GR NO.

101949
THE HOLY SEE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO JR. as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.

Facts:
The one making the petition is the Holy See, the entity that has control over Vatican City in Rome,
Italy, and is symbolized in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio.
The Private respondent Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation in the actual
state business.
The petition arose from a controversy involving a 6,000-square-meter piece of land (Lot 5-A
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440). This land, located in the Municipality of Parañaque,
Metro Manila, is registered under the petitioner's name.

The private respondent lodged a complaint before the Regional Tribunal of Branch 61 in Makati,
Metro Manila, on 23 January 1990. The complaint was brought to annul the sale of 3 pieces of land. It
demanded specific performance and damages from the petitioner, represented by the Papal Nuncio,
along with three other defendants: Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., PRC, and Tropicana. (Civil Case No.
90- 183).
On the 8th of June, 1990, both the petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos individually sought to have the
complaint dismissed. The petitioner's basis for dismissal was the claim of sovereign immunity from legal
action, while Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. In response to these motions, the private
respondent filed a counterargument."

Issue:
Whether the petitioner, the Holy See, is exempt from legal action due to its involvement in a
contract concerning the sale of a lot to a private person.

Ruling:
Yes, the Holy See is exempt from legal action in the case at hand. As stated in Section 2 of
Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the country has embraced the generally accepted principles of
International Law. There was no business purpose to the donation, and that is what allowed the
petitioner to build an official residence for the Papal Nuncio. The decision to transfer the property and
it's subsequent handling are also clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell the lot
for financial benefit or advantage. It simply sought to get rid of it because the squatters living there on
made it almost impossible for the petitioner to use it for the donation's intended purpose.