9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

 
*
No. L-24294. May 3, 1974.

DONALD BAER, Commander U.S. Naval Base,

Subic Bay, Olongapo, Zambales, petitioner, vs.
HON. TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Bataan, and
EDGARDO GENER, respondents.

Political law; State immunity from suit; A foreign

government acting through its naval commanding
officer is immune from suit relative to the performance
of an important public Junction of any government,
the defense and security of its naval base in the
Philippines granted under a treaty.—The invocation of
the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state
without its consent is appropriate. More specifically,
insofar as alien armed forces is concerned, the
starting point in Raquiza v. Bradford, a 1945 decision.
x x x The solidity of the stand of petitioner is therefore
evident. What was sought by private respondent and
what was granted by respondent Judge amounted to
an interference with the performance of the duties of
petitioner in the base area in accordance with the
powers possessed by him under the Philippine-
American Military Bases Agreement. This point was
made clear in these words: "Assuming, for purposes of
argument, that the Philippine Government, through
the Bureau of Forestry, possesses the 'authority to

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

issue a Timber License to cut logs' inside a military

base, the Bases Agreement subjects the exercise of
rights under a timber license issued by the Philippine
Government to the exercise by the United States of its
rights, powers and authority of control within the
bases; and the findings of the Mutual Defense Board,
an agency of both the Philippine and United States
Governments, that 'continued logging operation by
Mr. Gener within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval
Base would not be consistent with the security and
operations of the Base,' is conclusive upon the
respondent Judge. * * * The doctrine of state
immunity is not limited to cases which would result in
a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would
require the doing of an affirmative act by it.
Prevention of a sovereign from doing an affirmative
act pertaining directly and immediately to the most
important public function of any government—the
defense of the state—is equally as untenable as

___________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baer vs. Tizon

requiring it to do an affirmative act." That such an

appraisal is not opposed to the interpretation of the
relevant treaty provision by our government is made
clear in the aforesaid manifestation and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

memorandum as amicus curiae, wherein it joined

petitioner for the grant of the remedy prayed for.
Same; Same; A naval commander may, however,
be sued in his personal capacity.—There should be no
misinterpretation of the scope of the decision reached
by this Court. Petitioner, as the Commander of the
United States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not
possess diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be
proceeded against in his personal capacity, or when
the action taken by him cannot be imputed to the
government which he represents.
Courts; Jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction;
Trial court has no authority to grant a writ of
preliminary injunction against U.S. naval authorities
in the Philippines in favor of a timber licensee whose
license already expired.—The infirmity of the
actuation of the respondent Judge becomes even more
glaring when it is considered that private respondent
had ceased to have any right of entering within the
base area. This is made clear in the petition in these
words: "In 1962, respondent Gener was issued by the
Bureau of Forestry an ordinary timber license to cut
logs in Barrio Mabayo, Morong, Bataan. The license
was renewed on July 10, 1963. In 1963, he commenced
logging operation inside the United States Naval
Base, Subic Bay, but in November, 1963 he was
apprehended and stopped by the Base authorities
from logging inside the Base. The renewal of his
license expired on July 30, 1964, and to date his
license has not been renewed by the Bureau of
Forestry. * * * In July 1964, the Mutual Defense
Board, a joint Philippines-United States agency
established pursuant to an exchange of diplomatic
notes between the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and
the United States Ambassador to provide 'direct
liaison and consultation between appropriate

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

Philippine and United States authorities on military

matters of mutual concern,' advised the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs in writing that The enclosed map
shows that the area in which Mr. Gener was logging
definitely falls within the boundaries of the base. This
map also depicts certain contiguous and overlapping
areas whose functional usage would be interfered with
by the logging operations.'" Nowhere in the answer of
respondents, nor in their memorandum, was this
point met. It remained unrefuted.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari with preliminary injunction.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 57, MAY 3, 1974 3

Baer vs. Tizon

     Sycip, Salazar, Luna Manalo & Feliciano for

petitioner.
     A. E. Dacanay for private respondent.
          Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason as amicus
curiae.

FERNANDO, J.:

There is nothing novel about the question raised

in this certiorari proceeding against the then
Judge Tito V. Tizon, f filed by petitioner Donald
Baer, then Commander of the United States
Naval Base, Subic Bay, Olongapo, Zambales,
seeking to nullify the orders of respondent Judge
denying his motion to dismiss a complaint filed
against him by the private respondent, Edgardo
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

Gener, on the ground of sovereign immunity of a

foreign power, his contention being that it was in
effect a suit against the United States, which
had not given its consent. The answer given is
supplied by a number of cases coming from this
Tribunal starting
1
from a 1945 decision,
2
Raquiza
v. Bradford to Johnson v. Turner, promulgated
in 1954. The doctrine of immunity from suit is of
undoubted applicability in this jurisdiction. It
cannot be otherwise, for under the 1935
Constitution, as now, it is expressly made clear
that the Philippines "adopts the generally
accepted principles of international
3
law as part
of the law of the Nation." As will subsequently
be shown, there was a failure on the part of the

_________________

1 75 Phil. 50.
2 94 Phil. 807. The other cases from Raquiza v. Bradford
follow: Tubb and Tedrow v. Griess, 78 Phil. 249 (1947);
Miquiabas v. Commanding General, 80 Phil. 262 (1948);
Dizon v. Phil. Ryukus Command, 81 Phil. 286 (1948); Syquia
v. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 (1949); Marvel Building Corp.
v. Philippine War Damage Commission, 85 Phil. 27 (1949);
Marquez Lim v. Nelson, 87 Phil. 328 (1950); Philippine Alien
Property Administration v. Castelo, 89 Phil. 568 (1951);
Parreño v. McGranery, 92 Phil. 791 (1953).
3 According to Article II, Sec. 3 of the 1935 Constitution:
"The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the Nation." The same
provision is found in the present Constitution, Article II, Sec.
3, reading thus: "The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,

cooperation. and amity with all nations."

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baer vs. Tizon

lower court to accord deference and respect to

such a basic doctrine, a failure compounded by
its refusal to take note of the absence of any
legal right on the part of petitioner. Hence,
certiorari is the proper remedy.
The facts are not in dispute. On November 17,
1964, respondent Edgardo Gener, as plaintiff,
filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of
First Instance of Bataan against petitioner,
Donald Baer, Commander of the United States
Naval Base in Olongapo. It was docketed as
Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court of First
Instance of Bataan. He alleged that he was
engaged in the business of logging in an area
situated in Barrio Mabayo, Municipality of
Morong, Bataan and that the American Naval
Base authorities stopped his logging operations.
He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction
restraining petitioner from interfering with his
logging operations. A restraining order was
issued4 by respondent Judge on November 23,
1964. Counsel for petitioner, upon instructions
of the American Ambassador to the Philippines,
entered their appearance for the purpose of
contesting the jurisdiction of respondent Judge
on the ground that the suit was one 5 against a
foreign sovereign without its consent. Then, on
December 12, 1964, petitioner filed a motion to

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

dismiss, wherein such ground was reiterated. It

was therein pointed out that he is the chief or
head of an agency or instrumentality of the
United States of America, with the subject
matter of the action being official acts done by
him for and in behalf of the United States of
America. It was added that in directing the
cessation of logging operations by respondent
Gener within the Naval Base, petitioner was
entirely within the scope of his authority and
official duty, the maintenance of the security of
the Naval Base and of the installations therein
being the first concern and most6 important duty
of the Commander of the Base. There was, on
December 14, 1964, an opposition and reply to
petitioner's motion to dismiss by respondent
Gener, relying on the principle that "a private
citizen claiming title and right of possession of
certain property may, to recover possession of
said property, sue as individuals, officers and
agents of the Government, who are said to be
illegally

_________________

4 Petition, par. 2(a) and (b).

5 Ibid, par. 2(d).
6 Ibid, par. 2(e).

VOL. 57, MAY 3, 1974 5

Baer vs. Tizon

withholding the same from him, though in doing

so, said officers and agents claim that they are

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

acting for the Government." That was his basis

for sustaining
7
the jurisdiction of respondent
Judge. Petitioner, thereafter, on January 12,
1965, made a written offer of documentary
evidence, including certified copies of telegrams
of the Forestry Director to Forestry personnel in
Balanga, Bataan dated January 8, and January
11, 1965, directing immediate investigation of
illegal timber cutting in Bataan and calling
attention to the fact that the records of the office
show no new renewal of timber 8
license or
temporary extension permits. The above
notwithstanding, respondent Judge, on January
12, 1965, issued an order granting respondent
Gener's application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction and denying petitioner's
motion to dismiss the opposition to the 9
application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
A motion for reconsideration having proved
futile, this petition for certiorari was filed with
this Court. The prayer was for the nullification
and setting aside of the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by respondent Judge in the
aforesaid Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court of
First Instance of Bataan. A resolution of March
17, 1965 was issued by this Court requiring
respondents to file an answer and upon
petitioner's posting a bond of P5,000.00
enjoining them from enforcing such writ of
preliminary injunction. The answer was duly
forthcoming. It sought to meet the judicial
question raised by the legal proposition that a
private citizen claiming title and right of
possession of a certain property may, to recover
the same, sue as individuals officers and agents
of the government alleged to be illegally
withholding such property even if there is an
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

assertion on their part that they are acting for

the government. Support for such a view is
found in the American Supreme
10
Court decisions11
of United States v. Lee and Land v. Dollar.
Thus the issue is squarely joined as to whether
or not the doctrine of immunity from suit
without consent is applicable. Thereafter,
extensive memoranda were

_______________

7 Ibid, par. 2(f).

8 Ibid, par. 2(i).
9 Ibid, par. 2(j).
10 106 US 196 (1882).
11 330 US 731 (1947).

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baer vs. Tizon

filed both by petitioner and respondents. In

addition, there was a manifestation and
memorandum of the Republic of the Philippines
as amicus curiae where, after a citation of
American Supreme Court decisions going12
back to
Schooner Exchange v. M'faddon, 13an 1812
decision, to United States v. Belmont, decided
in 1937, the plea was made that the petition for
certiorari be granted.
A careful study of the crucial issue posed in
this dispute yields the conclusion, as already
announced, that petitioner should prevail.
1. The invocation of the doctrine of immunity
from suit of a foreign state without its consent is

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

appropriate. More specifically, insofar as alien

armed forces is concerned, the starting point 14
is
Raquiza v. Bradford, a 1945 decision. In
dismissing a habeas corpus petition for the
release of petitioners confined by American army
authorities, Justice Hilado, speaking 15for the
Court, cited from Coleman v. Tennessee, where
it was explicitly declared: "It is well settled that
a foreign army, permitted to march through a
friendly country or to be stationed in it, by
permission of its government or sovereign, is
exempt from16 the civil and criminal jurisdiction of
the place." Two 17years later, in Tubb and
Tedrow v. Griess, this Court relied on the
ruling in Raquiza v. Bradford and cited in
support thereof excerpts from the works of the
following authoritative writers: Vattel, Wheaton,
Hall, Lawrence, Oppenhein, Westlake, 18
Hyde,
and McNair and Lauterpacht. Accuracy
demands the clarification that after the
conclusion of the Philippine-American Military
Bases Agreement, the treaty provisions should
control on such matter, the assumption being
that there was a manifestation of the submission
to jurisdiction on the part
19
of the foreign power
whenever appropriate. More to the point is
Syquia v. Almeda

_______________

12 7 Cranch 116.
13 301 US 324.
14 75 Phil. 50.
15 97 US 509 (1879).
16 75 Phil. 50, 60.
17 78 Phil. 249 (1947).
18 Ibid, 252-254.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

19 Cf. People v. Acierto, 92 Phil. 534 (1953) and People v.

Gozo, L36409, Oct. 26, 1973, 53 SCRA 476.

VOL. 57, MAY 3, 1974 7

Baer vs. Tizon

20
Lopez, where plaintiffs as lessors sued the
Commanding General of the United States Army
in the Philippines, seeking the restoration to
them of the apartment buildings they owned
leased to United States armed forces stationed
in the Manila area. A motion to dismiss on the
ground of non-suability was filed and upheld by
respondent Judge. The matter was taken to this
Court in a mandamus proceeding. It failed. It
was the ruling that respondent Judge acted
correctly considering that the "action must be
considered as
21
one against the U.S.
Government." The opinion of Justice
Montemayor continued:
"It is clear that the courts of the Philippines
including the Municipal Court of Manila have no
jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful
detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was
raised and interposed at the very beginning of
the action. The U.S. Government has not given
its consent to the filing of this suit which is
essentially against her, though not in name.
Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen
filing a suit against his own Government
without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen
filing an action against a foreign government
without said government's. consent, which
renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

the courts of his country. The principles of law

behind this rule are so elementary and of such
general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary
22
to cite authorities in support thereof." Then
came Marvel Building Corporation
23
v. Philippine
War Damage Commission, where respondent, a
United States agency established to compensate
damages suffered by the Philippines during
World War II was held as falling within the
above doctrine as the suit against it "would
eventually be a charge against or financial
liability of the United States Government
because * * *, the Commission has no funds of its
own for 24the purpose of paying money
judgments." The Syquia ruling was again
explicitly
25
relied upon in Marquez Lim v.
Nelson, involving a complaint for the recovery
of a motor launch, plus damages, the special
defense interposed being "that the vessel
belonged to the United States

__________________

20 84 Phil. 312 (1949).

21 Ibid, 323.
22 Ibid,
23 85 Phil. 27 (1949).
24 Ibid, 32.
25 87 Phil. 328 (1950).

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Baer vs. Tizon

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

Government, that the defendants merely acted

as agents of said Government, and that the
United States Government
26
is therefore the real
party in interest." So it was in Philippine
27
Alien
Property Administration v. Castelo, where it
was held that a suit against the Alien Property
Custodian and the Attorney General of the
United States involving vested property under
the Trading with the Enemy Act is in substance
a suit against the United States.28
To the same
effect is Parreño v. McGranery, as the following
excerpt from the opinion of Justice Tuason
clearly shows: "It is a widely accepted principle
of international law, which is made a part of the
law of the land (Article II, Section 3 of the
Constitution), that a foreign state may not be
brought to suit before the courts of another
29
state
or its own courts without its30 cohsent." Finally,
there is Johnson v. Turner, an appeal by the
defendant, then Commanding General,
Philippine Command (Air Force, with office at
Clark Field) from a decision ordering the return
to plaintiff of the confiscated military payment
certificates known as scrip money. In reversing
the lower court decision, this Tribunal, through
Justice31 Montemayor, relied on Syquia v. Almeda
Lopez, explaining why it could not be
sustained.
The solidity of the stand of petitioner is
therefore evident. What was sought by private
respondent and what was granted by respondent
Judge amounted to an interference with the
performance of the duties of petitioner in the
base area in accordance with the powers
possessed by him under the Philippine-American
Military Bases Agreement. This point was made
clear in these words: "Assuming, for purposes of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

argument, that the Philippine Government,

through the Bureau of Forestry, possesses the
'authority to issue a Timber License to cut logs'
inside a military base, the Bases Agreement
subjects the exercise of rights under a timber
license issued by the Philippine Government to
the exercise by the United States of its rights,
power and authority of control. within the bases;
and. the findings of the Mutual Defense Board,
an agency of

________________

26 Ibid, 329.
27 89 Phil. 568 (1951).
28 92 Phil. 791 (1953).
29 Ibid, 792. The excerpt continues with a reference to the
Syquia, Marvel Building Corporation, and Marquez Lim
decisions.
30 94 Phil. 807 (1954).
31 84 Phil. 312 (1949).

VOL. 57, MAY 3, 1974 9

Baer vs. Tizon

both the Philippine and United States

Governments, that 'continued logging operation
by Mr. Gener within the boundaries of the U.S.
Naval Base would not be consistent with the
security and operation of the Base,' is conclusive
upon the respondent Judge. * * * The doctrine of
state immunity is not limited to cases which
would result in a pecuniary charge against the
sovereign or would require the doing of an

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

affirmative act by it. Prevention of a sovereign

from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly
and immediately to the most important public
function of any government—the defense of the
state—is equally as untenable
32
as requiring it to
do an affirmative act." That such an appraisal
is not opposed to the interpretation of the
relevant treaty provision by our government is
made clear in the aforesaid manifestation and
memorandum as amicus curiae, wherein it
joined petitioner for the grant of the remedy
prayed for.
2. There should be no misinterpretation of the
scope of the decision reached by this Court.
Petitioner, as the Commander of the United
States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not possess
diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be
proceeded against in his personal capacity, or
when the action taken by him cannot be imputed
to the government which he represents. Thus,
after the Military Bases Agreement, 33
in
Miquiabas v. Commanding General and Dizon
v. The Commanding 34
General of the Philippine-
Ryukus Command, both of them being habeas
corpus petitions, there was no question as to the
submission to jurisdiction of the respondents. As
a matter35 of fact, in Miquiabas v. Commanding
General, the immediate release of the
petitioner was ordered, it being apparent that
the general court martial appointed by
respondent Commanding General was without
jurisdiction to try petitioner. Thereafter, in the
cited cases of Syquia, Marquez Lim, and
Johnson, the parties proceeded against were
American army commanding officers stationed
in the Philippines. The insuperable obstacle to
the jurisdiction of respondent Judge is that a
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

foreign sovereign without its consent is haled

into court in connection with acts performed by
it pursuant to treaty provisions and

_______________

32 Petition, paragraph 2(2).

33 80 Phil. 262 (1948).
34 81 Phil. 286 (1948).
35 80 Phil. 262 (1948).

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Baer vs. Tizon

thus impressed with a governmental character.

3. The infirmity of the actuation of
respondent Judge becomes even more glaring
when it is considered that private respondent
had ceased to have any right of entering within
the base area. This is made clear in the petition
in these words: "In 1962, respondent Gener was
issued by the Bureau of Forestry an ordinary
timber license to cut logs in Barrio Mabayo,
Moring, Bataan. The license was renewed on
July 10, 1963. In 1963, he commenced logging
operation inside the United States Naval Base,
Subic Bay, but in November 1963 he was
apprehended and stopped by the Base
authorities from logging inside the Base. The
renewal of his license expired on July 30, 1964,
and to date his license has not been renewed by
the Bureau of Forestry. * * * In July 1964, the
Mutual Defense Board, a joint Philippines-
United States agency established pursuant to an
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

exchange of diplomatic notes between the

Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the United
States Ambassador to provide 'direct liaison and
consultation between appropriate Philippine and
United States authorities on military matters of
mutual concern,' advised the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs in writing that: The enclosed
map shows that the area in which Mr. Gener
was logging definitely falls within the
boundaries of the base. This map also depicts
certain contiguous and overlapping areas whose
functional usage would
36
be interfered with by the
logging operations.'" Nowhere in the answer of
respondents, nor in their memorandum, was this
point met. It remained unrefuted.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed
for is granted, nullifying and setting aside the
writ of preliminary injunction issued by
respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 2984 of the
Court of First Instance of Bataan. The injunction
issued by this Court on March 18, 1965
enjoining the enforcement of the aforesaid writ
of preliminary injunction of respondent Judge is
hereby made permanent. Costs against private
respondent Edgardo Gener.

          Zaldivar, Antonio, Fernandez and

Aquino, JJ., concur.
     Barredo, J., did not take part.

Certiorari granted, writ of preliminary

injunction nullified and set aside.

______________

36 Petition, paragraph 3.

11

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

VOL. 57, MAY 3, 1974 11

Baer vs. Tizon

Notes.—Statutory provisions waiving State

immunity from suits are strictly construed and
waiver of immunity, being in derogation of
sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred (Mobil
Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs
Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120). The immunity
of the State from suit cannot be invoked where
the action is instituted by a person who is
neither an enemy nor an ally of an enemy for the
purpose of establishing his right, title or interest
in a vested property, and of recovering his
ownership and possession thereof (Bureau of
Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees
Ass'n., 1 SCRA 340; Philippine Resources
Development Corporation vs. Republic, 13 SCRA
697; Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs.
Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120;
American Ins. Co. vs. Macondray & Co., Inc., 20
SCRA 1103; Equitable Ins. & Casualty Co., Inc.
vs. Smith, Bell & Co., 20 SCRA 1121; Insurance
Company of North America vs. Republic, 20
SCRA 1159; Champion Auto Supply Co., Inc. vs.
Bureau of Customs, 21 SCRA 460; Hartford Fire
Ins. Co. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, 21 SCRA
461; Insurance Company of North America vs.
Republic, 21 SCRA 463; Union Insurance Society
of Canton, Ltd. vs. Republic, 27 SCRA 445;
Insurance Company of North America vs. Osaka
Shosen Kaisha, 27 SCRA 780; Providence
Washington Ins. Co. vs. Republic, 29 SCRA 598).
It is the duty of the party to allege in his
complaint the State's consent to be sued
(Insurance Company of North America vs.
Republic, 20 SCRA 627, 20 SCRA 648; North
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/19
9/26/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057

British & Mercantile Ins. Co., Ltd. vs. Isthmian

Lines, Inc., 20 SCRA 629; Shell Refinery
Company (Phil), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, 20
SCRA 919; Equitable Insurance & Casualty Co.,
Inc. vs. Smith, Bell & Co. (Phil.),Inc., 20 SCRA
1121).

LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICE

See SCRA Quick Index-Digest, Volume One,

page 375 on Constitutional Law; and page 501
on Courts.
See also SCRA Quick Index-Digest, Volume
two, page 1114 on Jurisdiction; and page 1739
on Preliminary Injunction.

———o0o———

12

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174cd74e183449d8fc0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19