deposited )ith petitioner bein! 2public incharacter.2 here )as not even a cate!orical assertion to that effect. It is onl" the possibilit" of its bein! 2public in character.2 he tone )as thus irresolute,the approach difficulhe pre%ise that the funds could be spoen of as public in character %a" be accepted in the sense that the PeopleGs =o%esite and =ousin! Corporation )as a !overn%ent6o)ned entit" It does not follo) thou!h that the" )ere e(e%pt fro% !arnish%ent. 5ational Ship(ard and Steel "orporation v. co!rt of nd!strial #elations6is s+uarel" in point.

*s )as e(plicitl" stated in the opinion of the then #ustice, later Chief #ustice, Concepcion1 2he alle!ation to the effect that the funds of the N*SSCO are public funds of the!overn%ent, and that, as such, the sa%e %a" not be !arnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a !overn%ent o)ned and controlled corporation. the N*SSCOhas a personalit" of its o)n, distinct and separate fro% that of the $overn%ent. It has pursuant to Section 4 of E(ecutive Order No. 350, dated October 43, /5; ..., pursuantto )hich the N*SSCO has been established L Gall the po)ers of a corporation under the Corporation 8a) ...G *ccordin!l", it %a" sue and be sued and %a" be subected tocourt processes ust lie an" other corporation Section 3, *ct No. :5/, as a%ended.2 7he si%ilarities bet)een the aforesaid case and the present liti!ation are patent.Petitioner )as si%ilarl" a !overn%ent6o)ned corporation. he principal respondent )as the Court of Industrial Relations. he prevailin! parties )ere the e%plo"ees ofpetitioner. here )as lie)ise a )rit of e(ecution and thereafter notices of !arnish%ent served on several bans. here )as an obection to such a %ove and the rulin! )asadverse to the National Ship"ard and Steel Corporation. =ence the filin! of a petition for certiorari. o repeat, the rulin! )as +uite cate!orical $arnish%ent )as the appropriatere%ed" for the prevailin! part" )hich could proceed a!ainst the funds of a corporate entit" even if o)ned or controlled b" the !overn%ent. In a /: decision, Manila &otel4%plo(ees Association v. Manila &otel "o%pan(, 8this Court, throu!h #ustice O>aeta, held1 2On the other hand, it is )ell settled that )hen the !overn%ent enters intoco%%ercial business, it abandons its soverei!n capacit" and is to be treated lie an" other corporation. 'an of the 9nited States v. PlantersG 'an, 9Bheat, /;:, 0 8.ed.

4::. '" en!a!in! in a particular business thru the instru%entalit" of a corporation, the !overn%nent divests itself pro hac vice of its soverei!n character, so as to render thecorporation subect to the rules of la) !overnin! private corporations.2

4. It is )orth notin! that the decision referred to, the Bank of the 6nited States v. Planters; Bank, 10)as pro%ul!ated b" the *%erican Supre%e Court as earl" as


12/39

for the dis%issal of such co%plaint, alle!in! that it 2has no uridical personalit" to sue and be sued.2 1Such a %otion to dis%iss )as denied. he case )as tried and plaintiffIldefonso Orti>, included as private respondent in the Supre%e Court proceedin!, obtained a favorable %one" ud!%ent. It beca%e final and e(ecutor". hereafter, it appearedthat the Solicitor $eneral )as served )ith a cop" of the )rit of e(ecution issued b" the lo)er court follo)ed b" an order of !arnish%ent 1*!ain, there )as an ur!ent %otion tolift such order, but it )as denied. * certiorari and prohibition proceedin! )as then filed )ith the Court of *ppeals. he le!alit" of the issuance of such e(ecution andpunish%ent )as upheld, and the %atter )as elevated to this ribunal he Republic )as sustained. he infir%it" of the decision reached b" the Court of *ppeals, accordin! tothe opinion, could be traced to the belief that there )as a )aiver of 2!overn%ental i%%unit" and, b" i%plication, consent to the suit.2 16here )as no such )aiver. Even if there)ere, it )as stressed b" ustice #.'.8. Re"es1 2It is apparent that this decision of the Court of *ppeals suffers fro% the erroneous assu%ption that because the State has)aived its i%%unit", its propert" and funds beco%e liable to sei>ure under the le!al process. his e%phaticall" is not the la). Merritt v. Insular $overn%ent, 3: Phil3.2 17o lev" the e(ecution of such funds, accordin! to hi%, )ould thus 2a%ount to a disburse%ent )ithout an" proper appropriation as re+uired b" la) 2 18In "o%%issionerof P!$lic &igh'a(s v. San )iego, the openin! para!raph of #ustice eehanee )as +uite specific as to )h" there could be neither e(ecution nor !arnish%ent of the %one" ofpetitioner 'ureau of Public =i!h)a"s1 2In this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, the Court declares null and void the t)o +uestioned orders of respondent Courtlev"in! upon funds of petitioner 'ureau of Public =i!h)a"s on deposit )ith the Philippine National 'an, b" virtue of the funda%ental precept that !overn%ent funds are notsubect to e(ecution or !arnish%ent.2 19he funds appertained to a !overn%ental office, not to a !overn%ent6o)ned or controlled corporation )ith a separate uridicalpersonalit". In neither case therefore )as there an entit" )ith the capacit" to sue and be sued, the funds of )hich could thereafter be held liable to e(ecution and !arnish%ent

in the event of an adverse ud!%ent.

:. 'oth the Palacio and the Co%%issioner of Public =i!h)a"s decisions, insofar as the" reiterate the doctrine that one of the coronaries of the funda%ental concept of non6suabilit" is that !overn%ental funds are i%%une fro% !arnish%ent, refer to Merritt v. ns!lar Govern%ent, a /0 decision 20Since then such a principle has been follo)ed )ithundeviatin! ri!idit", the latest case in point bein! #ep!$lic v. Villasor, 21pro%ul!ated in /-3. It is an entirel" different %atter if, accordin! to #ustice Sanche in #a%os v."o!rt of nd!strial #elations, 22the office or entit" is 2possessed of a separate and distinct corporate e(istence.2 23hen it can sue and be sued. hereafter, its funds %a" belevied upon or !arnished. hat is )hat happened in this case.

5. Bith the crucial issue thus resolved in favor of the correctness of the order assailed, the other obection raised, na%el" that respondent Court acted erroneousl" in havin! aspecial sheriff serve to the )rit of e(ecution, hardl" needs an" e(tensive decision. It is true that in the aforesaid Co%%issioner of Public =i!h)a"s opinion, this Court held thatthere is no authori>ation in la) for the appoint%ent of special sheriffs for the service of )rits of e(ecution.2In the order sou!ht to be nullified, the then #ud!e #oa+uin M.Salvador of respondent Court pointed out that under a later *ct, 2the Court of Industrial Relations *ct )as a%ended )ith the proviso that its Cler of Court )as the ex7oficio sheriff. he point raised in the petition that it should be the sheriff of ?ue>on Cit" that ou!ht to have served the )rit of e(ecution )ould thus clearl" appear to beinconclusive. here is to be sure no thou!ht of deviatin! fro% the principle announced in the Co%%issioner of Public =i!h)a"s case. hat is as it ou!ht to be. Even if,ho)ever, there is sufficient ustification for the infir%it" attributed to respondent Court b" virtue of such a rulin!, still considerin! all the circu%stances of this case, it clearl"does not call for the nullification of the order in +uestion. Bhat cannot be denied is that the )rit of e(ecution )as issued as far bac as Ma" 5, /-; b" the then Cler of Courtof respondent ribunal as the authori>ed sheriff. It )ould be, to sa" the least, unfair and une+uitable if, on the assu%ption that such Cler of Court laced such co%petence, ane) )rit of e(ecution had to be issued b" the proper official *t an" rate, )hat is i%portant is that the ud!%ent be e(ecuted. hat is to achieve ustice accordin! to la). It )ouldbe to carr" technicalit", therefore, to an absurd len!th if ust because of such a %istae, assu%in! that it is, but undoubtedl" one co%%itted in !ood faith, further dela" )ould!et be i%posed on private respondent b" characteri>in! the order sou!ht to be nullified a%ountin! to a !rave abuse of discretion.

B=ERE&ORE, the petition for certiorari is dis%issed. No costs.

Barredo- Antonio and "oncepcion- 0r.- 00.- conc!r.

A/!ino- 0.- conc!rs in the res!lt.

Santos 0.- is on leave.


13/39


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 102667 !ebr(%r 23, 2000

$M$5O '. L$NS$NG,petitioner,vs.COURT O! $PPE$LS, GENER$L $SSEMBL O! T"E BLN5, NC., %/) 'OSE GLES$S,respondents.

USUMBNG,J.:

'efore us is a petition to revie) the decision of the Court of *ppeals in C.*. $.R. CV No. 4-4::, )hich set aside the rulin! of the Re!ional rial Court, Manila, 'ranch al Par. In a )ritten notice dated &ebruar"43, /


14/39


15/39


Manila

EN '*NC

$.R. No.


16/39

B=ERE&ORE, the case as a!ainst the defendant Republic of the Philippines is hereb" dis%issed. *s a!ainst the rest of the defendants the %otion todis%iss is denied. he" are !iven a period of ten ; da"s fro% receipt of this order )ithin )hich to file their respective pleadin!s.

On the other hand, the Order3, dated *u!ust


17/39

5aareno, about the ade+uac" and readiness of his forces, it )as a!reed that Police General Alfredo S.1i%)ould desi!nate Police "olonel 4dgar )!la Torresand Police Ma2or "onrado Franciscoasne!otiators )ith the %archers. Police $eneral 8i% then proceeded to the BPD CDC ele%ents alread"positioned at the foot of Mendiola brid!e to rela" to Police Colonel orres and Police Maor &rancisco theinstructions that the latter )ould ne!otiate )ith the %archers. 5E%phasis supplied

he %archers, at around :13; p.%., nu%bered about ;,;;; to 5,;;;. &ro% C.M. Recto *venue, the" proceeded to)ard the police lines. No dialo!ue too place bet)een the%archers and the anti6riot s+uad. It )as at this %o%ent that a clash occurred and, borro)in! the )ords of the Co%%ission 2pande%oniu% broe loose2. he Co%%issionstated in its findin!s, to )it1

. . . here )as an e(plosion follo)ed b" thro)in! of pillbo(es, stones and bottles. Steel bars, )ooden clubs and lead pipes )ere used a!ainst thepolice. he police fou!ht bac )ith their shields and truncheons. he police line )as breached. Suddenl" shots )ere heard. he de%onstratorsdisen!a!ed fro% the !overn%ent forces and retreated to)ards C.M. Recto *venue. 'ut sporadic firin! continued fro% the !overn%ent forces.

*fter the firin! ceased, t)o MDs headed $( 1t. #o%eo Pa/!intoand 1t. 1aonglaan Gocesped to)ards8e!arda Street and lobbed tear !as at the re%ainin! rall"ist still !rouped in the vicinit" of Mendiola. *fterdispersin! the cro)d, the t)o MDs, to!ether )ith the t)o BPD MDs, proceeded to 8i)asan!'onifacio !pon order of General Montaoto disperse the rall"ists asse%bled thereat. *ssistin! the MDs)ere a nu%ber of police%en fro% the BPD, attired in civilian clothes )ith )hite head bands, )ho )erear%ed )ith lon! firear%s.0E%phasis ours

*fter the clash, t)elve 4 %archers )ere officiall" confir%ed dead, althou!h accordin! to adeo, there )ere thirteen 3 dead, but he )as not able to !ive the na%e andaddress of said victi%. hirt"6nine 3/ )ere )ounded b" !unshots and t)elve 4 sustained %inor inuries, all belon!in! to the !roup of the %archers.

Of the police and %ilitar" personnel, three 3 sustained !unshot )ounds and t)ent" 4; suffered %inor ph"sical inuries such as abrasions, contusions and the lie.

In the after%ath of the confrontation, then President Cora>on C. *+uino issued *d%inistrative Order No. , -*.O. , for brevit" dated #anuar" 44, /ensG Mendiola Co%%ission. he bod" )as co%posed of retired Supre%e Court #ustice Vicente *bad Santos as Chair%an, retired Supre%e Court #ustice #ose . &eriaand Mr. *ntonio 9. Miranda, both as %e%bers. *.O. stated that the Co%%ission )as created precisel" for the 2purpose of conductin! an investi!ation of the disorder,deaths, and casualties that too place in the vicinit" of Mendiola 'rid!e and Mendiola Street and Claro M. Recto *venue, Manila, in the afternoon of #anuar" 44, /


18/39

4 No barbed )ire barricade )as used in Mendiola but no official reason )as !iven for its absence., the plaintiffGs co%plaint )as dis%issed on the !rounds relied upon b" the defendants therein. 3heplaintiff appealed the decision to the Supre%e Court )here it )as reversed, and the case )as re%anded to the court of ori!in for the deter%ination of the co%pensation to bepaid the plaintiff6appellant as o)ner of the land, includin! attorne"Gs fees. he Supre%e Court decision also directed that to deter%ine ust co%pensation for the land, thebasis should be the price or value thereof at the ti%e of the tain!.

In the hearin! held pursuant to the decision of the Supre%e Court, the $overn%ent proved the value of the propert" at the ti%e of the tain! thereof in /4: )ith certifiedcopies, issued b" the 'ureau of Records Mana!e%ent, of deeds of conve"ance e(ecuted in /4: or thereabouts, of several parcels of land in the 'anilad &riar 8ands in )hichthe propert" in +uestion is located, sho)in! the price to be at P4.3- per s+uare %eter. &or her part, Victoria *%i!able presented ne)spaper clippin!s of the Manila i%essho)in! the value of the peso to the dollar obtainin! about the %iddle of /-4, )hich )as P0.--5 to a dollar.

9pon consideration of the evidence presented b" both parties, the court )hich is no) the public respondent in the instant petition, rendered ud!%ent on #anuar" /, /-3directin! the Republic of the Philippines to pa" Victoria *%i!able the su% of P:/,:5/.3: as the value of the propert" taen, plus P:5,:;.:: representin! interest at 0J onthe principal a%ount of P:/,:5/.3: fro% the "ear /4: up to the date of the decision, plus attorne"Gs fees of ;J of the total a%ount due to Victoria *%i!able, or a !rand totalof P4:,350.-5. 6

he aforesaid decision of the respondent court is no) the subect of the present petition for revie) b" certiorari, filed b" the Solicitor $eneral as counsel of the petitioner,Republic of the Philippines, a!ainst the lando)ner, Victoria *%i!able, as private respondent. he petition )as !iven due course after respondents had filed their co%%entthereto, as re+uired. he Solicitor $eneral, as counsel of petitioner, )as then re+uired to file petitionerGs brief and to serve copies thereof to the adverse parties. 7PetitionerGsbrief )as dul" filed on #anuar" 4/, /-:, 8to )hich respondents filed onl" a 2co%%ent.2 9instead of a brief, and the case )as then considered sub%itted for decision. 10

. he issue of )hether or not the provision of *rticle 45; of the Ne) Civil Code is applicable in deter%inin! the a%ount of co%pensation to be paid to respondent Victoria*%i!able for the propert" taen is raised because the respondent court applied said *rticle b" considerin! the value of the peso to the dollar at the ti%e of hearin!, indeter%inin! due co%pensation to be paid for the propert" taen. he Solicitor $eneral contends that in so doin!, the respondent court violated the order of this Court, in itsdecision in $.R. No. 8640:;;, &ebruar" 4/, /-4, to %ae as basis of the deter%ination of ust co%pensation the price or value of the land at the ti%e of the tain!.

It is to be noted that respondent ud!e did consider the value of the propert" at the ti%e of the tain!, )hich as proven b" the petitioner )as P4.3- per s+uare %eter in /4:.=o)ever, appl"in! *rticle 45; of the Ne) Civil Code, and considerin! that the value of the peso to the dollar durin! the hearin! in /-4 )as P0.--5 to a dollar, as proven b"the evidence of the private respondent Victoria *%i!able the Court fi(ed the value of the propert" at the deflated value of the peso in relation, to the dollar, and ca%e up )iththe su% of P:/,:5/.3: as the ust co%pensation to be paid b" the $overn%ent. o this action of the respondent ud!e, the Solicitor $eneral has taen e(ception.

*rticle 45; of the Ne) Civil Code see%s to be the onl" provision in our statutes )hich provides for pa"%ent of an obli!ation in an a%ount different fro% )hat has been

a!reed upon b" the parties because of the supervention of e(tra6ordinar" inflation or deflation. hus, the *rticle provides1

*R. 45;. In case e(tra6ordinar" inflation or deflation of the currenc" stipulated should supervene, the value of the currenc" at the ti%e of theestablish%ent of the obli!ation shall be the basis of pa"%ent, unless there is an a!ree%ent to the contrar".

It is clear that the fore!oin! provision applies onl" to cases )here a contract or a!ree%ent is involved. It does not appl" )here the obli!ation to pa" arises fro% la),independent of contract. he tain! of private propert" b" the $overn%ent in the e(ercise of its po)er of e%inent do%ain does not !ive rise to a contractual obli!ation. Behave e(pressed this vie) in the case of Velasco vs. Manila 4lectric "o.- et al.-86/3/;, Dece%ber 4/, /-. 11

Moreover, the la) as +uoted, clearl" provides that the value of the currenc" at the ti%e of the establish%ent of the obli!ation shall be the basis of pa"%ent )hich, in cases ofe(propriation, )ould be the value of the peso at the ti%e of the tain! of the propert" )hen the obli!ation of the $overn%ent to pa" arises. 12It is onl" )hen there is an2a!ree%ent to the contrar"2 that the e(traordinar" inflation )ill %ae the value of the currenc" at the ti%e of pa"%ent, not at the ti%e of the establish%ent of the obli!ation, thebasis for pa"%ent. In other )ords, an a!ree%ent is needed for the effects of an e(traordinar" inflation to be taen into account to alter the value of the currenc" at the ti%e ofthe establish%ent of the obli!ation )hich, as a rule, is al)a"s the deter%inative ele%ent, to be varied b" a!ree%ent that )ould find reason onl" in the supervention ofe(traordinar" inflation or deflation.


27/39

Be hold, therefore, that under the la), in the absence of an" a!ree%ent to the contrar", even assu%in! that there has been an e(traordinar" inflation )ithin the %eanin! of*rticle 45; of the Ne) Civil Code, a fact Be decline to declare cate!oricall", the value of the peso at the ti%e of the establish%ent of the obli!ation, )hich in the instant caseis )hen the propert" )as taen possession of b" the $overn%ent, %ust be considered for the purpose of deter%inin! ust co%pensation. Obviousl", there can be no2a!ree%ent to the contrar"2 to spea of because the obli!ation of the $overn%ent sou!ht to be enforced in the present action does not ori!inate fro% contract, but fro% la))hich, !enerall" is not subect to the )ill of the parties. *nd there bein! no other le!al provision cited )hich )ould ustif" a departure fro% the rule that ust co%pensation isdeter%ined on the basis of the value of the propert" at the ti%e of the tain! thereof in e(propriation b" the $overn%ent, the value of the propert" as it is )hen the$overn%ent too possession of the land in +uestion, not the increased value resultin! fro% the passa!e of ti%e )hich invariabl" brin!s unearned incre%ent to landedproperties, represents the true value to be paid as ust co%pensation for the propert" taen. 13

In the present case, the unusuall" lon! dela" of private respondent in brin!in! the present action6period of al%ost 45 "ears )hich a stricter application of the la) on estoppeland the statute of li%itations and prescription %a" have divested her of the ri!hts she sees on this action over the propert" in +uestion, is an added circu%stance %ilitatin!a!ainst pa"%ent to her of an a%ount bi!!er6%a" three6fold %ore than the value of the propert" as should have been paid at the ti%e of the tain!. &or confor%abl" to the rulethat one should tae !ood care of his o)n concern, private respondent should have co%%enced proper action soon after she had been deprived of her ri!ht of o)nership and

possession over the land, a deprivation she ne) )as per%anent in character, for the land )as intended for, and had beco%e, avenues in the Cit" of Cebu. * penalt" isal)a"s visited upon one for his inaction, ne!lect or laches in the assertion of his ri!hts alle!edl" )ithheld fro% hi%, or other)ise trans!ressed upon b" another.

&ro% )hat has been said, the correct a%ount of co%pensation due private respondent for the tain! of her land for a public purpose )ould be not P:/,:5/.3:, as fi(ed b" therespondent court, but onl" P:,05.-/ at P4.3- per s+uare %eter, the actual value of the land of 0,0- s+uare %eters )hen it )as taen in /4:. he interest in the su% ofP:5,:;.:: at the rate of 0J fro% /4: up to the ti%e respondent court rendered its decision, as )as a)arded b" the said court should accordin!l" be reduced.

In Our decision in $.R. No. 8640:;;, &ebruar" 4/, /-4, 1Be have said that Victoria *%i!able is entitled to the le!al interest on the price of the land fro% the ti%e of the

tain!. his holdin! is ho)ever contested b" the Solicitor $eneral, citin! the case of #a(%!nda S. )igsan vs. A!ditor General- et al.- 1alle!ed to have a si%ilar factualenviron%ent and involvin! the sa%e issues, )here this Court declared that the interest at the le!al rate in favor of the lando)ner accrued not fro% the tain! of the propert" in/4: but fro% *pril 4;, /0 )hen the clai% for co%pensation )as filed )ith the *uditor $eneral. Bhether the rulin! in the case cited is still the prevailin! doctrine, )hat )assaid in the decision of this Court in the abovecited case involvin! the sa%e on the instant %atter, has beco%e the 2la) of the case2, no %otion for its reconsideration havin!been filed b" the Solicitor $eneral before the decision beca%e final. *ccordin!l", the interest to be paid private respondent, Victoria *%i!able, shall co%%ence fro% /4:,)hen the tain! of the propert" too place, co%puted on the basis of P:,05.-/, the value of the land )hen taen in said "ear /4:.

4. On the a%ount of attorne"Gs fees to be paid private respondent, about )hich the Solicitor $eneral has ne(t taen issue )ith the respondent court because the latter fi(edthe sa%e at P/,:


28/39

G.R. No. L- Se:ember 17, 19

CO 4M C"$M =%%& CO 4M C"$M>,petitioner,vs.EUSEBO #$L5E T$N 4E" %/) $RSENO P. 5ON, '()*e o+ !r& /&%/e o+ M%/%,respondents.

Marcelino 1ontok for petitioner.P. A. #evilla for respondent Valde Tan :eh.#espondent 0!dge )ion in his o'n $ehalf.

!ER$, J.:

his petition for %anda%!sin )hich petitioner pra"s that the respondent ud!e of the lo)er court be ordered to continue the proceedin!s in civil case No. 3;4 of said court,)hich )ere initiated under the re!i%e of the so6called Republic of the Philippines established durin! the #apanese %ilitar" occupation of these Islands.

he respondent ud!e refused to tae co!ni>ance of and continue the proceedin!s in said case on the !round that the procla%ation issued on October 43, /::, b" $eneralDou!las Mac*rthur had the effect of invalidatin! and nullif"in! all udicial proceedin!s and ud!e%ents of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine E(ecutiveCo%%ission and the Republic of the Philippines established durin! the #apanese %ilitar" occupation, and that, further%ore, the lo)er courts have no urisdiction to taeco!ni>ance of and continue udicial proceedin!s pendin! in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enablin! la) !rantin! such authorit". *ndthe sa%e respondent, in his ans)er and %e%orandu% filed in this Court, contends that the !overn%ent established in the Philippines durin! the #apanese occupation )ereno de facto!overn%ents.

On #anuar" 4, /:4, the I%perial #apanese &orces occupied the Cit" of Manila, and on the ne(t da" their Co%%ander in Chief proclai%ed 2the Militar" *d%inistration underla) over the districts occupied b" the *r%".2 In said procla%ation, it )as also provided that 2so far as the Militar" *d%inistration per%its, all the la)s no) in force in theCo%%on)ealth, as )ell as e(ecutive and udicial institutions, shall continue to be effective for the ti%e bein! as in the past,2 and 2all public officials shall re%ain in theirpresent posts and carr" on faithfull" their duties as before.2

* civil !overn%ent or central ad%inistration or!ani>ation under the na%e of 2Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission )as or!ani>ed b" Order No. issued on #anuar" 43, /:4, b"

the Co%%ander in Chief of the #apanese &orces in the Philippines, and #or!e '. Var!as, )ho )as appointed Chair%an thereof, )as instructed to proceed to the i%%ediatecoordination of the e(istin! central ad%inistrative or!ans and udicial courts, based upon )hat had e(isted therefore, )ith approval of the said Co%%ander in Chief, )ho )asto e(ercise urisdiction over udicial courts.

he Chair%an of the E(ecutive Co%%ission, as head of the central ad%inistrative or!ani>ation, issued E(ecutive Orders Nos. and :, dated #anuar" 3; and &ebruar" 5,/:4, respectivel", in )hich the Supre%e Court, Court of *ppeals, Courts of &irst Instance, and the ustices of the peace and %unicipal courts under the Co%%on)ealth )erecontinued )ith the sa%e urisdiction, in confor%it" )ith the instructions !iven to the said Chair%an of the E(ecutive Co%%ission b" the Co%%ander in Chief of #apanese&orces in the Philippines in the latterGs Order No. 3 of &ebruar" 4;, /:4, concernin! basic principles to be observed b" the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission in e(ercisin!le!islative, e(ecutive and udicial po)ers. Section of said Order provided that 2activities of the ad%inistration or!ans and udicial courts in the Philippines shall be basedupon the e(istin! statutes, orders, ordinances and custo%s. . . .2

On October :, /:3, the so6called Republic of the Philippines )as inau!urated, but no substantial chan!e )as effected thereb" in the or!ani>ation and urisdiction of thedifferent courts that functioned durin! the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission, and in the la)s the" ad%inistered and enforced.

On October 43, /::, a fe) da"s after the historic landin! in 8e"te, $eneral Dou!las Mac*rthur issued a procla%ation to the People of the Philippines )hich declared1

. hat the $overn%ent of the Co%%on)ealth of the Philippines is, subect to the supre%e authorit" of the $overn%ent of the 9nited States, the sole and onl"!overn%ent havin! le!al and valid urisdiction over the people in areas of the Philippines free of ene%" occupation and controlF

4. hat the la)s no) e(istin! on the statute boos of the Co%%on)ealth of the Philippines and the re!ulations pro%ul!ated pursuant thereto are in full force andeffect and le!all" bindin! upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of ene%" occupation and controlF and

3. hat all la)s, re!ulations and processes of an" other !overn%ent in the Philippines than that of the said Co%%on)ealth are null and void and )ithout le!aleffect in areas of the Philippines free of ene%" occupation and control.

On &ebruar" 3, /:5, the Cit" of Manila )as partiall" liberated and on &ebruar" 4-, /:5, $eneral Mac*rthur, on behalf of the $overn%ent of the 9nited States, sole%nl"declared 2the full po)ers and responsibilities under the Constitution restored to the Co%%on)ealth )hose seat is here established as provided b" la).2

In the li!ht of these facts and events of conte%porar" histor", the principal +uestions to be resolved in the present case %a" be reduced to the follo)in!1 Bhether theudicial acts and proceedin!s of the court e(istin! in the Philippines under the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission and the Republic of the Philippines )ere !ood and valid andre%ained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines b" the 9nited States and &ilipino forcesF 4Bhether the procla%ation issued on October 43, /::, b"$eneral Dou!las Mac*rthur, Co%%ander in Chief of the 9nited States *r%", in )hich he declared 2that all la)s, re!ulations and processes of an" of the !overn%ent in the

Philippines than that of the said Co%%on)ealth are null and void and )ithout le!al effect in areas of the Philippines free of ene%" occupation and control,2 has invalidated allud!e%ents and udicial acts and proceedin!s of the said courtsF and 3 If the said udicial acts and proceedin!s have not been invalidated b" said procla%ation, )hether thepresent courts of the Co%%on)ealth, )hich )ere the sa%e court e(istin! prior to, and continued durin!, the #apanese %ilitar" occupation of the Philippines, %a" continuethose proceedin!s pendin! in said courts at the ti%e the Philippines )ere reoccupied and liberated b" the 9nited States and &ilipino forces, and the Co%%on)ealth of thePhilippines )ere reestablished in the Islands.

Be shall no) proceed to consider the first +uestion, that is, )hether or not under the rules of international la) the udicial acts and proceedin!s of the courts established in thePhilippines under the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission and the Republic of the Philippines )ere !ood and valid and re%ained !ood and valid even after the liberation orreoccupation of the Philippines b" the 9nited States and &ilipino forces.

. It is a le!al truis% in political and international la) that all acts and proceedin!s of the le!islative, e(ecutive, and udicial depart%ents of a de facto!overn%ent are !oodand valid. he +uestion to be deter%ined is )hether or not the !overn%ents established in these Islands under the na%es of the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission andRepublic of the Philippines durin! the #apanese %ilitar" occupation or re!i%e )ere de facto!overn%ents. If the" )ere, the udicial acts and proceedin!s of those!overn%ents re%ain !ood and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines b" the *%erican and &ilipino forces.


29/39

here are several inds of de facto!overn%ents. he first, or !overn%ent de facto in a proper le!al sense, is that !overn%ent that !ets possession and control of, or usurps,b" force or b" the voice of the %aorit", the ri!htful le!al !overn%ents and %aintains itself a!ainst the )ill of the latter, such as the !overn%ent of En!land under theCo%%on)ealth, first b" Parlia%ent and later b" Cro%)ell as Protector. he second is that )hich is established and %aintained b" %ilitar" forces )ho invade and occup" aterritor" of the ene%" in the course of )ar, and )hich is deno%inated a !overn%ent of para%ount force, as the cases of Castine, in Maine, )hich )as reduced to 'ritishpossession in the )ar of ens under the Constitution, the" are, in !eneral, to be treated as valid and bindin!. *s )e said in =orn vs.8ochart - Ball., 5-;F 4 8a). ed., 05-1 2he e(istence of astate of insurrection and )ar did not loosen the bonds of societ", or do a)a" )ith civil !overn%ent or the re!ular ad%inistration of the la)s. Order )as to be preserved, policere!ulations %aintained, cri%e prosecuted, propert" protected, contracts enforced, %arria!es celebrated, estates settled, and the transfer and descent of propert" re!ulated,precisel" as in the ti%e of peace. 5o one, that )e are a)are of, serio!sl( /!estions the validit( of 2!dicial or legislative Actsin the insurrectionar" States touchin! these andindered subects, )here the" )ere not hostile in their purpose or %ode of enforce%ent to the authorit" of the National $overn%ent, and did not i%pair the ri!hts of citi>ensunder the ConstitutionG. he sa%e doctrine has been asserted in nu%erous other cases.2

*nd the sa%e court, in the case of 'ald" vs.=unter - 9. S., 3ed )ithin the ene%"Gs territor" althou!h the" %a" have indirectl" or re%otel" pro%oted the ends of the de factoorunla)ful !overn%ent or!ani>ed to effect a dissolution of the 9nion, )ere )ithout bla%e Ge(cept )hen proved to have been entered into'ith act!al intent to further invasion orinsurrection1G2 and 2hat udicial and le!islative acts in the respective states co%posin! the so6called Confederate States should be respected b" the courts if the" )ere nothostile in their purpose or %ode of enforce%ent to the authorit" of the National $overn%ent, and did not i%pair the ri!hts of citi>ens under the Constitution.2

In vie) of the fore!oin!, it is evident that the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission, )hich )as or!ani>ed b" Order No. , issued on #anuar" 43, /:4, b" the Co%%ander of the#apanese forces, )as a civil !overn%ent established b" the %ilitar" forces of occupation and therefore a de facto!overn%ent of the second ind. It )as not different fro% the!overn%ent established b" the 'ritish in Castine, Maine, or b" the 9nited States in a%pico, Me(ico. *s =allec sa"s, 2he !overn%ent established over an ene%"Gs territor"durin! the %ilitar" occupation %a" e(ercise all the po)ers !iven b" the la)s of )ar to the con+ueror over the con+uered, and is subect to all restrictions )hich that codei%poses. It is of little conse+uence )hether such !overn%ent be called a %ilitar" or civil !overn%ent. Its character is the sa%e and the source of its authorit" the sa%e. Ineither case it is a !overn%ent i%posed b" the la)s of )ar, and so far it concerns the inhabitants of such territor" or the rest of the )orld, those la)s alone deter%ine the


30/39

le!alit" or ille!alit" of its acts.2 Vol. 4, p. :00. he fact that the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission )as a civil and not a %ilitar" !overn%ent and )as run b" &ilipinos and not b"#apanese nationals, is of no conse+uence. In ed as a soverei!n state independent fro% an" other !overn%ent b" the &ilipino people, )as, intruth and realit", a !overn%ent established b" the belli!erent occupant or the #apanese forces of occupation. It )as of the sa%e character as the Philippine E(ecutiveCo%%ission, and the ulti%ate source of its authorit" )as the sa%e L the #apanese %ilitar" authorit" and !overn%ent. *s $eneral Mac*rthur stated in his procla%ation ofOctober 43, /::, a portion of )hich has been alread" +uoted, 2under ene%" duress, a so6called !overn%ent st"led as the GRepublic of the PhilippinesG )as established onOctober :, /:3, based upon neither the free e(pression of the peopleGs )ill nor the sanction of the $overn%ent of the 9nited States.2 #apan had no le!al po)er to !rantindependence to the Philippines or transfer the soverei!nt" of the 9nited States to, or reco!ni>e the latent soverei!nt" of, the &ilipino people, before its %ilitar" occupation and

possession of the Islands had %atured into an absolute and per%anent do%inion or soverei!nt" b" a treat" of peace or other %eans reco!ni>ed in the la) of nations. &or it isa )ell6established doctrine in International 8a), reco!ni>ed in *rticle :5 of the =au!e Conventions of /;- )hich prohibits co%pulsion of the population of the occupiedterritor" to s)ear alle!iance to the hostile po)er, the belli!erent occupation, $eing essentiall( provisional, does not serve to transfer soverei!nt" over the territor" controlledalthou!h thede 2!re !overn%ent is durin! the period of occupanc" deprived of the po)er to e(ercise its ri!hts as such. hirt" =o!shead of Su!ar vs.'o"le, / Cranch, /F9nited States vs.Rice, : Bheat., 4:0F &le%in! vs.Pa!e, / =o)ard, 0;3F Do)nes vs.'id)ell, ed an independent !overn%ent under the na%e )ith the support and bacin! of #apan,such !overn%ent )ould have been considered as one established b" the &ilipinos in insurrection or rebellion a!ainst the parent state or the 9nite States. *nd as such, it)ould have been a de facto!overn%ent si%ilar to that or!ani>ed b" the confederate states durin! the )ar of secession and reco!ni>ed as such b" the b" the Supre%e Courtof the 9nited States in nu%erous cases, notabl" those of horin!ton vs.S%ith, Billia%s vs.'ruff", and 'adl" vs.=unter, above +uotedF and si%ilar to the short6lived!overn%ent established b" the &ilipino insur!ents in the Island of Cebu durin! the Spanish6*%erican )ar, reco!ni>ed as a de facto!overn%ent b" the Supre%e Court of the9nited States in the case of McCleod vs.9nited States 4// 9. S., :0. *ccordin! to the facts in the last6na%ed case, the Spanish forces evacuated the Island of Cebu onDece%ber 45, ed b" an invasionF and as bet)een the state and theindividuals the evil )ould be scarcel" less, L it )ould be hard for e(a%ple that pa"%ent of ta(es %ade under duress should be i!nored, and it )ould be contrar" to the!eneral interest that the sentences passed upon cri%inals should be annulled b" the disappearance of the intrusive !overn%ent .2 =all, International 8a), -th ed., p. 5


31/39

as a conse+uence of the )ar. *nd it is another )ell6established rule of statutor" construction that )here !reat inconvenience )ill result fro% a particular construction, or !reatpublic interests )ould be endan!ered or sacrificed, or !reat %ischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ou!ht to presu%e that such construction )as notintended b" the %aers of the la), unless re+uired b" clear and une+uivocal )ords. 45 R. C. 8., pp. ;45, ;4-.

he %ere conception or thou!ht of possibilit" that the titular soverei!n or his representatives )ho reoccupies a territor" occupied b" an ene%", %a" set aside or annul all theudicial acts or proceedin!s of the tribunals )hich the belli!erent occupant had the ri!ht and dut" to establish in order to insure public order and safet" durin! %ilitar"occupation, )ould be sufficient to paral">e the social life of the countr" or occupied territor", for it )ould have to be e(pected that liti!ants )ould not )illin!l" sub%it theirliti!ation to courts )hose ud!e%ents or decisions %a" after)ards be annulled, and cri%inals )ould not be deterred fro% co%%ittin! cri%es or offenses in the e(pectanc" thatthe" %a" escaped the penalt" if ud!%ents rendered a!ainst the% %a" be after)ards set aside.

hat the procla%ation has not invalidated all the ud!e%ents and proceedin!s of the courts of ustice durin! the #apanese re!i%e, is i%pliedl" confir%ed b" E(ecutive OrderNo. 3-, )hich has the force of la), issued b" the President of the Philippines on March ;, /:5, b" virtue of the e%er!enc" le!islative po)er vested in hi% b" the Constitutionand the la)s of the Co%%on)ealth of the Philippines. Said E(ecutive order abolished the Court of *ppeals, and provided 2that all case )hich have heretofore been dul"appealed to the Court of *ppeals shall be trans%itted to the Supre%e Court final decision.2 his provision i%pliedl" reco!ni>es that the ud!%ents and proceedin!s of thecourts durin! the #apanese %ilitar" occupation have not been invalidated b" the procla%ation of $eneral Mac*rthur of October 43, because the said Order does not sa" orrefer to cases )hich have been dul" appealed to said court prior to the #apanese occupation, but to cases )hich had therefore, that is, up to March ;, /:5, been dul"appealed to the Court of *ppealsF and it is to be presu%ed that al%ost all, if not all, appealed cases pendin! in the Court of *ppeals prior to the #apanese %ilitar" occupationof Manila on #anuar" 4, /:4, had been disposed of b" the latter before the restoration of the Co%%on)ealth $overn%ent in /:5F )hile al%ost all, if not all, appealed casespendin! on March ;, /:5, in the Court of *ppeals )erefro% 2!dg%ents rendered $( the "o!rt of First nstance d!ring the 0apanese regi%e.

he respondent ud!e +uotes a portion of BheatonGs International 8a) )hich sa"1 2Moreover )hen it is said that an occupierGs acts are valid and under international la)should not be abro!ated b" the subse+uent con+ueror, it %ust be re%e%bered that no crucial instances e(ist to sho) that if his acts should be reversed, an" international)ron! )ould be co%%itted. Bhat does happen is that %ost %atters are allo)ed to stand b" the restored !overn%ent, but the %atter can hardl" be put further than this.2Bheaton, International 8a), Bar, -th En!lish edition of /::, p. 4:5. *nd fro% this +uotion the respondent ud!e 2dra)s the conclusion that )hether the acts of the occupantshould be considered valid or not, is a +uestion that is up to the restored !overn%ent to decideF that there is no rule of international la) that denies to the restored !overn%entto decideF that there is no rule of international la) that denies to the restored !overn%ent the ri!ht of e(ercise its discretion on the %atter, i%posin! upon it in its stead theobli!ation of reco!ni>in! and enforcin! the acts of the overthro)n !overn%ent.2

here is doubt that the subse+uent con+ueror has the ri!ht to abro!ate %ost of the acts of the occupier, such as the la)s, re!ulations and processes other than udicial of the!overn%ent established b" the belli!erent occupant. 'ut in vie) of the fact that the procla%ation uses the )ords 2processes of an" other !overn%ent2 and not 2udicial

processes2 prisel", it is not necessar" to deter%ine )hether or not $eneral Dou!las Mac*rthur had po)er to annul and set aside all ud!%ents and proceedin!s of the courtsdurin! the #apanese occupation. he +uestion to be deter%ined is )hether or not it )as his intention, as representative of the President of the 9nited States, to avoid or nullif"the%. If the procla%ation had, e(pressl" or b" necessar" i%plication, declared null and void the udicial processes of an" other !overn%ent, it )ould be necessar" for thiscourt to decide in the present case )hether or not $eneral Dou!las Mac*rthur had authorit" to declare the% null and void. 'ut the procla%ation did not so provide,undoubtedl" because the author thereof )as full" a)are of the li%itations of his po)ers as Co%%ander in Chief of Militar" &orces of liberation or subse+uent con+ueror.

Not onl" the =a!ue Re!ulations, but also the principles of international la), as the" result fro% the usa!es established bet)een civili>ed nations, the la)s of hu%anit" and there+uire%ents of the public of conscience, constitute or fro% the la) of nations. Prea%ble of the =a!ue ConventionsF Bestlae, International 8a), 4d ed., Part II, p. 0. *rticle:3, section III, of the =a!ue Re!ulations or Conventions )hich )e have alread" +uoted in discussin! the first +uestion, i%poses upon the occupant the obli!ation to establishcourtsF and *rticle 43 h, section II, of the sa%e Conventions, )hich prohibits the belli!erent occupant 2to declare . . . suspended . . . in a Court of 8a) the ri!hts and action ofthe nationals of the hostile part",2 forbids hi% to %ae an" declaration preventin! the inhabitants fro% usin! their courts to assert or enforce their civil ri!hts. Decision of theCourt of *ppeals of En!land in the case of Porter vs.&ruedenbur!, 8.R. @/5A, 7.'., 43; 9.S., 3/, has declared that the" 2arise fro% !eneral rules of international la) and fro%funda%ental principles no)n )herever the *%erican fla! flies.2

In the case of Ra"%ond vs.ho%as / 9.S., -4, a special order issued b" the officer in co%%and of the forces of the 9nited States in South Carolina after the end of theCivil Bar, )holl" annullin! a decree rendered b" a court of chancer" in that state in a case )ithin its urisdiction, )as declared void, and not )arranted b" the acts approvedrespectivel" March 4,


32/39

&ollo)in! these practice and precepts of the la) of nations, Co%%ander in Chief of the #apanese &orces proclai%ed on #anuar" 3, /:4, )hen Manila )as occupied, the%ilitar" ad%inistration under %artial la) over the territor" occupied b" the ar%", and ordered that 2all the la)s no) in force in the Co%%on)ealth, as )ell as e(ecutive and

udicial institutions, shall continue to be affective for the ti%e bein! as in the past,2 and 2all public officials shall re%ain in their present post and carr" on faithfull" their duties asbefore.2 Bhen the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission )as or!ani>ed b" Order No. of the #apanese Co%%ander in Chief, on #anuar" 43, /:4, the Chair%an of the E(ecutiveCo%%ission, b" E(ecutive Orders Nos. and : of #anuar" 3; and &ebruar" 5, respectivel", continued the Supre%e Court, Court of *ppeals, Court of &irst Instance, and

ustices of the peace of courts, )ith the sa%e urisdiction in confor%it" )ith the instructions !iven b" the Co%%ander in Chief of the I%perial #apanese *r%" in Order No. 3 of&ebruar" 4;, /:4. *nd on October :, /:3 )hen the so6called Republic of the Philippines )as inau!urated, the sa%e courts )ere continued )ith no substantial chan!e inor!ani>ation and urisdiction thereof.

If the proceedin!s pendin! in the different courts of the Islands prior to the #apanese %ilitar" occupation had been continued durin! the #apanese %ilitar" ad%inistration, thePhilippine E(ecutive Co%%ission, and the so6called Republic of the Philippines, it stands to reason that the sa%e courts, )hich had beco%e reestablished and conceived ofas havin! in contin!ed existenceupon the reoccupation and liberation of the Philippines b" virtue of the principle of postli%in" =all, International 8a), -th ed., p. 50, %a"continue the proceedin!s in cases then pendin! in said courts, )ithout necessit" of enactin! a la) conferrin! urisdiction upon the% to continue said proceedin!s. *s a"lor

!raphicall" points out in speain! of said principles 2a state or other !overn%ental entit", upon the re%oval of a forei!n %ilitar" force, resu%es its old place )ith its ri!ht andduties substantiall" uni%paired. . . . Such political resurrection is the result of a la) analo!ous to that )hich enables elastic bodies to re!ain their ori!inal shape upon re%ovalof the e(ternal force, L and subect to the sa%e e(ception in case of absolute crushin! of the )hole fibre and content.2 a"lor, International Public 8a), p. 05.

he ar!u%ent advanced b" the respondent ud!e in his resolution in support in his conclusion that the Court of &irst Instance of Manila presided over b" hi% 2has no authorit"to tae co!ni>ance of, and continue said proceedin!s of this case to final ud!%ent until and unless the $overn%ent of the Co%%on)ealth of the Philippines . . . shall haveprovided for the transfer of the urisdiction of the courts of the no) defunct Republic of the Philippines, and the cases co%%enced and the left pendin! therein,2 is 2that saidcourts )ere a !overn%ent alien to the Co%%on)ealth $overn%ent. he la)s the" enforced )ere, true enou!h, la)s of the Co%%on)ealth prior to #apanese occupation, butthe" had beco%e the la)s L and the courts had beco%e the institutions L of #apan b" adoption 9.S. vs.Reiter. 4- &. Cases, No. 0:0, as the" beca%e later on the la)sand institutions of the Philippine E(ecutive Co%%ission and the Republic of the Philippines.2

he court in the said case of 9.S. vs.Reiter did not and could not sa" that the la)s and institutions of the countr" occupied if continued b" the con+ueror or occupant, beco%ethe la)s and the courts, b" adoption, of the soverei!n nation that is %ilitaril" occup"in! the territor". 'ecause, as alread" sho)n, belli!erent or %ilitar" occupation isessentiall" provisional and does not serve to transfer the soverei!nt" over the occupied territor" to the occupant. Bhat the court said )as that, if such la)s and institutions arecontinued in use b" the occupant, the" beco%e his and derive their force fro% hi%, in the sense that he %a" continue or set the% aside. he la)s and institution or courts socontinued re%ain the la)s and institutions or courts of the occupied territor". he la)s and the courts of the Philippines, therefore, did not beco%e, b" bein! continued asre+uired b" the la) of nations, la)s and courts of #apan. he provision of *rticle :5, section III, of the =a!ue Conventions of /;- )hich prohibits an" co%pulsion of thepopulation of occupied territor" to s)ear alle!iance to the hostile po)er, 2e(tends to prohibit ever"thin! )hich )ould assert or i%pl" a chan!e %ade b" the invader in the

le!iti%ate soverei!nt". his dut" is neither to innovate in the political life of the occupied districts, nor needlessl" to brea the continuit" of their le!al life. =ence, so far as thecourts of ustice are allo)ed to continue ad%inisterin! the territorial la)s, the" %ust be allo)ed to !ive their sentences in the na%e of the le!iti%ate soverei!n 2 Bestlae, Int.8a), Part II, second ed., p. ;4. *ccordin! to Bheaton, ho)ever, the victor need not allo) the use of that of the le!iti%ate !overn%ent. Bhen in ance of cases pendin! therein upon the chan!e of soverei!nt", until section 05 of the sa%e *ct No.30 abolished the% and created in its Chapter IV the present Courts of &irst Instance in substitution of the for%er. Si%ilarl", no enablin! acts )ere enacted durin! the#apanese occupation, but a %ere procla%ation or order that the courts in the Island )ere continued.

On the other hand, durin! the *%erican re!i%e, )hen section -< of *ct No. 30 )as enacted abolishin! the civil urisdiction of the provost courts created b" the %ilitar"!overn%ent of occupation in the Philippines durin! the Spanish6*%erican Bar of


33/39

=avin! arrived at the above conclusions, it follo)s that the Court of &irst Instance of Manila has urisdiction to continue to final ud!%ent the proceedin!s in civil case No.3;4, )hich involves civil ri!hts of the parties under the la)s of the Co%%on)ealth $overn%ent, pendin! in said court at the ti%e of the restoration of the said $overn%entFand that the respondent ud!e of the court, havin! refused to act and continue hi% does a dut" resultin! fro% his office as presidin! ud!e of that court, %anda%!sis thespeed" and ade+uate re%ed" in the ordinar" course of la), especiall" tain! into consideration the fact that the +uestion of urisdiction herein involved does affect not onl" thisparticular case, but %an" other cases no) pendin! in all the courts of these Islands.

In vie) of all the fore!oin! it is adud!ed and decreed that a )rit of %anda%!sissue, directed to the respondent ud!e of the Court of &irst Instance of Manila, orderin! hi% totae co!ni>ance of and continue to final ud!%ent the proceedin!s in civil case No. 3;4 of said court. No pronounce%ent as to costs. So ordered.

Moran- ".0.- Oaeta- Paras- 0aranilla and Pa$lo- 00.-concur.


Manila

EN '*NC


34/39

G.R. No. L-999 5eember 13, 1916

T"E GO#ERNMENT O! T"E P"LPPNE SL$N5S, re:re&e/e) b e Tre%&(rer o+ e P::/e &%/)&,plaintiff6appellee,vs.EL MONTE 5E PE5$5 C$'$ 5E $"ORR$S 5E M$NL$,defendant6appellant.

Willia% A. :incaid and Tho%as 1. &artigan for appellant.Attorne(7General Avancea for appellee.

TRENT, J.:

*bout Q:;;,;;;, )ere subscribed and paid into the treasur" of the Philippine Islands b" the inhabitants of the Spanish Do%inions of the relief of those da%a!ed b" theearth+uae )hich too place in the Philippine Islands on #une 3, ette of Manila dated *pril -,


35/39

In vie) of the fore!oin! petition addressed to %e b" the board of directors of the Monte de Piedadof this cit", in )hich it is stated that the funds )hich the saidinstitution counted upon are nearl" all invested in loans on e)elr" and that the s%all account re%ainin! )ill scarcel" suffice to cover the transactions of the ne(tt)o da"s, for )hich reason it entreats the !eneral $overn%ent that, in pursuance of its tele!raphic advice to =. M. $overn%ent, the latter direct that there beturned over to said Monte de PiedadQ


36/39

he record in the case under consideration fails to disclose an" further definite action taen b" either the Philippine $overn%ent or the Spanish $overn%ent in re!ard to theQ


37/39

It is thus seen that the *%erican $overn%ent did not subro!ate the Spanish $overn%ent or rather, the 7in! of Spain, in this re!ardF and as the condition anne(edto the donation )as la)ful and possible of fulfill%ent at the ti%e the contract )as %ade, but beca%e i%possible of fulfill%ent b" the cession %ade b" the Spanish$overn%ent in these Islands, co%pliance there)ith is e(cused and the contract has been cleared thereof.

he contention of counsel, as thus stated, in untenable for t)o reason, because such contention is based upon the erroneous theor" that the su% in +uestion )as adonation to the Monte de Piedadand not a loan, and 4 because the charit" founded b" the donations for the earth+uae sufferers is not and never )as intended to be anecclesiastical pious )or. he first proposition has alread" been decided adversel" to the defendantGs contention. *s to the second, the record sho)s clearl" that the fund )as!iven b" the donors for a specific and definite purpose L the relief of the earth+uae sufferers L and for no other purpose. he %one" )as turned over to the Spanish$overn%ent to be devoted to that purpose. he Spanish $overn%ent re%itted the %one" to the Philippine $overn%ent to be distributed a%on! the suffers. *ll officials,includin! the 7in! of Spain and the $overnor6$eneral of the Philippine Islands, )ho too part in the disposal of the fund, acted in their purel" civil, official capacit", and the facthat the" %i!ht have belon!ed to a certain church had nothin! to do )ith their acts in this %atter. he church, as such, had nothin! to do )ith the fund in an" )a" )hateveruntil the Qe the board to defend the ri!hts of the charit" in the courts. heauthorit" of the board consisted onl" in carr"in! out the )ill of the donors as directed b" the $overn%ent )hose dut" it )as to )atch over the acts of the board and to see thatthe funds )ere applied to the purposes for )hich the" )ere contributed .he secretar" of the interior, as the representative of =is Maest"Gs $overn%ent, e(ercised thesepo)ers and duties throu!h the $overnor6$eneral of the Philippine Islands. he $overn%ents of Spain and of the Philippine Islands in co%pl"in! )ith their duties conferredupon the% b" la), acted in their !overn%ental capacities in atte%ptin! to carr" out the intention of the contributors. It )ill this be seen that those !overn%ents )ere so%ethin!

%ore, as )e have said, than %ere trustees of the fund.

It is further contended that the obli!ation on the part of the Monte de Piedadto return the Q vs.9nited States, 409. S., 0-. 'ut it is e+uall" settled in the sa%e public la) that the !reat bod" of %unicipal la) )hich re!ulates private and do%estic ri!hts continues in force untilabro!ated or chan!ed b" the ne) ruler.

If the above6%entioned le!al provisions are in conflict )ith the political character, constitution or institutions of the ne) soverei!n, the" beca%e inoperative or lost their forceupon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the 9nited States, but if the" are a%on! 2that !reat bod" of %unicipal la) )hich re!ulates private and do%estic ri!hts,2 the"continued in force and are still in force unless the" have been repealed b" the present $overn%ent. hat the" fall )ithin the latter class is clear fro% their ver" nature andcharacter. he" are la)s )hich are not political in an" sense of the )ord. he" conferred upon the Spanish $overn%ent the ri!ht and dut" to supervise, re!ulate, and to so%ee(tent control charities and charitable institutions. he present soverei!n, in e(e%ptin! 2provident institutions, savin!s bans, etc.,2 all of )hich are in the nature of charitableinstitutions, fro% ta(ation, placed such institutions, in so far as the invest%ent in securities are concerned, under the !eneral supervision of the Insular reasurer para!raph :of section of *ct No.


38/39

Bhen this countr" achieved its independence, the prero!atives of the cro)n devolved upon the people of the States. *nd this po)er still re%ains )ith the% e(ceptso fact as the" have dele!ated a portion of it to the &ederal $overn%ent. he soverei!n )ill is %ade no)n to us b" le!islative enact%ent. he State as asoverei!n, is theparens patriae.

Chancelor 7ent sa"s1

In this countr", the le!islature or !overn%ent of the State, asparens patriae, has the ri!ht to enforce all charities of public nature, b" virtue of its !eneralsuperintendin! authorit" over the public interests, )here no other person is entrusted )ith it. : 7ent Co%., 5;

Documents

Cases (3rd Batch)