Lo Ching vs.

Archbishop of Manila
81 Phil 601

FACTS:
On August 30, 1940, the Archbishop of Manila through the Bank of the Philippine
Islands leased a farm to Lo and So Yun Ching Chong Co. with Nos. 1095 with 1101 R.
located at de la Calle Hidalgo, Manila, under a monthly income of P500 by the end
of three years counting from the first of September 1940, extendable to two years
(two years upon agreement of the parties). The tenant took the property by setting
it in a hotel.
In February 1942, the Japanese army echoed the tenants of the property and
delivered the latter to German Otto Schulze who worked until January 1945 at the
advent of the liberation army.
In early February 1945, tenant reoccupied the property and paid the monthly rental
fee. Before the end of August of that year, the landlord required the tenants to
vacate the property, however, they refused.
Therefore, the landlord on September 8, 1945 filed for an application for eviction in
the Municipal Court of Manila. On October 8, 1945, it ordered the tenants to vacate
the property and pay its monthly rent of P625 from the first September 1945, plus
damages in the amount of P500 and legal expenses.
The appellants contend that they are entitled to occupy the property for three full
years, the occupation must be effective, and continuous material, which should not
be deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property, and the appellants are
entitled to deduct that period of three years, all the time that no longer have the
lease available to the Japanese army.
ISSUE:
WON Hague Convention of 1907 allows occupation and seizure of private lands.
WON Japanese soldiers occupied the farm in dispute.
RULING:
No. The Hague Convention of 1907 does not allow an occupying army to seize
private property in the territory invaded. In contrast, states that: "Family honor and

rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and
practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." (Article 46).
The farm is not even used as army barracks, and there is no evidence that it was
seized by military necessity, what can be deduced that the Japanese soldiers
disposed of the property, not in the legitimate exercise the authority of an
occupying army, but spurred on by uncontrolled and uncontrollable desire to take
over other people.