8/30/2016

HOLYSEEVS.ROSARIO|casedigests

casedigests
^^

HOLYSEEVS.ROSARIO
MARCH28,2013 ~ VBDIAZ
THEHOLYSEEvs.THEHON.ERIBERTOU.ROSARIO,JR.,asPresidingJudgeoftheRegional
TrialCourtofMakati,Branch61andSTARBRIGHTSALESENTERPRISES,INC.
G.R.No.101949December1,1994
FACTS:PetitioneristheHolySeewhoexercisessovereigntyovertheVaticanCityinRome,Italy,andis
representedinthePhilippinesbythePapalNuncio;Privaterespondent,StarbrightSalesEnterprises,
Inc.,isadomesticcorporationengagedintherealestatebusiness.
Thispetitionarosefromacontroversyoveraparceloflandconsistingof6,000squaremeterslocatedin
theMunicipalityofParanaqueregisteredinthenameofpetitioner.Saidlotwascontiguouswithtwo
otherlotsregisteredinthenameofthePhilippineRealtyCorporation(PRC).
ThethreelotsweresoldtoRamonLicup,throughMsgr.DomingoA.Cirilos,Jr.,actingasagenttothe
sellers.Later,Licupassignedhisrightstothesaletoprivaterespondent.
Inviewoftherefusalofthesqua erstovacatethelotssoldtoprivaterespondent,adisputearoseasto
whoofthepartieshastheresponsibilityofevictingandclearingthelandofsqua ers.Complicatingthe
relationsofthepartieswasthesalebypetitionerofLot5AtoTropicanaPropertiesandDevelopment
Corporation(Tropicana).
privaterespondentledacomplaintwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch61,Makati,MetroManilafor
annulmentofthesaleofthethreeparcelsofland,andspecicperformanceanddamagesagainst
petitioner,representedbythePapalNuncio,andthreeotherdefendants:namely,Msgr.DomingoA.
Cirilos,Jr.,thePRCandTropicana
petitionerandMsgr.Cirilosseparatelymovedtodismissthecomplaintpetitionerforlackof
jurisdictionbasedonsovereignimmunityfromsuit,andMsgr.Cirilosforbeinganimproperparty.An
oppositiontothemotionwasledbyprivaterespondent.
thetrialcourtissuedanorderdenying,amongothers,petitionersmotiontodismissafterndingthat
petitionershedo[its]sovereignimmunitybyenteringintothebusinesscontractinquestion
Petitionerforthwithelevatedthema ertous.Initspetition,petitionerinvokestheprivilegeofsovereign
immunityonlyonitsownbehalfandonbehalfofitsocialrepresentative,thePapalNuncio.
ISSUE:
WhethertheHolySeeisimmunefromsuitinsofarasitsbusinessrelationsregardingsellingalottoa
privateentity
https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/holyseevsrosario/
RULING:

1/3

8/30/2016

HOLYSEEVS.ROSARIO|casedigests

RULING:
TheRepublicofthePhilippineshasaccordedtheHolySeethestatusofaforeignsovereign.TheHoly
See,throughitsAmbassador,thePapalNuncio,hashaddiplomaticrepresentationswiththePhilippine
governmentsince1957(Rollo,p.87).Thisappearstobetheuniversalpracticeininternationalrelations.
Therearetwoconictingconceptsofsovereignimmunity,eachwidelyheldandrmlyestablished.
Accordingtotheclassicalorabsolutetheory,asovereigncannot,withoutitsconsent,bemadea
respondentinthecourtsofanothersovereign.Accordingtothenewerorrestrictivetheory,the
immunityofthesovereignisrecognizedonlywithregardtopublicactsoractsjureimperiiofastate,but
notwithregardtoprivateactsoractsjuregestionis
Iftheactisinpursuitofasovereignactivity,oranincidentthereof,thenitisanactjureimperii,
especiallywhenitisnotundertakenforgainorprot.
Inthecaseatbench,ifpetitionerhasboughtandsoldlandsintheordinarycourseofarealestate
business,surelythesaidtransactioncanbecategorizedasanactjuregestionis.However,petitionerhas
deniedthattheacquisitionandsubsequentdisposalofLot5Aweremadeforprotbutclaimedthatit
acquiredsaidpropertyforthesiteofitsmissionortheApostolicNunciatureinthePhilippines.Private
respondentfailedtodisputesaidclaim.
Lot5AwasacquiredbypetitionerasadonationfromtheArchdioceseofManila.Thedonationwas
madenotforcommercialpurpose,butfortheuseofpetitionertoconstructthereontheocialplaceof
residenceofthePapalNuncio.Therightofaforeignsovereigntoacquireproperty,realorpersonal,ina
receivingstate,necessaryforthecreationandmaintenanceofitsdiplomaticmission,isrecognizedinthe
1961ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations(Arts.2022).Thistreatywasconcurredinbythe
PhilippineSenateandenteredintoforceinthePhilippinesonNovember15,1965.
Thedecisiontotransferthepropertyandthesubsequentdisposalthereofarelikewiseclothedwitha
governmentalcharacter.PetitionerdidnotsellLot5Aforprotorgain.Itmerelywantedtodisposeo
thesamebecausethesqua erslivingthereonmadeitalmostimpossibleforpetitionertouseitforthe
purposeofthedonation.Thefactthatsqua ershaveoccupiedandarestilloccupyingthelot,andthat
theystubbornlyrefusetoleavethepremises,hasbeenadmi edbyprivaterespondentinitscomplaint
Privaterespondentisnotleftwithoutanylegalremedyfortheredressofitsgrievances.Underboth
PublicInternationalLawandTransnationalLaw,apersonwhofeelsaggrievedbytheactsofaforeign
sovereigncanaskhisowngovernmenttoespousehiscausethroughdiplomaticchannels.
PrivaterespondentcanaskthePhilippinegovernment,throughtheForeignOce,toespouseitsclaims
againsttheHolySee.ItsrsttaskistopersuadethePhilippinegovernmenttotakeupwiththeHolySee
thevalidityofitsclaims.Ofcourse,theForeignOceshallrstmakeadeterminationoftheimpactof
itsespousalontherelationsbetweenthePhilippinegovernmentandtheHolySee(Young,Remediesof
PrivateClaimantsAgainstForeignStates,SelectedReadingsonProtectionbyLawofPrivateForeign
Investments905,919[1964]).OncethePhilippinegovernmentdecidestoespousetheclaim,thela er
ceasestobeaprivatecause.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariisGRANTEDandthecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.90183
againstpetitionerisDISMISSED.
FROMATTY.BAYANI^^

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/holyseevsrosario/

2/3

8/30/2016

HOLYSEEVS.ROSARIO|casedigests
Abouttheseads(https://wordpress.com/abouttheseads/)

POSTEDINCONFLICTOFLAWS
BLOGATWORDPRESS.COM.
Follow

Followcasedigests
BuildawebsitewithWordPress.com

https://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/holyseevsrosario/

3/3