THE HOLY SEE V. Rosario
2
THE HOLY SEE V. RTC, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994 * This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Orders of the RTC denying the motion of petitioner to dismiss the complaint and the motion for reconsideration. FACTS: Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Ro me, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Private re spondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business. This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters located in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila and register ed in the name of petitioner. Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D and registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The three lo ts were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as ag ent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private resp ondent. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respo ndent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicti ng and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development C orporation (Tropicana). Private respondent prayed for the annulment of the Deeds of Sale between petitio ner and the PRC on the one hand, and Tropicana on the other; the reconveyance of the lots in question; specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of the lots; and damages. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complai nt for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. However, the trial court dismissed petitioner's motion after finding that petitioner "shed of f its sovereign immunity by entering into the business contract in question. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the Holy See can properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-s uability. HELD: Yes. As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have a dopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as pa rt of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations. In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real a ction relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the re ceiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purpo ses of the mission. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy, with al l the more reason should immunity be recognized as regards the sovereign itself, which in this case is the Holy See. The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are li kewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A fo r profit or gain. It merely disposed off the same because the squatters living t hereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the
-
Upload
angela-canares -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
4
description
SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES;Classical/absolute and restrictive theory; JURE IMPERII vs JURE GESTIONIS
Transcript of THE HOLY SEE V. Rosario
THE HOLY SEE V. RTC, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994* This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Orders of the RTC denying the motion of petitioner to dismiss the complaint and the motion for reconsideration.
FACTS:
Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business.
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters located in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner. Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D and registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent.
In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana).
Private respondent prayed for the annulment of the Deeds of Sale between petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and Tropicana on the other; the reconveyance of the lots in question; specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of the lots; and damages. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. However, the trial court dismissed petitioner's motion after finding that petitioner "shed off its sovereign immunity by entering into the business contract in question. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:Whether or not the Holy See can properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-suability.
HELD:Yes. As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations.
In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all the more reason should immunity be recognized as regards the sovereign itself, which in this case is the Holy See.
The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain. It merely disposed off the same because the squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the
donation.
Further, the privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the Memorandum and Certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs in which it officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country.
In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the complains were dismissed accordingly.
WORTHY TO NOTE: Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels.Of course, the Foreign Office shall first make a determination of the impact of its espousal on the relations between the Philippine government and the Holy See (Young, Remedies of Private Claimants Against Foreign States, Selected Readings on Protection by Law of Private Foreign Investments 905, 919 [1964]). Once the Philippine government decides to espouse the claim, the latter ceases to be a private cause.According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the forerunner of the International Court of Justice:By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by reporting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights � its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law (The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1 Hudson, World Court Reports 293, 302 [1924]).
