FACTS

On January 2, 1942, the Imperial Japanese Forces occupied Manila signaling the onset of Second World
War. Japanese Forces issued a proclamation stating that all laws, executive and judicial institutions, shall
continue to be effective and all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on
faithfully their duties. Subsequently, the Philippine Executive Commission (PEC) was established for the
purpose of coordinating the existence of central administrative organs and judicial courts during the
invasion of the Japanese forces. Later, the Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated on October 14,
1943. However, no substantial change was affected in the organization and jurisdiction of the different
courts that functioned under the PEC and in the laws, they administered and enforced. Years after,
Philippines was liberated, and American control was restored upon defeat of the Japanese forces.
American General Douglas MacArthur further proclaimed on October 23, 1944 that all laws,
regulations and processes of any of the government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth
are null and void and without legal effect in areas free of enemy occupation and control.

This case is a petition for mandamus in which petitioner, Co Kim Cham, prays that the respondent
judge, Hon. Arsenio P. Dizon (Judge Dizon), of the lower court be ordered to continue the proceedings in
Civil Case No. 3012 of said court, which were initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the
Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation.

udge Dizon refused to continue

the proceedings in said case on
the ground that
the proclamation issued by
General Douglas MacArthur
had the effect of invalidating
and nullifying all judicial
proceedings and judgments of
the court of the Philippines
under the PEC and the
Republic of the Philippines
established during the
Japanese
military occupation. Also lower
courts have no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of judicial
proceedings pending in the
absence of an enabling law
granting such authority. He also
stressed that the laws they
enforced were laws of the
Commonwealth prior to
Japanese
occupation, but they had
become the laws — and the
courts had become the
institutions — of Japan by
adoption as they became later
on the laws and institutions of
the Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic
of the Philippines.
Judge Dizon refused to continue the proceedings in said case on the ground that the proclamation issued
by General Douglas MacArthur had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings
and judgments of the court of the Philippines under the PEC and the Republic of the Philippines
established during the Japanese military occupation. Also, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of judicial proceedings pending in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority. He
also stressed that the laws they enforced were laws of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation,
but they had become the laws and the courts had become the institutions — of Japan by adoption as
they became later on the laws and institutions of the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic
of the Philippines.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not under the rules of international law, the judicial acts and proceedings of the
courts established under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines
were good and valid and remained to be so even after the liberation of the country

2. Whether the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944 by General MacArthur has invalidated all
judgments, judicial acts and proceedings of the courts

3. Whether the present courts of the Commonwealth, which were the same court existing prior to
the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines, may continue those proceedings pending in
said courts at the time the Philippines were preoccupied by the United States and Filipino forces,
and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands

HELD:

1. Yes. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines
during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the
judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments were good and valid. And by
virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, the judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts remained good and valid after the liberation of the Philippines by the
American and Filipino forces. According to the aforementioned principle, the fact that a territory
which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of
sovereignty, does not, except in a very few cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an
invader. Were it otherwise, the whole social life of a community would be paralyzed by an invasion.

2. No. Taking into consideration the well-known principles of international law, all judgments and
judicial proceedings of the de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good
and valid before and remained so valid after liberation of the Philippines. Therefore, it is evident that the
proclamation of General MacArthur of October 23, 1944 has not invalidated the judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts of justice in the Philippines that were continued by the Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation.

3. Yes. As courts are creatures of statutes and their existence defends upon that of the laws which
confer upon them their jurisdiction, it is evident that such laws are abrogated by a change of sovereignty,
and continue in force "ex proprio vigore" unless repealed by legislative acts. A proclamation that
said laws and courts are expressly continued is not necessary in order that they may continue in force.
Such proclamation, if made, is but a declaration of the intention of respecting and not repealing
those laws. Therefore, even assuming that Japan had legally acquired sovereignty over these
Islands, which she had afterwards transferred to the so-called Republic of the Philippines, and that the
laws and the courts of these Islands had become the courts of Japan, it necessarily follows that
the same courts may continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the
restoration of the Commonwealth Government, unless they are abolished or the laws creating and
conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government.
 In view of all the foregoing it is adjudged that a writ of mandamus issue, directed to the respondent
judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to continue final judgment of the
proceedings in Civil Case No. 3012 of said court.