POLI CASE DIGESTS 2

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [2]: THE PHILIPPINES AS A STATE
REPUBLIC VS SANTOS III RTC: In favor of petitioners

G.R. No. 160453, November 12, 2012 CA: Affirmed RTC decision
CRUZ
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE:
WON the land claimed is an alienable and disposable land hence
All river beds remain property of public dominion and cannot be Government specifically City of Paranaque in this case cannot claim
acquired by acquisitive prescription unless previously declared ownership.
by the Government to be alienable and disposable.
HELD:
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration
is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the NO. The land is belongs to the inalienable public domain.
existence of a positive act of the Government, such as a Indeed, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to
presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
action, investigation r eports of the Bureau of Lands No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant,
investigator, or a legislative act or statute. express or implied, from the Government. It is indispensable, therefore,
that there is a showing of a title from the State. Occupation of public land
FACTS: in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership
and be registered as a title.
Alleging continuous and adverse possession of more than ten
years, respondent Arcadio Ivan A. Santos III (Arcadio Ivan) Subject to the exceptions defined in Article 461 of the Civil Code (which
applied on March 7, 1997 for the registration of Lot 4998 -B (the declares river beds that are abandoned through the natural change in the
property) in the RTC in Paranaque City. The property, which had course of the waters as ipso facto belonging to the owners of the land
an area of 1,045 square meters, more or less, was located in occupied by the new course, and which gives to the owners of the
Barangay San Dionisio, Paranaque City, and was bounded adjoining lots the right to acquire only the abandoned river beds not ipso
in the Northeast by Lot 4079 belonging to respondent Arcadio C. facto belonging to the owners of the land affected by the natural change of
Santos, Jr. (Arcadio, course of the waters only after paying their value), all river beds remain
Jr.), in the Southeast by the Paranaque River, in the Southwest property of public dominion and cannot be acquired by acquisitive
by an abandoned road, and in the Northwest by Lot 4998 -A also prescription unless previously declared by the Government to be
owned by Arcadio Ivan. alienable and disposable. Considering that Lot 4998-B was not shown to
be already declared to be alienable and disposable, respondents could not
On May 21, 1998, Arcadio Ivan amended his application for land be deemed to have acquired the property through prescription.
registration to include Arcadio, Jr. as his co -applicant because
of the latter's co-ownership of the property. He alleged that the To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is
property had been formed through accretion and had been in alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a
their joint open, notorious, public, continuous and adverse positive act of the Government, such as a presidential proclamation,
possession for more th an 30 years. executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau
of Lands investigator, or a legislative act or statute. Until then, the rules
The City of Paranaque opposed the application for land on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.
registration, stating that it needed the property for its flood
control program; that the property was within the legal In the case of Menguito v Republic and Republic v. Sarmiento, a notation
easement of 20 meters from the river bank; and that assuming on a survey plan that the land is alienable and disposable is not a sufficient
that t he property was not covered by the legal easement, title proof. For the original registration of title, the applicant (petitioners
to the property could not be registered in favor of the applicants in thiscase) must overcome the presumption that the land sought to
for the reason that the property was an orchard that had dried be registered forms part of the public domain. Unless public land is
up and had not resulted from accretion. shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a private person by the
State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, "occupation
1 CRUZ, GATACELO, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MUNEZ, MURILLO

thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into the grounds that there was no reciprocity [with Tangier, which
ownership and be registered as a title." To overcome such presumption, was moreover] a mere principality, not a foreign country.
incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the applicant. Absent such Consequently, CIR demanded the payment of a total of P161,874.95 as
evidence, the land sought to be registered remains inalienable. deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including surcharges, interests and
compromise penalties.
We find applicability of the ruling in the mentioned case, the notation in
the survey plan of Lot 4998-B stating it is alienable and disposable is not a The matter was then elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals. In ruling
sufficient proof. The rulings of RTC and CA was reversed and set aside. against the contention of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the appealed
decision states: "In fine, we believe, and so hold, that the expression
CIR vs CAMPOS RUEDA "foreign country", used in the last proviso of Section 122 of the National
G.R. No. L-13250. October 29, 1971 Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foreign power
which, although not an international person in the sense of
DOCTRINE: international law, does not impose transfer or death upon intangible
person properties of our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows
A foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with a similar exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary
Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community that Tangier should have been recognized by our Government
independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the
supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning proviso of Section 122 of our Tax. Code."
under a regime of law.
ISSUE:
The international zone of Tangier, even if it is not recognized by the
Philippine Government as a state or even if w/o international personalitya,
Whether or not the acquisition of international personality is a condition
could avail of the reciprocal provisions of our Tax Code
sine qua non to Tangier being considered a "foreign country".
FACTS:
HELD:
Maria Cerdeira is a Spanish national and was a resident of Tangier,
NO. International personality is not required to be considered as a foreign
Morocco from 1931 up to her death. At the time of her demise she left,
country.
among others, intangible personal properties in the Philippines. Antonio
Campos Rueda, as administrator of the estate of Maria Cerdeira, filed a
Even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international
provisional estate and inheritance tax return on all the properties of the
personality petitioner has not successfully made out a case. Note that four
latter. The CIR, pending investigation, issued an assessment for state and
days prior to the filing of this petition, In Collector of Internal Revenue vs.
inheritance taxes in the amount of P369,383.96, which tax liabilities were
De Lara, it was specifically held by the court that: "Considering the State
paid by petitioner. Campos Rueda filed an amended return wherein
of California as a foreign country in relation to Section 122 of our Tax Code
intangible personal properties with the value of P396,308.90 were claimed
we believe and hold, as did the Tax Court that the Ancilliary Administrator
as exempted from taxes. The CIR, pending investigation, issued another
is entitled to exemption from the inheritance tax on the intangible personal
assessment for estate and inheritance taxes in the amount of
property found in the Philippines." There can be no doubt that California as
P469,665.24. In a letter, the CIR denied the request for exemption on the
a state in the American Union was lacking in the alleged requisite of
ground that the law of Tangier is not reciprocal to Section 122 of the
international personality. Nonetheless, it was held to be a foreign country
National Internal Revenue Code.
within the meaning of Section 122 of the NIRC. Even prior to the De Lara
ruling, this Court did commit itself to the doctrine that even a tiny
Hence, CIR demanded the payment of the sums representing deficiency
principality, that of Liechtenstein, hardly an international personality in the
estate and inheritance taxes including ad valorem penalties, surcharges,
traditional sense, did fall under this exempt category.
interests and compromise penalties. In a letter, Campos Rueda requested
for the reconsideration of the decision denying the claim for tax exemption
It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with
of the intangible personal properties and the imposition of the ad valorem
a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically
penalties. However,the CIR denied request. The denial is premised on
organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by

ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a writ of execution issued by the trial court, filed a complaint for revival of
government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign judgment and cancellation of titles before the Regional Trial Court of San
person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate Fernando, La Union.
society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience
its commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by Petitioner Shipside, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging, among
common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to others that the respondent Republic was not the real party-in-
promote the general welfare. Correctly has it been described as "the interest and that the cause of action was already barred by
juridical personification of the nation." This is to view it in the light its prescription (impt contentions). The trial court denied petitioner's
historical development. The stress is on its being a nation, its people motion to dismiss and its motion for reconsideration was likewise turned
occupying a definite territory, politically organized, exercising by means of down. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through
its government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and petition for certiorari and prohibition. The appeal court denied the petition
maintaining its separate international personality. It is a territorial society as well as the motion for reconsideration.
divided into government and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a
supremacy over all other institutions. It is the power entrusted to its Other contentions of Petitioner are as follows:
government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal order (1) the complaint stated no cause of action because only final and
and to enter into international relations. With the latter requisites satisfied, executory judgments may be subject of an action for revival of judgment;
international law does not exact independence as a condition of statehood. (2) the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest because the real property
covered by the Torrens titles sought to be cancelled, allegedly part of
SHIPSIDE INC. VS CA Camp Wallace (Wallace Air Station), were under the ownership and
G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001 administration of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA)
under Republic Act No. 7227;
DOCTRINE: (3) plaintiff's cause of action is barred by prescription;
(4) twenty-five years having lapsed since the issuance of the writ of
The Republic of the Philippines cannot be barred by the rules on execution, no action for revival of judgment may be instituted because
prescription under Paragraph 3 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code, such action may be
brought only within ten (10) years from the time the judgment had been
BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body rendered.
performing proprietary BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but
a corporate body performing proprietary functions. ISSUE:
FACTS: 1. WON the Republic of the Philippines can maintain the action for
revival of judgment in this case.
April 1960, Lots No. 1 and 4, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0- 2. WON Republic can be barred by extinctive prescription.
381 in the name of Rafael Galvez, were sold by the latter to Filipina
Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, ReginaBustos, and Erlinda Balatbat. Thereafter, HELD:
in August. 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold the same lots to Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company and the latter in turn conveyed the property No to (1) and (2)
to Shipside Incorporated, herein petitioner, on1963, resulting in the
issuance of new Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-57 10. As a general rule, it is plain that an action for revival of judgment must be
brought within ten years from the time said judgment becomes final.
Unknown to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, OCT No. 0-381 was Taking these 2 provisions in consideration:
already declared null and void and was ordered cancelled by the then 1. Article 1144(3) provides that an action upon a judgment "must be
Court of First Instance of La Union, in its order dated February 1, 1963. brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues."
The decision of the CFI became final and executor on October 23, 1973. 2. Section 6, Rule 39 provides that a final and executory judgment or
order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
On April 21, 1999 (24 years after), the Office of the Solicitor General, after date of its entry, but that after the lapse of such time, and before
being notified that the aforesaid order remained unexecuted despite the

it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be government-function corporations invested with governmental attributes.
enforced by action. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the
Government but a corporate body performing proprietary
But this rule on prescription does not run against the state. functions.
While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same By raising the claim of imprescriptibility, a claim which cannot be raised by
may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is no longer the BCDA, the Government not only assists the BCDA. Moreover, to
interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallace may have belonged recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in this case would set
to the government at the time Rafael Galvez's title was ordered cancelled a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic to prosecute, on behalf of
in Land Registration Case No. N-361, the same no longer holds true today. government-owned or controlled corporations, causes of action which have
already prescribed, on the pretext that the Government is the real party in
Why? Because R.A 7227 and Proc. No. 216 transferred Wallace Air interest against whom prescription does not run, said corporations having
Bases/Areasor simply called military reservations to Bases and been created merely as agents for the realization of government
Conversion Development Authority (BCDA). With the transfer of Camp programs.
Wallace to the BCDA, the government no longer has a right or interest to
protect. Consequently, the Republic is not a real party in interest and it Add’l info: Since the portion in dispute now forms part of the property
may not institute the instant action. Nor may it raise the defense of owned and administered by the Bases Conversion and Development
imprescriptibility, the same being applicable only in cases where the Authority, it is alienable and registerable real property.
government is a party in interest.
The civil case filed by RP is ordered dismissed w/o prejudice to the right of
The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not BCDA to institute proper action.
apply to corporations or artificial bodies created by the State for
special purposes, it being said that when the title of the Republic MELCHORA CABANAS vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL
has been divested, its grantees, although artificial bodies of its G.R. No. L-25843. July 25, 1974
own creation, are in the same category as ordinary persons Gatacelo
The BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct DOCTRINE:
from the government. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7227 reads:
This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of
SECTION 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. every Stat. The judiciary, as an agency of the State acting as parens
— There is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one
Conversion Authority which shall have the attribute of perpetual who is a minor to accord priority to his best interest.
succession and shall be vested with the powers of a corporation.
FACTS:
It may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of government
have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married
ministrant. While public benefit and public welfare, particularly, the woman, the plaintiff, Melchora Cabanas. She was ten years old. The
promotion of the economic and social development of Central Luzon, may defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased.
be attributable to the operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the
functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with
nature. The promotion of economic and social development of Central his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the
Luzon, in particular, and the country's goal for enhancement, in general, proceeds were paid to him. Hence this complaint by the mother, with
do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. Other corporations whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such sum. She filed the
have been created by government to act as its agents for the realization of bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant would justify his claim to the
its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA and the NIA, to count a few, and retention of the amount in question by invoking the terms of the insurance
yet, the Court has ruled that these entities, although performing functions policy.
aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, are not

Trial Court: judgment ordering the defendant to deliver the proceeds of Laurel, a Filipino citizen, was arrested in Camarines Sur by the United
the policy in question to plaintiff. Articles 320 provides: "The father, or in States Army and was interned under a commitment order "for his active
his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation," but in
pertaining to the child under parental authority. If the property is worth September, 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth Government,
more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond and since then has been under the custody of the respondent Director of
subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance.” Article 321 states: Prisons.
"The property which the unemancipated child has acquired or may acquire
with his work or industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in The Court denied the petition for habeas corpus filed by Laurel (this was
ownership, and in usufruct to the father or mother under whom he is discussed in another case). Laurel posited the theory that a Filipino citizen
under parental authority and whose company he lives; . . ." who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the
Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined
ISSUE: and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1)
that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
WON the doctrine of parens patriae finds application in this case. consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was
[Walang discussion sa facts kung ano contentions ng parties; bigla na lang then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over
sumulpot yang parens patriae na yan, ganyan.] these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:
HELD: ISSUE:
Yes. The Court adheres to the concept that the judiciary, as an agency of WON the law on treason is suspended in times of belligerent occupation.
the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit
of litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best HELD:
interest. Certainly the judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in its
role of parens patriae cannot remain insensible to the validity of the No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an
mother’s plea. The United States Supreme Court opines: "This prerogative absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of
of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign. The absolute and
that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or
irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the
destruction of their liberties." What is more, there is this constitutional government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the
provision vitalizing this concept. It reads: "The State shall strengthen the occupier. The subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government
family as a basic social institution." If, as the Constitution so wisely in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during a war,
dictates, it is the family as a unit that has to be strengthened, it does not "although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy
admit of doubt that even if a stronger case were presented for the uncle, over them" is one of the "rules of international law of our times."
still deference to a constitutional mandate would have led the lower court
to decide as it did. The words "temporary allegiance," as descriptive of the relations borne by
the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy toward the military
ANASTACIO LAUREL vs. ERIBERTO MISA government established over them, may, at most, be considered similar to
G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947 the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or
sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he
DOCTRINE: receives and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance
which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government
Military occupant cannot repeal or suspend operation of law of treason. or sovereign.
Facts: Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be

prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in
the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of

the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the
sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers of a de facto government
comfort. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason and may, at his pleasure, either change the existing laws or make new
committed against the national security of the legitimate government, ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action, that
because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the
allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation. country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or
limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages established by
In short, military occupant cannot repeal or suspend operation of law of civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public
treason. Since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of conscience.
fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or
sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive WILLIAM F. PERALTA vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid G.R. No. L-49, November 12, 1945
and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding
consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason. DOCTRINE:
Adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would lead to During a belligerent occupation, the political laws of the occupied territory
disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would are merely suspended, subject to revival under the principle of jus
be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public postliminium upon the end of the occupation. But non-political laws are
conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the deemed continued unless changed by the belligerent occupant since they
Quisling inhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own are intended to govern the relations of individuals as among themselves.
government without the latter incurring the risk of being prosecuted for
treason, and even compel those who are not to aid them in their military FACTS:
operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue
and conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own Peralta, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila, was
independence or sovereignty —such theory would sanction the action of prosecuted for the crime of robbery pursuant to Act 65 (issued during the
invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party Japanese occupation). He was found guilty and sentenced to life
in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and imprisonment by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction,
independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own created in section 1 of Ordinance No. 7 promulgated by the President of
sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide. the so-called Republic of the Philippines.
Just as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against Peralta filed a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that the Court of
the State Government, in the same way treason may have been Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction "was a political instrumentality
committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the of the military forces of the Japanese Imperial Army, the aims and political
United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine purposes of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as well as those of the
Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from United States of America, and therefore, null and void ab initio", and he is
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those being punished by a law created to serve the political purpose of the
charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines.
because it is an offense against the same government and the same
sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that: "The The Solicitor General supports Peralta and states that Court of Special
government established by this Constitution shall be known as the and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created and the summary procedure
Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal prescribed therefor are tinged with political complexion, do not afford a fair
of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine trial, violate the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and impair the
Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be constitutional rights of accused persons under their legitimate
known as the Republic of the Philippines." Constitution.
N.B. Although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in Some of the features of the summary procedure are: that the court may
force, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that interrogate the accused and witnesses before trial in order to clarify the

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

services shall be terminated at the close of office hours on May 15, 1986
Most acts penalized by Act 65 were political in nature. Peralta was and that he is entitled to separation benefits equivalent to one (1) month
prosecuted for robbery connected with the supervision, control and of his basic salary for every year of service plus other benefits. Because of
distribution of foods and other necessaries. The law effectively petitioner's failure to pay private respondent his separation pay, the latter
penalized the robbery of its food resources by its enemies, filed on March 18, 1987 a complaint against petitioners for non-payment of
particularly the guerrillas. The SC said that such offense is political separation benefits plus moral damages and attorney's fees with the
in nature. Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
All judgments of political nature of the courts during the Japanese PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION: NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case
regime ceased to be valid upon the restoration of the national inasmuch as the SEAFDEC-AQD is an international organization and that
government by virtue of the principle of postliminium. Though no private respondent must first secure clearances from the proper
redress can be claimed by the prisoner as to the sentence he has departments for property or money accountability before any claim for
already served, the law that convicted him has also ceased separation pay will be paid, and which clearances had not yet been
validity. As such the detained prisoner must be released. The writ obtained by the private respondent.
of habeas corpus was granted.
LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC: ruled in favor of private respondent.
Postliminium – a principle of public international law that provides
for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that an occupant may have ISSUE:
performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate
sovereign. WON NLRC has jurisdiction over petitioner.
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER- HELD:

AQUACULTURE DEPARTMENT (SEAFDEC-AQD) vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 86773. February 14, 1992; 206 SCRA 283 No. Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its
LAZARO Departments (AQD) (established in Iloilo), enjoys functional independence
and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is
DOCTRINE: located. Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies
have been created by the agreement of a considerable number of States
International organizations enjoy immunity from local jurisdiction. for a variety of international purposes, economic or social and mainly non-
political. In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the control of any
FACTS: one State, they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the
municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such, according to
SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the one leading authority they must be deemed to possess a species of
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, organized through an international personality of their own.
agreement entered into in Bangkok, Thailand on December 28, 1967 by
the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the Republic of the
the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country. Philippines agreed to be represented by one Director in the governing
SEAFDEC Council and that its national laws and regulations shall apply
On April 20, 1975, private respondent Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a only insofar as its contribution to SEAFDEC of "an agreed amount of
Research Associate on a probationary basis by the SEAFDEC-AQD and was money, movable and immovable property and services necessary for the
appointed Senior External Affairs Officer on January 5, 1983. Thereafter, establishment and operation of the Center" are concerned. It expressly
he was appointed to the position of Professional III and designated as waived the application of the Philippine laws on the disbursement of funds
Head of External Affairs Office with the same pay and benefits. of petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD.
On May 8, 1986, petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC- One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity
AQD sent a notice of termination to private respondent informing him that from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and
due to the financial constraints being experienced by the department, his processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found. The

obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule
authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which of customary international law then closely identified with the personal
the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of
control its policies and decisions of the organization: besides, such democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the head of
subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its
discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-state. sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign
government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a
MINUCHER vs. CA diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint
G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003 could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without
its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect,
DOCTRINE: suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an
individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim —
IF THE ACTS GIVING RISE TO A SUIT ARE THOSE OF A FOREIGN par in parem, non habet imperium — that all states are sovereign equals
GOVERNMENT DONE BY ITS FOREIGN AGENT, ALTHOUGH NOT and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The implication, in broad
NECESSARILY A DIPLOMATIC PERSONAGE, BUT ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL terms, is that if the judgment against an official would require the state
CAPACITY, THE COMPLAINT COULD BE BARRED BY THE IMMUNITY OF THE itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages decreed against
him, the suit must be regarded as being against the state itself, although it
FACTS: has not been formally impleaded.
Petitioner Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national, was charged for violation A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity
of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within
Drugs Act of 1972." The narcotic agents who raided the house of Minucher the directives of the sending state. The consent of the host state is an
were accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo. Minucher was indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two sovereigns.
acquitted by the trial court of the charges. Minucher filed a civil case The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for damages on account of what government of the two countries, certifications from officials of both the
he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy,
Arthur Scalzo. Scalzo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the as well as the participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics
ground that, being a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Command in the "buy-bust operation" conducted at the residence of
Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. Minucher at the behest of Scalzo, may be inadequate to support the
"diplomatic status" of the latter but they give enough indication that the
ISSUE: Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the
activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States
WON private respondent Scalzo, although he cannot invoke diplomatic Drug Enforcement Agency. The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to
immunity (kasi di nya na-prove yung diplomatic status nya), can invoke conduct surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and, after having
the defense of state immunity from suit. ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would then be
expected to make the arrest. In conducting surveillance activities on
HELD: Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation,
and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against
Yes. While the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his
contentious, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he worked for the official function or duties. All told, this Court is constrained to rule that
United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to conduct respondent Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement
surveillance of suspected drug activities within the country on the dates Agency allowed by the Philippine government to conduct activities in the
pertinent to this case. If it should be ascertained that Arthur Scalzo was country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the
acting well within his assigned functions when he committed the acts defense of state immunity from suit.
alleged in the complaint, the present controversy could then be resolved
under the related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit. The precept that a

PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY vs. PGDE SSS' own organic act specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in
668 SCRA 406 G.R. No. 176628. March 19, 2012 Court. These words "sue and be sued" embrace all civil process incident to
a legal action. So that, even assuming that the SSS, as it claims, enjoys
DOCTRINE: immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental functions, by
virtue of the explicit provision of the aforecited enabling law, the
The application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings Government must be deemed to have waived immunity in respect of the
arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of commercial SSS, although it does not thereby concede its liability.
activities or economic affairs.
FACTS:
FACTS:
Sometime in March, 1963 the spouses David B. Cruz and Socorro
PTA, an agency of the Department of Tourism, whose main function is to Concio Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate loan by the SSS
bolster and promote tourism, entered into a contract with Atlantic with their residential lot located in Rizal as collateral. The spouses
Erectors, Inc. (AEI) for the construction of the Intramuros Golf Course executed on March 26, 1963 the corresponding real estate mortgage.
Expansion Projects for a contract price of P57,954,647.94. The civil works From the proceeds of the real estate loan the mortgagors constructed their
of the project commenced. Since AEI was incapable of constructing the residential house on the mortgaged property and were furnished by the
golf course aspect of the project, it entered into a sub-contract agreement SSS with a passbook to record the monthly payments of their
with PHILGOLF, a duly organized domestic corporation, to build the golf amortizations. The mortgagors, plaintiffs herein, complied with their
course amounting to P27,000,000.00. The sub-contract agreement also monthly payments although there were times when delays were incurred
provides that PHILGOLF shall submit its progress billings directly to PTA in their monthly payments which were due every first five (5) days of the
and, in turn, PTA shall directly pay PHILGOLF. PHILGOLF filed a collection month. On July 9, 1968, defendant SSS filed an application with the
suit against PTA amounting to P11,820,550.53, plus interest, for the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the real estate
construction of the golf course. PTA, as a government entity, invokes its mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the ground, among others:
state immunity.
'That the conditions of the mortgage have been broken since October,
ISSUE: 1967 with the default on the part of the mortgagor to pay in full the
installments then due and payable on the principal debt and the interest
WON PTA can invoke state immunity. thereon, and, all of the monthly installments due and payable thereafter
up to the present date
HELD:
The Cruz spouses, together with their daughter Lorna C. Cruz, instituted
No. The application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action for damages and
arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of commercial attorney's fees against the Social Security System (SSS) and the Provincial
activities or economic affairs. The State, in entering into a business Sheriff of Rizal, alleging, among other things, that they had fully and
contract, descends to the level of an individual and is deemed to have religiously paid their monthly amortizations and had not defaulted in any
tacitly given its consent to be sued. payment.
The Trial Court rendered judgment against SSS directing it to pay

Since the Intramuros Golf Course Expansion Projects partakes of a
damages in favor of the plaintiff spouses. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
proprietary character entered into between PTA and PHILGOLF, PTA cannot
lower court’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.
avoid its financial liability by merely invoking immunity from suit.
SSS contends, among others, that it is not liable for damages not
SSS VS. COURT OF APPEALS being a profit-oriented governmental institution but one
G.R. No. L-41299. February 21, 1983. performing governmental functions.
Muñez
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE:

WON SSS can be made legally responsible for its acts through a judicial basis.
action.
BUREAU OF PRINTING VS. THE BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES
HELD: ASSOCIATION (NLU)
G.R. No. L-15751. January 28, 1961.
Yes. SSS can be made legally responsible for its acts through a judicial
action. DOCTRINE:
To our minds, there should be no question on this score considering that The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the
the SSS is a juridical entity with a personality of its own. It has corporate Administrative Code of 1916. Indeed, as an office of the Government,
powers separate and distinct from the Government. SSS' own organic without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing
act specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in Court. These cannot be sued. Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to
words "sue and be sued" embrace all civil process incident to a produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against
legal action. So that, even assuming that the SSS, as it claims, the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot
enjoys immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental be sued without its consent, much less over its objection.
functions, by virtue of the explicit provision of the aforecited
enabling law, the Government must be deemed to have waived FACTS:
immunity in respect of the SSS, although it does not thereby
concede its liability. That statutory law has given to the private citizen a Respondent Bureau of Printing Employees Association (NLU) filed a
remedy for the enforcement and protection of his rights. The SSS thereby complaint alleging that Serafin Salvador (Acting Secretary of the Dept. of
has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts, subject to its General Services) and Mariano Ledesma (Director of the Bureau of
right to interpose any lawful defense. Whether the SSS performs Printing) have been engaging in unfair labor practice by interfering with,
governmental or proprietary functions thus becomes unnecessary to or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing, particularly the
belabor. For by that waiver, a private citizen may bring a suit against it for members of the complaining association, in the exercise of their right to
varied objectives, such as, in this case, to obtain compensation in self-organization and discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their
damages arising from contract, and even for tort. employment in order to discourage them from pursuing their union
activities.
The proposition that the SSS is not profit-oriented was rejected in the case
of SSS Employees' Association vs. Hon. Soriano. But even conceding that Answering the complaint, the petitioners Bureau of Printing, Serafin
the SSS is not, in the main, operated for profit, it cannot be denied that, in Salvador and Mariano Ledesma denied the charges of unfair labor
so far as contractual loan agreements with private parties are concerned, practices attributed to them and prayed that the case be dismissed for lack
the SSS enters into them for profit considering that the borrowers pay of jurisdiction.
interest, which is money paid for the use of money, plus other charges.
What is of paramount importance in this controversy is that an injustice is Petitioners, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among other things,
not perpetrated and that when damage is caused to a citizen, the latter that:
should have a right of redress particularly when it arises from a purely 1. that the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and
private and contractual relationship between said individual and the be sued;
System. 2. that said Bureau of Printing is not an industrial concern engaged
for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic performing
The SC ruled that there was clear negligence on the part of SSS when they governmental functions
mistook the loan account of Socorro J. Cruz for that of private respondent
Socorro C. Cruz. Its attention was called to the error, but it adamantly The trial judge of the Industrial Court sustained the jurisdiction of
refused to acknowledge its mistake. The SSS can be held liable for the court on the theory that the functions of the Bureau of Printing are
nominal damages. This type of damages is not for the purpose of "exclusively proprietary in nature," and, consequently, denied the
indemnifying private respondents for any loss suffered by them but to prayer for dismissal.
vindicate or recognize their rights which have been violated or invaded by
petitioner SSS. As to all other damages, the SC deleted them for lack of Petitioners brought the case to this court through the present petition for

certiorari and prohibition. 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 up to the
ISSUE: completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the
power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since
WON Court of Industrial Relations acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of
Bureau of Printing. execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious
considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be
HELD: covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by law. The
functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
No. The CIR did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner Bureau of be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their
Printing. legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.
The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the FACTS:

Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of
the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security
Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by
execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their arrangements,
processes, required by the National Government and such other work of guards were deployed by Sultan Agency in the various premises of the
the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the petitioner. On 13 September 1990, several guards of the Sultan Security
(Secretary of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . . Agency filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th
.." (Sec. 1644, Rev. Adm. Code.) It has no corporate existence, and its month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay
appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations Act. and overtime pay, as well as for damages, before the Regional Arbitration
Designed to meet the printing needs of the Government, it is primarily a Branch X of Cagayan de Oro City, against the Department of Agriculture
service bureau and is obviously, not engaged in business or and Sultan Security Agency.
occupation for pecuniary profit.
The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May 1991, finding
This Court has already held in a long line of decisions that the Industrial herein petitioner jointly and severally liable with sultan Security Agency for
Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint for the payment of the money claims, aggregating P266,483.91, of the
unfair labor practice filed against institutions or corporations not complainant security guards. The petitioner and Sultan Security Agency
organized for profit and, consequently, not an industrial or did not appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the decision became
business organization. This is so because the Industrial Peace Act was final and executory.
intended to apply only to industrial employment, and to govern the
relations between employers engaged in industry and occupations for The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution, commanding the City Sheriff
purposes of gain, and their industrial employees. to enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the two
respondents. The City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the
Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or petitioner, i.e., one unit Toyota Hi-Ace, one unit Toyota Mini Cruiser, and
juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, one unit Toyota Crown.
Rule 3, Rules of Court.) Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it
were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or A petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for
proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled preliminary writ of injunction, was filed by the petitioner with the National
that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"), Cagayan de Oro. The petition was
less over its objection. dismissed for lack of basis.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VS. NLRC Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Certiorari. Petitioner asserts the
G.R. No. 104269. November 11, 1993. NLRC has disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of the State.
The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that the petitioner has
DOCTRINE: impliedly waived its immunity from suit by concluding a service contract

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

matters. It is not disputed that the letter he had written was in fact a reply
SANDERS vs. VERIDIANO to a request from his superior for more information regarding the case of
G.R. No. L-46930. June 10, 1988. the private respondents. As for Moreau, what he is claimed to have done
Murillo was write the Chief of Naval Personnel for concurrence with the conversion
of the private respondents' type of employment even before the grievance
DOCTRINE: proceedings commenced. This act is clearly official in nature.
Acts of public officers in the discharge of their official duties are covered
under the state immunity doctrine. Given the official character of the above-described letters, we have to
conclude that the petitioners were, legally speaking, being sued as officers
FACTS: of the United States government. As they have acted on behalf of that
government, and within the scope of their authority, it is that government,
Sanders was the special services director of the U.S. Naval Station and not the petitioners personally, that is responsible for their acts. There
(NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Moreau was the commanding officer of the should be no question by now that such complaint cannot prosper unless
Subic Naval Base. Private respondents were both employed as gameroom the government sought to be held ultimately liable has given its consent to
attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA. On October be sued.
3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had
been converted from full-time part-time. Their reaction was to protest this REPUBLIC VS SANDOVAL
conversion and to institute grievance proceedings under the U.S. G.R. No. 84607. March 19, 1993.
Department of Defense. The result was a recommendation for the
reinstatement of the private respondents to permanent full-time status DOCTRINE:
plus backwages.
The State's recommendation to indemnify the victims of a certain case
In a letter addressed to petitioners, Sanders disagreed with the said result does not amount to waiver of immunity from suits.
and asked for the rejection of the recommendation. The letter contained
the statements that: a) "Mr. Rossi tends to alienate most co-workers and FACTS:
supervisors;" b) "Messrs. Rossi and Wyers have proven, according to their
immediate supervisors, to be difficult employees to supervise;" among Mendiola massacre. Basically, this was about the farmers' continuing
others. struggle for genuine agrarian reform. In 1988, they held a massive rally -
together with progressive groups and thousands of marchers - which
The petitioners then claimed that the letters contained libelous imputations resulted to a deadly clash between civilians and military/policemen. 12
that had exposed them to ridicule and caused them mental anguish. The were confirmed dead, all of whom were from the side of the protesting
private respondents also made it clear that the petitioners were being sued civilians. Due to this, the commission formed by President Aquino (to
in their private or personal capacity. However, the petitioners argued that probe the incident) decided to make recommendations such as the
the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their prosecution of erring officers, policemen, and civilians.
official duties and that, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction over
them under the doctrine of state immunity. The last and the most significant recommendation of the Commission was
for the deceased and wounded victims of the Mendiola incident to be
ISSUE: compensated by the government. It was this portion where petitioners
invoke in their claim for damages from the government. The petitioners
W/N petitioners are covered under the state immunity doctrine were not able to recover anything from the government years after.
HELD: ISSUE:
Yes. SC found the complained acts were done by petitioners in the W/N petitioners can sue the State for damages after said recommendation
discharge of their official duties. Sanders, as director of the special
services, had supervision over its personnel, and had a hand in their HELD:
employment, work assignments, discipline, dismissal and other related

No. The recommendation made by the Commission regarding result is that state immunity now extends only to sovereign and
indemnification of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident governmental acts.
by the government does not in any way mean that liability automatically
attaches to the State. In effect, whatever may be the findings of the In this case, the projects are integral part of the naval base which is
Commission, the same shall only serve as the cause of action in the event devoted to the defense of both US and Philippines. Indisputably, it is a
that any party decides to litigate his/her claim. Therefore, the Commission function of the government of the highest order. They are not utilized for,
is merely a preliminary venue. The Commission is not the end in itself. nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
Whatever recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State
immediately, such recommendation not having become final and RCBC vs. De Castro
executory. This is precisely the essence of it being a fact-finding body. G.R. No. L-34548. November 29, 1988
Secondly, whatever acts or utterances that then President Aquino may GOMEZ
have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having
waived its immunity from suit. The President's act of joining the marchers, FACTS:
days after the incident, does not mean that there was an admission by the
State of any liability. In a civil case entitled Badoc Planters, Inc. vs. Phil. Virginia Tobacco
Administration, et al., the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX issued an
US vs RUIZ Order (Partial Judgment) on January 15, 1970 by the then Presiding Judge
G.R. No. L-35645. May 22, 1985 San Diego. The said order required defendants to pay jointly and severally,
the plaintiff Badoc Planters, Inc.
DOCTRINE:
Therafter, Judge San Diego was promoted as a Justice of the CA so herein
Acts devoted to essential aspects of the state are also covered under State public respodent (Judge De Castro) took over and acted on the Urgent Ex-
immunity Parte Motion filed by BADOC. Judge De Castro granted said Motion.
FACTS: Accordingly, the Branch Clerk of Court on the very same day, issued a Writ
of Execution addressed to Special Sheriff Faustino Rigor, who then issued
The USA had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those a Notice of Garnishment addressed to the General Manager and/or Cashier
provided in the military bases agreement between the Philippines and the of RCBC, requesting a reply within five (5) days to said garnishment as to
US. Respondent alleges that it won in the bidding conducted by the US for any property which the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA)
the construction of wharves in said base that was merely awarded to might have in the possession or control of petitioner or of any debts owing
another group. For this reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by by the petitioner to said defendant. Upon receipt of such Notice, RCBC
him against the US. notified PVTA thereof to enable the PVTA to take the necessary steps for
the protection of its own interest.
ISSUE:
Respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was eventually
W/N the US naval base, in bidding for said contracts, exercised granted. The court set aside the Orders of Execution and of Payment and
governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity the Writ of Execution. It likewise ordered petitioner and BADOC "to
restore, jointly and severally, the account of PVTA with the said bank in
HELD: the same condition and state it was before the issuance of the aforesaid
Orders by reimbursing the PVTA of the amount of P 206, 916.76 with
Yes. The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from being interests at the legal rate from January 27, 1970 until fully paid to the
sued in the courts of another state without its consent or waiver. This rule account of the PVTA.”
is necessary consequence of the principle of independence and equality of
states. However, the rules of international law are not petrified; they are The Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein petitioner was denied. It
continually and evolving and because the activities of states have then appealed to the CA. CA in turn certified this case to the SC as it
multiplied. It has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign involves purely questions of law.
and governmental acts and private, commercial and proprietory acts. The

ISSUE: & Corn Corporation, G.R. No. L-16223, February 27, 1962, 4 SCRA 418.]
The rationale in vesting it with a separate personality is not difficult to
WON PVTA funds are public funds exempt from garnishment find. It is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial
business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any
HELD: other corporation [Manila Hotel Employees' Association v. Manila Hotel Co.
and CIR, 73 Phil. 734 (1941).]
PVTA funds are subject to garnishment.
Inasmuch as the Tobacco Fund, a special fund, was by law, earmarked
RA No. 2265 created the PVTA as an ordinary corporation with all the specifically to answer obligations incurred by PVTA in connection with its
attributes of a corporate entity subject to the provisions of the Corporation proprietary and commercial operations authorized under the law, it follows
Law. Hence, it possesses the power "to sue and be sued" and "to acquire that said funds may be proceeded against by ordinary judicial processes
and hold such assets and incur such liabilities resulting directly from such as execution and garnishment. If such funds cannot be executed
operations authorized by the provisions of this Act or as essential to the upon or garnished pursuant to a judgment sustaining the liability of the
proper conduct of such operations." PVTA to answer for its obligations, then the purpose of the law in creating
the PVTA would be defeated. For it was declared to be a national policy,
Among the specific powers vested in the PVTA are: 1) to buy Virginia with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, to encourage the
tobacco grown in the Philippines for resale to local bona fide tobacco production of local Virginia tobacco of the qualities needed and in
manufacturers and leaf tobacco dealers [Section 4(b), R.A. No. 2265]; 2) quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish
to contracts of any kind as may be necessary or incidental to the this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and to create a climate
attainment of its purpose with any person, firm or corporation, with the conducive to local cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the
Government of the Philippines or with any foreign government, subject to consuming public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to
existing laws [Section 4(h), R.A. No. 22651; and 3) generally, to exercise improve the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes [Section 1, Republic
all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they Act No. 4155.]
are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act [Section 4(k), R.A. No.
2265.]
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. Nos. 89898-99. October 1, 1990
From the foregoing, it is clear that PVTA has been endowed with a
personality distinct and separate from the government which owns and
FACTS:
controls it. Accordingly, this Court has heretofore declared that the funds
of the PVTA can be garnished since "funds of public corporation which can
The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation proceedings
sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment."
initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against private respondent
Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc., Home Building System &
In National Shipyards and Steel Corp. v. CIR [G.R. No. L-17874, August Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, involving a parcel of land and
31, 1964, 8 SCRA 781], this Court held that the allegation to the effect improvements thereon located at Mayapis St., San Antonio Village, Makati
that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government and that and registered in the name of Arceli P. Jo.
as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon is
untenable for, as a government-owned or controlled corporation, it has a An action for eminent domain was filed on May 20, 1986. Attached to
personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the government. petitioner's complaint was a certification that a bank account had been
This court has likewise ruled that other govemment-owned and controlled opened with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's name containing
corporations like National Coal Company, the National Waterworks and the sum of P417,510.00, made pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 42.
Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), the National Coconut Corporation After due hearing where the parties presented their respective appraisal
(NACOCO) the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) and the Price reports regarding the value of the property, respondent RTC judge
Stabilization Council (PRISCO) which possess attributes similar to those of rendered a decision on June 4, 1987, fixing the appraised value of the
the PVTA are clothed with personalities of their own, separate and distinct property at P5,291,666.00, and ordering petitioner to pay this amount
from that of the government [National Coal Company v. Collector of minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00 which was earlier released to
Internal Revenue, 46 Phil. 583 (1924); Bacani and Matoto v. National private respondent.
Coconut Corporation et al., 100 Phil. 471 (1956); Reotan v. National Rice

After this decision became final and executory, private respondent moved orders of respondent RTC judge involved the net amount of
for the issuance of a writ of execution. This motion was granted by P4,965,506.45, the funds garnished by respondent sheriff in excess of
respondent RTC judge. After issuance of the writ of execution, a Notice of P99,743.94, which are public funds earmarked for the municipal
Garnishment dated January 14, 1988 was served by respondent sheriff government's other statutory obligations, are exempted from execution
Silvino R. Pastrana upon the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch. without the proper appropriation required under the law.
However, respondent sheriff was informed that a "hold code" was placed
on the account of petitioner. ISSUE:
Private respondent filed a motion praying that an order be issued directing WON public funds earmarked for the municipal government’s other
the bank to deliver to said sheriff the unpaid balance. On the other hand, statutory obligations, are exempted from execution without the proper
petitioner filed a motion to lift the garnishment, on the ground that the appropriation required under the law
manner of payment of the expropriation amount should be done in
installments which the respondent RTC judge failed to state in his decision. HELD:
There is merit in this contention. The funds deposited in the second PNB
Pending resolution of the above motions, petitioner filed a “Manifestation”
Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 are public funds of the municipal
informing the court that the subject property is now owned by PS Bank,
government. In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule that public funds
Inc (PSB). Thereafter, respondent trial judge subsequently issued an order
are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by
which among other things ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately
statute.
release to PSB the corresponding balance of P4,953,506.45.
More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or
Petitioner field a motion for reconsideration (MFR). Petitioner contended personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold
that its funds at the PNB Buendia Branch could neither be garnished nor at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality.
levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the disbursement of Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and
public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law, which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing
citing the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Palacio [G.R. No. L-20322, the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt
May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 899]. from execution.
Respondent judge denied petitioner’s MFR. On appeal, the CA dismissed The foregoing rule finds application in the case at bar. Absent a showing
the same for lack of merit. that the municipal council of Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating
from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due under
On appeal to the SC, Petitioner alleged for the first time that it has actually the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987, less the sum of P99,743.94
2 accounts with PNB Buendia Branch: deposited in Account No. S/A 265-537154-3, no levy under execution may
be validly effected on the public funds of petitioner deposited in Account
No. S/A 263-530850-7.
(1) Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 — exclusively for the expropriation of
the subject property, with an outstanding balance of P99,743.94. Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB are left
with no legal recourse. Where a municipality fails or refuses, without
(2) Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 — for statutory obligations and other justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered
purposes of the municipal government, with a balance of against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to
P170,098,421.72, as of July 12, 1989. compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation
ordinance, and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds
Admitting that its PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was specifically therefor [Viuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra;
opened for expropriation proceedings it had initiated over the subject Baldivia v. Lota, 107 Phil. 1099 (1960); Yuviengco v. Gonzales, 108 Phil.
property, petitioner poses no objection to the garnishment or the levy 247 (1960)].
under execution of the funds deposited therein amounting to P99,743.94.
However, it is petitioner's main contention that inasmuch as the assailed

The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within the In this jurisdiction, the State assumes a limited liability for the damage
bounds of fair play and justice. In the case at bar, considering that caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special agent.
valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and
the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the property for public Under paragrah 6 of Art. 2180, the State has voluntarily assumed liability
purpose, for three (3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had for acts done through special agents. The State's agent, if a public official,
more than reasonable time to pay full compensation. must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that
such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. If
FONTANILLA VS. MALIAMAN the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform
G.R. No. L-55963. December 1, 1989 non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an
ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. Where
FACTS: the government commissions a private individual for a special
governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning
On August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and operated by of the provision.
respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA), a government agency,
then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of said agency as its The National Irrigation Administration is an agency of the government
regular driver, bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of exercising proprietary functions.
herein petitioners, and Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along the
Maharlika Highway. As a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla and Indubitably, the NIA is a government corporation with juridical personality
Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City Emergency and not a mere agency of the government. Since it is a corporate body
Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla was later transferred to the Cabanatuan performing non-governmental functions, it now becomes liable for the
Provincial Hospital where he died. damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortious act of its driver-
employee. In this particular case, the NIA assumes the responsibility of an
Garcia was then a regular driver of respondent NIA who, at the time of the ordinary employer and as such, it becomes answerable for damages.
accident, was a licensed professional driver and who qualified for
employment as such regular driver of respondent after having passed the This assumption of liability, however, is predicated upon the existence of
written and oral examinations on traffic rules and maintenance of vehicles negligence on the part of respondent NIA. The negligence referred to here
given by National Irrigation Administration authorities. is the negligence of supervision.
Spouses Fontanilla filed a case for damages (death benefits) and actual At this juncture, the matter of due diligence on the part of respondent NIA
expenses for the death of their son. CFI of Nueva Ecija ruled in favor of becomes a crucial issue in determining its liability since it has been
spouses Fontanilla. NIA then filed its motion for reconsideration which CFI established that respondent is a government agency performing
denied. NIA then appealed to CA. proprietary functions and as such, it assumes the posture of an ordinary
employer which, under Par. 5 of Art. 2180, is responsible for the damages
ISSUE: caused by its employees provided that it has failed to observe or exercise
due diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver.
WON the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's
fees is legally proper in a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict It should be emphasized that the accident happened along the Maharlika
which resulted in the death of the son of herein petitioners National Road within the city limits of San Jose City, an urban area.
Considering the fact that the victim was thrown 50 meters away from the
HELD: point of impact, there is a strong indication that driver Garcia was driving
at a high speed. This is confirmed by the fact that the pick-up suffered
The liability of the State has two aspects, namely: substantial and heavy damage as above-described and the fact that the
1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts NIA group was then "in a hurry to reach the campsite as early as
of special agents only. possible", as shown by their not stopping to find out what they bumped as
would have been their normal and initial reaction.
Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises)
where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer.

Evidently, there was negligence in the supervision of the driver for the This initial petition was followed by another one, docketed as G.R. No.
reason that they were travelling at a high speed within the city limits and 183752, also for Mandamus and Prohibition filed by the City of
yet the supervisor of the group, Ely Salonga, failed to caution and make Zamboanga, Mayor Celso Lobregat, Rep. Ma. Isabelle Climaco and Rep.
the driver observe the proper and allowed speed limit within the city. Erico Basilio Fabian who likewise pray for similar injunctive reliefs.
Under the situation, such negligence is further aggravated by their desire
to reach their destination without even checking whether or not the vehicle By Resolution of August 4, 2008, the Court issued a Temporary
suffered damage from the object it bumped, thus showing imprudence and Restraining Order commanding and directing public respondents and their
reckelessness on the part of both the driver and the supervisor in the agents to cease and desist from formally signing the MOA-AD.
group.
Meanwhile, the City of Iligan filed a petition for Injunction and/or
Significantly, this Court has ruled that even if the employer can prove the Declaratory Relief, docketed as G.R. No. 183893, praying that respondents
diligence in the selection and supervision (the latter aspect has not been be enjoined from signing the MOA-AD or, if the same had already been
established herein) of the employee, still if he ratifies the wrongful acts, or signed, from implementing the same, and that the MOA-AD be declared
take no step to avert further damage, the employer would still be liable. unconstitutional.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP PEACE PANEL ON The Province of Zamboanga del Norte, Governor Rolando Yebes, Vice-
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN, ET AL. Governor Francis Olvis, Rep. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Rep. Cesar Jalosjos,
G.R. No. 183591. October 14, 2008 and the members18 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga del
Norte filed on August 15, 2008 a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and
FACTS: Prohibition,19 docketed as G.R. No. 183951
On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines By subsequent Resolutions, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
(GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace petitions.
negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement
on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli ISSUES:
Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
1. WON the MOA-AD grants to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)
The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to the status of a STATE
materialize, however, for upon motion of petitioners, specifically those who 2. WON the BJE contains the 4 elements of a State
filed their cases before the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, the SC
issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing the HELD:
same.
The MOA-AD proceeds to refer to the "Bangsamoro homeland," the
Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from ownership of which is vested exclusively in the Bangsamoro people by
June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli virtue of their prior rights of occupation. Both parties to the MOA-AD
Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing the basic acknowledge that ancestral domain does not form part of the public
principles and agenda on the following aspects of the negotiation: Security domain.
Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect. With regard
to the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 The territory of the Bangsamoro homeland is described as the land mass
simply agreed "that the same be discussed further by the Parties in their as well as the maritime, terrestrial, fluvial and alluvial domains, including
next meeting." the aerial domain and the atmospheric space above it, embracing the
Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan geographic region.
On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-Governor
Emmanuel Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. 183591, for More specifically, the core of the BJE is defined as the present geographic
Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of area of the ARMM - thus constituting the following areas: Lanao del Sur,
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, and Marawi City. Significantly, this

core also includes certain municipalities of Lanao del Norte that voted for
inclusion in the ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite.
These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the 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 association is not recognized under the present

Constitution
No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under

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

government and the BJE being itself contrary to the present Constitution,
it is not surprising that many of the specific provisions of the MOA-AD on
the formation and powers of the BJE are in conflict with the Constitution
and the laws.

POLI 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

POLI CASE DIGESTS 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

REPUBLIC VS SANTOS III RTC: In favor of petitioners

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

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

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

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

Facts: Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be

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

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

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

SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER- HELD:

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

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

The Trial Court rendered judgment against SSS directing it to pay

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

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

The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of association is not recognized under the present

No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under

The defining concept underlying the relationship between the national

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

You might also like