Syquia vs.

Almeda Lopez
84 PHIL. 312
 DOCTRINE OF STATE
IMMUNITY

Section 3 of Article XVI of the 1987

Constitution stated that the State may
not be sued without its consent.

The Republic cannot be proceeded against unless it allows

itself to be sued. Neither can a department, bureau, agency,
office, or instrumentality of the government where the suit
may result in adverse consequences to the public treasury,
whether in the disbursement of funds or loss of property.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

01 Facts 02 Issue 03 Held

G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949

PEDRO SYQUIA, GONZALO SYQUIA, and

LEOPOLDO SYQUIA, petitioners,
vs.

NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, Judge of

Municipal Court of Manila, CONRADO V.
SANCHEZ, Judge of Court of First Instance of
Manila, GEORGE F. MOORE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The plaintiffs named Pedro, Gonzalo, and Leopoldo, all surnamed Syquia, are the
undivided joint owners of three apartment buildings situated in the City of Manila
known as the North Syquia Apartments, South Syquia Apartments and Michel
Apartments located at 1131 M. H. del Pilar, 1151 M. H. del Pilar and 1188 A. Mabini
Streets, respectively.

About the middle of the year 1945, said plaintiffs executed three lease contracts, one
for each of the three apartments, in favor of the United States of America. The
apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the U. S. armed
forces stationed in the Manila area. The term or period for the three leases was to be
"for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by
the United States of America."

In March 1947, when these court proceedings were commenced, George F. Moore was
the Commanding General, United States Army. Erland A. Tillman was the Chief, Real
Estate Division, Office of the District Engineers, U. S. Army, Manila, who, under the
command of defendant Moore was in direct charge and control of the lease and
occupancy of said three apartment buildings. Defendant Moore and Tillman
themselves did not occupy any part of the premises. Leases terminated six months
after September 2, 1945
FACTS
When Japan surrendered, plaintiffs sometime in March, 1946, approached the predecessors in office of
defendants Moore and Tillman and requested the return of the apartment buildings to them, but were
advised that the U. S. Army wanted to continue occupying the premises.

On June 6, 1946, Moore said in a letter that he refused to execute new leases but advised that "it is
contemplated that the United States Army will vacate subject properties prior to 1 February 1947."

On May 11, 1946, said plaintiffs requested the predecessors in office of Moore and Tillman to renegotiate said
leases, execute lease contract for a period of three years and to pay a reasonable rental higher than those
payable under the old contracts in which was not followed.

February 1, 1947, not the original terms of the contract agreement. Petitioner-plaintiffs sued before the
Municipal Court of Manila with the demand to get the properties as their agreement supposedly expired, and
furthermore asked for increased rentals until the premises were vacated. Respondent-defendants were part
of the armed forces of the US moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court. The
Municipal Court of Manila granted the motion to dismiss the suit, sustained by the Cout of First Instance of
Manila, hence the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the court has
jurisdiction over the defendants.
 RULING
The courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no
jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer because the real party
in interest was the U.S. Government and not the individual defendants named
in the complaint.

The case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very
beginning of the action

In conclusion, we find that the Municipal Court of Manila committed no error

in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and that the Court of First
Instance acted correctly in affirming the municipal court’s order of dismissal.
Case dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Sources: Lawphil
THANK YOU