Holy See v Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc.
| Jurisdiction | Filipinas |
| Court | Supreme Court (Philippines) |
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
(Narvasa, Chief Justice; Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, Judges)
State immunity Jurisdictional immunity Foreign States Holy See Dispute concerning sale of land Scope of entitlement of Holy See to jurisdictional immunity Distinction between acts performed jure gestionis and jure imperii Land obtained to provide premises for diplomatic mission Whether disposal of such land constituting act performed jure imperii
States Holy See Vatican City Status under international law Lateran Treaty, 1929 Entitlement of Holy See to jurisdictional immunity
States Sovereignty and independence Executive certificate Determination by executive of entitlement to State immunity and diplomatic immunity Whether binding upon municipal courts
Relationship of international law and municipal law Constitutional provisions Philippine Constitution 1987, Article II(2) Incorporation of generally accepted principles of international law into municipal law The law of the Philippines
Summary: The facts:In 1990 Starbright Sales Enterprises instituted proceedings before the Philippine courts against the Petitioner, The Holy See, represented by the Papal Nuncio. The proceedings arose from a dispute concerning the sale of certain land in Manila which squatters had refused to vacate. The Holy See had sold the land to Starbright which sought the annulment of the sale and damages on the ground that the sellers had failed to evict the squatters. The Holy See claimed that it was entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. The trial court found that The Holy See had waived its sovereign immunity by entering into a commercial contract. The Holy See then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, requesting that the order of the trial court should be set aside and again invoking sovereign immunity. In argument before the Supreme Court, The Holy See claimed that it had acquired the property in question as the site for the official mission of the Papal Nuncio in the Philippines and had only sold it because the continued presence of the squatters made its development almost impossible. Starbright admitted that this was the case.
Held:The plea of sovereign immunity was accepted, the petition for certiorari was granted and the complaint against The Holy See was dismissed.
(1) The Lateran Treaty, 1929, established the statehood of The Vatican City for the purpose of recognizing the indisputable sovereignty of the Holy See in international relations. While the nature of that sovereignty was different to that of other States, the Vatican City was an international State with its own government, pursuing world-wide interests and activities, and with the Pope as Head of State. It appeared that it was The Holy See, rather than Vatican City, which enjoyed international personality and which, in accordance with universal international practice, was accorded the status of a foreign sovereign (pp. 16970).
(2) In accordance with Article II(2) of the Philippine Constitution, 1987, the generally accepted principles of international law were incorporated into municipal law. One of those principles was the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity (p. 170).
(3) The restrictive theory of sovereign immunity had been accepted in the case-law of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, where a foreign State entered into a normal commercial transaction, acting in a private rather than a governmental capacity, it was deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. In the case at issue, the decisive point was that the land had been acquired not for ordinary commercial purposes but in order to provide a site for the official residence of the Papal Nuncio. The rights of foreign States to acquire property for the purposes of a mission and to enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in relation to civil actions relating to that property, were recognized respectively by Articles 21 and 31(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. The disposal of such property in the circumstances of this case had the same governmental character and was therefore covered by sovereign immunity (pp. 1701).
(4) Furthermore, the entitlement to sovereign immunity was sufficiently established in this case by the certificate of the Philippine Government's Department of Foreign Affairs, stating that the Embassy of The Holy See was a duly accredited diplomatic mission (pp. 1723).
The following is the text of the judgment of the Court, delivered by Quiason J:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Orders dated 20 June 1991 and 19 September 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila, in Civil Case No 90183.
The Order dated 20 June 1991 denied the motion of petitioner to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No 90183, while the Order dated 19 September 1991 denied the motion for reconsideration of the 20 June 1991 Order.
Petitioner is The Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio.
Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc, is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business.
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 Paranaque, Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner.
Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D which are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos 271108 and 265388 respectively and registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC).
The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr, acting as agent of the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent.
In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana).
On 23 January 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 90183).
The complaint alleged that: (1) On 17 April 1988, Msgr Cirilos, Jr, on behalf of petitioner and the PRC, agreed to sell to Ramon Licup Lots 5-A, 5-B and 5-D at the price of P1,240.00 per square meter; (2) the agreement to sell was made on the condition that earnest money of P100,000.00 be paid by Licup to the sellers, and that the sellers clear the said lots of squatters who were then occupying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial