THE HOLY SEE vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR.

, as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and
STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC.
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to
reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and September 19,
1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila in Civil
Case No. 90-183.
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of
6,000 square meters (Lot 5-A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440)
located in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila and registered in the
name of petitioner and contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D under the name of
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.
On January 23, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the
three parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against
petitioner, represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants:
namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana (Civil Case No.
90-183).
The complaint alleged that after Licup had paid the 100,000php earnest
money, he is obliged to clear the said lots of squatters who were occupying
the lot. Private respondent demanded that the sellers fulfill their undertaking
and clear the property of squatters; however, Msgr. Cirilos informed private
respondent of the squatters' refusal to vacate the lots, proposing instead

either that private respondent undertake the eviction or that the earnest
money be returned to the latter. They returned it but later discovered that
petitioner and the PRC, without notice to private respondent, sold the lots to
Tropicana, as evidenced by two separate Deeds of Sale, one over Lot 5-A,
and another over Lots 5-B and 5-D; and that the sellers' transfer certificate of
title over the lots were cancelled, transferred and registered in the name of
Tropicana. So, Private respondent thus prayed for: (1) the annulment of the
Deeds of Sale between petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and
Tropicana on the other; (2) the reconveyance of the lots in question; (3)
specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of
the lots; and (4) damages.
Petitioner dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on
sovereign immunity. This was opposed by the respondents and denied by
the court for this act shed off their sovereign immunity by entering into the
business contract in question. Petitioner moved for reconsideration that
moved

the

trial

court

to

defer

the

resolution

on

the

motion

for

reconsideration until after trial on the merits and directing petitioner to file
its answer.
On December 9, 1991, a Motion for Intervention was filed by the Department
of Foreign Affairs that the petitioner has the right to claim sovereign
immunity.
ISSUES:
(I) WON the Department of Foreign Affairs has the right to intervene in the
case in behalf of the Holy See .
(II) WON the respondent trial court has jurisdiction over petitioner, being a
foreign state enjoying sovereign immunity.
HELD:

(I) In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to

plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the
Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said
defendant is entitled to immunity.
So, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs
moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner.
The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of
petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity.
(II) The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a
foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio,
has had diplomatic representations with the Philippine government since
1957 (Rollo, p. 87). This appears to be the universal practice in international
relations.
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 the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary
course of a real estate business, surely the said transaction can be
categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the
acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A were made for profit but
claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the
Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private respondent failed to dispute
said claim.
Moreover, 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.
Nonetheless, 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, thus, they can ask the Philippine government, through
the Foreign Office, to espouse its claims against the Holy See. Its first task is
to persuade the Philippine government to take up with the Holy See the
validity of its claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil
Case No. 90-183 against petitioner is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.