Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated

during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Li eration of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio !i"on refused to continue hearings on the case, sa#ing that a proclamation issued # $eneral !ouglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all %udicial proceedings and %udgments of the courts of the &hilippines and, without an ena ling law, lower courts have no %urisdiction to ta'e cogni"ance of and continue %udicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct (epu lic of the &hilippines )the &hilippine government under the Japanese*. +he court resolved three issues: ,. -hether or not %udicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation. /. -hether or not the 0cto er /1, ,233 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared that 4all laws, regulations and processes of an# other government in the &hilippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the &hilippines free of enem# occupation and control5 invalidated all %udgments and %udicial acts and proceedings of the courts. 1. And whether or not if the# were not invalidated # MacArthur6s proclamation, those courts could continue hearing the cases pending efore them. (atio: &olitical and international law recogni"es that all acts and proceedings of a de facto government are good and valid. +he &hilippine 78ecutive Commission and the (epu lic of the &hilippines under the Japanese occupation ma# e considered de facto governments, supported # the militar# force and deriving their authorit# from the laws of war. Municipal laws and private laws, however, usuall# remain in force unless suspended or changed # the con9ueror. Civil o edience is e8pected even during war, for 4the e8istence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the onds of societ#, or do awa# with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. And if the# were not valid, then it would not have een necessar# for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation a rogating them. +he second 9uestion, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase 4processes of an# other government5 and whether or not he intended it to annul all other %udgments and %udicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese militar# occupation. IF, according to international law, non:political %udgments and %udicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid even after the occupied territor# has een li erated, then it could not have een MacArthur6s intention to refer to %udicial processes, which would e in violation of international law. A well:'nown rule of statutor# construction is: 4A statute ought never to e construed to violate the law of nations if an# other possi le construction remains.5 Another is that 4where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great mischief done, such construction is to e avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended # the ma'ers of the law, unless re9uired # clear and une9uivocal words.5 Annulling %udgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the doc'ets and violate international law, therefore what MacArthur said should not e construed to mean that %udicial proceedings are included in the phrase 4processes of an# other governments.5 In the case of ;< vs (eiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use # the occupant, the# ecome his and derive their force from him. +he laws and courts of the &hilippines did not ecome, # eing continued as re9uired # the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan. It is a legal ma8im that, e8cepting of a political nature, 4law once esta lished continues until changed # some competent legislative power. I+ I< =0+ C>A=$7! M7(7L? @? C>A=$7 0F <0A7(7I$=+?.5 ;ntil, of course, the new sovereign # legislative act creates a change. +herefore, even assuming that Japan legall# ac9uired sovereignt# over the &hilippines, and the laws and courts of the &hilippines had ecome courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and conferring %urisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same courts ma# continue e8ercising the same %urisdiction over cases pending therein efore the restoration of the Commonwealth $overnment, until a olished or the laws creating and conferring %urisdiction upon them are repealed # the said government.

!7CI<I0=: -rit of mandamus issued to the %udge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to ta'e cogni"ance of and continue to final %udgment the proceedings in civil case no. 1B,/. <ummar# of ratio: ,. International law sa#s the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws continue even during occupation unless repealed. /. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, ut this cannot e applied on %udicial proceedings ecause such a construction would violate the law of nations. 1. <ince the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending efore it. CCC1 'inds of de facto government: one esta lished through re ellion )govt gets possession and control through force or the voice of the ma%orit# and maintains itself against the will of the rightful government* through occupation )esta lished and maintained # militar# forces who invade and occup# a territor# of the enem# in the course of war. denoted as a government of paramount force* through insurrection )esta lished as an independent government # the inha itants of a countr# who rise in insurrection against the parent state*

Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during theJapanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After theLi eration of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio!i"onrefused to continue hearings on the case, sa#ing that aproclamation issued # $eneral !ouglas MacArthur had invalidated andnullified all %udicial proceedings and %udgments of the courts of the &hilippinesand, without an ena ling law, lower courts have no %urisdiction to ta'ecogni"ance of and continue %udicial proceedings pending in the courts of thedefunct (epu lic of the &hilippines )the &hilippine government under theJapanese*.+he court resolved three issues:,. -hether or not %udicial proceedings anddecisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and remainedvalid even after the American occupation./. -hether or not the 0cto er /1,,233 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared that 4all laws,regulations and processes of an# other government in the &hilippines thanthat of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect inareas of the &hilippines free of enem# occupation and control5 invalidated all %udgments and %udicial acts and proceedings of the courts.1. And whether or not if the# were not invalidated # MacArthur6s proclamation, those courtscould continue hearing the cases pending efore them.(atio: &olitical and international law recogni"es that all acts and proceedingsof a de facto government are good and valid. +he &hilippine 78ecutiveCommission and the (epu lic of the &hilippines under the Japaneseoccupation ma# e considered de facto governments, supported # themilitar# force and deriving their authorit# from the laws of war.Municipal lawsand private laws, however, usuall# remain in force unless suspended or changed # the con9ueror. Civil o edience is e8pected even during war, for 4the e8istence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the onds of societ#, or do awa# with civil government or the regular administration of thelaws. And if the# were not valid, then it would not have een necessar# for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation a rogating them.+he second9uestion, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase 4processesof an# other government5 and whether or not he intended it to annul all other %udgments and %udicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese militar#occupation.IF, according to international law, non:political %udgments and %udicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid evenafter the occupied territor# has een li erated, then it could not have een MacArthur6s intention to refer to %udicial processes, which would e in violationof international law.A well: 'nown rule of statutor# construction is: 4A statuteought never to e construed to violate the law of nations if an# other possi leconstruction remains.5Another is that 4where great inconvenience will resultfrom a particular construction, or great mischief done, such construction is to e avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was notintended # the ma'ers of the law, unless re9uired # clear and une9uivocalwords.5Annulling %udgments of courts made during the Japanese occupationwould clog the doc'ets and violate international law, therefore what MacArthur said should not e construed to mean that %udicial proceedings are included inthe phrase 4processes of an# other governments.5In the case of ;< vs(eiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use #the occupant, the# ecome his and derive their force from him. +he laws andcourts of the &hilippines did not ecome, # eing continued as re9uired #the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan.It is a legal ma8im that,e8cepting of a political nature, 4law once esta lished continues until changed # some competent legislative power. I+ I< =0+ C>A=$7! M7(7L? @?C>A=$7 0F <0A7(7I$=+?.5 ;ntil, of course, the new sovereign #legislative act creates a change.+herefore, even assuming that Japanlegall# ac9uired sovereignt# over the &hilippines, and the laws and courts of the &hilippines had ecome courts of Japan, as the said courts and lawscreating and conferring %urisdiction upon them have continued in force untilnow, it follows that the same courts ma# continue e8ercising the same %urisdiction over cases pending therein efore the restoration of theCommonwealth $overnment, until a olished or the laws creating andconferring %urisdiction upon them are repealed # the saidgovernment.!7CI<I0=: -rit of mandamus issued to the %udge of the Courtof First Instance of Manila, ordering him to ta'e cogni"ance of and continue tofinal %udgment the proceedings in civil case no. 1B,/.<ummar# of ratio:,. International law sa#s the acts of a de facto governmentare valid and civil laws continue even during occupation unless repealed./.MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, ut this cannot eapplied on %udicial proceedings ecause such a construction would violate thelaw of nations.1. <ince

the laws remain valid, the court must continuehearing the case pending efore it.CCC1 'inds of de facto government: oneesta lished through re ellion )govt gets possession and control through forceor the voice of the ma%orit# and maintains itself against the will of the rightfulgovernment*through occupation )esta lished and maintained # militar#forces who invade and occup# a territor# of the enem# in the course of war.denoted as a government of paramount force*through insurrection )esta lished as an independent government # the inha itants of a countr#who rise in insurrection against the parent state*

Isagani Cruz vs DENR

Land Titles and Deeds IPRA Law vis a vis Regalian Doctrine Cru", a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validit# of the (A D1E, or the Indigenous &eopleFs (ights Act on the ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the <tateFs ownership over lands of the pu lic domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine em odied in <ection /, Article GII of the Constitution. +he I&(A law asicall# enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which ma# include natural resources. Cru" et al contend that, # providing for an all: encompassing definition of Hancestral domainsI and Hancestral landsI which might even include private lands found within said areas, <ections 1)a* and 1) * of said law violate the rights of private landowners. ISSUE: -hether or not the I&(A law is unconstitutional. HELD: +he <C deli erated upon the matter. After deli eration the# voted and reached a E:E vote. +he# deli erated again and the same result transpired. <ince there was no ma%orit# vote, Cru"Fs petition was dismissed and the I&(A law was sustained. >ence, ancestral domains ma# include pu lic domain J somehow against the regalian doctrine.