THE HOLY SEE vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR.

, 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: 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 located in the Municipality of Paranaque registered in the name of
petitioner. Said lot was contiguous with two other lots 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 to 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). 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 petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to dismiss the
complaint petitioner for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from
suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. An opposition to the motion was
filed by private respondent. The trial court issued an order denying, among others,
petitioners motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner shed off [its] sovereign
immunity by entering into the business contract in question Petitioner forthwith
elevated the matter to us. In its petition, petitioner invokes the privilege of
sovereign immunity only on its own behalf and on behalf of its official
representative, the Papal Nuncio.
ISSUE: Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its business relations
regarding selling a lot to a private entity
RULING: The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a
foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had
diplomatic representations with the Philippine government since 1957 (Rollo, p. 87).
This appears to be the universal practice in international relations.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and
firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot,
without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is

recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with
regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign
activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not
undertaken for gain or profit.
In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course
of a real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act
jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent
disposal of Lot 5-A were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property
for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private
respondent failed to dispute said claim.
Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila.
The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The right of a
foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized
in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty
was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines
on November 15, 1965.
The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are
likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for
profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because the squatters living
thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the
donation. The fact that squatters have occupied and are still occupying the lot, and
that they stubbornly refuse to leave the premises, has been admitted by private
respondent in its complaint
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.
Private respondent 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. Of course, the
Foreign Office shall first make a determination of the impact of its espousal on the
relations between the Philippine government and the Holy See (Young, Remedies of
Private Claimants Against Foreign States, Selected Readings on Protection by Law of
Private Foreign Investments 905, 919 [1964]). Once the Philippine government
decides to espouse the claim, the latter ceases to be a private cause.

World Health Organization v. Aquino (48 SCRA 243) Nov. 29, 1972
DOCTRINE :Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts
should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
government, and where the plea of diplomaticimmunity is recognized and affirmed

by the executive branch of the government as in thecase at bar, it is then the duty
of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriatesuggestion by the
principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other
officer acting under his direction.
FACTS: Dr. Verstuyft, assigned by WHO to its regional office in Manila as Acting
Assistant Director of Health Services, was suspected by the Constabulary Offshore
Action Center (COSAC)officers of carrying dutiable goods under the Customs and
Tariff Code of the Philippines. Respondent Judge then issued a search warrant at the
instance of the COSAC officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of
Dr. Verstuyft, notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to
the Host Agreement executed between Philippine Government and WHO .Such
diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges and
immunities, personal inviolability, inviolability of the official's properties, exemption
from local jurisdiction, and exemption from taxation and customs duties. Upon
protest of WHO Regional Director Dr. Dy, DFA Sec. Carlos Romulo personally wired
Judge Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for his
personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the
Host Agreement and further requested for the suspension of the search warrant.
The Solicitor General accordingly joined the petitioner for the quashal of the search
warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the quashal. Hence,
this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside Judge Aquinos refusal to
quash the search warrant. WHO joins Dr. Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic immunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not personal effects of Dr. Verstuyft can be exempted from
search and seizure under the diplomatic immunity.
1 Verstuyft's personal effects contained in 12 crates entered the Philippines as
unaccompanied baggage, they were accordingly allowed free entry from duties and
taxes, which he stored atEternit Corporation warehouse.
2 Respondent judge's justification in his said order: The articles contained in the 2
baggages belonging to Dr. Verstuyft opened by Capt. Rellevo &Navarro, are 120
bottles of assorted foreign wine and 15 tins of PX goods which are said to be
dutiable under the Customs and Tariff Code of the Philippines. The two COSAC
officers manifested that they positively believe that there are more contraband
items in the nine other huge crates which are still unopened. The Court is certain
that the WHO would not tolerate violations of local laws by its officials and/or
representatives under a claim of immunity granted to them by the host agreement.
Since the right of immunity invoked by the DFA is admittedly relative and not
absolute, and there are strong and positive indications of violation of local laws, the
Court declines to suspend the effectivity of the search warrant issued in the case at
bar....

HELD: Yes.

RATIO: 1. The executive branch of the Philippines has expressly recognized that
Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host
Agreement. The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the Phil. Govt's official
position. The SolGen, as principal law officer of the government, likewise expressly
affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of
the search warrant.It is a recognized principle of international law and under our
system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive
branch of government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by
the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of
the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the
principal law officer of the government, the SolGen in this case, or other officer
acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure
and detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in
conducting foreign relations.
2. Philippines is bound by the procedure laid down in Article VII of the Convention on
the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations.
Article VII on abuse of privilege, calls for consultations between the HostState and
the UN agency concerned and in case no satisfactory result is reached, for
submission to the ICJ.
3. The seriousness of the matter is underscored when the provisions of RA 75
Enacted since October 21, 1946 to safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of
diplomatic officials in the Philippines are taken into account. Said Act declares as
null and void writs or processes sued out or prosecuted whereby inter alia the
person of an ambassador or public minister is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or
chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal offense for "every person by
whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and
every officer concerned in executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or process.
4. The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and
with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant
issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.
DISPOSITIVE:
The writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for are hereby granted, and the TRO
issued against execution or enforcement of the questioned search warrant, which is
hereby declared null and void, is hereby made permanent.