Facts: This is a petition for mandamus praying for the respondent judge to continue the proceedings in a civil case which was initiated under the regime of the so called Republic of the Philippines establish during the Japanese military occupation in the country. The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of the proceedings on the ground that the proclamation issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur when the American forces took over the occupation of the island from the Japanese government, had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all the judicial proceedings and judgments of the court under the Philippine executive Committee and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. Respondent further claim that lower courts have no more jurisdiction to take cognizance and continue the case in courts under a defunct government in the absence of enabling law granting authority of such courts. Respondent contends that the government established during the Japanese occupation were no de facto government. The principal issues to be resolved now for the court are the following: 1. Whether judicial acts and proceedings of the courts existing in the Philippines under the first government were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or occupation by the United States , 2. Whether the proclamation by Gen. MacArthur declaring that all laws, regulations and processes of any of the government in the Philippines are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control , has invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the said court 3. If the said judicial acts and proceedings were not been invalidated, will the present courts under Japanese occupation continue those proceedings pending in court The court in resolving the issue one by one shed light to the given questions. In the first issue, the court said that under international and political law, it is a legal truism that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. Another question now then needs an answer that is whether or not the government under the Japanese occupation was a de facto government. And if they were, then all those judicial proceedings remain good and valid even if there is a change of government. Several kinds of de facto government were elucidated by the court to find out what is applicable to the present case at bar. a. Government de facto in a proper legal sense government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter

Although the local and civil administration of justice is suspended it is not unusual for the invader to take the whole administration into his hands. right to travel freely are considered as suspended and in abeyance during military occupation. but is enjoined to respect municipal laws in force in the country. public order and safety. remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by American and Filipino forces. does not wipe out the effects done by an invader. while respecting. the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty. and judges and other judicial officers are kept in their posts. which for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. Local courts are authorized to continue administering justice. unless absolutely prevented. the government established over an enemy s territory during the military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered and is subject to all restrictions which the code imposes. The governments by the Philippine Executive commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese military occupation being a de facto government. The municipal laws of a conquered territory or the laws which regulate private rights continue in force during military occupation except so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of conqueror. he possess all the powers of a de facto government and he can suspend the old laws and promulgate new ones and make such changes in the old as he may see fit. he nevertheless has all the powers of a de facto government and can at his pleasure either the existing laws or make new ones. Government de facto established as an independent government by inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state The powers and duties of de facto government of the second kind are regulated in Section III of the Hague conventions of 1907. right to bear arms. . the latter shall take steps in his power to re-establish and insure as far as possible. the laws in force in the country. According to Halleck who wrote a book on international law. According to the precepts of the Hague Conventions. The Philippines during the Japanese occupation falls under the second kind of de facto government a civil government established by military forces of occupation. it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those government which are not political complexion were good and valid and by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy(postliminium) in international law. as the belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with the duty to insure public order and safety during his military occupation. and regulate social and commercial life in the country. Laws of political in nature and affecting political relations such as the right of assembly. those laws which enforce public order. According to that principle in international law. which provides the authority of the legislative power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant.b. Government de facto established and maintained by military forces this is by way of invasion and occupation of a territory of the enemy in the course of war and which is denominated a government of paramount force c.

Law once established continues until changed by the some competent legislative power. Beale. which are not of political complexion. There can no break or interregnum in law. author cases on conflict of laws and treatise on conflict of laws. excepting that of a political nature. Conquest or colonization is impotent to bring law to an end. the right of postliminy says Vatel is that in which persons or things taken by the enemy are restored to the former state on coming actually into the power of the nation to which they belong. Respondent judge is ordered therefore to take cognizance of and continue to the final judgment of the proceedings. From the time the law comes into existence with the first-felt corporateness of a primitive people it must last until the final disappearance of human society. in spite of change of constitution. In short non-political acts performed during the occupation (civil rights) remain valid even after the occupation but acts of political automatically lose their validity upon the end of the occupation. of the de facto government during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign Legal maxim. still the well-known principles of international law is upheld that is all judgments and judicial proceedings. postliminium is explained as the revival or reversion to the old laws and sovereignty of territory in the belligerent occupation once control of the belligerent occupant is lost over the territory affected. Once created. It is not change merely by change of sovereignty. In Nachura s book. the law continues unchanged until the new sovereign by legislative acts creates a change. it persists until a change take place and when changed it continues in such condition until the next change and so forever. Side discussion: On the phrase processes of any other government which is the second issue of the case. In the present concept jus postliminium now also imports the reinstatement of the authority of the displaced government once control of the enemy is lost over the territory affected. - - . (Joseph H.In the book of Isagani Cruz.