Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh

Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese
occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the
American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case, saying
that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all
judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling law,
lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings
pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government
under the Japanese).
The court resolved three issues:
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation
were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation;
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared
that “all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of
the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines
free of enemy occupation and control” invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts;
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthur’s proclamation, those courts
could continue hearing the cases pending before them.
Ratio: Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a de facto
government are good and valid. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the
Philippines under the Japanese occupation may be considered de facto governments,
supported by the military force and deriving their authority from the laws of war.
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless suspended or changed
by the conqueror. Civil obedience is expected even during war, for “the existence of a state of
insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the
regular administration of the laws. And if they were not valid, then it would not have been
necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation abrogating them.
The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “processes of
any other government” and whether or not he intended it to annul all other judgments and
judicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese military occupation.
IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto
governments are valid and remain valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated,
then it could not have been MacArthur’s intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be
in violation of international law.
A well-known rule of statutory construction is: “A statute ought never to be construed to violate
the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.”
Another is that “where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great
mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such
construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless required by clear and
unequivocal words.”
Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the dockets
and violate international law, therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to mean
that judicial proceedings are included in the phrase “processes of any other governments.”
In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use
by the occupant, they become his and derive their force from him. The laws and courts of the
Philippines did not become, by being continued as required by the law of nations, laws and
courts of Japan.
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, “law once established continues until
changed by some competent legislative power. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE
OF SOVEREIGNTY.” Until, of course, the new sovereign by legislative act creates a change.
Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the Philippines, and the
laws and courts of the Philippines had become courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws
creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it follows that
the same courts may continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein
before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, until abolished or the laws creating
and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government.
DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case
no. 3012.
Summary of ratio:
1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws continue
even during occupation unless repealed.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on judicial
proceedings because such a construction would violate the law of nations.
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending before it.
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through rebellion (govt gets possession and
control through force or the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the
rightful government)
through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a
territory of the enemy in the course of war; denoted as a government of paramount force)
through insurrection (established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country
who rise in insurrection against the parent state)

Petitioner Co Kim Cham had as pending civil Case initiated duringthe time of the Japanese
occupation. After the liberation of ManilaJudge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue
hearings on his case sayingthat the proclamation of Gen Douglas MacArthur has
invalidatedand nullified all judicial proceedings and judgements of the courts of the
Philippines and without the enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of proceedings pending in the courtsof the defunct Republic of the Philippines
under the Japanese.Issues:1.

Whether or Not judicial proceedings and decisions duringthe Japanese Occupation were
valid and remained valid.2.

Whether or not the proclamation of General MacArthurdeclared that all laws, regulations
and processes of anyother Government other than that of the commonwealthare null and
void, invalidated and all judgements and judicial acts proceeding from the courts.3.

Whether or not of they were invalidated (reference to No.2), the courts can continue
hearing the cases pendingbefore themHeld:1.

It is a legal truism in political and international law that allacts and proceedings and non-
political judgements of a defacto government are good and valid. The governments bythe
Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese
military occupationbeing de facto governments, it necessarily follows that
the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are
not of a politicalcomplexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of thewell-known principle
of postliminy (postliminium) ininternational law, remained good and valid after theliberation
or reoccupation of the Philippines by theAmerican and Filipino forces under the leadership
of General Douglas MacArthur.2.

it should be presumed that it was not, and could not havebeen, the intention of General
Douglas MacArthur, inusing the phrase "processes of any other government" insaid
proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, inviolation of said principles of international
law. The onlyreasonable construction of the said phrase is that it refersto governmental
processes other than judicial processes of court proceedings."a statute ought never to be
construed to violate the lawof nations if any other possible construction remains."If a
belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of justice in the territory
occupied, and forbidden to preventthe nationals thereof from asserting or enforcing
thereintheir civil rights, by necessary implication, the militarycommander of the forces of
liberation or the restoredgovernment is restrained from nullifying or setting asidethe
judgments rendered by said courts in their litigationduring the period of occupation.3.

the proceedings in cases then pending in said court maycontinue, without necessity of
enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings.The laws and
courts of the Philippines did not become thelaws and courts of Japan by being continued as
requiredby the law of nations.Same courts may continue exercising the
same jurisdictions and cases pending therein before therestoration of the commonwealth
until abolished andreplaced by the said government.DECISION: WRIT OF MANDAMUS
IS ISSUED to the judge of the CourtOf First Instance of Manila ordering him to take
cognizance andcontinue to final judgement the proceedings in Case No. 3012.3 Kinds of De
Facto Government:1.

Established through Rebellion

– Governments getspossession and control through the force of the voice of the majority and
maintains itself rightful government2.

Established through Occupation

– (PARAMOUNT FORCE)Maintained by the military forces who invade and occupythe territory
of the enemy.3.

Established through Insurrection

– Established as anindependent government by the inhabitants of thecountry who rise in
insurrection against the parent state.