G.R. No. L-8587 – 107 Phil. 344 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity From Suit – Waiver of Immunity – Waiver by initiating suit; when not applicable
In 1950, Benito Lim, Jr. filed a recovery of possession with damages case against the Philippine Alien Property Administrator of the United States (PAPAUS). PAPAUS was later substituted by Herbert Brownell, Jr., the Attorney-General of the United States. The land subject matter of the case was registered to a Japanese during the Japanese occupation. When the war was over, PAPAUS discovered the property and had the same under its possession. It later transferred the property to the Republic of the Philippines. Lim alleged that the Japanese committed fraud in acquiring the property. The Republic of the Philippines intervened for the defendant for purposes of enforcing the Attorney-General’s claim that there can be no action against him.
The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the US is immune from suit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal is proper.
HELD: No. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of the United States, a private citizen, whose property was wrongfully vested as US property, may sue the US government to recover the property. The US gave express consent by law to be sued.
The suit for damages against the Attorney-General must be dismissed. The consent to be sued under the TWEA does not contemplate the filing of damage suits.
When the Republic of the Philippines intervened, Lim amended his complaint to claim damages against it, will the suit prosper?
No. The State cannot be sued without its consent.
But the Republic of the Philippines intervened in the case, is that not a waiver of non-suability under the principle that a State waives its immunity if it initiates a suit?
No. The Republic of the Philippines merely intervened to support the defense of the Attorney-General. Lim had no original complaint against the Republic. The Republic made no counterclaim. It merely invoked that the US, like itself, is immune from suit. Clearly, this is not a case where the state takes the initiative in an action against a private party by filing a complaint in intervention but one where the state, as one of the defendants merely resisted a claim against it precisely on the ground, among others, of its privileged position which exempts it from suit.
