Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5)
Petitioner and Respondents
• Petitioner – Co Kim Cham (alias Co Cham), plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3012 before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• Respondents – Eusebio V. Tan Keh (defendant in Case No. 3012) and Judge Arsenio P. Dizon (presiding judge who refused to continue the case).
Key Dates
• January 2, 1942 – Imperial Japanese Forces occupy Manila.
• January 23, 1942 – Japanese military establishes the Philippine Executive Commission under Vargas.
• October 14, 1943 – Inauguration of the Japanese-sponsored “Republic of the Philippines.”
• October 23, 1944 – MacArthur’s proclamation restoring the Commonwealth as the sole valid government and declaring “all laws, regulations and processes” of other governments null and void in liberated areas.
• February 3–27, 1945 – Liberation of Manila and reestablishment of Commonwealth Government.
• November 18, 1944 – Filing of Civil Case No. 3012 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• May 25 & 31, 1945 – Petitioner’s and defendant’s motions to resume Case No. 3012 filed in the lower court.
Applicable Law
• International Law – rules governing military occupation and the validity of acts by de facto governments; postliminy doctrine.
• Pre-1987 Philippine law – Constitution in force prior to liberation (Commonwealth Constitution, Organic Act No. 136, as revised) governing court jurisdiction and procedure.
Factual Background
During the Japanese occupation, existing Commonwealth courts continued under Japanese supervision via Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4 (1942) and thereafter under the “Republic of the Philippines” (1943), but their acts derived authority from Japanese military command. After U.S.-Filipino liberation, Judge Dizon refused to recognize or continue Civil Case No. 3012, asserting that MacArthur’s proclamation invalidated all judicial processes of Japanese-sponsored governments and that, absent an enabling law, Commonwealth courts lacked jurisdiction to resume those proceedings.
Issues
- Whether judicial acts and proceedings of courts under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines remain valid after liberation.
- Whether MacArthur’s October 23, 1944, proclamation nullified those judicial acts and proceedings.
- Whether Commonwealth courts have jurisdiction to continue cases pending in Japanese-sponsored courts at the time of liberation.
Issue 1 – Validity of Japanese-Regime Judicial Acts
Under established international law, judicial proceedings of a de facto government maintained by military occupation are valid and remain so after liberation (U.S. v. Thorington; Hague Convention IV [1907], Art. 43; postliminy doctrine). The Japanese-sponsored Philippine Executive Commission and Republic qualify as de facto governments of occupation. Their non-political judicial acts under Commonwealth laws continued public order and are therefore valid and binding post-liberation.
Issue 2 – Effect of MacArthur’s Proclamation
MacArthur’s proclamation declared null and void “all laws, regulations and processes” of governments other than the Commonwealth in liberated areas. However, by its purpose and under rules of international and municipal statutory construction, it was intended to invalidate only foreign or enemy legislative and administrative measures, not non-political judicial acts. The broad phrase “processes of any other government” should not be construed to extinguish valid judicial proceedings essential to civil order and private rights.
Issue 3 – Jurisdiction to Continue Pending Proceedings
Commonwealth courts are continuing tribunals of pre-occupation court
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5)
Facts and Procedural History
- Co Kim Cham petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of First Instance of Manila to continue Civil Case No. 3012, initiated under the Japanese-sponsored Republic of the Philippines
- Judge Arsenio P. Dizon refused to act, citing General MacArthur’s October 23, 1944 proclamation nullifying all laws, regulations and processes of governments other than the Commonwealth in liberated areas
- Respondents argued no enabling law empowered Commonwealth courts to resume proceedings pending before the defunct Japanese regime’s tribunals
- Petition filed under G.R. No. L-5, decided September 17, 1945, seeking to clarify validity of Japanese-era judicial acts and continuing jurisdiction
Japanese Military Occupation and Civil Administration
- January 2, 1942: Imperial Japanese Forces occupied Manila and proclaimed military administration under martial law
- Proclamation preserved existing Commonwealth laws and institutions “as in the past”; public officials to remain in their posts
- January 23, 1942: Order No. 1 established the Philippine Executive Commission under Jorge B. Vargas to coordinate central administration and judicial courts
- Executive Orders Nos. 1 (Jan 30) and 4 (Feb 5, 1942) continued Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts of First Instance, municipal and justice of the peace courts with existing jurisdiction
- October 14, 1943: So-called Republic of the Philippines inaugurated with no substantial change in court organization or laws administered
General MacArthur’s Proclamation of October 23, 1944
- Announced restoration of Commonwealth Government under U.S. supreme authority in liberated areas
- Declared existing Commonwealth laws and regulations “in full force and effect” in areas free of enemy occupation
- Proclaimed “all laws, regulations and processes of any other government” null, void and without legal effect in liberated Philippine territory
- February 27, 1945: MacArthur formally restored full powers to the Commonwealth, re-establishing constitutional government
Primary Legal Issues
- Were judicial acts and proceedings under the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines valid and binding after liberation?
- Did MacArthur’s proclamation invalidate all judgments and judicial proceedings of the Japanese-era courts?
- If not invalidated, could present Commonwealth courts continue proceedings pending before the Japanese regime’s tribunals?
Majority Opinion (Feria, J.) – Validity of Occupation-Era Judicial Acts
- Classified Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines as de facto governments of paramount force under international law
- Applied doctrine that acts of de facto governments, non-political in nature, are valid ab initio and survive postliminy upon restoration of legitimate sovereignty
- Relied on Hague Convention (190