Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994
THE HOLY SEE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, R., !" Pre"#$#%& '$&e o( )*e Re&#o%!+ Tr#!+
Co'r) o( M!,!)#, Br!%c* -1 !%$ STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES,
INC., respondents.
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 to reverse
and set aside the rders dated !une "#, $%%$ and &epte'ber $%, $%%$ of the Re(ional
Trial Court, Branch 6$, Ma)ati, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. %#*$+,.
The rder dated !une "#, $%%$ denied the 'otion of petitioner to dis'iss the co'plaint
in Civil Case No. %#*$+,, -hile the rder dated &epte'ber $%, $%%$ denied the 'otion
for reconsideration of the !une "#,$%%$ rder.
Petitioner is the .ol/ &ee -ho e0ercises soverei(nt/ over the 1atican Cit/ in Ro'e,
2tal/, and is represented in the Philippines b/ the Papal Nuncio.
Private respondent, &tarbri(ht &ales Enterprises, 2nc., is a do'estic corporation
en(a(ed in the real estate business.
This petition arose fro' a controvers/ over a parcel of land consistin( of 6,### s3uare
'eters 45ot 5*A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. ,%#66#7 located in the Municipalit/ of
Para8a3ue, Metro Manila and re(istered in the na'e of petitioner.
&aid 5ot 5*A is conti(uous to 5ots 5*B and 5*9 -hich are covered b/ Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. ":$$#+ and "65,++ respectivel/ and re(istered in the na'e of
the Philippine Realt/ Corporation 4PRC7.
The three lots -ere sold to Ra'on 5icup, throu(h Ms(r. 9o'in(o A. Cirilos, !r., actin(
as a(ent to the sellers. 5ater, 5icup assi(ned his ri(hts to the sale to private
respondent.
2n vie- of the refusal of the s3uatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a
dispute arose as to -ho of the parties has the responsibilit/ of evictin( and clearin( the
land of s3uatters. Co'plicatin( the relations of the parties -as the sale b/ petitioner of
5ot 5*A to Tropicana Properties and 9evelop'ent Corporation 4Tropicana7.
2
n !anuar/ ",, $%%#, private respondent filed a co'plaint -ith the Re(ional Trial
Court, Branch 6$, Ma)ati, Metro Manila for annul'ent of the sale of the three parcels of
land, and specific perfor'ance and da'a(es a(ainst petitioner, represented b/ the
Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants; na'el/, Ms(r. 9o'in(o A. Cirilos, !r., the
PRC and Tropicana 4Civil Case No.
%#*$+,7.
The co'plaint alle(ed that; 4$7 on April $:, $%++, Ms(r. Cirilos, !r., on behalf of
petitioner and the PRC, a(reed to sell to Ra'on 5icup 5ots 5*A, 5*B and 5*9 at the
price of P$,"6#.## per s3uare 'eters< 4"7 the a(ree'ent to sell -as 'ade on the
condition that earnest 'one/ of P$##,###.## be paid b/ 5icup to the sellers, and that
the sellers clear the said lots of s3uatters -ho -ere then occup/in( the sa'e< 4,7 5icup
paid the earnest 'one/ to Ms(r. Cirilos< 467 in the sa'e 'onth, 5icup assi(ned his
ri(hts over the propert/ to private respondent and infor'ed the sellers of the said
assi(n'ent< 457 thereafter, private respondent de'anded fro' Ms(r. Cirilos that the
sellers fulfill their underta)in( and clear the propert/ of s3uatters< ho-ever, Ms(r.
Cirilos infor'ed private respondent of the s3uatters= refusal to vacate the lots,
proposin( instead either that private respondent underta)e the eviction or that the
earnest 'one/ be returned to the latter< 467 private respondent counterproposed that if
it -ould underta)e the eviction of the s3uatters, the purchase price of the lots should be
reduced fro' P$,"6#.## to P$,$5#.## per s3uare 'eter< 4:7 Ms(r. Cirilos returned the
earnest 'one/ of P$##,###.## and -rote private respondent (ivin( it seven da/s fro'
receipt of the letter to pa/ the ori(inal purchase price in cash< 4+7 private respondent
sent the earnest 'one/ bac) to the sellers, but later discovered that on March ,#,
1
$%+%, petitioner and the PRC, -ithout notice to private respondent, sold the lots to
Tropicana, as evidenced b/ t-o separate 9eeds of &ale, one over 5ot 5*A, and another
over 5ots 5*B and 5*9< and that the sellers= transfer certificate of title over the lots -ere
cancelled, transferred and re(istered in the na'e of Tropicana< 4%7 Tropicana induced
petitioner and the PRC to sell the lots to it and thus enriched itself at the e0pense of
private respondent< 4$#7 private respondent de'anded the rescission of the sale to
Tropicana and the reconve/ance of the lots, to no avail< and 4$$7 private respondent is
-illin( and able to co'pl/ -ith the ter's of the contract to sell and has actuall/ 'ade
plans to develop the lots into a to-nhouse pro>ect, but in vie- of the sellers= breach, it
lost profits of not less than P,#,###.###.##.
Private respondent thus pra/ed for; 4$7 the annul'ent of the 9eeds of &ale bet-een
petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and Tropicana on the other< 4"7 the
reconve/ance of the lots in 3uestion< 4,7 specific perfor'ance of the a(ree'ent to sell
bet-een it and the o-ners of the lots< and 467 da'a(es.
n !une +, $%%#, petitioner and Ms(r. Cirilos separatel/ 'oved to dis'iss the
co'plaint ? petitioner for lac) of >urisdiction based on soverei(n i''unit/ fro' suit,
and Ms(r. Cirilos for bein( an i'proper part/. An opposition to the 'otion -as filed b/
private respondent.
n !une "#, $%%$, the trial court issued an order den/in(, a'on( others, petitioner=s
'otion to dis'iss after findin( that petitioner @shed off AitsB soverei(n i''unit/ b/
enterin( into the business contract in 3uestion@ 4Rollo, pp. "#*"$7.
n !ul/ $", $%%$, petitioner 'oved for reconsideration of the order. n Au(ust ,#,
$%%$, petitioner filed a @Motion for a .earin( for the &ole Purpose of Establishin(
Cactual Alle(ation for clai' of 2''unit/ as a !urisdictional 9efense.@ &o as to facilitate
the deter'ination of its defense of soverei(n i''unit/, petitioner pra/ed that a hearin(
be conducted to allo- it to establish certain facts upon -hich the said defense is based.
Private respondent opposed this 'otion as -ell as the 'otion for reconsideration.
n ctober $, $%%$, the trial court issued an order deferrin( the resolution on the
'otion for reconsideration until after trial on the 'erits and directin( petitioner to file its
ans-er 4Rollo, p. ""7.
Petitioner forth-ith elevated the 'atter to us. 2n its petition, petitioner invo)es the
privile(e of soverei(n i''unit/ onl/ on its o-n behalf and on behalf of its official
representative, the Papal Nuncio.
n 9ece'ber %, $%%$, a Motion for 2ntervention -as filed before us b/ the 9epart'ent
of Corei(n Affairs, clai'in( that it has a le(al interest in the outco'e of the case as
re(ards the diplo'atic i''unit/ of petitioner, and that it @adopts b/ reference, the
alle(ations contained in the petition of the .ol/ &ee insofar as the/ refer to ar(u'ents
relative to its clai' of soverei(n i''unit/ fro' suit@ 4Rollo, p. +:7.
Private respondent opposed the intervention of the 9epart'ent of Corei(n Affairs. 2n
co'pliance -ith the resolution of this Court, both parties and the 9epart'ent of
Corei(n Affairs sub'itted their respective 'e'oranda.
22
A preli'inar/ 'atter to be threshed out is the procedural issue of -hether the petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can be availed of to 3uestion
the order den/in( petitioner=s 'otion to dis'iss. The (eneral rule is that an order
den/in( a 'otion to dis'iss is not revie-able b/ the appellate courts, the re'ed/ of
the 'ovant bein( to file his ans-er and to proceed -ith the hearin( before the trial
court. But the (eneral rule ad'its of e0ceptions, and one of these is -hen it is ver/
clear in the records that the trial court has no alternative but to dis'iss the co'plaint
4Philippine National Ban) v. Clorendo, "#6 &CRA 5+" A$%%"B< Da(ada v. Civil &ervice
Co''ission, "$6 &CRA $$6 A$%%"B. 2n such a case, it -ould be a sheer -aste of ti'e
and ener(/ to re3uire the parties to under(o the ri(ors of a trial.
The other procedural 3uestion raised b/ private respondent is the personalit/ or le(al
interest of the 9epart'ent of Corei(n Affairs to intervene in the case in behalf of the
.ol/ &ee 4Rollo, pp. $+6*$%#7.
2n Public 2nternational 5a-, -hen a state or international a(enc/ -ishes to plead
soverei(n or diplo'atic i''unit/ in a forei(n court, it re3uests the Corei(n ffice of the
state -here it is sued to conve/ to the court that said defendant is entitled to i''unit/.
2n the Enited &tates, the procedure follo-ed is the process of @su((estion,@ -here the
forei(n state or the international or(aniFation sued in an A'erican court re3uests the
&ecretar/ of &tate to 'a)e a deter'ination as to -hether it is entitled to i''unit/. 2f the
&ecretar/ of &tate finds that the defendant is i''une fro' suit, he, in turn, as)s the
Attorne/ General to sub'it to the court a @su((estion@ that the defendant is entitled to
i''unit/. 2n En(land, a si'ilar procedure is follo-ed, onl/ the Corei(n ffice issues a
certification to that effect instead of sub'ittin( a @su((estion@ 4=Connell, 2 2nternational
5a- $,# A$%65B< Note; 2''unit/ fro' &uit of Corei(n &overei(n 2nstru'entalities and
bli(ations, 5# Hale 5a- !ournal $#++ A$%6$B7.
2n the Philippines, the practice is for the forei(n (overn'ent or the international
or(aniFation to first secure an e0ecutive endorse'ent of its clai' of soverei(n or
diplo'atic i''unit/. But ho- the Philippine Corei(n ffice conve/s its endorse'ent to
2
the courts varies. 2n International Catolic Migration Co!!ission v. Calle"a, $%# &CRA
$,# 4$%%#7, the &ecretar/ of Corei(n Affairs >ust sent a letter directl/ to the &ecretar/ of
5abor and E'plo/'ent, infor'in( the latter that the respondent*e'plo/er could not be
sued because it en>o/ed diplo'atic i''unit/. 2n#orld $ealt Organi%ation v. &'uino,
6+ &CRA "6" 4$%:"7, the &ecretar/ of Corei(n Affairs sent the trial court a tele(ra' to
that effect. 2n (aer v. )i%on, 5: &CRA $ 4$%:67, the E.&. E'bass/ as)ed the &ecretar/
of Corei(n Affairs to re3uest the &olicitor General to 'a)e, in behalf of the Co''ander
of the Enited &tates Naval Base at lon(apo Cit/, Da'bales, a @su((estion@ to
respondent !ud(e. The &olicitor General e'bodied the @su((estion@ in a Manifestation
and Me'orandu' as a!icus curiae.
2n the case at bench, the 9epart'ent of Corei(n Affairs, throu(h the ffice of 5e(al
Affairs 'oved -ith this Court to be allo-ed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The
Court allo-ed the said 9epart'ent to file its 'e'orandu' in support of petitioner=s
clai' of soverei(n i''unit/.
2n so'e cases, the defense of soverei(n i''unit/ -as sub'itted directl/ to the local
courts b/ the respondents throu(h their private counsels 4Ra3uiFa v. Bradford, :5 Phil.
5# A$%65B< Mi3uiabas v. Philippine*R/u)/us Co''and, +# Phil. "6" A$%6+B< Enited
&tates of A'erica v. Guinto, $+" &CRA 666 A$%%#B and co'panion cases7. 2n cases
-here the forei(n states b/pass the Corei(n ffice, the courts can in3uire into the facts
and 'a)e their o-n deter'ination as to the nature of the acts and transactions
involved.
222
The burden of the petition is that respondent trial court has no >urisdiction over
petitioner, bein( a forei(n state en>o/in( soverei(n i''unit/. n the other hand, private
respondent insists that the doctrine of non*suabilit/ is not an/'ore absolute and that
petitioner has divested itself of such a cloa) -hen, of its o-n free -ill, it entered into a
co''ercial transaction for the sale of a parcel of land located in the Philippines.
A. )e $oly See
Before -e deter'ine the issue of petitioner=s non*suabilit/, a brief loo) into its status as
a soverei(n state is in order.
Before the anne0ation of the Papal &tates b/ 2tal/ in $+:#, the Pope -as the 'onarch
and he, as the .ol/ &ee, -as considered a sub>ect of 2nternational 5a-. Iith the loss
of the Papal &tates and the li'itation of the territor/ under the .ol/ &ee to an area of
$#+.: acres, the position of the .ol/ &ee in 2nternational 5a- beca'e controversial
4&alon(a and Hap, Public 2nternational 5a- ,6*,: A$%%"B7.
2n $%"%, 2tal/ and the .ol/ &ee entered into the 5ateran Treat/, -here 2tal/ reco(niFed
the e0clusive do'inion and soverei(n >urisdiction of the .ol/ &ee over the 1atican Cit/.
2t also reco(niFed the ri(ht of the .ol/ &ee to receive forei(n diplo'ats, to send its o-n
diplo'ats to forei(n countries, and to enter into treaties accordin( to 2nternational 5a-
4Garcia, Juestions and Proble's 2n 2nternational 5a-, Public and Private +$ A$%6+B7.
The 5ateran Treat/ established the statehood of the 1atican Cit/ @for the purpose of
assurin( to the .ol/ &ee absolute and visible independence and of (uaranteein( to it
indisputable soverei(nt/ also in the field of international relations@ 4=Connell, 2
2nternational 5a- ,$$ A$%65B7.
2n vie- of the -ordin(s of the 5ateran Treat/, it is difficult to deter'ine -hether the
statehood is vested in the .ol/ &ee or in the 1atican Cit/. &o'e -riters even
su((ested that the treat/ created t-o international persons ? the .ol/ &ee and
1atican Cit/ 4&alon(a and Hap, supra, ,:7.
The 1atican Cit/ fits into none of the established cate(ories of states, and the
attribution to it of @soverei(nt/@ 'ust be 'ade in a sense different fro' that in -hich it is
applied to other states 4Cen-ic), 2nternational 5a- $"6*$"5 A$%6+B< CruF, 2nternational
5a- ,: A$%%$B7. 2n a co''unit/ of national states, the 1atican Cit/ represents an entit/
or(aniFed not for political but for ecclesiastical purposes and international ob>ects.
9espite its siFe and ob>ect, the 1atican Cit/ has an independent (overn'ent of its o-n,
-ith the Pope, -ho is also head of the Ro'an Catholic Church, as the .ol/ &ee or
.ead of &tate, in confor'it/ -ith its traditions, and the de'ands of its 'ission in the
-orld. 2ndeed, the -orld*-ide interests and activities of the 1atican Cit/ are such as to
'a)e it in a sense an @international state@ 4Cen-ic), supra., $"5< Kelsen, Principles of
2nternational 5a- $6# A$%56B7.
ne authorit/ -rote that the reco(nition of the 1atican Cit/ as a state has si(nificant
i'plication ? that it is possible for an/ entit/ pursuin( ob>ects essentiall/ different fro'
those pursued b/ states to be invested -ith international personalit/ 4KunF, The &tatus
of the .ol/ &ee in 2nternational 5a-, 66 The A'erican !ournal of 2nternational 5a- ,#+
A$%5"B7.
2nas'uch as the Pope prefers to conduct forei(n relations and enter into transactions
as the .ol/ &ee and not in the na'e of the 1atican Cit/, one can conclude that in the
Pope=s o-n vie-, it is the .ol/ &ee that is the international person.
The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the .ol/ &ee the status of a forei(n
soverei(n. The .ol/ &ee, throu(h its A'bassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had
diplo'atic representations -ith the Philippine (overn'ent since $%5: 4Rollo, p. +:7.
This appears to be the universal practice in international relations.
3
B. Sovereign I!!unity
As e0pressed in &ection " of Article 22 of the $%+: Constitution, -e have adopted the
(enerall/ accepted principles of 2nternational 5a-. Even -ithout this affir'ation, such
principles of 2nternational 5a- are dee'ed incorporated as part of the la- of the land
as a condition and conse3uence of our ad'ission in the societ/ of nations 4Enited
&tates of A'erica v. Guinto, $+" &CRA 666 A$%%#B7.
There are t-o conflictin( concepts of soverei(n i''unit/, each -idel/ held and fir'l/
established. Accordin( to the classical or absolute theor/, a soverei(n cannot, -ithout
its consent, be 'ade a respondent in the courts of another soverei(n. Accordin( to the
ne-er or restrictive theor/, the i''unit/ of the soverei(n is reco(niFed onl/ -ith re(ard
to public acts or acts "ure i!perii of a state, but not -ith re(ard to private acts or
acts "ure gestionis
4Enited &tates of A'erica v. RuiF, $,6 &CRA 6+: A$%+:B< Co3uia and 9efensor*
&antia(o, Public 2nternational 5a- $%6 A$%+6B7.
&o'e states passed le(islation to serve as (uidelines for the e0ecutive or >udicial
deter'ination -hen an act 'a/ be considered as "ure gestionis. The Enited &tates
passed the Corei(n &overei(n 2''unities Act of $%:6, -hich defines a co''ercial
activit/ as @either a re(ular course of co''ercial conduct or a particular co''ercial
transaction or act.@ Curther'ore, the la- declared that the @co''ercial character of the
activit/ shall be deter'ined b/ reference to the nature of the course of conduct or
particular transaction or act, rather than b/ reference to its purpose.@ The Canadian
Parlia'ent enacted in $%+" an Act to Provide Cor &tate 2''unit/ in Canadian Courts.
The Act defines a @co''ercial activit/@ as an/ particular transaction, act or conduct or
an/ re(ular course of conduct that b/ reason of its nature, is of a @co''ercial
character.@
The restrictive theor/, -hich is intended to be a solution to the host of proble's
involvin( the issue of soverei(n i''unit/, has created proble's of its o-n. 5e(al
treatises and the decisions in countries -hich follo- the restrictive theor/ have difficult/
in characteriFin( -hether a contract of a soverei(n state -ith a private part/ is an
act "ure gestionis or an act "ure i!perii.
The restrictive theor/ ca'e about because of the entr/ of soverei(n states into purel/
co''ercial activities re'otel/ connected -ith the dischar(e of (overn'ental functions.
This is particularl/ true -ith respect to the Co''unist states -hich too) control of
nationaliFed business activities and international tradin(.
This Court has considered the follo-in( transactions b/ a forei(n state -ith private
parties as acts "ure i!perii; 4$7 the lease b/ a forei(n (overn'ent of apart'ent
buildin(s for use of its 'ilitar/ officers 4&/3uia v. 5opeF, +6 Phil. ,$" A$%6%B< 4"7 the
conduct of public biddin( for the repair of a -harf at a Enited &tates Naval &tation
4Enited &tates of A'erica v. RuiF, supra.7< and 4,7 the chan(e of e'plo/'ent status of
base e'plo/ees 4&anders v. 1eridiano, $6" &CRA ++ A$%++B7.
n the other hand, this Court has considered the follo-in( transactions b/ a forei(n
state -ith private parties as acts "ure gestionis; 4$7 the hirin( of a coo) in the recreation
center, consistin( of three restaurants, a cafeteria, a ba)er/, a store, and a coffee and
pastr/ shop at the !ohn .a/ Air &tation in Ba(uio Cit/, to cater to A'erican service'en
and the (eneral public 4Enited &tates of A'erica v. Rodri(o, $+" &CRA 666 A$%%#B7<
and 4"7 the biddin( for the operation of barber shops in Clar) Air Base in An(eles Cit/
4Enited &tates of A'erica v. Guinto, $+" &CRA 666 A$%%#B7. The operation of the
restaurants and other facilities open to the (eneral public is undoubtedl/ for profit as a
co''ercial and not a (overn'ental activit/. B/ enterin( into the e'plo/'ent contract
-ith the coo) in the dischar(e of its proprietar/ function, the Enited &tates (overn'ent
i'pliedl/ divested itself of its soverei(n i''unit/ fro' suit.
2n the absence of le(islation definin( -hat activities and transactions shall be
considered @co''ercial@ and as constitutin( acts "ure gestionis, -e have to co'e out
-ith our o-n (uidelines, tentative the/ 'a/ be.
Certainl/, the 'ere enterin( into a contract b/ a forei(n state -ith a private part/ cannot
be the ulti'ate test. &uch an act can onl/ be the start of the in3uir/. The lo(ical
3uestion is -hether the forei(n state is en(a(ed in the activit/ in the re(ular course of
business. 2f the forei(n state is not en(a(ed re(ularl/ in a business or trade, the
particular act or transaction 'ust then be tested b/ its nature. 2f the act is in pursuit of a
soverei(n activit/, or an incident thereof, then it is an act "ure i!perii, especiall/ -hen it
is not underta)en for (ain or profit.
As held in *nited States of &!erica v. +uinto, 4supra7;
There is no 3uestion that the Enited &tates of A'erica, li)e an/ other
state, -ill be dee'ed to have i'pliedl/ -aived its non*suabilit/ if it
has entered into a contract in its proprietar/ or private capacit/. 2t is
onl/ -hen the contract involves its soverei(n or (overn'ental
capacit/ that no such -aiver 'a/ be i'plied.
2n the case at bench, if petitioner has bou(ht and sold lands in the ordinar/ course of a
real estate business, surel/ the said transaction can be cate(oriFed as an act "ure
gestionis. .o-ever, petitioner has denied that the ac3uisition and subse3uent disposal
of 5ot 5*A -ere 'ade for profit but clai'ed that it ac3uired said propert/ for the site of
its 'ission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private respondent failed to
dispute said clai'.
4
5ot 5*A -as ac3uired b/ petitioner as a donation fro' the Archdiocese of Manila. The
donation -as 'ade not for co''ercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The ri(ht of a
forei(n soverei(n to ac3uire propert/, real or personal, in a receivin( state, necessar/
for the creation and 'aintenance of its diplo'atic 'ission, is reco(niFed in the $%6$
1ienna Convention on 9iplo'atic Relations 4Arts. "#*""7. This treat/ -as concurred in
b/ the Philippine &enate and entered into force in the Philippines on Nove'ber $5,
$%65.
2n Article ,$4a7 of the Convention, a diplo'atic envo/ is (ranted i''unit/ fro' the civil
and ad'inistrative >urisdiction of the receivin( state over an/ real action relatin( to
private i''ovable propert/ situated in the territor/ of the receivin( state -hich the
envo/ holds on behalf of the sendin( state for the purposes of the 'ission. 2f this
i''unit/ is provided for a diplo'atic envo/, -ith all the 'ore reason should i''unit/
be reco(niFed as re(ards the soverei(n itself, -hich in this case is the .ol/ &ee.
The decision to transfer the propert/ and the subse3uent disposal thereof are li)e-ise
clothed -ith a (overn'ental character. Petitioner did not sell 5ot
5*A for profit or (ain. 2t 'erel/ -anted to dispose off the sa'e because the s3uatters
livin( thereon 'ade it al'ost i'possible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the
donation. The fact that s3uatters have occupied and are still occup/in( the lot, and that
the/ stubbornl/ refuse to leave the pre'ises, has been ad'itted b/ private respondent
in its co'plaint 4Rollo, pp. "6, ":7.
The issue of petitioner=s non*suabilit/ can be deter'ined b/ the trial court -ithout (oin(
to trial in the li(ht of the pleadin(s, particularl/ the ad'ission of private respondent.
Besides, the privile(e of soverei(n i''unit/ in this case -as sufficientl/ established b/
the Me'orandu' and Certification of the 9epart'ent of Corei(n Affairs. As the
depart'ent tas)ed -ith the conduct of the Philippines= forei(n relations 4Ad'inistrative
Code of $%+:, Boo) 21, Title 2, &ec. ,7, the 9epart'ent of Corei(n Affairs has for'all/
intervened in this case and officiall/ certified that the E'bass/ of the .ol/ &ee is a dul/
accredited diplo'atic 'ission to the Republic of the Philippines e0e'pt fro' local
>urisdiction and entitled to all the ri(hts, privile(es and i''unities of a diplo'atic
'ission or e'bass/ in this countr/ 4Rollo, pp. $56*$5:7. The deter'ination of the
e0ecutive ar' of (overn'ent that a state or instru'entalit/ is entitled to soverei(n or
diplo'atic i''unit/ is a political 3uestion that is conclusive upon the courts
42nternational Catholic Mi(ration Co''ission v. Calle>a, $%# &CRA $,# A$%%#B7. Ihere
the plea of i''unit/ is reco(niFed and affir'ed b/ the e0ecutive branch, it is the dut/
of the courts to accept this clai' so as not to e'barrass the e0ecutive ar' of the
(overn'ent in conductin( the countr/=s forei(n relations 4Iorld .ealth r(aniFation v.
A3uino, 6+ &CRA "6" A$%:"B7. As in International Catolic Migration Co!!ission and
in #orld $ealt Organi%ation, -e abide b/ the certification of the 9epart'ent of
Corei(n Affairs.
rdinaril/, the procedure -ould be to re'and the case and order the trial court to
conduct a hearin( to establish the facts alle(ed b/ petitioner in its 'otion. 2n vie- of
said certification, such procedure -ould ho-ever be pointless and undul/ circuitous
4rti(as L Co. 5td. Partnership v. !ud(e Tirso 1elasco, G.R. No. $#%665, !ul/ "5,
$%%67.
21
Private respondent is not left -ithout an/ le(al re'ed/ for the redress of its (rievances.
Ender both Public 2nternational 5a- and Transnational 5a-, a person -ho feels
a((rieved b/ the acts of a forei(n soverei(n can as) his o-n (overn'ent to espouse
his cause throu(h diplo'atic channels.
Private respondent can as) the Philippine (overn'ent, throu(h the Corei(n ffice, to
espouse its clai's a(ainst the .ol/ &ee. 2ts first tas) is to persuade the Philippine
(overn'ent to ta)e up -ith the .ol/ &ee the validit/ of its clai's. f course, the
Corei(n ffice shall first 'a)e a deter'ination of the i'pact of its espousal on the
relations bet-een the Philippine (overn'ent and the .ol/ &ee 4Houn(, Re!edies of
Private Clai!ants &gainst ,oreign States, &elected Readin(s on Protection b/ 5a- of
Private Corei(n 2nvest'ents %#5, %$% A$%66B7. nce the Philippine (overn'ent decides
to espouse the clai', the latter ceases to be a private cause.
Accordin( to the Per'anent Court of 2nternational !ustice, the forerunner of the
2nternational Court of !ustice;
B/ ta)in( up the case of one of its sub>ects and b/ reportin( to
diplo'atic action or international >udicial proceedin(s on his behalf, a
&tate is in realit/ assertin( its o-n ri(hts ? its ri(ht to ensure, in the
person of its sub>ects, respect for the rules of international la- 4The
Mavro''atis Palestine Concessions, $ .udson, Iorld Court
Reports "%,, ,#" A$%"6B7.
I.ERECRE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTE9 and the co'plaint in Civil Case
No. %#*$+, a(ainst petitioner is 92&M2&&E9.
& R9ERE9.
5