LIM VS BROWNELL (G.R. No. L-8587) Constitutional Law

BENITO E. LIM, as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Arsenia Enriquez, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., Attorney General of the United States, and ASAICHI KAGAWA, defendants-appellee, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, intervenor-appellee.

Ponente:

GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

Action:

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila

Facts:

The property in dispute consists of four parcels of land situated in Tondo,City of Manila. The lands were,after the last world war, found by the Alien Property Custodian of the United States to be registered in the name of Asaichi Kagawa, national of an enemy country, Japan. On August 3, 1948,the Philippine Alien Property Administrator (PAPA) and the President of the Philippines, executed two formal agreements, whereby the said Administrator transferred all the said four lots to the Republic of the Philippines under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

On November 15, 1948 , the latter's son Benito E. Lim filed a formal notice of claim to the property with the PAPA On the theory that the lots in question still belonged to Arsenia Enriquez. that they were mortgaged by her to the Mercantile Bank of China Asaichi Kagawa, who, by means of threat and intimidation succeeded in preventing Arsenia Enriquez from exercising her right of redemption

On March 7, 1950, the claim was disallowed by the PAPA. On November 13, 1950, the claimant Benito E. Lim filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the PAPA (later substituted by the Attorney General of the United States) for the recovery of the property in question with back rents. The complaint was later amended to include Asaichi Kagawa as defendant.

Issues:

Whether or not lntervenor-Appellee (Republic of the Philippines) be sued?

Ruling:

The order appealed is affirmed, but revoked insofar as it dismisses the complaint with respect to Lots 3 and 4, as to which the case is hereby remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi:

No suit or claim for the return of said properties pursuant to Section 9 or 32 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act was filed by Plaintiff within two years from the date of vesting, the "later" date and the last on which suit could be brought.

Considering the law applicable there is no denying that an action against the Alien Property Custodian, or the Attorney General of the United States as his successor, involving vested property under the Trading with the Enemy Act located in the Philippines, is in substance an action against the United States. The immunity of the state from suit, however, cannot be invoked where the action, as in the present case, is instituted by a person who is neither an enemy or ally of an enemy for the purpose of establishing his right, title or interest in vested property, and of recovering his ownership and possession. Congressional consent to such suit has expressly been given by the United States.