Title: Lim v.

Brownell
G.R. No. L-8587
March 24, 1960

Nature of actions: An appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance.

Facts:

The property in dispute consists of four parcels of land situated in Tondo Manila found by the
Alien Property Custodian of the United States to be registered in the name of Asaichi Kagawa,
national of an enemy country.

On March 14, 1946, issued a vesting order on the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of
the United States, as amended, vesting in himself the ownership over two of the said lots, Lots
Nos. 1 and 2
On July, 6, 1948, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator (successor of the Alien Property
Custodian) under the authority of the same statute issued a supplemental vesting order, vesting
in himself title to the remaining Lots Nos. 3 and 4.
On November 13, 1950the claimant Benito E. Lim, as administrator of the intestate estate of
Arsenia Enriquez, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Philippine
Alien Property Administrator (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.

Issue: Whether or not Intervenor-Appellee (Republic of the Philippines) be sued?

Held: The order appealed from insofar as it dismisses the complaint with respect to Lots 1 and 2 and the
claim for damages against the Attorney General of the United States and the Republic of the Philippines, 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. Without costs.

Ratio Decidendi:

The claim for damages for the use of the property against the intervenor defendant Republic of
the Philippines to which is was transferred, likewise, cannot be maintained because of the immunity of
the state from suit

The claim obviously constitutes a charge against, or financial liability to, the Government and
consequently cannot be entertained by the courts except with the consent of said government.

The Republic intervened in the case merely to unite with the defendant Attorney General of the
United States in resisting plaintiff's claims, and for that reason asked no affirmative relief against any
party in the answer in intervention it filed.