Digest Author: Name
SYQUIA v. ALMEDA-LOPEZ (1949) the US Army had left the apartments and paid the accrued rental
Petitioner: Pedro Syquia, Gonzalo Syquia, and Leopoldo Syquia
Respondent: Natividad Almeda Lopez, Judge of Municipal Court of Manila,
Conrado V. Sanchez, Judge of CFI-Manila, George Moore, et. al.
Ponencia: Montemayor, J.
DOCTRINE: Immunity from Suit Government Officers
Inasmuch as plaintiffs are bringing an action against officers and agents (in
this case, that of the military) of the US Government, a judgment in these
proceedings may become a charge against the US Treasury. With this, the
present suit then must be regarded as one against the US Government itself,
which cannot be suit without its consent, especially by citizens of another
country.
FACTS:
1. Plaintiffs Syquia are the undivided joint owners of 3 apartment
buildings in Manila. They executed 3 lease contracts, one for each of
the apartments, in favor of USA, with a term of duration of the war
and six (6) months thereafter, unless sooner terminated. The
apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of
the US Armed Forces stationed in Manila.
2. Under the theory that said leases terminated six (6) months after
September 2, 1945, when Japan surrendered, plaintiffs approached
defendants Moore and Tillman and requested to return the
apartments to them, but were advised that the US Army wanted to
continue occupying the premises.
3. This happened several more times, prompting them to eventually
demand cancellation of leases, increase rental fees, and execute
new leases among others, but to no avail. With that, plaintiffs filed
the present action in the Municipal Trial Court of Manila in the form of
an action for unlawful detainer against Moore and Tillman and the 64
persons occupying apartments in the 3 buildings for the purpose of
having them vacate the apartments.
4. Municipal trial court dismissed it on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the matter, and the real party in interest was the US
government, which is not allowed to be sued without its consent.
ISSUES:
WON the US Government and not the private individual soldiers are the real
party in interest;
PROVISION: Section 3, Art. XVI of the 1987 Constitution
RULING + RATIO:
Yes.
The case was eventually dismissed for being moot and academic as
fees due.
A private citizen claiming possession of a certain property may, to
recover possession of said property, sue as individuals, officers and
agents of the Government who are said to be illegally withholding the
same from him.
Where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the
recovery of possession of the property in favor of a private citizen,
but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government,
then the suit should be regarded as one against the government
itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained
by the courts except with the consent of said Government.
In this case, the real party in interest is the United States of America.
Moore and Tillman, soldiers of USA, cant be held individually
responsible for the payments of rentals or damages in relation to the
occupancy of the apartment houses in question.
As to the 64 army officers who actually occupied the apartments
involved, there is even less reason to hold them personally liable for
rentals. These army officers do not have a choice of their dwellings.
They were merely assigned quarters in the apartment buildings in
question. All those officers did was to obey orders and occupy rooms
assigned to them.
The present action must be considered as one against the US
Government. 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 US 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 latters consent,
which renders more obvious lack of jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.