The Holy See vs.

Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 December 1, 1994

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to reverse and set side a decision from the RTC of Makati. Petitioner is the
Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City and is represented by the Papal Nuncio in the
Philippines. The petition arose from a controversy regarding a lot, Lot 5-A, of 6,000 square meters located in
the Municipality of Parañaque, registered in the name of the petitioner. Lot 5-A is contiguous to two other lots,
5-B and 5-D. The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, who later assigned his rights to the sale to the private
respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., involved in real estate. Informal settlers were squatting in the
property, and dispute arose as to who would evict them. The conflict intensified when the lot was sold to
Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation by the petitioner. The private respondent filed a complaint
before the RTC of Makati against the petitioner and three other defendants: Msgr. Domingo Cirilos, who acted
as agent to the sellers, the PRC and Tropicana. It prayed for: 1) annulment of the Deeds of Sale between
petitioner and the PRC on the one hand and Tropicana on the other; 2) the reconveyance of the lots in
question; 3) specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of the lots and; 4)
damages. The petitioners and Cirilos separately moved to dimiss the complaint: petitioners for lack of
jurisdiction based on soverign immunity from suit and Cirilos for being an improper party. An opposition to the
motion was filed by private respondent. The trial court issued an order denying the petitioner’s motion to
dismiss, reason being that the petitioner can no longer be immune as they entered into a business contract.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration. They then filed a “Motion for Hearing for the Sole Purpose of Establishing
Factual Allegation for Claim of Immunity as a Jurisdictional Defense,” to facilitate the hearing in its defense of
sovereign immunity. Private repondents opposed the motion as well as the motion for reconsideration. The trial
court ordered the resolution be suspended until after trial on the marits and directing the petitioner to file its
answer. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The petitioner invoked its privilege of sovereign
immunity only on its behalf and on behalf of its official representatives, the Papal Nuncio. Eventually, the
Department of Foreign Affairs filed for a Motion of Intervention caliming its legal interest on the outcome of the
case concerning the diplomatic immunity of the petitioner. It stated its adoption upon the claim of the petitioner
with regard to its claim for soeverign immunity from suit. This was opposed by the private respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the Holy See can invoke its right to Sovereign Immunity to suit.

Ruling: The Supreme Court granted the petition and the complaint against the petitioner is dismissed.

Reason: Generally, there are two accepted concepts of sovereignty: a) classical or absolute theory, wherein a
sovereign cannot be made as respondent to courts of another sovereign without its consent and; b) restrictive
theory, which puts conditions on when to recognize immunity.
Under the restrictive theory, sovereign immunity is only recognized with regard to public acts or acts jure
imperii (or those in pursuant to governmental functions) . If the act is private or acts jure gestionis (those that
are for profit), then immunity cannot be invoked.
In this case, the petitioner had denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the Lot 5-A were made
for profit. It claimed that it acquired the property for its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines.
The lot, allegedly, was acquired by donation from the Archdiocese of Manila for the purpose of building official
residence of Papal Nuncio. However, when the informal settlers refused to leave the property, the petitioner
decided to dispose the property, not for commercial purpose. The DFA intervened as they established in a
Memorandum and Certification the privilege of sovereign immunity of the petitioner, stating that they are a duly
accredited diplomatic mission to the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and has title to all rights,
privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in the country. When the plea of immunity has
been recognized by the executive department, such shall be conclusive to courts.