The Holy See vs Rosario Case Digest
Facts
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land located in the municipality of Parañaque. Said lots were contagious with two other lots. These lots were sold to Roman Licup.
In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by the petitioner of the lot of concern to Tropicana.
Sanders vs Veridiano II Case Digest – GR No. 46930, June 10, 1988
Issue
Whether Holy See is immune from suit in so far as its business relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity.
Ruling
If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii.
The complaint against Holy See is dismissed.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, Public International Law 194 [1984]).
The Holy See vs Rosario Case Digest
