View full case

HOLY SEE v. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land in Paranaque, Metro Manila. The petitioner, Holy See, exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. The private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business. The dispute arose when squatters refused to vacate the lots, and complications arose when the petitioner sold its lot to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. The private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner, the Papal Nuncio, the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC), and Tropicana. The trial court denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaint, leading the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari.

The Holy See invoked sovereign immunity and filed a petition for certiorari to question the order denying its motion to dismiss. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) filed a motion to intervene, asserting its legal interest in the case regarding diplomatic immunity. The procedural issue of whether a petition for certiorari can be used to question the denial of a motion to dismiss was raised. The DFA's personality or legal interest in intervening on behalf of the Holy See was also questioned.

In Public International Law, when a state or international agency claims sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey its entitlement to immunity. In the Philippines, the foreign government or organization obtains an executive endorsement of its claim of immunity, and the endorsement is conveyed to the courts in various ways. In this case, the DFA moved to intervene and supported the Holy See's claim of sovereign immunity.

The Holy See argues that the trial court has no jurisdiction over it due to its status as a foreign state enjoying sovereign immunity. The private respondent argues that the doctrine of non-suability is no longer absolute and that the Holy See has waived its immunity by engaging in a commercial transaction in the Philippines.

Before determining the issue of non-suability, it is important to understand the Holy See's status as a sovereign state. Prior to the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870, the Pope as the Holy See was considered a subject of International Law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Holy See enjoys sovereign immunity.

  2. Whether the doctrine of non-suability of the state is absolute or not.

  3. Whether the acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A by the petitioner, the Holy See, constitutes an act jure gestionis or an act jure imperii.

  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to sovereign immunity in the present case.

  5. Whether or not the Embassy of the Holy See is entitled to diplomatic immunity and exempt from local jurisdiction.

  6. Whether or not the certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs declaring the Embassy of the Holy See as a duly accredited diplomatic mission is conclusive upon the courts.

RULING:

  1. The Holy See enjoys sovereign immunity. The Holy See is considered a subject of International Law and has the status of a foreign sovereign recognized by the Republic of the Philippines. It conducts foreign relations and enters into transactions as the Holy See, indicating that it is the Holy See that is the international person.

  2. The doctrine of non-suability of the state is not absolute. There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity - the absolute theory and the restrictive theory. Under the absolute theory, a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. Under the restrictive theory, the sovereign immunity is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of the state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.

  3. The acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A by the petitioner, the Holy See, constitutes an act jure imperii. It was acquired as a donation for the purpose of constructing the official residence of the Papal Nuncio, which is necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission. As such, it falls under the scope of immunity provided in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

  4. The petitioner is entitled to sovereign immunity in the present case. The transfer of the property and the subsequent disposal were both motivated by the need to use the property for its intended purpose, and not for profit or gain. Furthermore, the presence of squatters on the property hindered its use, and the disposal was done to resolve this issue.

  5. Yes. The Embassy of the Holy See is entitled to diplomatic immunity and exempt from local jurisdiction. The Department of Foreign Affairs has officially certified the embassy as such, and their determination is considered a conclusive political question. As the department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines' foreign relations, the court should accept the claim of immunity so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations.

  6. Yes. The certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs declaring the Embassy of the Holy See as a duly accredited diplomatic mission is conclusive upon the courts. Remanding the case and ordering a hearing to establish the facts alleged by the petitioner would be pointless and unduly circuitous.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Holy See enjoys sovereign immunity as a foreign sovereign recognized by the Republic of the Philippines.

  • The doctrine of non-suability of the state is not absolute and may not apply to private acts or acts jure gestionis of the state.

  • The nature of the act or transaction must be examined to determine whether it is an act jure imperii or an act jure gestionis.

  • Foreign states are deemed to have waived their non-suability if they enter into contracts in their proprietary or private capacity, but no such waiver may be implied if the contract involves their sovereign or governmental capacity.

  • The acquisition of property by a foreign sovereign necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission is recognized under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and immunity from jurisdiction is granted in relation to such property.

  • The presence of squatters on property can be a valid reason for a foreign sovereign to dispose of the property, and this decision can be considered governmental in nature.

  • The determination of sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts.

  • The Department of Foreign Affairs has the authority to certify the diplomatic status and immunity of foreign embassies, and such certification is accepted by the courts.

  • When a claim of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations.