Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8587)
Facts:
Benito E. Lim v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-8587, March 24, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez David, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant Benito E. Lim, as administrator of the intestate estate of Arsenia Enriquez, sued defendants Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney General of the United States (successor to the Alien Property Custodian), and Asaichi Kagawa; the Republic of the Philippines intervened. The dispute concerned four parcels in Tondo, Manila (totaling 29,151 sq. m.) which the United States’ Alien Property Custodian found to be registered in the name of the Japanese national Kagawa and which were subsequently vested under the Trading with the Enemy Act and later transferred to the Republic under the Philippine Property Act of 1946 and Executive Order No. 9921 (Aug. 3, 1948 transfer agreements).After the war the Alien Property Custodian issued a vesting order of Lots 1 and 2 on March 14, 1946; the Philippine Alien Property Administrator issued a supplemental vesting order for Lots 3 and 4 on July 6, 1948. Pursuant to the transfer agreements of August 3, 1948 the United States (through its Administrator) transferred all four lots to the Republic of the Philippines subject to indemnity undertakings. Claimant Lim filed a notice of claim with the Philippine Alien Property Administrator on November 15, 1948 (later amended to substitute the intestate estate); the Vested Property Claims Committee disallowed the claim on March 7, 1950, a decision received by claimant’s counsel on March 15, 1950 and which became final under the Administrator’s rules on April 15, 1950.
Lim then filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 13, 1950 seeking recovery of the lands, nullification of the sheriff’s sale to Kagawa, nullification of the vesting and transfer, issuance of titles to Arsenia Enriquez, and rentals from March 14, 1946 (against the United States) and from August 3, 1948 (against the Republic) at P30,000 per annum. The United States (as successor to the Administrator) and the Republic answered, asserting among affirmative defenses that suits were time-barred under Section 33 of the Trading with the Enemy Act and that claims for rentals constituted suits against the United States and the Republic without consent. Kagawa was served by publication and defaulted.
Following a preliminary hearing on affirmative...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to entertain Lim’s action given the vesting of the properties under the Trading with the Enemy Act and the asserted immunity of the United States and the Republic of the Philippines?
- Are the claims for damages/rent against the Attorney General of the United States and against the Republic of the Philippines maintainable?
- Were plaintiff’s claims for return of Lots 1 and 2, and for Lots 3 and 4, barred by the time limits of Section 33 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, or were they time...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)