Holy See v. Rosario
Holy See v. Rosario
Holy See v. Rosario
, as Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and
STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC.
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to
reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and September 19,
1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila in Civil
Case No. 90-183.
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of
6,000 square meters (Lot 5-A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440)
located in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila and registered in the
name of petitioner and contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D under the name of
Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC).
The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos,
Jr., acting as agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale
to private respondent.
On January 23, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the
three parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against
petitioner, represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants:
namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana (Civil Case No.
90-183).
The complaint alleged that after Licup had paid the 100,000php earnest
money, he is obliged to clear the said lots of squatters who were occupying
the lot. Private respondent demanded that the sellers fulfill their undertaking
and clear the property of squatters; however, Msgr. Cirilos informed private
respondent of the squatters' refusal to vacate the lots, proposing instead
either that private respondent undertake the eviction or that the earnest
money be returned to the latter. They returned it but later discovered that
petitioner and the PRC, without notice to private respondent, sold the lots to
Tropicana, as evidenced by two separate Deeds of Sale, one over Lot 5-A,
and another over Lots 5-B and 5-D; and that the sellers' transfer certificate of
title over the lots were cancelled, transferred and registered in the name of
Tropicana. So, Private respondent thus prayed for: (1) the annulment of the
Deeds of Sale between petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and
Tropicana on the other; (2) the reconveyance of the lots in question; (3)
specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of
the lots; and (4) damages.
Petitioner dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on
sovereign immunity. This was opposed by the respondents and denied by
the court for this act shed off their sovereign immunity by entering into the
business contract in question. Petitioner moved for reconsideration that
moved
the
trial
court
to
defer
the
resolution
on
the
motion
for
reconsideration until after trial on the merits and directing petitioner to file
its answer.
On December 9, 1991, a Motion for Intervention was filed by the Department
of Foreign Affairs that the petitioner has the right to claim sovereign
immunity.
ISSUES:
(I) WON the Department of Foreign Affairs has the right to intervene in the
case in behalf of the Holy See .
(II) WON the respondent trial court has jurisdiction over petitioner, being a
foreign state enjoying sovereign immunity.
HELD:
affirmation,
such
principles
of
International
Law
are
deemed
sending state for the purposes of the mission. If this immunity is provided for
a diplomatic envoy, with all the more reason should immunity be recognized
as regards the sovereign itself, which in this case is the Holy See.
Nonetheless, Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the
redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and
Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign
sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through
diplomatic channels, thus, they can ask the Philippine government, through
the Foreign Office, to espouse its claims against the Holy See. Its first task is
to persuade the Philippine government to take up with the Holy See the
validity of its claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil
Case No. 90-183 against petitioner is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.