candidate for office according to his moral qualifications.

When the family line

NANNI & OTHERS V. PACE & THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OF MALTA became extinct, the office would pass to the Order.

8 I.L.R. 2 | March 13, 1935 |Personality Under International Law of Non-State [Lolo] Mattia was succeeded by [tatay] Annibale. Unfortunately, [tatay]
Entities | ACP Bantolo Annibale sold the land where the Church stood to NANNI & OTHERS. In
Petitioner: NANNI & OTHERS (as appellants) 1921, [tatay] Annibale died.
Respondents: Guisseppe Pace & The Sovereign Order of Malta
Subsequently, a resolution was adopted by the Council of the Sovereign
Order of Malta on December 15, 1923 which granted investiture of the
Recit-Ready Facts: The Sovereign Order of Malta granted a benefice to
benefice [a permanent ceremonial conferment by the Church] to Guisseppe
Guisseppe Pace. However, this grant was subject to the condition that
Pace [the son], subject to the condition that Guisseppe recover property sold
Guisseppe recover the property where its church stood that was sold by
by his father, [tatay] Annibale.
Guisseppe’s father to Nanni & Others. Thus, Guisseppe instituted an action for
the recovery of the property against Nanni & Others. The CFI denied the
The Tribunal of Avezzano [kinda like an RTC] made a declaration that the
petition. But on appeal, the Tribunal granted the petition. When it reached the
acts by which the benefice was endowed were null and void on the ground
highest Court, it likewise sustained the Tribunal’s decision.
that State authorization had not been obtained for the acquisition of the
property under the Law of June 5, 1850. Thus, the Tribunal rejected
Nanni & Other’s contention is that the Order needed state authorization before
Guisseppe’s request for restitution.
it can accept property. Thus, the conferment of the grant was void. The
Tribunal and the Highest Court denied this contention and held that the Order The Court of Aquila [kinda like a CA] reversed and held that the alienation
is a juridical entity of its own by reason of its origins, historical development, by [tatay] Annibale was a nullity. It gave judgment for restitution. Hence, this
and position in the international legal community. Notably, the Order appeal by NANNI & OTHERS.
maintains diplomatic relations with 93 states. Lastly, the Italian State
recognizes the right of the Order to confer title through 2 Royal Decrees and 1 NANNI & OTHERS argue the following:
Convention.
(1) The endowment of the benefice was a nullity because the approval
Doctrine: It is impossible to deny to other international collective units a required by a Neapolitan Law of 1819 had not been obtained;
limited capacity of acting internationally within the ambit and the actual (2) The Chuch was in Neapolitan territory; and
exercise of their own functions with the resulting international juridical (3) The Order must be regarded as a religious institution in the canonical
personality and capacity which is its necessary and natural corollary. sense — a gift or endowment in favor of the Order required State
authorization by the Law of June 5, 1980. Thus, the Order had
Application to the case: acquired no title to the benefice.
This case provides an example of Non-State Entities who are given a juridical
personality under international law. The Sovereign Order of Malta, by virtue of ISSUE: Whether the grant by the Order to Guisseppe is invalid because of
customary norm of international law, was considered a separate juridical entity
the lack of state authorization. NO, the condition of the grant is valid because
of its own which was allowed to acquire property of its own.
state authorization is not needed by the Order which is considered a juridical
person of its own.
FACTS: On March 26, 1863, [lolo] Mattia was granted an ecclesiastical
benefice [a church office which gives income to the holder] by the Church of
S. Rocco. The office was to descend in [lolo] Mattia’s family in the male line
according to primogeniture [first-born male]. The Order was to approve each
RATIO:
The Court held that the Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta
possesses a juridical character resulting from its origins, historical
development, and position held in the international legal community. “Just as
the Order had a special legal character, so had the endowment which ... did
not require State authorization.”
“[T]he Sovereign Order of Malta, being a juridical entity, did not require [State
authorization] for the valid acquisition of this property [ ] prescribed by the
Law of 1850, because the destination of the said property was not the Order
itself but the endowed institution, which could not be legally assimilated to a
juridical person or to other autonomous bodies.”
“It is, accordingly, by virtue of a customary norm of international law, received
by our own internal law, exempt from the necessity of obtaining the
permission of the government for the acquisition of immovable property for its
own institutional purposes.”
“Historically, the essential element of such autonomy can be found in the
political nature of the mission which the Order has been destined to fulfill,
namely, by the aid of its arms to resist the Saracen and Mohammedan
menace and to establish its hospitallers in the Levant. In the course of
centuries it has aided in the establishment of Christianity and of European ...
[MISSING PAGES].”
“The definitely European and universal character of its aims and ideals must
be admitted. These aims are charity, Christian piety, and spiritual
enlightenment.”
“Finally, the recognition on the part of the Italian State of the ‘sovereignty and
independence with which the Order acts in the fulfillment of its mission’ is,
above all, the indirect consequence of being considered free from all
repressive and restrictive laws, with regard to the tenure of immovable
property, and also with regard to the public activity of ecclesiastical orders,
as well as the laws relating to charitable bodies and juridical entities in
general.”
This recognition is manifested by the following:
(1) Convention of February 20, 1884 by which the Italian State
recognized the aims and emblems of the Order, its right of active
legation, and the right to confer titles;
(2) The Royal Decree of October 7, 1923 by which, on the termination of
the military occupation of Corfu, the government entrusted to the
Order a mission suited to its character as a universal institution; and
(3) Decree of November 28, 1929, which reconfirmed the title of the
Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta in Court ceremonial and at
public functions.
“It is impossible to deny to other international collective units a limited
capacity of acting internationally within the ambit and the actual exercise of
their own functions with the resulting international juridical personality and
capacity which is its necessary and natural corollary. In accordance with
these doctrines, such personality was never denied to the Holy See even
before the Lateran Treaty of 1929, and it is unanimously conceded to the
League of Nations, although it is neither a State, nor a super-State, nor a
Confederation of States. It is equally conceded to certain international
administrative unions.”
Disposition of the Court
We must therefore conclude that, given the position which is, according to
our legal system, enjoyed by the Order as an international person, there was
no necessity, for the valid acquisition of this property, to obtain the
permission of the government.