SYQUIA VS. LOPEZ, ET AL. G.R. No.

L-1648August 17, 1949 Facts: Plaintiffs, Pedro Syquia and Leopoldo Syquia are the undivided joint owners of three apartment buildingssituated in Manila. They executed three lease contracts one for each of the three apartments. The period for thethree leases was to be for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by the US.The apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the US Armed Forces stationed in Manila.Six months after September 2, 1945 when Japan surrendered plaintiffs approached the defendants GeorgeMoore and Erland Tillman and requested the return of the apartment buildings. Moore and Tillman expressed to plaintiffs that the US Army wanted to continue occupying the premises. Plaintiffs requested to renegotiate saidleases, to execute a lease contract for a period of three years and to pay a reasonable rental higher than those payableunder the old contracts. Respondents sent a letter refusing to execute new leases but advised that the US Army willvacate the apartments before February 1, 1947. Not being in conformity with the old lease agreements, plaintiffsformally requested Tillman to cancel said leases and to release the apartments on June 28, 1946. Tillman refused tocomply with the request. Because of the assurance that the US Government would vacate the premises beforeFebruary 1, 1947, the plaintiffs took no further steps to secure possession of the buildings and accepted the monthlyrentals tendered by respondents. On February 17, 1947, plaintiffs served a formal notice to the occupantsdemanding: (a) cancellation of said leases; (b) increase in rentals to P300 a month; (c) execution of new leases (d)release of said apartment buildings within thirty days of said notice in the event of failure to comply with saiddemands.The thirty-day period lapsed without any of the respondents complying with the demand. Plaintiffscommenced an action in the Municipal Court of Manila in the form of an action for Unlawful Detainer againstrespondents. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over thedefendants and over the subject matter of the action because the real party in interest was the US Government andnot the individual defendants. Furthermore, the respondent argued that the war between the US and her allies on oneside and Germany and Japan on the other had not yet been terminated and consequently the period of the three leaseshas not yet expired. Also, a foreign government like the US cannot be sued in the courts of another state without itsconsent. That even though the US Government was not named as the defendant in the complaint, it is neverthelessthe real defendant as the parties named are officers of the US Government.The Municiapl Court dismissed the action. The CFI of Manila affirmed the order of the lower court. Issue: (1) Who is the real party in interest? (2) Does the court have jurisdiction to hear and try the case? Held: (1) The Court is convinced that the real party in interest as defendant in the original case is the USGovernment. The lessee in each of the three lease agreements was the United States of America and thelease agreement themselves were executed in her name by her officials

acting as her agents. Theconsiderations or rentals was always paid by the US Government. The original action in the MuniciaplCourt was brought on the basis of these three lease contracts and it is obvious in the opinion of this courtthat any back rentals or increased rentals will have to be paid by the US Government not only becausethe contracts were entered into by such Government but also because the premises were used by officersof her armed forces during the war and immediately after the terminations of hostilities.(2) It is clear that the courts of the Philippines have no jurisdiction over the present case for UnlawfulDetainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of theaction. The US Government has not given its consent to the filing of the suit which is essentially againsther, though not in name. Morever, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his ownGovernment without the latters consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreigngovernment without said governments consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of this country.