Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

4 Ichong vs Hernandez

No L-7995

Facts: Ichong Lao in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents,
corporations and partnerships seeks to obtain a judicial declaration that RA
1180, “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business,” is unconstitutional. It was
created to nationalize the retail trade business, serving as a prohibition
against aliens and associations which are not wholly owned by citizens of
the Philippines from engaging in the retail trade. An exception was provided
for aliens that were engaged in business on May 15, 1954 until their death
or retirement for natural persons, and for ten years after the approval of the
Act or until the expiration of term in case of juridical persons.

Issue: WON the act violates international treaties and obligations

Ruling: The law does not violate international treaties and obligations. The
United Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the
rights and freedom of their subjects, and the Declaration of Human Rights
contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard
of achievement for all peoples and all nations. The Treaty of Amity between
the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China of April 18, 1947
guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals "upon the same
terms as the nationals of any other country". But the nationals of China are
not discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except
those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution,
are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. But even supposing that
the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and the same may never
curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

13 Holy See vs Rosario Jr.


GR No. 101949

Facts: A parcel of land was registered under the name of the Holy See which
was contiguous to lots registered in the name of Philippine Realty
Corporation (PRC). The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to
the Papal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See, who exercises sovereignty
over the Vatican City, Rome, Italy, for his residence. Thereafter, said lots
were sold through Msgr. Domingo Cirilos Jr acting as agent, to Ramon Licup
who assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.
Squatters of said land refused to vacate the lots, creating a dispute as to who
has the responsibility to evict the squatters from said lots. However, the same
lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation.
This has resulted to the filing of a suit for annulment of the sale of the three
lots, and specific performance and damages against petitioner. The Holy
See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction
based on sovereign immunity from suit.

Issue: WON Holy See can claim sovereign immunity from suit.

Ruling: As held in United States of America v. Guinto, “There is no question


that the United States of America, like any other state, will be deemed to
have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its
proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its
sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied.”

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.