Lo Ching vs.

Archbishop of Manila

Facts:
On August 30, 1940, the Archbishop of Manila through the Bank of the Philippine Islands
leased a farm to Lo and So Yun Ching Chong Co. with Nos. 1095 with 1101 R. located at de
la Calle Hidalgo, Manila, under a monthly income of P500 by the end of three years
counting from the first of September 1940, extendable to two years (two years upon
agreement of the parties). The tenant took the property by setting it in a hotel.
In February 1942, the Japanese army echoed the tenants of the property and delivered the
latter to German Otto Schulze who worked until January 1945 at the advent of the
liberation army.
In early February 1945, tenant reoccupied the property and paid the monthly rental fee.
Before the end of August of that year, the landlord required the tenants to vacate the
property, however, they refused.
Therefore, the landlord on September 8, 1945 filed for an application for eviction in the
Municipal Court of Manila. On October 8, 1945, it ordered the tenants to vacate the
property and pay its monthly rent of P625 from the first September 1945, plus damages in
the amount of P500 and legal expenses.
The appellants
the occupation
of the use and
period of three
army.

contend that they are entitled to occupy the property for three full years,
must be effective, and continuous material, which should not be deprived
enjoyment of the property, and the appellants are entitled to deduct that
years, all the time that no longer have the lease available to the Japanese

Issue:
WON Hague Convention of 1907 allows occupation and seizure of private lands. WON
Japanese soldiers occupied the farm in dispute.
Held:
No. The Hague Convention of 1907 does not allow an occupying army to seize private
property in the territory invaded. In contrast, states that: "Family honor and rights, the lives of
persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated." (Article 46).
The farm is not even used as army barracks, and there is no evidence that it was seized by
military necessity, what can be deduced that the Japanese soldiers disposed of the property, not
in the legitimate exercise the authority of an occupying army, but spurred on by uncontrolled and
uncontrollable desire to take over other people.

CAYEN CERVANCIA CABIGUEN, PSU SCHOOL OF LAW

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Page