Government of the Philippine Islands vs Monte de Piedad

G.R. No. 9959

35 PH 728, 751-753
December 13, 1916

Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by Executive Treasurer

Respondent: El Monte de Piedad Y Caja de Ajorras de Manila

FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place. The Spanish dominions provided
$400,000 aid as received by the National Treasury as relief of the victims of the earthquake. The government used
the money as such but $80,000 was left untouched and was thus invested to Monte de Piedad bank, which was in
turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same amount.

In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the $80,000 deposited from before.
The Monte de Piedad declined to comply with this order on the ground that the Governor-General of the Philippine
Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the Philippine
government is not the affected party. On account of various petitions of the persons, the Philippine Islands brought a
suit against Monte de Piedad for a recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons
and their heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to file a reimbursement of the money of the people
deposited in respondent bank.

HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint/reimbursement against
respondent bank in accordance to the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government is the sole protector of the rights
of the people thus, it holds an inherent supreme power to enforce laws which promote public interest. The
government has the right to "take back" the money intended fro people. The government has the right to enforce all
charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other
person is entrusted with it.

Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court ordered that respondent bank
return the amount to the rightful heirs with interest in gold or coin in Philippine peso.

http://reeseisreal.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-of-philippines-vs-monte-de.html
LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO
(G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986)
------------------------
(There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.)

Minute Resolutions

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986]

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES AND/OR OLIVER A. LOZANO VS. PRESIDENT
CORAZON C. AQUINO, ET AL.SIRS/MESDAMES:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986.
In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al.; G.R. No.
73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al., and G.R. No. 73990,
Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquino is
questioned. It is claimed that her government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973
Constitution.
As early as April 10, 1986, this Court* had already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons to be stated below.
On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and 73972 withdrew the petitions
and manifested that they would pursue the question by extra-judicial methods. The withdrawal is functus oficio. The
three petitions obviously are not impressed with merit. Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state
no cause of action. For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of
politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have
accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it
is not merely a de factogovernment but is in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations
has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have
sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.
In view of the foregoing, the petitions are hereby dismissed.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) GLORIA C. PARAS
Clerk of Court
* The Court was then composed of Teehankee, C.J. and Abad Santos., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez,
Jr., Cuevas, Alampay and Patajo, JJ.------------------------------------------
DIGEST
FACTS:
On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President
Laurel were taking power.On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino
government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the
power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.
HELD:
Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where
only the people are the judge.

 The Court further held that:

 The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country;
 It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government; and
 The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.
http://ulandi-digest.blogspot.com/2012/06/lawyers-league-for-better-philippines.html
Co Kim Chan V. Valdez Tan Keh 75 Phil 113 Nov. 16, 1945

Facts: During the Japanese Occupation, Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case with the Court of First Instance of
Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue
hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified
all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines. He contends that without an enabling law,
the lower courts have no jurisdiction pending in the courts of the former Republic of the Philippines which is the
Philippine government under the Japanese occupation.

Issue: Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and
remained valid even after the American occupation.

Held:

Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceeding of a de facto government are good and valid.
The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese occupation may be
considered de facto governments, supported by the military force and deriving their authority from the laws of war.

Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless suspended or changed by the conqueror.
Civil obedience is expected even during war, for “the existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the
bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. And if they were not
valid, then it would not have been necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation abrogating them.
G.R. No. L-6 November 29, 1945

ANICETO ALCANTARA, petitioner,

vs.
DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

FERIA, J.:

Facts: This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the ground
that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director of Prison in the
provincial jail at Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

Petitioner Aniceto Alcantara was convicted of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical
injuries. The Court of Appeals modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty from arresto mayor to prison
coreccional. Petitioner now questions the validity of the decision on the sole ground that said court was only a
creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation, thus, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the judgment of CA is good and valid.

Held: Judgments of such court were good and valid and remain good and valid for the sentence which petitioner is
now serving has no political complexion. A penal sentence is said to be of a political complexion when it penalizes a
new act not defined in the municipal laws, or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime against legitimate
government but taken out of territorial law and penalized as new offenses committed against the belligerent
occupant which is necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier.
Such is the case at hand, the petition of writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Ruffy V. Chief Of Staff 75 Phil 875 August 20, 1946

Facts. During the outbreak of the war against Japanese invaders, petitioner herein, Ramon Ruffy, Prudente Francisco
and Andres Fortus were the Provincial Commander, junior officer and corporal of the Philippine Constabulary
garrison stationed in Mindanao, respectively. The Japanese forces came to Mindoro which made Ruffy’s troop
retreat to the mountains and organized a guerilla outfit called Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. Civilians Jose
Garcia, Dominador Adeva and Victoriano Dinglasan also became members of the Bolo Area. Petitioners were then
promoted. Ruffy was named the Commanding Officer of the Bolo Area, Dinglasan became the Finance Officer,
Garcia was named Captain while Adeva and Francisco were named 3 rd Lt. and 2nd Lt., respectively. Change in
command of the Bolo area was effected relieving Ruffy of his position by Capt. Beloncio. Capt. Beloncio was
allegedly slain by the petitioners.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners were subject to military law at the time the offense for which had been placed on
trial was committed.

Held: Yes. The petitioners were still subject to military law at the time the offense was committed. The Court ruled
that members of the Armed Forces were still covered by the National Defense Act, Articles of War and other laws
relating to the Armed Forces even during the Japanese occupation. The ac of unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman, in defiance of the 95th Article of War, held subjects liable to military jurisdiction and trial. Moreover,
petitioners were officers of the Bolo Area and the 6 th military district, operating under orders of duly established and
duly appointed commanders of the US Army. Aside from that, and in response to petitioners’ argument that courts-
martial have no jurisdiction over the case, the Court ruled that courts-martial do have authority, being agencies of
executive character. Petition is denied.
People of the Philippine Islands V. Gregorio Perfecto 43 Phil 887 G.R. No. L-18463 Oct. 4, 1922

Facts: On September 7, 1920, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto published an article in the newspaper La Nacionregarding the
disappearance of certain documents in the Office of Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate.
The article of Mr. Perfecto suggested that the difficulty in finding the perpetrators was due to an official
concealment by the Senate since the missing documents constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in
the investigation of oil companies. This resulted to a case being filed against Mr. Perfecto for violation of Article
256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court and again in the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Mr. Perfecto filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that Article 256 was not
in force anymore.

Issue:

Will a law be abrogated by the change of Spanish to American Sovereignty over the Philippines?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to
protect Spanish officials who were representative of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new government,
and a new theory of government, was set up in the Philippines. It was no sense a continuation of the old laws. No
longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak
of him only in bated breath.

The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the
Crown have no place under the American flag.

Judgement is REVERED and the defendant and appellant ACQUITTED.