Holy See vs Rosario

G.R. No. 101949

238 SCRA 524
December 1, 1994

Petitioner: The Holy See

Respondent: Hon. Elidberto Rosario, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC Makati, Branch 61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.

FACTS: Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5-A, registered
under the name Holy See, was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D under the name of
Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The land was donated by the Archdiocese of
Manila to the Papal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See, who exercises
sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome, Italy, for his residence.

Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to
respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.

When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between the two
parties because both were unsure whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters
from said lots. Respondent Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. insists that Holy See
should clear the property while Holy See says that respondent corporation should do
it or the earnest money will be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent,
subsequently returned the P100,000 earnest money.

The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation.

Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a suit for annulment of the sale, specific
performance and damages against Msgr. Cirilios, PRC as well as Tropicana Properties
and Development Corporation. The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. RTC denied
the motion on ground that petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by

entering into a business contract. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was
also denied hence this special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity.

HELD: The Court held that Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its
non-suability. As expressed in Sec. 2 Art II of the 1987 Constitution, generally
accepted principles of International Law are adopted by our Courts and thus shall
form part of the laws of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission
in the society of nations.

It was noted in Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
that diplomatic envoy shall be granted immunity from civil and administrative
jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable
property. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) certified that the Embassy of the
Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the
Philippines and is thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to the
immunity rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.

Furthermore, it shall be understood that in the case at bar, the petitioner has
bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business, surely, the said
transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has
denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot were made for profit
but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic
Nunciature in the Philippines.

The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is
non-propriety in nature. The lot was acquired through a donation from the
Archdiocese of Manila, not for a commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio thereof. The transfer of
the property and its subsequent disposal are likewise clothed with a governmental
(non-proprietal) character as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather
because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in said property.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the complaints were
dismissed accordingly.