Co Kim Chan vs Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh and Arsenio P.

Dizon (judge of CFI Manila)

Facts:
Japanese imperial forces occupied the City of Manila, and thereafter, established a Military
Administration under law. A civil government was also organized under the name of
Philippine Executive Commission.
Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case1 during the Japanese occupation with the Court of
First Instance of Manila. After the liberation of Manila and the subsequent American
occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on petitioners case, saying
that General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and
judgments of the courts of the Philippines through an issuance of a proclamation. Thus,
without an enabling law, lower courts have to jurisdiction in continuing judicial proceedings
pending in the courts of the now-defunct Republic of the Philippines.

Issues:
W/N judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid
and remained valid even after the American occupation
W/N the proclamation of MacArthur invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts
Granting that the said proceedings were not invalidated, W/N the courts could continue
hearing the cases pending before them

Held/Ratio:
Yes. Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a de facto
government are good and valid. The Philippine Executive Commission falls under the second
kind2 of a de facto government, which is established by an invasion and occupation of a
territory of the enemy during the course of war.
No. According to international law, non-political judgements and judicial proceedings of de
facto governments are valid and remain valid even after liberation. Legislative, as well as
judicial, acts of de facto governments, which are not of political complexion, remain valid
after reoccupation. It is presumed that the proclamation of General MacArthur did not
specifically refer to judicial processes thus it has not invalidated all the judgments and
proceedings of the courts during the Japanese regime. The existence of the courts depend
upon the laws which create and confer upon them their jurisdiction. Such laws, not political in
nature, are not abrogated by a change of sovereignty and continue in force until repealed by
legislative acts. It is thus obvious that the present courts have jurisdiction to continue
proceedings in cases not of political complexion.
o MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on
judicial proceedings because such would violate the law of nations.
Since the laws remain valid, the courts must continue hearing the case pending before it.

Ruling:
Writ of mandamus issued; Judge Arsenio Dizon is ordered to take cognizance of the case.

Separate Opinions:
De Joya (C)
o According to the rules and principles of International Law, and the legal doctrines
cited above, the judicial proceedings conducted before the courts of justice,
established here during Japanese military occupation, merely applying the municipal

1
Settlement of property
2
De jure vs de facto: by right vs by force
Kinds of de facto government: through rebellion, occupation, insurrection

law of the territory, such as the provisions of our Civil Code, which have no political
or military significance, should be considered legal, valid and binding.
Perfecto (D)
o There is no question that the word process, as used in the October Proclamation,
includes all judicial processes or proceedings.
o While the majority claims that under the principles of international law, the judicial
processes cannot be invalidated, there has been no mention of a specific principle
pointed out.
Hilado (D)
o October Proclamation declares ALL process null and void, including judicial
processes.