Syquia vs.

Almeda
GR No. L-1648. August 17, 1949

PEDRO SYQUIA, GONZALO SYQUIA, and LEOPOLDO SYQUIA vs NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, Judge of
Municipal Court of Manila, CONRADO V. SANCHEZ, Judge of Court of First Instance of Manila, GEORGE F.
MOORE ET AL

Facts
 Pedro, Gonzalo, and Leopoldo, all surnamed Syquia, are joint owners of three apartment
buildings: North Syquia Apartments, South Syquia Apartments and Michel Apartments, located
in Manila
 Mid 1945, the Syquia siblings executed three lease contracts of the three apartments which will
be used for billeting and quartering officers of the U. S. armed forces stationed in the Manila
area.
 Monthly rental of F l,775 for the North Syquia Apartments, F l,890 for the South Syquia
Apartments, and P3,335 for the Michel Apartments
 Terms of lease: "for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner
terminated by the United States of America."
 March 1947- occupancy of the aparments were under George F. Moore, Commanding General,
has the authority to assign officers or to order officers to vacate the same.
 Erland Tillman- under Moore and has the direct charge of the control of the lease and
occupancy of the 3 buildings
 Moore and Tillman did no occupy the said quarters.
 September 2, 1045- lease terminated 6 mos after this date when Japan surrendered, Syquias
approached Moore and Tillman to return the apartment buildings but were advised that US
Army would like to continue occupying the premises.
 May 11, 1946- Syquia requested for the renegotiation of the lease, were informed that will
vacate property on February 1, 1947
 Syquias asked Tillman to vacate presmises on June 28, 1946 becase of the alleged low rentals
being paid thereunder.
 Failure to vacate prior to February 1, a formal notice were served on February 17, 1947
demanding cancellation of leases, increase in rentals per month, per apartment basis, execution
of new leases, and release of the building.
 The Syquia’s 30-day notice expired without action and the owners filed for unlawful detainer
against Moore and Tillman and the 64 persons occupying the apartments in the Municipal Court
of Manila.
 Motion to dismiss was filed on the ground that court has no jurisdiction over the defendants,
real party was the US Government and not the individual defendants.
 April 29, 1947- Manila municipal court found that:
(1) war between US and allies against Germany and Japan are not yet terminated, period of
term of the lease not yet expired.
(2) a foreign government like the United States Government cannot be sued in the courts of
another state without its consent
(3) municipal court dismissed the action fs with the suggestion or opinion that a citizen of the
Philippines, who feels aggrieved by the acts of the Government of a foreign country has the
right to demand that the Philippine Government study his claim and if found meritorious, take
such diplomatic steps as may be necessary for the vindication of the rights of that citizen, and
 that the matter included or involved in the action should be a proper subject matter of
representations between the Government of the United States of America and the Philippines
 Court of first instance affirmed municipal court’s order

Discussion
 The apartments were already vacated on Feb. 29, March 31, and May 31, 1948; counsel for
respondents alleging that both respondents Moore and Tillman had long left the Islands for
other Army assignment; rentals for their occupation have already been received, motion for
dismissal on the ground that this case has become moot
 The defendants, Tillman and Moore, cannot be held individually responsible for the payment of
rentals or damages in relation to the occupancy of the apartment house. The original request
made by the petitioners for the return of the apartment buildings was made to, and denied by
their predecessors. In fact, lease agreements had already been negotiated and executed and
were in actual operation when Moore assumed his command in Manila.
 SC holds that the real party defendant in interest is the Government of the United States of
America. It is clear that the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila
have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer
 The U. S. Goverment has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against
her, though. not in name.
 a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is
of citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent,
which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of
law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it
unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof.