SYQUIA VS. LOPEZ, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-1648August 17, 1949

Facts:

Plaintiffs, Pedro Syquia and Leopoldo Syquia are the undivided joint owners of three apartment buildings situated in Manila. They executed three lease contracts – onefor each of the three apartments. The period for the three leases was to be “for theduration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by the US.” Theapartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the US ArmedForces stationed in Manila.Six months after September 2, 1945 – when Japan surrendered – plaintiffsapproached the defendants George Moore and Erland Tillman and requested the returnof the apartment buildings. Moore and Tillman expressed to plaintiffs that the US Armywanted to continue occupying the premises. Plaintiffs requested to renegotiate saidleases, to execute a lease contract for a period of three years and to pay a reasonablerental higher than those payable under the old contracts. Respondents sent a letter refusing to execute new leases but advised that the US Army will vacate the apartmentsbefore February 1, 1947. Not being in conformity with the old lease agreements,plaintiffs formally requested Tillman to cancel said leases and to release the apartmentson June 28, 1946. Tillman refused to comply with the request. Because of theassurance that the US Government would vacate the premises before February 1, 1947,the plaintiffs took no further steps to secure possession of the buildings and acceptedthe monthly rentals tendered by respondents. On February 17, 1947, plaintiffs served aformal notice to the occupants demanding: (a) cancellation of said leases; (b) increase inrentals to P300 a month; (c) execution of new leases (d) release of said apartmentbuildings within thirty days of said notice in the event of failure to comply with saiddemands.The thirty-day period lapsed without any of the respondents complying with thedemand. Plaintiffs commenced an action in the Municipal Court of Manila in the form of an action for Unlawful Detainer against respondents. Respondents filed a Motion toDismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the defendants and over the subject matter of the action because the real party in interest was the USGovernment and not the individual defendants. Furthermore, the respondent arguedthat the war between the US and her allies on one side and Germany and Japan on theother had not yet been terminated and consequently the period of the three leases hasnot yet expired. Also, a foreign government like the US cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. That even though the US Government was not namedas the defendant in the complaint, it is nevertheless the real defendant as the partiesnamed are officers of the US Government.The Municiapl Court dismissed the action. The CFI of Manila affirmed the order of the lower court.

Issue:

(1)Who is the real party in interest?(2)Does the court have jurisdiction to hear and try the case?

Held:

(1)The Court is convinced that the real party in interest as defendant in theoriginal case is the US Government. The lessee in each of the three leaseagreements was the United States of America and the lease agreement

themselves were executed in her name by her officials acting as her agents.The considerations or rentals was always paid by the US Government. Theoriginal action in the Municiapl Court was brought on the basis of these threelease contracts and it is obvious in the opinion of this court that any backrentals or increased rentals will have to be paid by the US Government notonly because the contracts were entered into by such Government but alsobecause the premises were used by officers of her armed forces during thewar and immediately after the terminations of hostilities.(2)It is clear that the courts of the Philippines have no jurisdiction over thepresent case for Unlawful Detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction wasraised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The USGovernment has not given its consent to the filing of the suit which isessentially against her, though not in name. Morever, this is not only a caseof a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter’sconsent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign governmentwithout said government’s consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of this country