Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession

Holy See vs. Rosario Jr.

238 SCRA 524
FACTS: A piece of real property was acquired by the Holy See by way of donation from
the Archdiocese of Manila. The purpose was to construct the official place of residence of
the Papal uncio. Later! the Holy See sold the property on condition that it will e"ict the
squatters therein. #or failure to comply with the condition! the Holy See was sued. It
mo"ed to dismiss on the ground of state immunity.
ISSUE: $hether respondent trial court has %urisdiction o"er petitioner being a foreign
state en%oying so"ereign immunity.
HELD: The &epublic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status if a foreign
so"ereign! the Holy See! through its Ambassador! the Papal uncio! has had diplomatic
representations with the Philippine 'o"ernment since ()*+.
The pri"ilege of so"ereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the
memorandum and certification of the ,epartment of #oreign Affairs. The ,#A has
formally inter"ened in this case and officially certified that the -mbassy of the Holy See
is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the &epublic of the Philippines e.empt from
local %urisdiction and entitled to all the rights! pri"ileges and immunities of a diplomatic
mission or embassy in this country. The determination of the e.ecuti"e arm of
go"ernment that a state or instrumentality is entitled to so"ereign or diplomatic immunity
is a political question that is conclusi"e upon the courts.
$here the plea of immunity is recogni/ed and affirmed by the e.ecuti"e branch! it is the
duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the e.ecuti"e arm of the
go"ernment in conducting the country0s foreign relations.
&epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
- 1A2

G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994
THE HOLY SEE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as res!"!#$ J%"$e o& '(e Re$!o#a)
Tr!a) *o%r' o& +a,a'!, Bra#c( -1 a#" STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERRISES,
IN*., respondents.
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
Padilla Law Office for petitioner.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent.

.UIASON, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to
reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and Septemer 19, 1991
of the Re!ional Trial Court, "ran#h 61, $a%ati, $etro $anila in Civil Case &o. 90'
1().
The Order dated June 20, 1991 denied the motion of petitioner to dismiss the
#omplaint in Civil Case &o. 90'1(), *hile the Order dated Septemer 19, 1991
denied the motion for re#onsideration of the June 20,1991 Order.
+etitioner is the ,ol- See *ho e.er#ises soverei!nt- over the /ati#an Cit- in
Rome, 0tal-, and is represented in the +hilippines - the +apal &un#io.
+rivate respondent, Starri!ht Sales 1nterprises, 0n#., is a domesti# #orporation
en!a!ed in the real estate usiness.
This petition arose from a #ontrovers- over a par#el of land #onsistin! of 6,000
s2uare meters 34ot 5'5, Transfer Certifi#ate of Title &o. )906607 lo#ated in the
$uni#ipalit- of +ara8a2ue, $etro $anila and re!istered in the name of petitioner.
Said 4ot 5'5 is #onti!uous to 4ots 5'" and 5'9 *hi#h are #overed - Transfer
Certifi#ates of Title &os. 2:110( and 265)(( respe#tivel- and re!istered in the
name of the +hilippine Realt- Corporation 3+RC7.
The three lots *ere sold to Ramon 4i#up, throu!h $s!r. 9omin!o 5. Cirilos, Jr.,
a#tin! as a!ent to the sellers. 4ater, 4i#up assi!ned his ri!hts to the sale to
private respondent.
0n vie* of the refusal of the s2uatters to va#ate the lots sold to private
respondent, a dispute arose as to *ho of the parties has the responsiilit- of
evi#tin! and #learin! the land of s2uatters. Compli#atin! the relations of the
parties *as the sale - petitioner of 4ot 5'5 to Tropi#ana +roperties and
9evelopment Corporation 3Tropi#ana7.
0
On Januar- 2), 1990, private respondent filed a #omplaint *ith the Re!ional Trial
Court, "ran#h 61, $a%ati, $etro $anila for annulment of the sale of the three
par#els of land, and spe#ifi# performan#e and dama!es a!ainst petitioner,
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
represented - the +apal &un#io, and three other defendants; namel-, $s!r.
9omin!o 5. Cirilos, Jr., the +RC and Tropi#ana 3Civil Case &o.
90'1()7.
The #omplaint alle!ed that; 317 on 5pril 1:, 19((, $s!r. Cirilos, Jr., on ehalf of
petitioner and the +RC, a!reed to sell to Ramon 4i#up 4ots 5'5, 5'" and 5'9 at
the pri#e of +1,260.00 per s2uare meters< 327 the a!reement to sell *as made on
the #ondition that earnest mone- of +100,000.00 e paid - 4i#up to the sellers,
and that the sellers #lear the said lots of s2uatters *ho *ere then o##up-in! the
same< 3)7 4i#up paid the earnest mone- to $s!r. Cirilos< 367 in the same month,
4i#up assi!ned his ri!hts over the propert- to private respondent and informed
the sellers of the said assi!nment< 357 thereafter, private respondent demanded
from $s!r. Cirilos that the sellers fulfill their underta%in! and #lear the propert- of
s2uatters< ho*ever, $s!r. Cirilos informed private respondent of the s2uatters=
refusal to va#ate the lots, proposin! instead either that private respondent
underta%e the evi#tion or that the earnest mone- e returned to the latter< 367
private respondent #ounterproposed that if it *ould underta%e the evi#tion of the
s2uatters, the pur#hase pri#e of the lots should e redu#ed from +1,260.00 to
+1,150.00 per s2uare meter< 3:7 $s!r. Cirilos returned the earnest mone- of
+100,000.00 and *rote private respondent !ivin! it seven da-s from re#eipt of
the letter to pa- the ori!inal pur#hase pri#e in #ash< 3(7 private respondent sent
the earnest mone- a#% to the sellers, ut later dis#overed that on $ar#h )0,
19(9, petitioner and the +RC, *ithout noti#e to private respondent, sold the lots
to Tropi#ana, as eviden#ed - t*o separate 9eeds of Sale, one over 4ot 5'5,
and another over 4ots 5'" and 5'9< and that the sellers= transfer #ertifi#ate of title
over the lots *ere #an#elled, transferred and re!istered in the name of
Tropi#ana< 397 Tropi#ana indu#ed petitioner and the +RC to sell the lots to it and
thus enri#hed itself at the e.pense of private respondent< 3107 private respondent
demanded the res#ission of the sale to Tropi#ana and the re#onve-an#e of the
lots, to no avail< and 3117 private respondent is *illin! and ale to #ompl- *ith the
terms of the #ontra#t to sell and has a#tuall- made plans to develop the lots into
a to*nhouse pro>e#t, ut in vie* of the sellers= rea#h, it lost profits of not less
than +)0,000.000.00.
+rivate respondent thus pra-ed for; 317 the annulment of the 9eeds of Sale
et*een petitioner and the +RC on the one hand, and Tropi#ana on the other< 327
the re#onve-an#e of the lots in 2uestion< 3)7 spe#ifi# performan#e of the
a!reement to sell et*een it and the o*ners of the lots< and 367 dama!es.
On June (, 1990, petitioner and $s!r. Cirilos separatel- moved to dismiss the
#omplaint ? petitioner for la#% of >urisdi#tion ased on soverei!n immunit- from
suit, and $s!r. Cirilos for ein! an improper part-. 5n opposition to the motion
*as filed - private respondent.
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
On June 20, 1991, the trial #ourt issued an order den-in!, amon! others,
petitioner=s motion to dismiss after findin! that petitioner @shed off AitsB soverei!n
immunit- - enterin! into the usiness #ontra#t in 2uestion@ 3Rollo, pp. 20'217.
On Jul- 12, 1991, petitioner moved for re#onsideration of the order. On 5u!ust
)0, 1991, petitioner filed a @$otion for a ,earin! for the Sole +urpose of
1stalishin! Ca#tual 5lle!ation for #laim of 0mmunit- as a Jurisdi#tional 9efense.@
So as to fa#ilitate the determination of its defense of soverei!n immunit-,
petitioner pra-ed that a hearin! e #ondu#ted to allo* it to estalish #ertain fa#ts
upon *hi#h the said defense is ased. +rivate respondent opposed this motion
as *ell as the motion for re#onsideration.
On O#toer 1, 1991, the trial #ourt issued an order deferrin! the resolution on the
motion for re#onsideration until after trial on the merits and dire#tin! petitioner to
file its ans*er 3Rollo, p. 227.
+etitioner forth*ith elevated the matter to us. 0n its petition, petitioner invo%es the
privile!e of soverei!n immunit- onl- on its o*n ehalf and on ehalf of its offi#ial
representative, the +apal &un#io.
On 9e#emer 9, 1991, a $otion for 0ntervention *as filed efore us - the
9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs, #laimin! that it has a le!al interest in the out#ome
of the #ase as re!ards the diplomati# immunit- of petitioner, and that it @adopts -
referen#e, the alle!ations #ontained in the petition of the ,ol- See insofar as the-
refer to ar!uments relative to its #laim of soverei!n immunit- from suit@ 3Rollo, p.
(:7.
+rivate respondent opposed the intervention of the 9epartment of Corei!n
5ffairs. 0n #omplian#e *ith the resolution of this Court, oth parties and the
9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs sumitted their respe#tive memoranda.
00
5 preliminar- matter to e threshed out is the pro#edural issue of *hether the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court #an e availed
of to 2uestion the order den-in! petitioner=s motion to dismiss. The !eneral rule is
that an order den-in! a motion to dismiss is not revie*ale - the appellate
#ourts, the remed- of the movant ein! to file his ans*er and to pro#eed *ith the
hearin! efore the trial #ourt. "ut the !eneral rule admits of e.#eptions, and one
of these is *hen it is ver- #lear in the re#ords that the trial #ourt has no
alternative ut to dismiss the #omplaint 3+hilippine &ational "an% v. Clorendo,
206 SCR5 5(2 A1992B< Da!ada v. Civil Servi#e Commission, 216 SCR5 116
A1992B. 0n su#h a #ase, it *ould e a sheer *aste of time and ener!- to re2uire
the parties to under!o the ri!ors of a trial.
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
The other pro#edural 2uestion raised - private respondent is the personalit- or
le!al interest of the 9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs to intervene in the #ase in
ehalf of the ,ol- See 3Rollo, pp. 1(6'1907.
0n +uli# 0nternational 4a*, *hen a state or international a!en#- *ishes to plead
soverei!n or diplomati# immunit- in a forei!n #ourt, it re2uests the Corei!n Offi#e
of the state *here it is sued to #onve- to the #ourt that said defendant is entitled
to immunit-.
0n the Enited States, the pro#edure follo*ed is the pro#ess of @su!!estion,@
*here the forei!n state or the international or!aniFation sued in an 5meri#an
#ourt re2uests the Se#retar- of State to ma%e a determination as to *hether it is
entitled to immunit-. 0f the Se#retar- of State finds that the defendant is immune
from suit, he, in turn, as%s the 5ttorne- General to sumit to the #ourt a
@su!!estion@ that the defendant is entitled to immunit-. 0n 1n!land, a similar
pro#edure is follo*ed, onl- the Corei!n Offi#e issues a #ertifi#ation to that effe#t
instead of sumittin! a @su!!estion@ 3O=Connell, 0 0nternational 4a* 1)0 A1965B<
&ote; 0mmunit- from Suit of Corei!n Soverei!n 0nstrumentalities and Oli!ations,
50 Hale 4a* Journal 10(( A1961B7.
0n the +hilippines, the pra#ti#e is for the forei!n !overnment or the international
or!aniFation to first se#ure an e.e#utive endorsement of its #laim of soverei!n or
diplomati# immunit-. "ut ho* the +hilippine Corei!n Offi#e #onve-s its
endorsement to the #ourts varies. 0n International Catolic Migration Co!!ission
v. Calle"a, 190 SCR5 1)0 319907, the Se#retar- of Corei!n 5ffairs >ust sent a
letter dire#tl- to the Se#retar- of 4aor and 1mplo-ment, informin! the latter that
the respondent'emplo-er #ould not e sued e#ause it en>o-ed diplomati#
immunit-. 0n #orld $ealt Organi%ation v. &'uino, 6( SCR5 262 319:27, the
Se#retar- of Corei!n 5ffairs sent the trial #ourt a tele!ram to that effe#t. 0n (aer v.
)i%on, 5: SCR5 1 319:67, the E.S. 1mass- as%ed the Se#retar- of Corei!n
5ffairs to re2uest the Soli#itor General to ma%e, in ehalf of the Commander of
the Enited States &aval "ase at Olon!apo Cit-, Damales, a @su!!estion@ to
respondent Jud!e. The Soli#itor General emodied the @su!!estion@ in a
$anifestation and $emorandum as a!icus curiae.
0n the #ase at en#h, the 9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs, throu!h the Offi#e of
4e!al 5ffairs moved *ith this Court to e allo*ed to intervene on the side of
petitioner. The Court allo*ed the said 9epartment to file its memorandum in
support of petitioner=s #laim of soverei!n immunit-.
0n some #ases, the defense of soverei!n immunit- *as sumitted dire#tl- to the
lo#al #ourts - the respondents throu!h their private #ounsels 3Ra2uiFa v.
"radford, :5 +hil. 50 A1965B< $i2uiaas v. +hilippine'R-u%-us Command, (0 +hil.
262 A196(B< Enited States of 5meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2 SCR5 666 A1990B and
#ompanion #ases7. 0n #ases *here the forei!n states -pass the Corei!n Offi#e,
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
the #ourts #an in2uire into the fa#ts and ma%e their o*n determination as to the
nature of the a#ts and transa#tions involved.
000
The urden of the petition is that respondent trial #ourt has no >urisdi#tion over
petitioner, ein! a forei!n state en>o-in! soverei!n immunit-. On the other hand,
private respondent insists that the do#trine of non'suailit- is not an-more
asolute and that petitioner has divested itself of su#h a #loa% *hen, of its o*n
free *ill, it entered into a #ommer#ial transa#tion for the sale of a par#el of land
lo#ated in the +hilippines.
5. )e $oly See
"efore *e determine the issue of petitioner=s non'suailit-, a rief loo% into its
status as a soverei!n state is in order.
"efore the anne.ation of the +apal States - 0tal- in 1(:0, the +ope *as the
monar#h and he, as the ,ol- See, *as #onsidered a su>e#t of 0nternational 4a*.
Iith the loss of the +apal States and the limitation of the territor- under the ,ol-
See to an area of 10(.: a#res, the position of the ,ol- See in 0nternational 4a*
e#ame #ontroversial 3Salon!a and Hap, +uli# 0nternational 4a* )6'): A1992B7.
0n 1929, 0tal- and the ,ol- See entered into the 4ateran Treat-, *here 0tal-
re#o!niFed the e.#lusive dominion and soverei!n >urisdi#tion of the ,ol- See
over the /ati#an Cit-. 0t also re#o!niFed the ri!ht of the ,ol- See to re#eive
forei!n diplomats, to send its o*n diplomats to forei!n #ountries, and to enter into
treaties a##ordin! to 0nternational 4a* 3Gar#ia, Juestions and +rolems 0n
0nternational 4a*, +uli# and +rivate (1 A196(B7.
The 4ateran Treat- estalished the statehood of the /ati#an Cit- @for the purpose
of assurin! to the ,ol- See asolute and visile independen#e and of
!uaranteein! to it indisputale soverei!nt- also in the field of international
relations@ 3O=Connell, 0 0nternational 4a* )11 A1965B7.
0n vie* of the *ordin!s of the 4ateran Treat-, it is diffi#ult to determine *hether
the statehood is vested in the ,ol- See or in the /ati#an Cit-. Some *riters even
su!!ested that the treat- #reated t*o international persons ? the ,ol- See and
/ati#an Cit- 3Salon!a and Hap, supra, ):7.
The /ati#an Cit- fits into none of the estalished #ate!ories of states, and the
attriution to it of @soverei!nt-@ must e made in a sense different from that in
*hi#h it is applied to other states 3Cen*i#%, 0nternational 4a* 126'125 A196(B<
CruF, 0nternational 4a* ): A1991B7. 0n a #ommunit- of national states, the /ati#an
Cit- represents an entit- or!aniFed not for politi#al ut for e##lesiasti#al purposes
and international o>e#ts. 9espite its siFe and o>e#t, the /ati#an Cit- has an
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
independent !overnment of its o*n, *ith the +ope, *ho is also head of the
Roman Catholi# Chur#h, as the ,ol- See or ,ead of State, in #onformit- *ith its
traditions, and the demands of its mission in the *orld. 0ndeed, the *orld'*ide
interests and a#tivities of the /ati#an Cit- are su#h as to ma%e it in a sense an
@international state@ 3Cen*i#%, supra., 125< Kelsen, +rin#iples of 0nternational 4a*
160 A1956B7.
One authorit- *rote that the re#o!nition of the /ati#an Cit- as a state has
si!nifi#ant impli#ation ? that it is possile for an- entit- pursuin! o>e#ts
essentiall- different from those pursued - states to e invested *ith
international personalit- 3KunF, The Status of the ,ol- See in 0nternational 4a*,
66 The 5meri#an Journal of 0nternational 4a* )0( A1952B7.
0nasmu#h as the +ope prefers to #ondu#t forei!n relations and enter into
transa#tions as the ,ol- See and not in the name of the /ati#an Cit-, one #an
#on#lude that in the +ope=s o*n vie*, it is the ,ol- See that is the international
person.
The Repuli# of the +hilippines has a##orded the ,ol- See the status of a forei!n
soverei!n. The ,ol- See, throu!h its 5massador, the +apal &un#io, has had
diplomati# representations *ith the +hilippine !overnment sin#e 195: 3Rollo, p.
(:7. This appears to e the universal pra#ti#e in international relations.
". Sovereign I!!unity
5s e.pressed in Se#tion 2 of 5rti#le 00 of the 19(: Constitution, *e have adopted
the !enerall- a##epted prin#iples of 0nternational 4a*. 1ven *ithout this
affirmation, su#h prin#iples of 0nternational 4a* are deemed in#orporated as part
of the la* of the land as a #ondition and #onse2uen#e of our admission in the
so#iet- of nations 3Enited States of 5meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2 SCR5 666 A1990B7.
There are t*o #onfli#tin! #on#epts of soverei!n immunit-, ea#h *idel- held and
firml- estalished. 5##ordin! to the #lassi#al or asolute theor-, a soverei!n
#annot, *ithout its #onsent, e made a respondent in the #ourts of another
soverei!n. 5##ordin! to the ne*er or restri#tive theor-, the immunit- of the
soverei!n is re#o!niFed onl- *ith re!ard to puli# a#ts or a#ts "ure i!perii of a
state, ut not *ith re!ard to private a#ts or a#ts "ure gestionis
3Enited States of 5meri#a v. RuiF, 1)6 SCR5 6(: A19(:B< Co2uia and 9efensor'
Santia!o, +uli# 0nternational 4a* 196 A19(6B7.
Some states passed le!islation to serve as !uidelines for the e.e#utive or >udi#ial
determination *hen an a#t ma- e #onsidered as "ure gestionis. The Enited
States passed the Corei!n Soverei!n 0mmunities 5#t of 19:6, *hi#h defines a
#ommer#ial a#tivit- as @either a re!ular #ourse of #ommer#ial #ondu#t or a
parti#ular #ommer#ial transa#tion or a#t.@ Curthermore, the la* de#lared that the
@#ommer#ial #hara#ter of the a#tivit- shall e determined - referen#e to the
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
nature of the #ourse of #ondu#t or parti#ular transa#tion or a#t, rather than -
referen#e to its purpose.@ The Canadian +arliament ena#ted in 19(2 an 5#t to
+rovide Cor State 0mmunit- in Canadian Courts. The 5#t defines a @#ommer#ial
a#tivit-@ as an- parti#ular transa#tion, a#t or #ondu#t or an- re!ular #ourse of
#ondu#t that - reason of its nature, is of a @#ommer#ial #hara#ter.@
The restri#tive theor-, *hi#h is intended to e a solution to the host of prolems
involvin! the issue of soverei!n immunit-, has #reated prolems of its o*n. 4e!al
treatises and the de#isions in #ountries *hi#h follo* the restri#tive theor- have
diffi#ult- in #hara#teriFin! *hether a #ontra#t of a soverei!n state *ith a private
part- is an a#t "ure gestionis or an a#t "ure i!perii.
The restri#tive theor- #ame aout e#ause of the entr- of soverei!n states into
purel- #ommer#ial a#tivities remotel- #onne#ted *ith the dis#har!e of
!overnmental fun#tions. This is parti#ularl- true *ith respe#t to the Communist
states *hi#h too% #ontrol of nationaliFed usiness a#tivities and international
tradin!.
This Court has #onsidered the follo*in! transa#tions - a forei!n state *ith
private parties as a#ts "ure i!perii; 317 the lease - a forei!n !overnment of
apartment uildin!s for use of its militar- offi#ers 3S-2uia v. 4opeF, (6 +hil. )12
A1969B< 327 the #ondu#t of puli# iddin! for the repair of a *harf at a Enited
States &aval Station 3Enited States of 5meri#a v. RuiF, supra.7< and 3)7 the
#han!e of emplo-ment status of ase emplo-ees 3Sanders v. /eridiano, 162
SCR5 (( A19((B7.
On the other hand, this Court has #onsidered the follo*in! transa#tions - a
forei!n state *ith private parties as a#ts "ure gestionis; 317 the hirin! of a #oo% in
the re#reation #enter, #onsistin! of three restaurants, a #afeteria, a a%er-, a
store, and a #offee and pastr- shop at the John ,a- 5ir Station in "a!uio Cit-, to
#ater to 5meri#an servi#emen and the !eneral puli# 3Enited States of 5meri#a v.
Rodri!o, 1(2 SCR5 666 A1990B7< and 327 the iddin! for the operation of arer
shops in Clar% 5ir "ase in 5n!eles Cit- 3Enited States of 5meri#a v. Guinto, 1(2
SCR5 666 A1990B7. The operation of the restaurants and other fa#ilities open to
the !eneral puli# is undoutedl- for profit as a #ommer#ial and not a
!overnmental a#tivit-. "- enterin! into the emplo-ment #ontra#t *ith the #oo% in
the dis#har!e of its proprietar- fun#tion, the Enited States !overnment impliedl-
divested itself of its soverei!n immunit- from suit.
0n the asen#e of le!islation definin! *hat a#tivities and transa#tions shall e
#onsidered @#ommer#ial@ and as #onstitutin! a#ts "ure gestionis, *e have to
#ome out *ith our o*n !uidelines, tentative the- ma- e.
Certainl-, the mere enterin! into a #ontra#t - a forei!n state *ith a private part-
#annot e the ultimate test. Su#h an a#t #an onl- e the start of the in2uir-. The
lo!i#al 2uestion is *hether the forei!n state is en!a!ed in the a#tivit- in the
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
re!ular #ourse of usiness. 0f the forei!n state is not en!a!ed re!ularl- in a
usiness or trade, the parti#ular a#t or transa#tion must then e tested - its
nature. 0f the a#t is in pursuit of a soverei!n a#tivit-, or an in#ident thereof, then it
is an a#t "ure i!perii, espe#iall- *hen it is not underta%en for !ain or profit.
5s held in *nited States of &!erica v. +uinto, 3supra7;
There is no 2uestion that the Enited States of 5meri#a, li%e an- other state, *ill
e deemed to have impliedl- *aived its non'suailit- if it has entered into a
#ontra#t in its proprietar- or private #apa#it-. 0t is onl- *hen the #ontra#t involves
its soverei!n or !overnmental #apa#it- that no su#h *aiver ma- e implied.
0n the #ase at en#h, if petitioner has ou!ht and sold lands in the ordinar-
#ourse of a real estate usiness, surel- the said transa#tion #an e #ate!oriFed
as an a#t "ure gestionis. ,o*ever, petitioner has denied that the a#2uisition and
suse2uent disposal of 4ot 5'5 *ere made for profit ut #laimed that it a#2uired
said propert- for the site of its mission or the 5postoli# &un#iature in the
+hilippines. +rivate respondent failed to dispute said #laim.
4ot 5'5 *as a#2uired - petitioner as a donation from the 5r#hdio#ese of $anila.
The donation *as made not for #ommer#ial purpose, ut for the use of petitioner
to #onstru#t thereon the offi#ial pla#e of residen#e of the +apal &un#io. The ri!ht
of a forei!n soverei!n to a#2uire propert-, real or personal, in a re#eivin! state,
ne#essar- for the #reation and maintenan#e of its diplomati# mission, is
re#o!niFed in the 1961 /ienna Convention on 9iplomati# Relations 35rts. 20'227.
This treat- *as #on#urred in - the +hilippine Senate and entered into for#e in
the +hilippines on &ovemer 15, 1965.
0n 5rti#le )13a7 of the Convention, a diplomati# envo- is !ranted immunit- from
the #ivil and administrative >urisdi#tion of the re#eivin! state over an- real a#tion
relatin! to private immovale propert- situated in the territor- of the re#eivin!
state *hi#h the envo- holds on ehalf of the sendin! state for the purposes of the
mission. 0f this immunit- is provided for a diplomati# envo-, *ith all the more
reason should immunit- e re#o!niFed as re!ards the soverei!n itself, *hi#h in
this #ase is the ,ol- See.
The de#ision to transfer the propert- and the suse2uent disposal thereof are
li%e*ise #lothed *ith a !overnmental #hara#ter. +etitioner did not sell 4ot
5'5 for profit or !ain. 0t merel- *anted to dispose off the same e#ause the
s2uatters livin! thereon made it almost impossile for petitioner to use it for the
purpose of the donation. The fa#t that s2uatters have o##upied and are still
o##up-in! the lot, and that the- stuornl- refuse to leave the premises, has
een admitted - private respondent in its #omplaint 3Rollo, pp. 26, 2:7.
The issue of petitioner=s non'suailit- #an e determined - the trial #ourt *ithout
!oin! to trial in the li!ht of the pleadin!s, parti#ularl- the admission of private
respondent. "esides, the privile!e of soverei!n immunit- in this #ase *as
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
suffi#ientl- estalished - the $emorandum and Certifi#ation of the 9epartment
of Corei!n 5ffairs. 5s the department tas%ed *ith the #ondu#t of the +hilippines=
forei!n relations 35dministrative Code of 19(:, "oo% 0/, Title 0, Se#. )7, the
9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs has formall- intervened in this #ase and offi#iall-
#ertified that the 1mass- of the ,ol- See is a dul- a##redited diplomati# mission
to the Repuli# of the +hilippines e.empt from lo#al >urisdi#tion and entitled to all
the ri!hts, privile!es and immunities of a diplomati# mission or emass- in this
#ountr- 3Rollo, pp. 156'15:7. The determination of the e.e#utive arm of
!overnment that a state or instrumentalit- is entitled to soverei!n or diplomati#
immunit- is a politi#al 2uestion that is #on#lusive upon the #ourts 30nternational
Catholi# $i!ration Commission v. Calle>a, 190 SCR5 1)0 A1990B7. Ihere the
plea of immunit- is re#o!niFed and affirmed - the e.e#utive ran#h, it is the
dut- of the #ourts to a##ept this #laim so as not to emarrass the e.e#utive arm
of the !overnment in #ondu#tin! the #ountr-=s forei!n relations 3Iorld ,ealth
Or!aniFation v. 52uino, 6( SCR5 262 A19:2B7. 5s in International Catolic
Migration Co!!ission and in #orld $ealt Organi%ation, *e aide - the
#ertifi#ation of the 9epartment of Corei!n 5ffairs.
Ordinaril-, the pro#edure *ould e to remand the #ase and order the trial #ourt to
#ondu#t a hearin! to estalish the fa#ts alle!ed - petitioner in its motion. 0n vie*
of said #ertifi#ation, su#h pro#edure *ould ho*ever e pointless and undul-
#ir#uitous 3Orti!as L Co. 4td. +artnership v. Jud!e Tirso /elas#o, G.R. &o.
109665, Jul- 25, 19967.
0/
+rivate respondent is not left *ithout an- le!al remed- for the redress of its
!rievan#es. Ender oth +uli# 0nternational 4a* and Transnational 4a*, a person
*ho feels a!!rieved - the a#ts of a forei!n soverei!n #an as% his o*n
!overnment to espouse his #ause throu!h diplomati# #hannels.
+rivate respondent #an as% the +hilippine !overnment, throu!h the Corei!n
Offi#e, to espouse its #laims a!ainst the ,ol- See. 0ts first tas% is to persuade the
+hilippine !overnment to ta%e up *ith the ,ol- See the validit- of its #laims. Of
#ourse, the Corei!n Offi#e shall first ma%e a determination of the impa#t of its
espousal on the relations et*een the +hilippine !overnment and the ,ol- See
3Houn!, Re!edies of Private Clai!ants &gainst ,oreign States, Sele#ted
Readin!s on +rote#tion - 4a* of +rivate Corei!n 0nvestments 905, 919 A1966B7.
On#e the +hilippine !overnment de#ides to espouse the #laim, the latter #eases
to e a private #ause.
5##ordin! to the +ermanent Court of 0nternational Justi#e, the forerunner of the
0nternational Court of Justi#e;
"- ta%in! up the #ase of one of its su>e#ts and - reportin! to diplomati# a#tion
or international >udi#ial pro#eedin!s on his ehalf, a State is in realit- assertin! its
o*n ri!hts ? its ri!ht to ensure, in the person of its su>e#ts, respe#t for the rules
Introduction to Law and the Legal Profession
of international la* 3The $avrommatis +alestine Con#essions, 1 ,udson, Iorld
Court Reports 29), )02 A1926B7.
I,1R1COR1, the petition for certiorari is GR5&T19 and the #omplaint in Civil
Case &o. 90'1() a!ainst petitioner is 90S$0SS19.
SO OR91R19.
-arvasa, C..., (idin, Regalado, /avide, .r., Ro!ero, (ellosillo, Melo, Puno,
0itug, 1apunan and Mendo%a, ..., concur.
Padilla, .., took no part.
,eliciano, .., is on leave.
The Lawphil Pro%ect 3 Arellano Law #oundation