Political Law Case Digests 2

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [2]: THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
REPUBLIC VS SANTOS III fl ood control program; that the property was within the
G.R. No. 160453, November 12, 2012 legal easement of 20 meters from the river bank; and
CRUZ that assuming that the property was not covered by the
legal easement, title to the property could not be
DOCTRINE: registered in favor of the applicants for the reason that
the property was an orchard that had dried up and had
All river beds remain property of public dominion and not resulted from accretion.
cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription unless
previously declared by the Government to be alienable RTC: In favor of petitioners
and disposable. CA: Affirmed RTC decision
To prove that the land subject of an application for ISSUE:

registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively
establish the existence of a positive act of the WON the land claimed is an alienable and disposable land hence
Government, such as a presidential proclamation, Government specifically City of Paranaque in this case cannot
executive order, administrative action, investigation claim ownership.
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator, or a
legislative act or statute. HELD:
FACTS: NO. The land is belongs to the inalienable public domain.

Indeed, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise
Alleging continuous and adverse possession of more than appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
ten years, respondent Arcadio Ivan A. Santos III (Arcadio belong to the State. No public land can be acquired by private
Ivan) applied on March 7, 1997 for the registration of Lot persons without any grant, express or implied, from the
4998-B (the property) in the RTC in Paranaque City. The Government. It is indispensable, therefore, that there is a showing
property, which had an area of 1,045 square meters, of a title from the State. Occupation of public land in the concept of
more or less, was located in Barangay San Dionisio, owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be
Paranaque City, and was bounded registered as a title.
in the Northeast by Lot 4079 belonging to respondent
Arcadio C. Santos, Jr. (Arcadio, Subject to the exceptions defined in Article 461 of the Civil Code
Jr.), in the Southeast by the Paranaque River, in the (which declares river beds that are abandoned through the natural
Southwest by an abandoned road, and in the Northwest change in the course of the waters as ipso facto belonging to the
by Lot 4998-A also owned by Arcadio Ivan. owners of the land occupied by the new course, and which gives to
the owners of the adjoining lots the right to acquire only the
On May 21, 1998, Arcadio Ivan amended his application abandoned river beds not ipso facto belonging to the owners of the
for land registration to include Arcadio, Jr. as his co- land affected by the natural change of course of the waters only
applicant because of the latter's co-ownership of the after paying their value), all river beds remain property of
property. He alleged that the property had been formed public dominion and cannot be acquired by acquisitive
through accretion and had been in their joint open, prescription unless previously declared by the Government
notorious, public, continuous and adverse possession for to be alienable and disposable. Considering that Lot 4998-B
more than 30 years. was not shown to be already declared to be alienable and
disposable, respondents could not be deemed to have acquired the
The City of Paranaque opposed the application for land property through prescription.
registration, stating that it needed the property for its
1 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is

alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of Maria Cerdeira is a Spanish national and was a resident of Tangier,
a positive act of the Government, such as a presidential Morocco from 1931 up to her death. At the time of her demise she
proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation left, among others, intangible personal properties in the
reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator, or a legislative act or Philippines. Antonio Campos Rueda, as administrator of the estate
statute. Until then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do of Maria Cerdeira, filed a provisional estate and inheritance tax
not apply. return on all the properties of the latter. The CIR, pending
investigation, issued an assessment for state and inheritance taxes
In the case of Menguito v Republic and Republic v. Sarmiento, a in the amount of P369,383.96, which tax liabilities were paid by
notation on a survey plan that the land is alienable and disposable petitioner. Campos Rueda filed an amended return wherein
is not a sufficient proof. For the original registration of title, intangible personal properties with the value of P396,308.90 were
the applicant (petitioners in thiscase) must overcome the claimed as exempted from taxes. The CIR, pending investigation,
presumption that the land sought to be registered forms issued another assessment for estate and inheritance taxes in the
part of the public domain. Unless public land is shown to have amount of P469,665.24. In a letter, the CIR denied the request for
been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it exemption on the ground that the law of Tangier is not reciprocal to
remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, "occupation Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen
into ownership and be registered as a title." To overcome such Hence, CIR demanded the payment of the sums representing
presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including ad valorem
applicant. Absent such evidence, the land sought to be registered penalties, surcharges, interests and compromise penalties. In a
remains inalienable. letter, Campos Rueda requested for the reconsideration of the
decision denying the claim for tax exemption of the intangible
We find applicability of the ruling in the mentioned case, the personal properties and the imposition of the ad valorem penalties.
notation in the survey plan of Lot 4998-B stating it is alienable and However,the CIR denied request. The denial is premised on the
disposable is not a sufficient proof. The rulings of RTC and CA was grounds that there was no reciprocity [with Tangier, which
reversed and set aside. was moreover] a mere principality, not a foreign country.
Consequently, CIR demanded the payment of a total of
CIR vs CAMPOS RUEDA P161,874.95 as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including
G.R. No. L-13250. October 29, 1971 surcharges, interests and compromise penalties.
The matter was then elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals. In
DOCTRINE: ruling against the contention of the Collector of Internal Revenue,
the appealed decision states: "In fine, we believe, and so hold, that
A foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in the expression "foreign country", used in the last proviso of Section
line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a
sovereign community independent of outside control bound by ties government of that foreign power which, although not an
of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a international person in the sense of international law, does
government functioning under a regime of law. not impose transfer or death upon intangible person properties of
our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar
The international zone of Tangier, even if it is not recognized by the exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that
Philippine Government as a state or even if w/o international Tangier should have been recognized by our Government
personalitya, could avail of the reciprocal provisions of our Tax order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of
Code the proviso of Section 122 of our Tax. Code."
ISSUE:
FACTS:

Whether or not the acquisition of international personality is a allotted area a supremacy over all other institutions. It is the power
condition sine qua non to Tangier being considered a "foreign entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the
country". conditions of a legal order and to enter into international relations.
With the latter requisites satisfied, international law does not exact
HELD: independence as a condition of statehood.
NO. International personality is not required to be considered as a SHIPSIDE INC. VS CA

foreign country. G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001
Even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international DOCTRINE:

personality petitioner has not successfully made out a case. Note
that four days prior to the filing of this petition, In Collector of The Republic of the Philippines cannot be barred by the rules on
Internal Revenue vs. De Lara, it was specifically held by the court prescription
that: "Considering the State of California as a foreign country in
relation to Section 122 of our Tax Code we believe and hold, as did BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate
the Tax Court that the Ancilliary Administrator is entitled to body performing proprietary BCDA is not a mere agency of the
exemption from the inheritance tax on the intangible personal Government but a corporate body performing proprietary
property found in the Philippines." There can be no doubt that functions.
California as a state in the American Union was lacking in the
alleged requisite of international personality. Nonetheless, it was FACTS:
held to be a foreign country within the meaning of Section 122 of
the NIRC. Even prior to the De Lara ruling, this Court did commit April 1960, Lots No. 1 and 4, covered by Original Certificate of Title
itself to the doctrine that even a tiny principality, that of No. 0-381 in the name of Rafael Galvez, were sold by the latter to
Liechtenstein, hardly an international personality in the traditional Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, ReginaBustos, and Erlinda
sense, did fall under this exempt category. Balatbat. Thereafter, in August. 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold the same
lots to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and the latter in turn
It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be conveyed the property to Shipside Incorporated, herein
identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation petitioner, on1963, resulting in the issuance of new Transfer
that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent Certificate of Title No. T-57 10.
of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme
within its territory, acting through a government functioning under Unknown to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, OCT No. 0-381
a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people was already declared null and void and was ordered cancelled by
composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a the then Court of First Instance of La Union, in its order dated
government with the legal competence to exact obedience its February 1, 1963. The decision of the CFI became final and
commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic executor on October 23, 1973.
organized by common consent for mutual defense and
mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. Correctly On April 21, 1999 (24 years after), the Office of the Solicitor
has it been described as "the juridical personification of the General, after being notified that the aforesaid order remained
nation." This is to view it in the light its historical development. unexecuted despite the writ of execution issued by the trial court,
The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite filed a complaint for revival of judgment and cancellation of titles
territory, politically organized, exercising by means of its before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union.
government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and
maintaining its separate international personality. It is a territorial Petitioner Shipside, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging,
society divided into government and subjects, claiming within its among others that the respondent Republic was not the

real party-in-interest and that the cause of action was of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of
already barred by prescription (impt contentions). The trial limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.
court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and its motion for
reconsideration was likewise turned down. Petitioner elevated the But this rule on prescription does not run against the state.
matter to the Court of Appeals through petition for certiorari and
prohibition. The appeal court denied the petition as well as the While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the
motion for reconsideration. same may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is
no longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallace
Other contentions of Petitioner are as follows: may have belonged to the government at the time Rafael Galvez's
(1) the complaint stated no cause of action because only final and title was ordered cancelled in Land Registration Case No. N-361,
executory judgments may be subject of an action for revival of the same no longer holds true today.
judgment;
(2) the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest because the real Why? Because R.A 7227 and Proc. No. 216 transferred Wallace Air
property covered by the Torrens titles sought to be cancelled, Bases/Areasor simply called military reservations to Bases and
allegedly part of Camp Wallace (Wallace Air Station), were under Conversion Development Authority (BCDA). With the transfer
the ownership and administration of the Bases Conversion of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the government no longer has a
Development Authority (BCDA) under Republic Act No. 7227; right or interest to protect. Consequently, the Republic is not a real
(3) plaintiff's cause of action is barred by prescription; party in interest and it may not institute the instant action. Nor
(4) twenty-five years having lapsed since the issuance of the writ may it raise the defense of imprescriptibility, the same being
of execution, no action for revival of judgment may be instituted applicable only in cases where the government is a party in
because under Paragraph 3 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code, such interest.
action may be brought only within ten (10) years from the time the
judgment had been rendered. The rule that prescription does not run against the State
does not apply to corporations or artificial bodies created
ISSUE: by the State for special purposes, it being said that when
the title of the Republic has been divested, its grantees,
1. WON the Republic of the Philippines can maintain the although artificial bodies of its own creation, are in the
action for revival of judgment in this case. same category as ordinary persons
2. WON Republic can be barred by extinctive prescription.
The BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and
HELD: distinct from the government. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7227
reads:
No to (1) and (2)
SECTION 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development
As a general rule, it is plain that an action for revival of judgment Authority. — There is hereby created a body corporate to be known
must be brought within ten years from the time said judgment as the Conversion Authority which shall have the attribute of
becomes final. Taking these 2 provisions in consideration: perpetual succession and shall be vested with the powers of a
1. Article 1144(3) provides that an action upon a judgment corporation.
"must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of
action accrues." It may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of
2. Section 6, Rule 39 provides that a final and executory government have been classified into governmental or constituent
judgment or order may be executed on motion within five and proprietary or ministrant. While public benefit and public
(5) years from the date of its entry, but that after the lapse welfare, particularly, the promotion of the economic and social
development of Central Luzon, may be attributable to the

operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the functions

performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. FACTS:
The promotion of economic and social development of Central
Luzon, in particular, and the country's goal for enhancement, in The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a
general, do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. married woman, the plaintiff, Melchora Cabanas. She was ten years
Other corporations have been created by government to act as its old. The defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the
agents for the realization of its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA deceased.
and the NIA, to count a few, and yet, the Court has ruled that these
entities, although performing functions aimed at promoting public The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his
interest and public welfare, are not government-function child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon
corporations invested with governmental attributes. It may thus his death, the proceeds were paid to him. Hence this complaint by
be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of
Government but a corporate body performing proprietary such sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant
functions. would justify his claim to the retention of the amount in question
by invoking the terms of the insurance policy.
By raising the claim of imprescriptibility, a claim which cannot be
raised by the BCDA, the Government not only assists the BCDA. Trial Court: judgment ordering the defendant to deliver the
Moreover, to recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in proceeds of the policy in question to plaintiff. Articles 320 provides:
this case would set a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic "The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator
to prosecute, on behalf of government-owned or controlled of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. If
corporations, causes of action which have already prescribed, on the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or
the pretext that the Government is the real party in interest mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of
against whom prescription does not run, said corporations having First Instance.” Article 321 states: "The property which the
been created merely as agents for the realization of government unemancipated child has acquired or may acquire with his work or
programs. industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in ownership,
and in usufruct to the father or mother under whom he is under
Add’l info: Since the portion in dispute now forms part of the parental authority and whose company he lives; . . ."
property owned and administered by the Bases Conversion and
Development Authority, it is alienable and registerable real ISSUE:
property.
WON the doctrine of parens patriae finds application in this case.
The civil case filed by RP is ordered dismissed w/o prejudice to the [Walang discussion sa facts kung ano contentions ng parties; bigla
right of BCDA to institute proper action. na lang sumulpot yang parens patriae na yan, ganyan.]
MELCHORA CABANAS vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL HELD:

G.R. No. L-25843. July 25, 1974
Gatacelo Yes. The Court adheres to the concept that the judiciary, as an
agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon
DOCTRINE: whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to
accord priority to his best interest. Certainly the judiciary as the
This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae cannot
of every Stat. The judiciary, as an agency of the State acting as remain insensible to the validity of the mother’s plea. The United
parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit of litigation States Supreme Court opines: "This prerogative of parens patriae is
affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interest. inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power

is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity

to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by HELD:
irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and
the destruction of their liberties." What is more, there is this No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an
constitutional provision vitalizing this concept. It reads: "The State absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the
shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution." If, as the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or
Constitution so wisely dictates, it is the family as a unit that has to sovereign. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the
be strengthened, it does not admit of doubt that even if a stronger inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate
case were presented for the uncle, still deference to a government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the
constitutional mandate would have led the lower court to decide as enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or
it did. sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier. The
subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a
ANASTACIO LAUREL vs. ERIBERTO MISA territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during a war,
G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947 "although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the
supremacy over them" is one of the "rules of international law of
DOCTRINE: our times."
Military occupant cannot repeal or suspend operation of law of The words "temporary allegiance," as descriptive of the relations
treason. borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy
toward the military government established over them, may, at
Facts: most, be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a
foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory
Laurel, a Filipino citizen, was arrested in Camarines Sur by the wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives and
United States Army and was interned under a commitment order does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance
"for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own
occupation," but in September, 1945, he was turned over to the government or sovereign.
Commonwealth Government, and since then has been under the
custody of the respondent Director of Prisons. Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be
prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign
The Court denied the petition for habeas corpus filed by Laurel country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by
(this was discussed in another case). Laurel posited the theory that the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his
a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the
and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort. Article 114 of
for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the the Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed
Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the against the national security of the legitimate government,
legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation.
suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over
these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic: In short, military occupant cannot repeal or suspend operation of
law of treason. Since the preservation of the allegiance or the
ISSUE: obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his
government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive
WON the law on treason is suspended in times of belligerent action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to
occupation. the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has

no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions
or suspend the operation of the law of treason. or limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages
established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the
Adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would requirements of public conscience.
lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or
states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and WILLIAM F. PERALTA vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
requirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to G.R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945
legally recruit or enlist the Quisling inhabitants of the occupied
territory to fight against their own government without the latter DOCTRINE:
incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel
those who are not to aid them in their military operation against During a belligerent occupation, the political laws of the occupied
the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and territory are merely suspended, subject to revival under the
conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own principle of jus postliminium upon the end of the occupation. But
independence or sovereignty —such theory would sanction the non-political laws are deemed continued unless changed by the
action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign belligerent occupant since they are intended to govern the
country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves relations of individuals as among themselves.
of their own freedom and independence and repressing the
exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to FACTS:
commit a political suicide.
Peralta, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila, was
Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as prosecuted for the crime of robbery pursuant to Act 65 (issued
against the State Government, in the same way treason may have during the Japanese occupation). He was found guilty and
been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Special and
sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created in section 1 of Ordinance
of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form No. 7 promulgated by the President of the so-called Republic of the
of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the Philippines.
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed
during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the Peralta filed a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that the
same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction "was a political
of our Constitution provides that: "The government established by instrumentality of the military forces of the Japanese Imperial
this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Army, the aims and political purposes of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the Philippines, as well as those of the United States of America, and
sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine therefore, null and void ab initio", and he is being punished by a
Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall law created to serve the political purpose of the Japanese Imperial
thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." Army in the Philippines.
N.B. Although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or The Solicitor General supports Peralta and states that Court of
continue in force, unless absolutely prevented by the Special
circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created and the summary
the social and commercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, procedure prescribed therefor are tinged with political complexion,
all the powers of a de facto government and may, at his pleasure, do not afford a fair trial, violate the Constitution of the
either change the existing laws or make new ones when the Commonwealth, and impair the constitutional rights of accused
exigencies of the military service demand such action, that is, persons under their legitimate Constitution.
when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the

Some of the features of the summary procedure are: that the court The so-called Republic of the Philippines, apparently
may interrogate the accused and witnesses before trial in order to established and organized as a sovereign state
clarify the points in dispute; that the refusal of the accused to independent from any other government by the Filipino
answer the questions may be considered unfavorable to him, people, was in truth and reality, a government established
among others. by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of
occupation.
ISSUE: 2. Yes.
a. The so called Republic of the Philippines, being a
1. WON the Constitution of the Commonwealth or of Republic governmental instrumentality of the belligerent occupant,
should be applied. had the power or was competent to create the Court of
2. WON the (a) court, (b) summary procedure, and (c) Act 65 Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No question
are valid under the laws of nation. may arise as to whether or not a court is of a political
3. WON reoccupation renders the subject act invalid. complexion, for it is a mere governmental agency charged
with the duty of applying the law to cases falling within its
jurisdiction. Its judgments and sentences may be of
HELD: political complexion or not depending upon the nature or
1. No. As the so-called Republic of the Philippines was a de character of the law so applied.
facto government of the second kind (of paramount force --
existence is maintained by active military power within the b. There is also no question as to the power or competence
territories, and against the rightful authority of an of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the law providing
established and lawful government|), the questions for such procedure. The only restrictions or limitations
involved in the present case cannot be decided in the light imposed upon the power of a belligerent occupant to alter
of the Constitution of the Commonwealth Government, the laws or promulgate new ones, especially the criminal
because the belligerent occupant was totally independent law as well as the laws regarding procedure, so far as it is
of the constitution of the occupied territory in carrying out necessary for military purposes, that is, for his control of
the administration over said territory. the territory and the safety and protection of his army, are
those imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages
The Constitution of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and
can neither be applied, since the validity of an act of a the requirements of public conscience. It is obvious that
belligerent occupant cannot be tested in the light of the summary procedure under consideration does not
another act of the same occupant, whose criminal violate these precepts. It cannot be considered as violating
jurisdiction is drawn entirely from the law martial as the laws of humanity and public conscience, for it is less
defined in the usages of nations. The government objectionable, even from the point of view of those who are
established over an enemy's territory during the military used to the accusatory system of criminal procedure, than
occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws the procedural laws based on the semi-inquisitorial or
of war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject mixed system prevailing in France and other countries in
to all restrictions which that code imposes. Its character is continental Europe.
the same and the source of its authority the same. In either
case it is a government imposed by the laws of war, and so c. It was within the power and competence of the
far as it concerns the inhabitants of such territory or the belligerent occupant to promulgate, through the National
rest of the world, those laws alone determine the legality Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, Act
or illegality of its acts. No. 65 of the said Assembly, which penalizes the crimes of
robbery and other offenses as new crimes and offenses

demanded by military necessity, incident to a state of war, AQUACULTURE DEPARTMENT (SEAFDEC-AQD) vs. NLRC
and necessary for the control of the country by the G.R. No. 86773. February 14, 1992; 206 SCRA 283
belligerent occupant, the protection and safety of the army LAZARO
of occupation, its support and efficiency, and the success
of its operations. They are not the same ordinary offenses DOCTRINE:
penalized by the Revised Penal Code. The act aims to
prevent food and other necessaries from reaching the International organizations enjoy immunity from local jurisdiction.
"guerrillas" which were harassing the belligerent occupant
from every nook and corner of the country and to preserve FACTS:
the food supply and other necessaries in order that in case
of necessity, the Imperial Japanese forces could easily SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the
requisition them. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, organized through
an agreement entered into in Bangkok, Thailand on December 28,
3. Yes. During a belligerent occupation, the political laws of 1967 by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand,
the occupied territory are merely suspended, subject to Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the
revival under the principle of jus postliminium upon the sponsoring country.
end of the occupation. But non-political laws are deemed
continued unless changed by the belligerent occupant On April 20, 1975, private respondent Juvenal Lazaga was
since they are intended to govern the relations of employed as a Research Associate on a probationary basis by the
individuals as among themselves. SEAFDEC-AQD and was appointed Senior External Affairs Officer on
January 5, 1983. Thereafter, he was appointed to the position of
Most acts penalized by Act 65 were political in nature. Professional III and designated as Head of External Affairs Office
Peralta was prosecuted for robbery connected with the with the same pay and benefits.
supervision, control and distribution of foods and other
necessaries. The law effectively penalized the robbery of On May 8, 1986, petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of
its food resources by its enemies, particularly the SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination to private respondent
guerrillas. The SC said that such offense is political in informing him that due to the financial constraints being
nature. experienced by the department, his services shall be terminated at
the close of office hours on May 15, 1986 and that he is entitled to
All judgments of political nature of the courts during the separation benefits equivalent to one (1) month of his basic salary
Japanese regime ceased to be valid upon the restoration of for every year of service plus other benefits. Because of
the national government by virtue of the principle of petitioner's failure to pay private respondent his separation pay,
postliminium. Though no redress can be claimed by the the latter filed on March 18, 1987 a complaint against petitioners
prisoner as to the sentence he has already served, the law for non-payment of separation benefits plus moral damages and
that convicted him has also ceased validity. As such the attorney's fees with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
detained prisoner must be released. The writ of habeas
corpus was granted. PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION: NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case
inasmuch as the SEAFDEC-AQD is an international organization and
Postliminium – a principle of public international law that that private respondent must first secure clearances from the
provides for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that an proper departments for property or money accountability before
occupant may have performed on a given territory after its any claim for separation pay will be paid, and which clearances
recapture by the legitimate sovereign. had not yet been obtained by the private respondent.
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER- LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC: ruled in favor of private respondent.

DOCTRINE:
ISSUE:
IF THE ACTS GIVING RISE TO A SUIT ARE THOSE OF A FOREIGN
WON NLRC has jurisdiction over petitioner. GOVERNMENT DONE BY ITS FOREIGN AGENT, ALTHOUGH NOT
NECESSARILY A DIPLOMATIC PERSONAGE, BUT ACTING IN HIS
HELD: OFFICIAL CAPACITY, THE COMPLAINT COULD BE BARRED BY THE
IMMUNITY OF THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT WITHOUT ITS
No. Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including CONSENT.
its Departments (AQD) (established in Iloilo), enjoys functional
independence and freedom from control of the state in whose FACTS:
territory its office is located. Permanent international commissions
and administrative bodies have been created by the agreement of Petitioner Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national, was charged for
a considerable number of States for a variety of international violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as
purposes, economic or social and mainly non-political. In so far as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972." The narcotic agents who
they are autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, raided the house of Minucher were accompanied by private
they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the respondent Arthur Scalzo. Minucher was acquitted by the trial court
municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such, of the charges. Minucher filed a civil case before the Regional Trial
according to one leading authority they must be deemed to Court of Manila for damages on account of what he claimed to
possess a species of international personality of their own. have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur
Scalzo. Scalzo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the Republic of ground that, being a special agent of the United States Drug
the Philippines agreed to be represented by one Director in the Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic
governing SEAFDEC Council and that its national laws and immunity.
regulations shall apply only insofar as its contribution to SEAFDEC
of "an agreed amount of money, movable and immovable property ISSUE:
and services necessary for the establishment and operation of the
Center" are concerned. It expressly waived the application of the WON private respondent Scalzo, although he cannot invoke
Philippine laws on the disbursement of funds of petitioner diplomatic immunity (kasi di nya na-prove yung diplomatic status
SEAFDEC-AQD. nya), can invoke the defense of state immunity from suit.
One of the basic immunities of an international organization is HELD:

immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the
legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country Yes. While the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain
where it is found. The obvious reason for this is that the subjection contentious, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he worked
of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to
afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities within the country
interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies on the dates pertinent to this case. If it should be ascertained that
and decisions of the organization: besides, such subjection to local Arthur Scalzo was acting well within his assigned functions when
jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its he committed the acts alleged in the complaint, the present
responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-state. controversy could then be resolved under the related doctrine of
State Immunity from Suit. The precept that a State cannot be sued
MINUCHER vs. CA in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of customary
G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003 international law then closely identified with the personal immunity
of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of

democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem on the
head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit.
itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are
those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY vs. PGDE
not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official 668 SCRA 406 G.R. No. 176628. March 19, 2012
capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the
foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a DOCTRINE:
representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state
itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an The application of state immunity is proper only when the
individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the proceedings arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of
maxim — par in parem, non habet imperium — that all states are commercial activities or economic affairs.
sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an FACTS:
official would require the state itself to perform an affirmative act
to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount PTA, an agency of the Department of Tourism, whose main function
needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be is to bolster and promote tourism, entered into a contract with
regarded as being against the state itself, although it has not been Atlantic Erectors, Inc. (AEI) for the construction of the Intramuros
formally impleaded. Golf Course Expansion Projects for a contract price of
P57,954,647.94. The civil works of the project commenced. Since
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with AEI was incapable of constructing the golf course aspect of the
immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he project, it entered into a sub-contract agreement with PHILGOLF, a
is acting within the directives of the sending state. The consent of duly organized domestic corporation, to build the golf course
the host state is an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy amounting to P27,000,000.00. The sub-contract agreement also
between the two sovereigns. The official exchanges of provides that PHILGOLF shall submit its progress billings directly to
communication between agencies of the government of the two PTA and, in turn, PTA shall directly pay PHILGOLF. PHILGOLF filed a
countries, certifications from officials of both the Philippine collection suit against PTA amounting to P11,820,550.53, plus
Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy, as interest, for the construction of the golf course. PTA, as a
well as the participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics government entity, invokes its state immunity.
Command in the "buy-bust operation" conducted at the residence
of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo, may be inadequate to support ISSUE:
the "diplomatic status" of the latter but they give enough
indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, WON PTA can invoke state immunity.
if not consent, to the activities within Philippine territory of agent
Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The job HELD:
description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on No. The application of state immunity is proper only when the
suspected drug suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, proceedings arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of
to inform local law enforcers who would then be expected to make commercial activities or economic affairs. The State, in entering
the arrest. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later into a business contract, descends to the level of an individual and
acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then is deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued. Since the
becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher, Intramuros Golf Course Expansion Projects partakes of a
Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his proprietary character entered into between PTA and PHILGOLF, PTA
official function or duties. All told, this Court is constrained to rule cannot avoid its financial liability by merely invoking immunity
that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United States Drug from suit.
Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to SSS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-41299. February 21, 1983.

Muñez The Trial Court rendered judgment against SSS directing it to pay
damages in favor of the plaintiff spouses. On appeal, the CA
DOCTRINE: affirmed the lower court’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.
SSS' own organic act specifically provides that it can sue and be SSS contends, among others, that it is not liable for
sued in Court. These words "sue and be sued" embrace all civil damages not being a profit-oriented governmental
process incident to a legal action. So that, even assuming that the institution but one performing governmental functions.
SSS, as it claims, enjoys immunity from suit as an entity
performing governmental functions, by virtue of the explicit ISSUE:
provision of the aforecited enabling law, the Government must be
deemed to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it WON SSS can be made legally responsible for its acts through a
does not thereby concede its liability. judicial action.
FACTS: HELD:
Sometime in March, 1963 the spouses David B. Cruz and Yes. SSS can be made legally responsible for its acts through a
Socorro Concio Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate judicial action.
loan by the SSS with their residential lot located in Rizal as
collateral. The spouses executed on March 26, 1963 the To our minds, there should be no question on this score considering
corresponding real estate mortgage. From the proceeds of the real that the SSS is a juridical entity with a personality of its own. It has
estate loan the mortgagors constructed their residential house on corporate powers separate and distinct from the
the mortgaged property and were furnished by the SSS with a Government. SSS' own organic act specifically provides that
passbook to record the monthly payments of their amortizations. it can sue and be sued in Court. These words "sue and be
The mortgagors, plaintiffs herein, complied with their monthly sued" embrace all civil process incident to a legal action.
payments although there were times when delays were incurred in So that, even assuming that the SSS, as it claims, enjoys
their monthly payments which were due every first five (5) days of immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental
the month. On July 9, 1968, defendant SSS filed an application functions, by virtue of the explicit provision of the
with the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the real aforecited enabling law, the Government must be deemed
estate mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the ground, to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it
among others: does not thereby concede its liability. That statutory law has
given to the private citizen a remedy for the enforcement and
'That the conditions of the mortgage have been broken since protection of his rights. The SSS thereby has been required to
October, 1967 with the default on the part of the mortgagor submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts, subject to its right to
to pay in full the installments then due and payable on the interpose any lawful defense. Whether the SSS performs
principal debt and the interest thereon, and, all of the monthly governmental or proprietary functions thus becomes unnecessary
installments due and payable thereafter up to the present date to belabor. For by that waiver, a private citizen may bring a suit
against it for varied objectives, such as, in this case, to obtain
The Cruz spouses, together with their daughter Lorna C. Cruz, compensation in damages arising from contract, and even for tort.
instituted before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action for
damages and attorney's fees against the Social Security System The proposition that the SSS is not profit-oriented was rejected in
(SSS) and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, alleging, among other the case of SSS Employees' Association vs. Hon. Soriano. But even
things, that they had fully and religiously paid their monthly conceding that the SSS is not, in the main, operated for profit, it
amortizations and had not defaulted in any payment. cannot be denied that, in so far as contractual loan agreements

with private parties are concerned, the SSS enters into them for in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to
profit considering that the borrowers pay interest, which is money discourage them from pursuing their union activities.
paid for the use of money, plus other charges.
What is of paramount importance in this controversy is that an Answering the complaint, the petitioners Bureau of Printing, Serafin
injustice is not perpetrated and that when damage is caused to a Salvador and Mariano Ledesma denied the charges of unfair labor
citizen, the latter should have a right of redress particularly when it practices attributed to them and prayed that the case be dismissed
arises from a purely private and contractual relationship between for lack of jurisdiction.
said individual and the System.
Petitioners, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among other
The SC ruled that there was clear negligence on the part of SSS things, that:
when they mistook the loan account of Socorro J. Cruz for that of 1 that the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to
private respondent Socorro C. Cruz. Its attention was called to the sue and be sued;
error, but it adamantly refused to acknowledge its mistake. The 2 that said Bureau of Printing is not an industrial concern
SSS can be held liable for nominal damages. This type of engaged for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the
damages is not for the purpose of indemnifying private Republic performing governmental functions
respondents for any loss suffered by them but to vindicate or
recognize their rights which have been violated or invaded by The trial judge of the Industrial Court sustained the
petitioner SSS. As to all other damages, the SC deleted them for jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the
lack of basis. Bureau of Printing are "exclusively proprietary in nature," and,
consequently, denied the prayer for dismissal.
BUREAU OF PRINTING VS. THE BUREAU OF PRINTING
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU) Petitioners brought the case to this court through the present
G.R. No. L-15751. January 28, 1961. petition for certiorari and prohibition.
DOCTRINE: ISSUE:
The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by WON Court of Industrial Relations acquired jurisdiction over the
the Administrative Code of 1916. Indeed, as an office of the petitioner Bureau of Printing.
Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the
Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. Any suit, action or proceeding HELD:
against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit,
action or proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is No. The CIR did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner Bureau
settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, of Printing.
much less over its objection.
The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government
FACTS: created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As
such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the
Respondent Bureau of Printing Employees Association (NLU) filed a direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the
complaint alleging that Serafin Salvador (Acting Secretary of the President, and is "charged with the execution of all printing and
Dept. of General Services) and Mariano Ledesma (Director of the binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by
Bureau of Printing) have been engaging in unfair labor practice the National Government and such other work of the same
by interfering with, or coercing the employees of the Bureau of character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the (Secretary
Printing, particularly the members of the complaining association, of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . . .."
in the exercise of their right to self-organization and discriminating (Sec. 1644, Rev. Adm. Code.) It has no corporate existence, and

its appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan
Act. Designed to meet the printing needs of the Government, it is Security Agency entered into a contract for security services
primarily a service bureau and is obviously, not engaged in to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity.
business or occupation for pecuniary profit. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan
Agency in the various premises of the petitioner. On 13 September
This Court has already held in a long line of decisions that the 1990, several guards of the Sultan Security Agency filed a
Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month
the complaint for unfair labor practice filed against pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay
institutions or corporations not organized for profit and, and overtime pay, as well as for damages, before the Regional
consequently, not an industrial or business organization. Arbitration Branch X of Cagayan de Oro City, against the
This is so because the Industrial Peace Act was intended to apply Department of Agriculture and Sultan Security Agency.
only to industrial employment, and to govern the relations between
employers engaged in industry and occupations for purposes of The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May 1991,
gain, and their industrial employees. finding herein petitioner jointly and severally liable with sultan
Security Agency for the payment of the money claims, aggregating
Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any P266,483.91, of the complainant security guards. The petitioner
corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing and Sultan Security Agency did not appeal the decision of the
cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules of Court.) Any suit, Labor Arbiter. Thus, the decision became final and executory.
action or proceeding against it, if it were to produce any
effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution, commanding the City
against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that Sheriff to enforce and execute the judgment against the property
the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much of the two respondents. The City Sheriff levied on execution the
less over its objection. motor vehicles of the petitioner, i.e., one unit Toyota Hi-Ace, one
unit Toyota Mini Cruiser, and one unit Toyota Crown.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VS. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269. November 11, 1993. A petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for
preliminary writ of injunction, was filed by the petitioner with the
DOCTRINE: National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"), Cagayan de Oro.
The petition was dismissed for lack of basis.
Where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties
either by general or special law, it may limit claimant's action "only Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner asserts
up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of the NLRC has disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of
execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the the State.
judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that the
not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy petitioner has impliedly waived its immunity from suit by
such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public concluding a service contract with Sultan Security Agency.
policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions and
public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their ISSUE:
legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. 1. WON The Department of Agriculture is immune from suit
pursuant to the doctrine of Non-suability of the State.
FACTS:
2. WON a Writ of Execution may be issued against it.

HELD: foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic

1. No. The doctrine only conveys, "the state may not be sued affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have
without its consent;" its clear import then is that the State descended to the level of an individual and can thus
may at times be sued. be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be
sued only when it enters into business contracts. It
2. No. When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does does not apply where the contracts relates to the
not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained exercise of its sovereign functions.
execution against it.
In the instant case, the Department of Agriculture has not
REASONS: pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being
1. The rule, in any case, is not really absolute for it does not a governmental entity when it entered into the questioned
say that the state may not be sued under any contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act
circumstance. On the contrary, as correctly phrased, the proprietary in character.
doctrine only conveys, "the state may not be sued without
its consent;" its clear import then is that the State may at But, be that as it may, the claims of private respondents,
times be sued. The States' consent may be given either i.e., for underpayment of wages, holiday pay, overtime pay
expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be made and similar other items, arising from the Contract for
through a general law or a special law. In this Security Services, clearly constitute money claims. Act
jurisdiction, the general law waiving the immunity of the No. 3083, gives the consent of the State to be "sued upon
state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, (AN ACT any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract,
DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE express or implied, . . ." Pursuant, however,
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY BE SUED, to Commonwealth Act ("C.A.") No. 327, as amended by
[1923]) , where the Philippine government "consents and Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No. 1445, the money claim
submits to be sued upon any money claim involving should first be brought to the Commission on Audit.
liability arising from contract, express or implied, which 2. As to the Writ of Execution, when the State gives its
could serve as a basis of civil action between private consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent
parties." Implied consent, on the other hand, is to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when
conceded when the State itself commences the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to
litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that
when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the the State has a liability.
government is deemed to have descended to the level of
the other contracting party and to have divested itself of In Republic vs. Villasor this Court, in nullifying the issuance
its sovereign immunity. This rule, relied upon by of an alias writ of execution directed against the funds of
the NLRC and the private respondents, is not, however, the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and
without qualification. Not all contracts entered into by executory judgment, has explained, thus —
the government operate as a waiver of its non-
suability; distinction must still be made between The universal rule that where the State gives its
one which is executed in the exercise of its consent to be sued by private parties either by
sovereign functions and another which is done in its general or special law, it may limit claimant's action
proprietary capacity. "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior
to the stage of execution" and that the power of the
In US vs Ruiz, This court held that: “The restrictive Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since
application of State immunity is proper only when the government funds and properties may not be seized under
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such

judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public and that, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction over them
policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by under the doctrine of state immunity.
the correspondent appropriation as required by law. The
functions and public services rendered by the State cannot
be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of
public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as
appropriated by law. ISSUE:
W/N petitioners are covered under the state immunity doctrine

SANDERS vs. VERIDIANO
G.R. No. L-46930. June 10, 1988. HELD:
Murillo
Yes. SC found the complained acts were done by petitioners in the
DOCTRINE: discharge of their official duties. Sanders, as director of the special
Acts of public officers in the discharge of their official duties are services, had supervision over its personnel, and had a hand in
covered under the state immunity doctrine. their employment, work assignments, discipline, dismissal and
other related matters. It is not disputed that the letter he had
FACTS: written was in fact a reply to a request from his superior for more
information regarding the case of the private respondents. As for
Sanders was the special services director of the U.S. Naval Station Moreau, what he is claimed to have done was write the Chief of
(NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Moreau was the commanding officer of Naval Personnel for concurrence with the conversion of the private
the Subic Naval Base. Private respondents were both employed as respondents' type of employment even before the grievance
gameroom attendants in the special services department of the proceedings commenced. This act is clearly official in nature.
NAVSTA. On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were
advised that their employment had been converted from full-time Given the official character of the above-described letters, we have
part-time. Their reaction was to protest this conversion and to to conclude that the petitioners were, legally speaking, being sued
institute grievance proceedings under the U.S. Department of as officers of the United States government. As they have acted on
Defense. The result was a recommendation for the reinstatement behalf of that government, and within the scope of their authority,
of the private respondents to permanent full-time status plus it is that government, and not the petitioners personally, that is
backwages. responsible for their acts. There should be no question by now that
such complaint cannot prosper unless the government sought to
In a letter addressed to petitioners, Sanders disagreed with the be held ultimately liable has given its consent to be sued.
said result and asked for the rejection of the recommendation. The
letter contained the statements that: a) "Mr. Rossi tends to alienate REPUBLIC VS SANDOVAL
most co-workers and supervisors;" b) "Messrs. Rossi and Wyers G.R. No. 84607. March 19, 1993.
have proven, according to their immediate supervisors, to be
difficult employees to supervise;" among others. DOCTRINE:
The petitioners then claimed that the letters contained libelous The State's recommendation to indemnify the victims of a certain
imputations that had exposed them to ridicule and caused them case does not amount to waiver of immunity from suits.
mental anguish. The private respondents also made it clear that
the petitioners were being sued in their private or personal FACTS:
capacity. However, the petitioners argued that the acts complained
of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties

Mendiola massacre. Basically, this was about the farmers' G.R. No. L-35645. May 22, 1985
continuing struggle for genuine agrarian reform. In 1988, they held
a massive rally - together with progressive groups and thousands DOCTRINE:
of marchers - which resulted to a deadly clash between civilians
and military/policemen. 12 were confirmed dead, all of whom were Acts devoted to essential aspects of the state are also covered
from the side of the protesting civilians. Due to this, the under State immunity
commission formed by President Aquino (to probe the incident)
decided to make recommendations such as the prosecution of FACTS:
erring officers, policemen, and civilians.
The USA had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of
The last and the most significant recommendation of the those provided in the military bases agreement between the
Commission was for the deceased and wounded victims of the Philippines and the US. Respondent alleges that it won in the
Mendiola incident to be compensated by the government. It was bidding conducted by the US for the construction of wharves in
this portion where petitioners invoke in their claim for damages said base that was merely awarded to another group. For this
from the government. The petitioners were not able to recover reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by him against the
anything from the government years after. US.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
W/N petitioners can sue the State for damages after said W/N the US naval base, in bidding for said contracts, exercised
recommendation governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity
HELD: HELD:
No. The recommendation made by the Commission regarding Yes. The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from
indemnification of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or
incident by the government does not in any way mean that liability waiver. This rule is necessary consequence of the principle of
automatically attaches to the State. In effect, whatever may be the independence and equality of states. However, the rules of
findings of the Commission, the same shall only serve as the cause international law are not petrified; they are continually and
of action in the event that any party decides to litigate his/her evolving and because the activities of states have multiplied. It has
claim. Therefore, the Commission is merely a preliminary venue. been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and
The Commission is not the end in itself. Whatever recommendation governmental acts and private, commercial and proprietory acts.
it makes cannot in any way bind the State immediately, such The result is that state immunity now extends only to sovereign
recommendation not having become final and executory. This is and governmental acts.
precisely the essence of it being a fact-finding body.
Secondly, whatever acts or utterances that then President Aquino In this case, the projects are integral part of the naval base which
may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State is devoted to the defense of both US and Philippines. Indisputably,
having waived its immunity from suit. The President's act of joining it is a function of the government of the highest order. They are not
the marchers, days after the incident, does not mean that there utilized for, nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
was an admission by the State of any liability.
RCBC vs. De Castro
US vs RUIZ G.R. No. L-34548. November 29, 1988
GOMEZ

FACTS:
RA No. 2265 created the PVTA as an ordinary corporation with all
In a civil case entitled Badoc Planters, Inc. vs. Phil. Virginia Tobacco the attributes of a corporate entity subject to the provisions of the
Administration, et al., the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX Corporation Law. Hence, it possesses the power "to sue and be
issued an Order (Partial Judgment) on January 15, 1970 by the then sued" and "to acquire and hold such assets and incur such
Presiding Judge San Diego. The said order required defendants to liabilities resulting directly from operations authorized by the
pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff Badoc Planters, Inc. provisions of this Act or as essential to the proper conduct of such
operations."
Therafter, Judge San Diego was promoted as a Justice of the CA so
herein public respodent (Judge De Castro) took over and acted on Among the specific powers vested in the PVTA are: 1) to buy
the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion filed by BADOC. Judge De Castro Virginia tobacco grown in the Philippines for resale to local bona
granted said Motion. fide tobacco manufacturers and leaf tobacco dealers [Section 4(b),
R.A. No. 2265]; 2) to contracts of any kind as may be necessary or
Accordingly, the Branch Clerk of Court on the very same day, incidental to the attainment of its purpose with any person, firm or
issued a Writ of Execution addressed to Special Sheriff Faustino corporation, with the Government of the Philippines or with any
Rigor, who then issued a Notice of Garnishment addressed to the foreign government, subject to existing laws [Section 4(h), R.A. No.
General Manager and/or Cashier of RCBC, requesting a reply within 22651; and 3) generally, to exercise all the powers of a corporation
five (5) days to said garnishment as to any property which the under the Corporation Law, insofar as they are not inconsistent
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) might have in the with the provisions of this Act [Section 4(k), R.A. No. 2265.]
possession or control of petitioner or of any debts owing by the
petitioner to said defendant. Upon receipt of such Notice, RCBC From the foregoing, it is clear that PVTA has been endowed with a
notified PVTA thereof to enable the PVTA to take the necessary personality distinct and separate from the government which owns
steps for the protection of its own interest. and controls it. Accordingly, this Court has heretofore declared that
the funds of the PVTA can be garnished since "funds of public
Respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was corporation which can sue and be sued were not exempt from
eventually granted. The court set aside the Orders of Execution garnishment."
and of Payment and the Writ of Execution. It likewise ordered In National Shipyards and Steel Corp. v. CIR [G.R. No. L-17874,
petitioner and BADOC "to restore, jointly and severally, the account August 31, 1964, 8 SCRA 781], this Court held that the allegation
of PVTA with the said bank in the same condition and state it was to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the
before the issuance of the aforesaid Orders by reimbursing the government and that as such, the same may not be garnished,
PVTA of the amount of P 206, 916.76 with interests at the legal rate attached or levied upon is untenable for, as a government-owned
from January 27, 1970 until fully paid to the account of the PVTA.” or controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct
and separate from that of the government. This court has likewise
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein petitioner was ruled that other govemment-owned and controlled corporations
denied. It then appealed to the CA. CA in turn certified this case to like National Coal Company, the National Waterworks and
the SC as it involves purely questions of law. Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), the National Coconut Corporation
(NACOCO) the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) and the
ISSUE: Price Stabilization Council (PRISCO) which possess attributes
similar to those of the PVTA are clothed with personalities of their
WON PVTA funds are public funds exempt from garnishment own, separate and distinct from that of the government [National
Coal Company v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil. 583 (1924);
HELD: Bacani and Matoto v. National Coconut Corporation et al., 100 Phil.
471 (1956); Reotan v. National Rice & Corn Corporation, G.R. No. L-
PVTA funds are subject to garnishment. 16223, February 27, 1962, 4 SCRA 418.] The rationale in vesting it

with a separate personality is not difficult to find. It is well-settled the property, respondent RTC judge rendered a decision on June 4,
that when the government enters into commercial business, it 1987, fixing the appraised value of the property at P5,291,666.00,
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other and ordering petitioner to pay this amount minus the advanced
corporation [Manila Hotel Employees' Association v. Manila Hotel payment of P338,160.00 which was earlier released to private
Co. and CIR, 73 Phil. 734 (1941).] respondent.
After this decision became final and executory, private respondent
Inasmuch as the Tobacco Fund, a special fund, was by law, moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This motion was
earmarked specifically to answer obligations incurred by PVTA in granted by respondent RTC judge. After issuance of the writ of
connection with its proprietary and commercial operations execution, a Notice of Garnishment dated January 14, 1988 was
authorized under the law, it follows that said funds may be served by respondent sheriff Silvino R. Pastrana upon the manager
proceeded against by ordinary judicial processes such as execution of the PNB Buendia Branch. However, respondent sheriff was
and garnishment. If such funds cannot be executed upon or informed that a "hold code" was placed on the account of
garnished pursuant to a judgment sustaining the liability of the petitioner.
PVTA to answer for its obligations, then the purpose of the law in Private respondent filed a motion praying that an order be issued
creating the PVTA would be defeated. For it was declared to be a directing the bank to deliver to said sheriff the unpaid balance. On
national policy, with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, the other hand, petitioner filed a motion to lift the garnishment, on
to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the the ground that the manner of payment of the expropriation
qualities needed and in quantities marketable in both domestic and amount should be done in installments which the respondent RTC
foreign markets, to establish this industry on an efficient and judge failed to state in his decision.
economic basis, and to create a climate conducive to local Pending resolution of the above motions, petitioner filed a
cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the consuming “Manifestation” informing the court that the subject property is
public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to now owned by PS Bank, Inc (PSB). Thereafter, respondent trial
improve the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes [Section 1, judge subsequently issued an order which among other things
Republic Act No. 4155.] ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately release to PSB the
corresponding balance of P4,953,506.45.
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI VS. COURT OF APPEALS Petitioner field a motion for reconsideration (MFR). Petitioner
G.R. Nos. 89898-99. October 1, 1990 contended that its funds at the PNB Buendia Branch could neither
be garnished nor levied upon execution, for to do so would result in
FACTS: the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation
required under the law, citing the case of Republic of the
The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation Philippines v. Palacio [G.R. No. L-20322, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against 899].
private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc.,
Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, Respondent judge denied petitioner’s MFR. On appeal, the CA
involving a parcel of land and improvements thereon located at dismissed the same for lack of merit.
Mayapis St., San Antonio Village, Makati and registered in the
name of Arceli P. Jo. On appeal to the SC, Petitioner alleged for the first time that it has
actually 2 accounts with PNB Buendia Branch:
An action for eminent domain was filed on May 20, 1986. Attached (1) Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 — exclusively for the
to petitioner's complaint was a certification that a bank account expropriation of the subject property, with an outstanding balance
had been opened with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's of P99,743.94.
name containing the sum of P417,510.00, made pursuant to the (2) Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 — for statutory obligations and
provisions of P.D. No. 42. After due hearing where the parties other purposes of the municipal government, with a balance of
presented their respective appraisal reports regarding the value of P170,098,421.72, as of July 12, 1989.

Admitting that its PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB
specifically opened for expropriation proceedings it had initiated are left with no legal recourse. Where a municipality fails or
over the subject property, petitioner poses no objection to the refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final
garnishment or the levy under execution of the funds deposited money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the
therein amounting to P99,743.94. However, it is petitioner's main remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and
contention that inasmuch as the assailed orders of respondent RTC approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the
judge involved the net amount of P4,965,506.45, the funds corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefor [Viuda De
garnished by respondent sheriff in excess of P99,743.94, which are Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra; Baldivia v. Lota,
public funds earmarked for the municipal government's other 107 Phil. 1099 (1960); Yuviengco v. Gonzales, 108 Phil. 247
statutory obligations, are exempted from execution without the (1960)].
proper appropriation required under the law.
The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within
ISSUE: the bounds of fair play and justice. In the case at bar, considering
that valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be
WON public funds earmarked for the municipal government’s other paid fixed and the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the
statutory obligations, are exempted from execution without the property for public purpose, for three (3) years, the Court finds that
proper appropriation required under the law the municipality has had more than reasonable time to pay full
compensation.
HELD:
FONTANILLA VS. MALIAMAN
There is merit in this contention. The funds deposited in the second G.R. No. L-55963. December 1, 1989
PNB Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 are public funds of the
municipal government. In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule FACTS:
that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless
otherwise provided for by statute. On August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and
operated by respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA), a
More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or government agency, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an
personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached employee of said agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle
and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and
municipality. Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along the Maharlika
market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for Highway. As a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla and
the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City
of the municipality, are exempt from execution. Emergency Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla was later transferred
to the Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died.
The foregoing rule finds application in the case at bar. Absent a
showing that the municipal council of Makati has passed an Garcia was then a regular driver of respondent NIA who, at the
ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount time of the accident, was a licensed professional driver and who
corresponding to the balance due under the RTC decision dated qualified for employment as such regular driver of respondent after
June 4, 1987, less the sum of P99,743.94 deposited in Account No. having passed the written and oral examinations on traffic rules
S/A 265-537154-3, no levy under execution may be validly effected and maintenance of vehicles given by National Irrigation
on the public funds of petitioner deposited in Account No. S/A 263- Administration authorities.
530850-7.
Spouses Fontanilla filed a case for damages (death benefits) and
actual expenses for the death of their son. CFI of Nueva Ecija ruled

in favor of spouses Fontanilla. NIA then filed its motion for This assumption of liability, however, is predicated upon the
reconsideration which CFI denied. NIA then appealed to CA. existence of negligence on the part of respondent NIA. The
negligence referred to here is the negligence of supervision.
ISSUE:
At this juncture, the matter of due diligence on the part of
WON the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and respondent NIA becomes a crucial issue in determining its liability
attorney's fees is legally proper in a complaint for damages based since it has been established that respondent is a government
on quasi-delict which resulted in the death of the son of herein agency performing proprietary functions and as such, it assumes
petitioners the posture of an ordinary employer which, under Par. 5 of Art.
2180, is responsible for the damages caused by its employees
HELD: provided that it has failed to observe or exercise due diligence in
the selection and supervision of the driver.
The liability of the State has two aspects, namely:
It should be emphasized that the accident happened along the
1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the Maharlika National Road within the city limits of San Jose City, an
tortious acts of special agents only. urban area. Considering the fact that the victim was thrown 50
2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in meters away from the point of impact, there is a strong indication
private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary that driver Garcia was driving at a high speed. This is confirmed by
employer. the fact that the pick-up suffered substantial and heavy damage as
above-described and the fact that the NIA group was then "in a
In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited liability for the hurry to reach the campsite as early as possible", as shown by
damage caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special agent. their not stopping to find out what they bumped as would have
been their normal and initial reaction.
Under paragrah 6 of Art. 2180, the State has voluntarily assumed
liability for acts done through special agents. The State's agent, if a Evidently, there was negligence in the supervision of the driver for
public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a the reason that they were travelling at a high speed within the city
particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's limits and yet the supervisor of the group, Ely Salonga, failed to
usual governmental functions. If the State's agent is not a public caution and make the driver observe the proper and allowed speed
official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental limit within the city. Under the situation, such negligence is further
functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer aggravated by their desire to reach their destination without even
and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where the checking whether or not the vehicle suffered damage from the
government commissions a private individual for a special object it bumped, thus showing imprudence and reckelessness on
governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the the part of both the driver and the supervisor in the group.
meaning of the provision. Significantly, this Court has ruled that even if the employer can
The National Irrigation Administration is an agency of the prove the diligence in the selection and supervision (the latter
government exercising proprietary functions. aspect has not been established herein) of the employee, still if he
ratifies the wrongful acts, or take no step to avert further damage,
Indubitably, the NIA is a government corporation with juridical the employer would still be liable.
personality and not a mere agency of the government. Since it is a PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP PEACE PANEL ON
corporate body performing non-governmental functions, it now ANCESTRAL DOMAIN, ET AL.
becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting G.R. No. 183591. October 14, 2008
from the tortious act of its driver-employee. In this particular case, GOMEZ
the NIA assumes the responsibility of an ordinary employer and as
such, it becomes answerable for damages. FACTS:

The Province of Zamboanga del Norte, Governor Rolando Yebes,

On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Vice-Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep.
Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their Cesar Jalosjos, and the members18 of the Sangguniang
respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a
Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition,19 docketed as
Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in G.R. No. 183951
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. By subsequent Resolutions, the Court ordered the consolidation of
the petitions.
The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not
to materialize, however, for upon motion of petitioners, specifically ISSUES:
those who filed their cases before the scheduled signing of the
MOA-AD, the SC issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining WON the MOA-AD grants to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)
the GRP from signing the same. the status of a STATE
Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya WON the BJE contains the 4 elements of a State
from June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing the HELD:
basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of the
negotiation: Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the "Bangsamoro homeland," the
Domain Aspect. With regard to the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people
parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed "that the same be by virtue of their prior rights of occupation. Both parties to the
discussed further by the Parties in their next meeting." MOA-AD acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form part of
the public domain.
On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-
Governor Emmanuel Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land
183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance mass as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial
of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. domains, including the aerial domain and the atmospheric space
above it, embracing the Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.
This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R.
No. 183752, also for Mandamus and Prohibition filed by the City of More specifically, the core of the BJE is defined as the present
Zamboanga, Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco and geographic area of the ARMM - thus constituting the following
Rep. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive areas: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and
reliefs. Marawi City. Significantly, this core also includes certain
municipalities of Lanao del Norte that voted for inclusion in the
By Resolution of August 4, 2008, the Court issued a Temporary ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite.
Restraining Order commanding and directing public respondents
and their agents to cease and desist from formally signing the These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the
MOA-AD. Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state
or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it. The concept of
Meanwhile, the City of Iligan filed a petition for Injunction and/or association is not recognized under the present Constitution No
Declaratory Relief, docketed as G.R. No. 183893, praying that province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized
respondents be enjoined from signing the MOA-AD or, if the same under our laws as having an "associative" relationship with the
had already been signed, from implementing the same, and that national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers that go
the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional. beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or
regional government. It also implies the recognition of the

associated entity as a state. The Constitution, however, does not Even assuming arguendo that the MOA-AD would not necessarily
contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine sever any portion of Philippine territory, the spirit animating it -
State, much less does it provide for a transitory status that aims to which has betrayed itself by its use of the concept of association -
prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence. runs counter to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic.
The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region
recognized in the Constitution It is not merely an expanded version The defining concept underlying the relationship between the
of the ARMM, the status of its relationship with the national national government and the BJE being itself contrary to the
government being fundamentally different from that of the ARMM. present Constitution, it is not surprising that many of the specific
Indeed, BJE is a state in all but name as it meets the criteria of a provisions of the MOA-AD on the formation and powers of the BJE
state laid down in the Montevideo Convention,namely, a are in conflict with the Constitution and the laws.
permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a
capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Political Law Case Digests 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Case Digests 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [2]: THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

To prove that the land subject of an application for ISSUE:

FACTS: NO. The land is belongs to the inalienable public domain.

1 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is

2 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

NO. International personality is not required to be considered as a SHIPSIDE INC. VS CA

Even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international DOCTRINE:

3 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

4 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the functions

MELCHORA CABANAS vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL HELD:

5 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity

6 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

7 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

8 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

9 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

One of the basic immunities of an international organization is HELD:

10 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

11 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

G.R. No. L-41299. February 21, 1983.

12 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

13 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

14 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

HELD: foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic

15 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

W/N petitioners are covered under the state immunity doctrine

16 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

17 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

18 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

19 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

20 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

21 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

The Province of Zamboanga del Norte, Governor Rolando Yebes,

22 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

23 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

You might also like