CHAPTER III.

DE FACTO AND REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENTS

1.

Definitions
a. De jure
b. De facto

2.

Types of de facto governments

a. De facto government in pure legal sense
i. Examples
b. De facto government of paramount force
c. De facto government established by a secessionist
movement
CASE: Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5,
September 17, 1945

3.

5.

Validity of obligations incurred by de facto government

GR: sovereignty is absolute and supreme within its

territorial domain
i. EXC: consent to restriction of sovereignty
a. Express
b. Implied

b.

Waiver of criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses within

territory
CASES:
1. People v. Gozo, G.R. No. L-36409
October 26, 1973
2. Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379,
December 27, 1969
3. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

Restrictions on sovereign rights by treaty stipulation

a.

CASES: 1. Great Britain-Costa Rica Arbitral Tribunal

(Tinoco Arbitration case), 18 October, 1923.
(TAFT, Sole Arbitrator.)
2. George W. Hopkins (USA) v. United Mexican
States, 31 March 1926 (cited by Agpalo as U.S. v.
Mexico)
4.

a.

b.

Acts of belligerent state as acts of war

CASES: 1. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897)
2. Ford v. Surget, 97 U.S. 594 (1878)

5.

Civil actions pending commenced during de facto

government may continue after the liberation
CASE:

6.

Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, supra

Political acts of de facto governments or belligerents

a. Effect after the de facto government ends
b. Acts that are not of political or military complexion:
remains valid

6.

Waiver of jurisdiction by adherence to conventions

a. GR: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is defined by the
Constitution and the laws
i. EXC: concession of jurisdiction by treaty
CASE: Santos v. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No.
101538, June 23, 1992

7.

Duty of state to protect its citizen

CASES: 1. Dames & Moore v. Reagan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981)
2. Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican
Nationals (Mexico v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, March
31, 2004 Aftermath: read Medellin v. Texas,
552 U.S. 491 (2008)
3. Holy See v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 101949
December 1, 1994

8.

Extra-Judicial Application of Laws in Respect to Citizens

a. Citizenship link that binds a citizen to his country
CASES:
1. Blackmer v. U.S., 284 U.S. 421 (1932)
2. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co.,
499 U.S. 244 (1991)

CASE: Alcantara v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-6,

November 29, 1945
7.

Revolution
a. Definition
b. Effect
CASES: Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768,
July 21, 2003
In re: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S.
PUNO, A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, June 29, 1992.

8.

Judicial decisions of courts of a de facto government

CASES: 1. Etorma v. Ravelo, G.R. No. L-718, March 24,
1947
2. Notor v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-1892, August 16,
1949
3. Montebon v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L1352, April 30, 1947
4. Haw Pia v. China Banking Corporation, G.R.
No. L-554, April 9, 1948

b.
9.

Recognition is a political act

CASE: Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918)

10. Non-recognition: does not render a de facto government

not de facto anymore
a. Distinction: recognition vs. existence of de facto
government
b. Denunciation of rightful government of a de facto
government as a puppet government
CASE: Etorma v. Ravelo, supra
Chapter IV. SOVEREIGNTY
1.

Sovereignty
a. Definition
b. Aspects
i. Internal
ii. External
c. Vested in the rightful government

2.

Attributes of a sovereign state

3.

Change of ruler/government
a. Instances of change of ruler/government
b. Effects of change of ruler/government
c. What may be suspended: EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT
OF SOVEREIGNTY, not sovereignty itself
CASE: Laurel v. Misa (theory of suspended
allegiance), G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947

4.

Restrictions on sovereignty in general

Example No. 1: The World Trade Organization (WTO)

CASE: Taada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2,
1997
Example No. 2: Extradition Treaties
i. Extradition defined
ii. Entering into an extradition treaty is a derogation of
sovereignty; no right of extradition arises apart from
a treaty
iii. Paramount principle in law of extradition: A state
may not surrender any individual for any offense not
included in the extradition treaty s
iv. Ground
v. Obligation to extradite of the requested state: only
arises after determination of the validity of the
requesting states demand
CASE: 1. Govt of U.S. v. Purganan, G.R. No.
148571, September 24, 2002
2. Govt of Hong-Kong v. Olalia, G.R.
No. 153675, April 19, 2007

GR: STATUTORY TERRITORIALITY: Laws only apply in

the territory of the state
i.
EXC: contrary intent clearly appears
i.
Philippine laws that apply to citizens abroad
1. Constitutional provisions
2. Civil Code provisions
3. Tax laws of the Phils.
4. The Corporation Code
5. GR: If Phil. Law is silent, Phil. Courts are
not at liberty to extend the force and effect
of foreign law to our jurisdiction; EXC:
Congress, by law, gives consent to the
extension of a specific foreign law to the
Phils.
CASE: Brownell v. Bautista, G.R. No. L6801, September 28, 1954

9.

Problems of dual citizenship

a. Dual citizenship defined
b. RA 9225

10. Sovereignty over a leased portion of the country

U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 (1949)
11. Exceptions to territorial application of law by consent
Brownell v. Bautista, supra
12. Other forms of implied waiver
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)