You are on page 1of 3

SHIGENORI KURODA vs.

Major General RAFAEL and customs of war, of humanity and civilization, are held
JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, accountable therefor.
Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO
BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major EO 68 is the adaptation of PH on such generally accepted
principle. Also, it is the exercise of the President of his
FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE HUSSEY and ROBERT
power as Commander in Chief of AFP, as upheld in
PORT Yamashita vs. Styer:
[G.R. No. L-2662. March 26, 1949.]
'’An important incident to a conduct of war is the adoption of measures by
FACTS: Kuroda, former Lieutenant-General of the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to
seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their
Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of
Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines (PH) in war…. Also, a military commission has jurisdiction so long as a technical
1943 and 14, was charged before Military state of war continues. This includes the period of an armistice, or military
occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of peace, and may extend
Commission (convened by Chief of Staff of AFP) with beyond, by treaty agreement.'’
having unlawfully disregarded and failed “to
discharge his duties as such commander to control 2. Military Commission has jurisdiction over Kuroda
the operations of his command, permitting them to even acts committed is in violation of
commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes conventions, which the PH is not a signatory.
against noncombatant civilians and prisoners, in
violation of laws and customs of war”. Thereafter, he It cannot be denied that the rules and regulations of the
went to court to establish the illegality of EO 68; to Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
enjoin and prohibit Hussey and Port from based on the generally accepted principles of international
participating the prosecution and; to permanently law. In fact, these principles were accepted by the two
belligerent nations, the United States and Japan, who were
prohibit respondents in proceeding the case.
signatories to the two Conventions. Such principles,
therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the
His arguments were the following: Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
1. EO 68 is illegal since it is not provided in the embodying them, for our Constitution has been deliberately
constitution. Also, since PH is not a signatory general and extensive in its scope and is not conned to the
of the Hague Convention on the Rules and recognition of rules and principles of international law as
Regulations Covering Land Warfare, contained in treaties to which our government may have
respondents cannot impose against him any been or shall be a signatory.
criminal charges because it has no laws to
base on, national or international. Also, when acts were committed, the PH was under US,
and thus we were equally bound together with US and
2. Participation of Port and Hussey, who are not
Japan to the rights contained in the treaties between them.
attorneys of SC practicing law in PH, is a These rights and obligations were not erased by our
diminution of our personality as independent assumption of full sovereignty. If at all, our emergence as a
state; their prosecutor’s appointments were free state entitles us to enforce the right, on our own, of
also violation of the constitution and USA not trying and punishing those who committed crimes against
being a party to the case, they have no our people. (Laurel vs. Misa)
personality to be one.
_____________________________________________ 3. Hussey and Port’s representation as prosecutors
_ were valid.

EO 68 established the National War Crimes Office Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed
and prescribed rules governing the trial of by a special law, EO 68 and not by the Rules of Court.
accused war criminals. It was issued on July 29, There’s nothing in EO 68 which requires that counsel must
1947. be qualified to practice law in PH. In fact, it is common in
military tribunals that counsel for the parties are usually
military personnel who are neither attorney nor even
HELD: possessed of legal training. Also, it is only fair and proper
that US, who has submitted the vindication of crimes
1. EO 68 is valid and constitutional. against her government and her people to a tribunal of our
nation, should be allowed representation in the trial of
Article 2, Section 3 of our Constitution provides that “the those very crimes. Further, it is of common knowledge that
PH renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and the United States and its people have been equally, if not
adopts the generally accepted principles of international more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which
law as part of the law of the nation (law of the land).” petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission.
Hence, It can be considered a privilege for our Republic
In accordance with the generally accepted principles of that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the
international law (including Hague Convention, Geneva honor of its citizens and its government to a military
Convention, etc), all those persons, military and civilian, tribunal of our country.
who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a HAW PIA vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
war of aggression and of the commission of crimes [G.R. No. L-554. April 9, 1948.]
consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of laws
FACTS: Haw Pia sued China Bank to compel the belligerents in their effort to control enemy property within
latter to execute a deed of cancellation of mortgage their jurisdiction or in territories occupied by their armed
on a property and to deliver the TCT to her with the forces in order to avoid their use in aid of the enemy and
mortgage annotation already cancelled. According to to increase their own resources, after the Hague
Convention and specially during the World War I, had to
Haw Pia, indebtedness amounting to P5,103.35
resort to such measures of prevention which do not
(overdraft) with interest has been completely paid, amount to a straight confiscation, as freezing, blocking,
on different dates from 10/7/1942 to 8/29/1944 placing under custody and sequestrating the enemy
through Bank of Taiwan, that was appointed by the private property. And such measures were not recognized
Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of the as violation of Hague Regulations and was authorized in
China Bank. the Army and Navy Manual of Military Government and
Civil Affairs not only of the United States, but other
Upon serving of summon to China Bank, the latter civilized states, as well as in the Trading with the Enemy
demanded Haw Pia to pay the amount within 90 Acts of said countries.
days from and after EO 32 on moratorium, s. 1945 A belligerent may fairly endeavor to prevent enemy property of any kind
has been repealed with 9% interest. within its territory (or elsewhere within its reach) from being so employed
as to afford direct military aid to its foe. Measures of prevention may, in
a particular case, assume a confiscatory aspect. In such a situation the
CFI: No evidence was shown proving that China Bank question may arise whether those measures are, nevertheless,
had authorized Bank of Taiwan to accept payment excusable. It is believed that they may be, and that they are not
from Haw Pia. Bank of Taiwan, as an agency of the invariably unlawful despite the absence of efforts to compensate the
owners. (Hyde)
Japanese invading army, was not authorized under
the international law to liquidate China Bank, the "Private personal property which does not consist of war materials or
payment has not extinguished the indebtedness means of transport serviceable for military operations may not be as a
rule seized". It is obvious that the word "seized" used therein signifies
under Article 1162 of the Civil Code. CFI absolved "confiscated" in view of the above quoted paragraphs, and therefore
China Bank and ordered Haw Pia to pay the said when Oppenheim says, in the footnote to said passage, "Nor may the
occupant liquidate the business of enemy subject in occupied
debt. territories," he means "confiscate" by the word "liquidate" (Oppenheim)

Haw Pia appealed. "According to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, private property must
be respected and cannot be confiscated. This rule affords protection
against the loss of property, through outright confiscation, but not
ISSUE: against losses under lawful requisition, contribution, seizure, fines,
1. W/N the Japanese Military Administration had taxes, and expropriation". Also, a complete nationalization of a
corporation for the benefit of the occupant could not be anything but a
authority to order liquidation of China Bank and permanent measure involving final effects beyond the duration of the
to appoint Bank of Taiwan as liquidator. occupation. There is no military need for it because the same practical
results can be achieved by temporary sequestration (Feildchenfeld)
2. W/N the payment made had extinguished the
obligation of Haw Pia to China Bank. The sequestration or liquidation of enemy banks in
occupied territories do not amount to an outright
HELD: confiscation of private property. The provisions of the
1. YES. Japanese Military Administration has Trading with the Enemy Acts confirms that the assets of
authority, under international law. enemy corporations, specially banks incorporated under
the laws of the country at war with the occupant and doing
Such liquidation is not a confiscation of properties of business in the occupied territory, may be legally
China Bank but a mere sequestration of its assets sequestrated, and the business thereof wound up or
which required the said liquidation in order to liquidated. Such sequestration or seizure of properties is
not an act for the confiscation of enemy property, but for
determine its liabilities or net assets to be controlled.
the conservation of it, subject to further disposition by
Hence, it is not contrary to Art. 46, Sec. 3 of Hague treaty between the belligerents at the end of the war.
Regulations of 1907, which prohibited confiscation
of private property during war. In this case, China Bank comes within the meaning of
enemy* as used in the Trading with Enemy Acts , because
Before the Hague Convention, it was the usage or practice not only it was controlled by Japan's enemies, but it was,
to allow or permit the confiscation or appropriation by the besides, incorporated under the laws of a country with
belligerent occupant not only of public but also of private which Japan was at war.
property of the enemy in a territory occupied by the
belligerent hostile army; and as such usage or practice ** "Enemy" - "any body of persons (whether corporate or incorporate)
was allowed, a fortiori, any other act short of confiscation carrying on business in any place, if and so long as the body is controlled
by a person who, under this section, is an enemy." Section 2 (1) of Trading
was necessarily permitted. Section III of the Hague with Enemy Act of Great Britain.
Regulations only prohibits the confiscation of private
property by order of the military authorities (article 46), Hence, it is to be presumed that Japan, in sequestrating
and pillage or stealing and thievery thereof by individuals and liquidating the China Bank must have acted in
(article 47); and as regards public property, article 53 accordance, either with her own Manual of the Army and
provides that cash funds, and property liable to requisition Navy and Civil Affairs, or with her Trading with the Enemy
and all other movable property belonging to the State Act, and even if not, it being permitted to the Allied
susceptible of military use or operation, may be Nations, specially the United States and England, to
confiscated or taken possession of as a booty and utilized sequestrate, impound, and block enemy properties found
for the benefit of the invader's government. The within their own domain or in enemy territories occupied
during the war by their armed forces, and it being not
contrary to the Hague Regulations or international law,
Japan had also the right to do the same in the Philippines
by virtue of the international law principle that "what is
permitted to one belligerent is also allowed to the other.

Also, taking into consideration the acts of the Japanese


Military Administration in treating the private properties of
the so-called enemy banks, it appears evident that Japan
did not intend to confiscate or appropriate the assets. It is
true that, as to private personal properties of the enemy,
freezing, blocking or impounding thereof is sufficient for
the purpose of preventing their being used in aid of the
enemy; but with regard to the funds of commercial banks
like the so-called enemy banks, it was impossible or
impracticable to attain the purpose for which the freezing,
blocking and impounding are intended, without liquidating
the said banks and collecting the loans. s. Without doing
so, their assets or money loaned to so many persons
cannot properly be impounded or blocked, in order to
prevent their being used in aid to the enemy through the
intervention of their very debtors, and successfully wage
economic as well as military war.

Moreover, it is obvious that the fact that Japanese Military


authorities failed to pay the enemy banks the balance of
the money collected by the Bank of Taiwan from the
debtors of said banks, did not and could not change the
sequestration or impounding by them of the bank's assets
during the war because they were forcibly driven out of PH.

2. Since Bank of Taiwan was validly authorized to


be China Bank’s liquidator during Japanese
Occupation, payments by the debtors have
validly extinguished their obligation to China
Bank.

Said payments were made to a person, the Bank of


Taiwan, authorized to receive them in the name of the
bank creditor under article 1162, of the Civil Code.
Because it is evident the words "a person authorized to
receive it," as used therein, means not only a person
authorized by the same creditor, but also a person
authorized by law to do so, such as guardian, executor or
administrator of estate of a deceased, and assignee or
liquidator of a partnership or corporation, as well as any
other who may be authorized to do so by law.

The fact that the money with which the debts have been
paid were Japanese war notes does not affect the validity
of the payments as supported by Article 1170 of Civil
Code, which provides “payment of debts of money must
be made in the specie stipulated and if it is not possible to
deliver such specie in silver or gold coins which is a legal
tender".
In view of all the foregoing, the judgment appealed
from is reversed, and the defendant-appellee is
sentenced to execute the deed of cancellation of
mortgage of the property described in the complaint,
and to deliver to the plaintiff-appellant the Transfer
Certicate of Title No. 47634 of the Register of Deeds
in Manila with the annotation of mortgage therein
already cancelled, without pronouncement as to
costs. So ordered.