Case Digest: The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr.

G.R. No. 101949 01 December 1994 Holy See vs. Rosario G.R. 101949 (1994)
Facts of the Case:

Petitioner in this case is the Holy See (who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome Italy
FACTS: and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Respondent in this case is Hon. Edilberto
Rosario in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of RTC Makati, Branch 61 and Starbright Sales
Enterprises, 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. Said lot was The petition started from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5A registered under the name of the
contiguous with two other lots. These lots were sold to Ramon Licup. In view Holy See, is connected to Lot 5B and 5D under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation. The land
was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio which represented the Holy See who
of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold, a dispute arose as to who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome Italy for his residence.
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 The said lots were sold to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales, Inc.
of the lot of concern to Tropicana. When the squatters refused to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between these two parties because both
were unsure as to whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters from the said lots. Respondent
ISSUE: Starbright insists that the Holy See should clear the property while Holy See says that Starbright
should do it or the earnest money will be returned.

Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its business relations Since Starbright refused to clear the property, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent, returned P100k earnest
regarding selling a lot to a private entity money. The same lots were sold to Tropicana Properties.

Starbright filed a suit for annulment of sale, specific performance and damages against Msgr. Cirilios,
RULING: Philippine Realty Corporation and Tropicana. The Holy See moved to dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity of suit. The RTC denied the motion on the ground that the
petitioner already shed off its sovereign immunity by entering into a business contract.
As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted
the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this Issue:
affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as
part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in Can the Holy See invoke sovereign immunity?
the society of nations. In the present case, if petitioner has bought and sold Court Ruling:
lands in the ordinary course of real estate business, surely the said transaction
can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that YES. The Court held that the Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-suability.
In Article 31 (A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic envoy (a
the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot were made for profit but representative government who is sent on a special diplomatic mission) shall be granted immunity
claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private
Nunciature in the Philippines. immovable property.

The DFA certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic missionary to the
The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of selling the lot of concern is non- Republic of the Philippines and is thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to immunity
proprietary in nature. The lot was acquired by petitioner as a donation from rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.
the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for commercial While the said lot was acquired and bought in the ordinary cause of real estate business, its acquisition
purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of and disposal were not made for profit but claimed that it acquired the said property for its mission or
residence of the Papal Nuncio. The decision to transfer the property and the the Apostolic Nunciature of the Philippines.
subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental
Besides, the act of selling the land concerned is non-proprietary in nature, or is not covered by a patent
character. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. It merely wanted to or trademark. The transfer and disposal of property are likewise clothed with a governmental character
dispose of the same because the squatters living thereon made it almost as the petitioner did not buy and sell the land for gain but merely because they cannot evict the said
impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. squatters in the property.
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, petitioner’s 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183 against
petitioner is DISMISSED.