NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No. L-1892, August 16, 1949

NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No.
L-1892, August 16, 1949
Facts: Pio Martinez, as guardian of Pedro Martinez, executed a promissory note for P2,000 in favor of
Jacinto Notor, with interest at 10% annually, and payable within two years from said date. Due to
additional sums subsequently obtained from Jacinto Notor, plus interest, the total indebtedness amounted
as of January 29, 1945, to P10,111.
The guardian of Pedro Martinez offered to pay the debt, but the creditor Jacinto Notor refused to accept
the payment, as a result of which the necessary amount was deposited by the guardian of Pedro Martinez
in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. In the complaint (filed before the liberation of the Philippines),
it was prayed that the debtor be declared as having fully paid his indebtedness to Jacinto Notor.
The Lower Court ruled in favor of Ramon Martinez declaring that he had paid in full his indebtedness to
Jacinto Notor. Court of Appeals affirmed the rule of the Lower Court. Thus, this appeal by way of
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the courts of the Philippine Republic, have jurisdiction over the case.
Held: Yes courts of the Commonwealth and of the Republic have jurisdiction over the case. The judicial
acts and proceedings of the courts of justice during the Japanese military occupation which are not of a
political complexion, were good and valid and, by virtue of the principle of postliminy in international
law, remained good and valid after the liberation of the Philippines. The litigation between the parties
herein is certainly not of a political complexion, since it involves merely their civil rights. Under the rules
of Public International Law, the right of the military occupant, in the exercise of his governmental power,
to issue military currency as legal tender has never been seriously questioned. In the case of Haw Pia vs.
China Banking Corporation, we have already recognized the validity of a payment of a mortgage
indebtedness in Japanese military notes. In the case at bar we are not authorizing the circulation of
Japanese military notes, as legal tender at present, but we are merely giving effect to a payment that was
valid and binding at the time it was made.
ETORMA VS RAVELO G.R. No. 718, March 24, 1947
Facts: A petition for certiorari filed assailing the validity of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas against the petitioners, on the ground that
the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals during the Japanese occupation was null and void,
because the question involved in the litigation was the validity or invalidity of a free patent issued by the
Governor General of the Philippines under the authority granted by an Act of Congress of the United
States; one of the parties in the case was the Director of Lands, as officer in charge with the
administration and alienation of public lands placed under the control of the Government of the
Philippines; and the petitioners were claiming vested rights, not only under the laws in force in the
Philippines, but also under the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.
Issue: Whether or not the Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines were
governments de facto
Held: Yes, Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines were governments de facto.
An organized government established in a territory must be either de jure or de facto, since there is no
other class of organized government known in political as well as in international law. Although set up
apparently as a free and independent government, was, in truth and in fact, a government de facto
established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese military forces.
Belligerent occupant is not exempted from complying with the precepts of Hague Convention nor does it
make null and void the judicial acts of the courts continued by the occupant in the territory occupied. To
deny validity to judicial acts would benefit the invader or aggressor resulting in penalizing the nationals
of the occupied territory and rewarding the invader for his acts of treachery and aggression.
NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (Australia vs France)
Facts: French Government had carried out atmospheric tests of nuclear devices at its Centre
d'expérimentations du Pacifique, in the territory of French Polynesia. France was not a party to the
Nuclear Test Ban in force since 1973. Several tests were carried out underground and in the atmosphere.
Cases were documented and reported that a nuclear fall-out on territories in the South Pacific particularly
the territory of New Zealand and Australia.
France contended that the measure of nuclear fall-out was not enough to cause a public health concern.
The mentioned South Pacific countries, on the other hand, brought as a claim against France the illegality
of the nuclear tests under the international law and demand that France cease testing immediately.
However, before the case could be completed, France declared that it had completed the nuclear test and
no subsequent testing would occur. Thus moving for the dismissal of the application.
Issue: Whether or not unilateral declarations have binding legal status under international law?
Held: Yes. The Court found that unilateral declarations made by French authorities on the matter served
to create legal obligations. In this case, statement made by the President of France must be held to
constitute and engagement of the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were
made. The principle of good faith attributes unilateral declarations with binding legal character, in the
same way pacta sunt servanda accomplishes the compliance with international treaties. As a result the
object of the claim is moot, therefore there is nothing upon which to give further judgment.

NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No. L-1892, August 16, 1949

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No. L-1892, August 16, 1949

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No. L-1892, August 16, 1949

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTOR VS MARTIN G.R. No.

L-1892, August 16, 1949

ETORMA VS RAVELO G.R. No. 718, March 24, 1947

NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (Australia vs France)

You might also like