TOPIC CAPTION BRIEF FACTS ISSUE/RULING Legal Basis Application to the Case

The Holy see acquired Lot 5-A as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal

Nuncio.The squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. The Holy see initially sold the land to Licup(assigned the

Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for
A. As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal
sale to starbright) who sold an earnest money amounting to 100,000. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without Nuncio. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on
part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the
THE HOLY SEE , who of the arties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to WON THE HOLY SEE MAY the society of nations . Philippines on November 15, 1965.
petitioner, vs. THE INVOKE SOVEREIGN There are two coflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental
HON. ERIBERTO U. IMMUNITY FROM SUIT firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because the
ROSARIO, JR., AS A BASIS IN cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. The fact that
Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana) without giving prior notice to the previous buyer.On January 23, 1990, private respondent led a complaint DISMISSING THE CASE sovereign.
Suits vs as Presiding Judge of squatters have occupied and are still occupying the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the premises, has been
Foreign the Regional Trial FILED AGAINST THEM. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is admitted by private respondent in its complaint.
States Court of Makati, YES, THE HOLY SEE MAY recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not Besides, the privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the Memorandum and
Branch 61 iwith the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land, and spec ic performance and damages against petitioner, INVOKE SOVEREIGN with Certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines' foreign
and STARBRIGHT IMMUNITY FROM SUIT regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis relations (Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title I, Sec. 3), the Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened
SALES ENTERPRISES, AS A BASIS IN B. In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to oin this case and ocially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic
INC., respondents. DISMISSING THE CASE plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic
represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants: namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana (Civil Case No. 90-183).On June 8, 1990, petitioner FILED AGAINST THEM. Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said mission or embassy in this country
defendant is entitled to immunity. In the Philippines, the practice is for the The determination of the executive arm of government that a state or instrumentality is entitled to s1overeign or
foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts
and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to dismiss the complaint — petitioner for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the aWhere the plea of immunity is recognized and armed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this
Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations

improper party. An opposition to the motion was filed by private respondent. On June 20, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying, among others, petitioner's motion to

dismiss after finding that petitioner "shed off [its] sovereign immunity by entering into the business contract in question"

Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the
following projects:
1. Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay,
Philippines.
2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon
damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf
approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids.
Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams
requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company.
The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that
the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal WON THE USA AND THE >The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the
UNITED STATES OF confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States' bidding MEMBERS OF THE courts of another State without its consent or waiver.
AMERICA, CAPT. practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation has not been tested because the ENGINEERING >This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and
JAMES E, case has not reached the trial stage.] COMMAND OF THE US equality of States.
GALLOWAY, WILLIAM In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by William I. NAVY MAY INVOKE >However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly
I. COLLINS and Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it
ROBERT Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners FROM SUIT AS A BASIS IN has been necessary to distinguish them—between sovereign andgovernmental
Suits vs GOHIER, petitioners, herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the DISMISSING THE CASE acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United
Foreign vs. HON. V.M. RUIZ, projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract FILED AGAINST THEM. >The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor
States Presiding for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter YES, THE USA AND THE restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
Judge of Branch XV, further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties.The company sued the United MEMBERS OF THE United Kingdom and other states in western Europe.
Court of First States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier ENGINEERING >The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
Instance of Rizal and all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order COMMAND OF THE US proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
ELIGIO DE GUZMAN the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the NAVY MAY INVOKE commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated
& CO., INC., event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of
respondents. No. L- damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction FROM SUIT AS A BASIS IN an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
35645. May 22, 1985 to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on DISMISSING THE CASE consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts, It does not apply
the projects. FILED AGAINST THEM. where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
TOPIC CAPTION BRIEF FACTS ISSUE/RULING Legal Basis Application to the Case
The Holy see acquired Lot 5-A as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila for the use of
petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.The squatters
living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation.
The Holy see initially sold the land to Licup(assigned the sale to starbright) who sold an earnest Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for
A. As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal
money amounting to 100,000. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without
this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as Nuncio. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
private respondent, a dispute arose as who of the arties has the responsibility of evicting and part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on
WON THE HOLY SEE MAY the society of nations . Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the
THE HOLY SEE , clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner INVOKE SOVEREIGN There are two coflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and Philippines on November 15, 1965.
petitioner, vs. THE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental
HON. ERIBERTO U. of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana) without giving prior AS character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because the
ROSARIO, JR., A BASIS IN cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. The fact that
Suits vs as Presiding Judge of DISMISSING THE CASE sovereign. squatters have occupied and are still occupying the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the premises, has been
notice to the previous buyer.On January 23, 1990, private respondent led a complaint with the FILED AGAINST THEM. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is
Foreign the Regional Trial admitted by private respondent in its complaint.
States Court of Makati, Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the three YES, THE HOLY SEE MAY recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not Besides, the privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the Memorandum and
Branch 61 INVOKE SOVEREIGN with Certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines' foreign
and STARBRIGHT iparcels of land, and specic performance and damages against petitioner, represented by the Papal IMMUNITY FROM SUIT regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis
relations (Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title I, Sec. 3), the Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened
AS A BASIS IN B. In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to
SALES ENTERPRISES, in this case and ocially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic
o
INC., respondents. Nuncio, and three other defendants: namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana DISMISSING THE CASE plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the
of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic
FILED AGAINST THEM. Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said
defendant is entitled to immunity. In the Philippines, the practice is for the mission or embassy in this country
(Civil Case No. 90-183).On June 8, 1990, petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to dismiss The determination of the executive arm of government that a state or instrumentality is entitled to s1overeign or
foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive
the complaint — petitioner for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit, and diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts
endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Where the plea of immunity is recognized and armed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this
a
Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations
Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. An opposition to the motion was filed by private
respondent. On June 20, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying, among others, petitioner's
motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner "shed off [its] sovereign immunity by entering into
the business contract in question"

Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the
following projects:
1. Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay,
Philippines.
2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon
damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf
approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation
and submitted bids.
Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams
requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. WON THE USA AND THE >The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the
UNITED STATES OF The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that MEMBERS OF THE courts of another State without its consent or waiver.
AMERICA, CAPT. the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal ENGINEERING >This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and
JAMES E, confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States' bidding COMMAND OF THE US equality of States.
GALLOWAY, WILLIAM practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation has not been tested because the NAVY MAY INVOKE >However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly
I. COLLINS and case has not reached the trial stage.] SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it
ROBERT In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by William I. FROM SUIT AS A BASIS IN has been necessary to distinguish them—between sovereign andgovernmental
GOHIER, petitioners, Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest DISMISSING THE CASE acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United
Suits vs Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners
Foreign vs. HON. V.M. RUIZ, FILED AGAINST THEM. >The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii. The States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor
Presiding herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the YES, THE USA AND THE restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
States projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract
Judge of Branch XV, MEMBERS OF THE United Kingdom and other states in western Europe.
Court of First for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter ENGINEERING >The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
Instance of Rizal and further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties.The company sued the United COMMAND OF THE US proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
ELIGIO DE GUZMAN States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier NAVY MAY INVOKE commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated
& CO., INC., all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of
respondents. No. L- the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the FROM SUIT AS A BASIS IN an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
35645. May 22, 1985 event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay DISMISSING THE CASE consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts, It does not apply
damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction FILED AGAINST THEM. where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on
the projects.