CASE 22

G.R. No. 165300 April 23, 2010

Petitioner further claimed that prior to this or on May 29, 1998, Comandante, for a
valuable consideration of ₱600,000.00, which amount formed part of the
ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, Petitioner, abovementioned secured loan, executed in his favor an instrument entitled Waiver of
vs. Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided),11 the pertinent
SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ and IMELDA DIAZ, REINA COMANDANTE and portions of which read:
SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN and ELIZABETH PANGAN, Respondents.
I, REINA D. COMANDANTE, of legal age, Filipino, married, with residence and postal
DECISION address at No. 6, Road 20, Project 8, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, for a
valuable consideration of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱600,000.00) which
DEL CASTILLO, J.: constitutes my legal obligation/loan to Pedro M. Ferrer, likewise of legal age, Filipino,
married to Erlinda B. Ferrer, with residence and postal address at No. 9, Lot 4, Puerto
Rico Street, Loyola Grand Villas, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, by virtue of
The basic questions to be resolved in this case are: Is a waiver of hereditary rights in
these presents, do hereby WAIVE, and/or REPUDIATE all my hereditary rights and
favor of another executed by a future heir while the parents are still living valid? Is an
interests as a legitimate heir/daughter of Sps. Alfredo T. Diaz and Imelda G. Diaz in favor
adverse claim annotated on the title of a property on the basis of such waiver likewise
of said Pedro M. Ferrer, his heirs and assigns over a certain parcel of land together with
valid and effective as to bind the subsequent owners and hold them liable to the
all the improvements found thereon and which property is more particularly described as
claimant?
follows:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
December 12, 2003 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
NO. RT-6604 (82020) PR-18887
70888.3 Said Decision modified the June 14, 2001 Summary Judgment 4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-99-38876 by holding respondents
Spouses Bienvenido and Elizabeth Pangan (the Pangans) not solidarily liable with the xxxx
other respondents, Spouses Alfredo and Imelda Diaz (the Diazes) and Reina
Comandante (Comandante), to petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer (Atty. Ferrer). Likewise and which property is titled and registered in the name of my parents Alfredo T. Diaz and
assailed is the CA Resolution5 dated September 10, 2004 which denied petitioner’s as Imelda G. Diaz, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT 6604 (82020) PR-
well as respondents Spouses Diaz and Comandante’s respective motions for 18887.
reconsideration.
(sgd.)
The parties’ respective versions of the factual antecedents are as follows: REINA D. COMANDANTE
Affiant
Version of the Petitioner
On the basis of said waiver, petitioner executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim12 which he
Petitioner Atty. Ferrer claimed in his original Complaint6 that on May 7, 1999, the Diazes, caused to be annotated at the back of TCT No. RT-6604 on May 26, 1999.
as represented by their daughter Comandante, through a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA),7 obtained from him a loan of ₱1,118,228.00. The loan was secured by a Real The Diazes, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante
Estate Mortgage Contract8 by way of second mortgage over Transfer Certificate of Title were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated demands, said respondents still
(TCT) No. RT-66049 and a Promissory Note10 payable within six months or up to failed and refused to settle the loan. Thus, petitioner filed on September 29, 1999 a
November 7, 1999. Comandante also issued to petitioner postdated checks to secure Complaint13 for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage Contract
payment of said loan.
against the Diazes and Comandante docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38876 and raffled notarized, but, as can be gleaned from the records, the documents were never notarized.
to Branch 224 of RTC, Quezon City. Moreover, Comandante claimed that the SPA alluded to by petitioner in his complaint
was not the same SPA under which she thought she derived the authority to execute the
Petitioner twice amended his complaint. First, by including as an alternative relief the mortgage contract.
Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage14 and, second, by impleading as additional defendants
the Pangans as the mortgaged property covered by TCT No. RT-6604 was already Comandante likewise alleged that on September 29, 1999 at 10:00 o‘ clock in the
transferred under their names in TCT No. N-209049. Petitioner prayed in his second morning, she executed an Affidavit of Repudiation/Revocation of Waiver of Hereditary
amended complaint that all the respondents be ordered to jointly and solidarily pay him Rights and Interests Over A (Still Undivided) Real Property,16 which she caused to be
the sum of ₱1,118,228.00, exclusive of interests, and/or for the judicial foreclosure of the annotated on the title of the subject property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City
property pursuant to the Real Estate Mortgage Contract. on the same day. Interestingly, petitioner filed his complaint later that day too.

Version of the Respondents By way of special and affirmative defenses, Comandante asserted in her Answer to the
amended complaint17 that said complaint states no cause of action against her because
In her Answer15 to petitioner’s original complaint, Comandante alleged that petitioner and the Real Estate Mortgage Contract and the waiver referred to by petitioner in his
his wife were her fellow members in the Couples for Christ Movement. Sometime in complaint were not duly, knowingly and validly executed by her; that the Waiver of
1998, she sought the help of petitioner with regard to the mortgage with a bank of her Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) is a useless
parents’ lot located at No. 6, Rd. 20, Project 8, Quezon City and covered by TCT No. RT- document as its execution is prohibited by Article 1347 of the Civil Code,18 hence, it
6604. She also sought financial accommodations from the couple on several occasions cannot be the source of any right or obligation in petitioner’s favor; that the Real Estate
which totaled ₱500,000.00. Comandante, however, claimed that these loans were Mortgage was of doubtful validity as she executed the same without valid authority from
secured by chattel mortgages over her taxi units in addition to several postdated checks her parents; and, that the prayer for collection and/or judicial foreclosure was irregular as
she issued in favor of petitioner. petitioner cannot seek said remedies at the same time.

As she could not practically comply with her obligation, petitioner and his wife, presented Apart from executing the affidavit of repudiation, Comandante also filed on October 4,
to Comandante sometime in May 1998 a document denominated as Waiver of 1999 a Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim (P.E. 2468) Under The Memorandum
Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) pertaining to a of Encumbrances of TCT No. RT-6604 (82020) PR-1888719 docketed as LRC Case No.
waiver of her hereditary share over her parents’ abovementioned property. Purportedly, Q-12009 (99) and raffled to Branch 220 of RTC, Quezon City. Petitioner who was
the execution of said waiver was to secure Comandante’s loan with the couple which at impleaded as respondent therein moved for the consolidation of said case 20 with Civil
that time had already ballooned to ₱600,000.00 due to interests. Case No. Q-99-38876. On June 24, 2000, Branch 220 of RTC, Quezon City ordered the
consolidation of LRC Case No. Q-12009 (99) with Civil Case No. Q-99-38876.
A year later, the couple again required Comandante to sign the following documents: (1) Accordingly, the records of the former case was forwarded to Branch 224.
a Real Estate Mortgage Contract over her parents’ property; and, (2) an undated
Promissory Note, both corresponding to the amount of ₱1,118,228.00, which petitioner For their part, the Diazes asserted that petitioner has no cause of action against them.
claimed to be the total amount of Comandante’s monetary obligation to him exclusive of They claimed that they do not even know petitioner and that they did not execute any
charges and interests. Comandante alleged that she reminded petitioner that she was SPA in favor of Comandante authorizing her to mortgage for the second time the subject
not the registered owner of the subject property and that although her parents granted property. They also contested the due execution of the SPA as it was neither
her SPA, same only pertains to her authority to mortgage the property to banks and other authenticated before the Philippine Consulate in the United States nor notarized before a
financial institutions and not to individuals. Petitioner nonetheless assured Comandante notary public in the State of New York where the Diazes have been residing for 16 years.
that the SPA was also applicable to their transaction. As Comandante was still hesitant, They claimed that they do not owe petitioner anything. The Diazes also pointed out that
petitioner and his wife threatened to foreclose the former’s taxi units and present the the complaint merely refers to Comandante’s personal obligation to petitioner with which
postdated checks she issued to the bank for payment. For fear of losing her taxi units they had nothing to do. They thus prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed.21
which were the only source of her livelihood, Comandante was thus constrained to sign
the mortgage agreement as well as the promissory note. Petitioner, however, did not At the Pangans’ end, they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in
furnish her with copies of said documents on the pretext that they still have to be good faith and for a consideration of ₱3,000,000.00 on November 11, 1999 from the
Diazes through the latter’s daughter Comandante who was clothed with SPA parents and in favor of petitioner. Petitioner insisted that said adverse claim is not
acknowledged before the Consul of New York. The Pangans immediately took actual frivolous and invalid and is registrable under Section 70 of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
possession of the property without anyone complaining or protesting. Soon thereafter, 1529. In fact, the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City had already determined the
they were issued TCT No. N-209049 in lieu of TCT No. RT-6604 which was cancelled. 22 sufficiency and/or validity of such registration by annotating said claim, and this,
respondents failed to question. Petitioner further averred that even before the sale and
However, on December 21, 1999, they were surprised upon being informed by petitioner transfer to the Pangans of the subject property, the latter were already aware of the
that the subject land had been mortgaged to him by the Diazes. Upon inquiry from existence of his adverse claim. In view of these, petitioner prayed that his Motion for
Comandante, the latter readily admitted that she has a personal loan with petitioner for Summary Judgment be granted.
which the mortgage of the property in petitioner’s favor was executed. She admitted,
though, that her parents were not aware of such mortgage and that they did not Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
authorize her to enter into such contract. Comandante also informed the Pangans that
the signatures of her parents appearing on the SPA are fictitious and that it was After the filing of the parties’ respective Oppositions to the said motions for summary
petitioner who prepared such document. judgment, the trial court, in an Order dated May 31, 2001,26 deemed both motions for
summary judgment submitted for resolution. Quoting substantially petitioner’s allegations
As affirmative defense, the Pangans asserted that the annotation of petitioner’s adverse in his Motion for Summary Judgment, it thereafter rendered on June 14, 2001 a
claim on TCT No. RT-6604 cannot impair their rights as new owners of the subject Summary Judgment27 in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
property. They claimed that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real
Property (Still Undivided) upon which petitioner’s adverse claim is anchored cannot be WHEREFORE, premises considered, summary judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the source of any right or interest over the property considering that it is null and void plaintiff and against defendants by:
under paragraph 2 of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
a) ORDERING all defendants jointly and solidarily to pay plaintiff the sum of ONE
Moreover, the Pangans asserted that the Real Estate Mortgage Contract cannot bind MILLION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY
them nor in any way impair their ownership of subject property because it was not EIGHT PESOS (₱1,118,228.00) which is blood money of plaintiff;
registered before the Register of Deeds.23
b) ORDERING the Honorable Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City that the rights
All the respondents interposed their respective counterclaims and prayed for moral and and interest of the plaintiff over subject property be annotated at the back of
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in varying amounts. T.C.T. No. N-209049;

After the parties have submitted their respective pre-trial briefs, the Diazes filed on March c) SENTENCING all defendants to pay plaintiff’s expenses of TEN THOUSAND
29, 2001 a Motion for Summary Judgment24 alleging that: first, since the documents PESOS (₱10,000.00) and to pay the costs of suit.
alluded to by petitioner in his complaint were defective, he was not entitled to any legal
right or relief; and, second, it was clear from the pleadings that it is Comandante who has IT IS SO ORDERED.28
an outstanding obligation with petitioner which the latter never denied. With these, the
Diazes believed that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact against them and,
The Pangans, the Diazes, and Comandante appealed to the CA.29 The Pangans faulted
hence, they were entitled to summary judgment.
the trial court in holding them jointly and severally liable with the Diazes and
Comandante for the satisfaction of the latter’s personal obligation to petitioner in the total
On May 7, 2001, petitioner also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, 25 claiming that his amount of ₱1,118,228.00. The Diazes and Comandante, on the other hand, imputed
suit against the respondents is meritorious and well-founded and that same is error upon the trial court in rendering summary judgment in favor of petitioner. They
documented and supported by law and jurisprudence. He averred that his adverse claim averred that assuming the summary judgment was proper, the trial court should not have
annotated at the back of TCT No. RT-6604, which was carried over in TCT No. 209049 considered the Real Estate Mortgage Contract and the Promissory Note as they were
under the names of the Pangans, is not merely anchored on the Waiver of Hereditary defective, as well as petitioner’s frivolous and non-registrable adverse claim.
Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante,
but also on the Real Estate Mortgage likewise executed by her in representation of her
In its Decision30 dated December 12, 2003, the CA declared Comandante’s waiver of Interests Over A Real Property (Still Undivided) but also on her being the attorney-in-fact
hereditary rights null and void. However, it found the Real Estate Mortgage executed by of the Diazes when she executed the mortgage contract in favor of petitioner. He avers
Comandante on behalf of her parents as binding between the parties thereto. that his adverse claim is not frivolous or invalid and is registrable as the Registrar of
Deeds of Quezon City even allowed its annotation. He also claims that even prior to the
As regards the Pangans, the CA ruled that the mortgage contract was not binding upon sale of subject property to the Pangans, the latter already knew of his valid and existing
them as they were purchasers in good faith and for value. The property was free from the adverse claim thereon and are, therefore, not purchasers in good faith. Thus, petitioner
mortgage encumbrance of petitioner when they acquired it as they only came to know of maintains that the Pangans should be held, together with the Diazes and Comandante,
the adverse claim through petitioner’s phone call which came right after the former’s jointly and severally liable to him in the total amount of ₱1,118,228.00.
acquisition of the property. The CA further ruled that as Comandante’s waiver of
hereditary rights and interests upon which petitioner’s adverse claim was based is a Petitioner’s contentions are untenable.
nullity, it could not be a source of any right in his favor. Hence, the Pangans were not
bound to take notice of such claim and are thus not liable to petitioner. The Affidavit of Adverse Claim executed by petitioner reads in part:

Noticeably, the appellate court did not rule on the propriety of the issuance of the xxxx
Summary Judgment as raised by the Diazes and Comandante. In the ultimate, the CA
merely modified the assailed Summary Judgment of the trial court by excluding the 1. That I am the Recipient/Benefactor of compulsory heir’s share over an
Pangans among those solidarily liable to petitioner, in effect affirming in all other respects undivided certain parcel of land together with all the improvements found therein
the assailed summary judgment, viz: x x x as evidenced by Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over A Real
Property, executed by REINA D. COMANDANTE (a compulsory/legitimate heir of
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Sps. Alfredo T. Diaz and Imelda G. Diaz), x x x.
of Quezon City, Branch 224 in Civil Case No. Q-99-38876 is hereby MODIFIED, as
follows: 2. That in order to protect my interest over said property as a
Recipient/Benefactor, for the registered owners/parents might dispose (of) and/or
1. Ordering defendants-appellants Comandante and Spouses Diaz to jointly and encumber the same in a fraudulent manner without my knowledge and consent,
severally pay plaintiff the sum of Php 1,118, 228.00; and for the owner’s duplicate title was not surrendered to me, it is petitioned that this
Affidavit of Adverse Claim be ANNOTATED at the back of the said title
2. Ordering defendants-appellants Comandante and Spouses Diaz to jointly and particularly on the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-6604
severally pay plaintiff the amount of Php10,000.00 plus cost of suit. (82020) PR-18887 which is on file with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

SO ORDERED.31 3. That I am executing this Affidavit in order to attest (to) the truth of the foregoing
facts and to petition the Honorable Registrar of Deeds, Quezon City, to annotate
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration32 having been denied by the CA in its this Affidavit of Adverse Claim at the back of the said title particularly the original
Resolution33 dated September 10, 2004, he now comes to us through this petition for copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-6604 (82020) PR-18887 which is on
review on certiorari insisting that the Pangans should, together with the other file with the said office, so that my interest as Recipient/Benefactor of the said
respondents, be held solidarily liable to him for the amount of ₱1,118,228.00. property will be protected especially the registered owner/parents, in a fraudulent
manner might dispose (of) and/or encumber the same without my knowledge and
Our Ruling consent. (Emphasis ours)

The petition lacks merit. Clearly, petitioner’s Affidavit of Adverse Claim was based solely on the waiver of
hereditary interest executed by Comandante. This fact cannot be any clearer especially
so when the inscription of his adverse claim at the back of TCT No. RT-6604 reads as
Petitioner merely reiterates his contentions in the Motion for Summary Judgment he filed
follows:
before the trial court. He insists that his Adverse Claim annotated at the back of TCT No.
RT-6604 is not merely anchored on Comandante’s Waiver of Hereditary Rights and
P.E. 2468/T-(82020)RT-6604 - - AFFIDAVIT OF ADVERSE CLAIM - - Executed under thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of
oath by PEDRO M. FERRER, married to Erlinda B. Ferrer, claiming among others that Deeds a sworn petition to that effect. (Emphasis ours)
they have a claim, the interest over said property as Recipient/Benefactor, by
virtue of a waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest over a real property x x Pursuant to the third paragraph of the afore-quoted provision, it has been held that the
x34 (Emphasis ours) validity or efficaciousness of an adverse claim may only be determined by the Court
upon petition by an interested party, in which event, the Court shall order the immediate
Therefore, there is no basis for petitioner’s assertion that the adverse claim was also hearing thereof and make the proper adjudication as justice and equity may warrant.
anchored on the mortgage contract allegedly executed by Comandante on behalf of her And, it is only when such claim is found unmeritorious that the registration of the adverse
parents. claim may be cancelled.36

The questions next to be resolved are: Is Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights As correctly pointed out by respondents, the records is bereft of any showing that the trial
valid? Is petitioner’s adverse claim based on such waiver likewise valid and effective? court conducted any hearing on the matter. Instead, what the trial court did was to
include this material issue among those for which it has rendered its summary judgment
We note at the outset that the validity of petitioner’s adverse claim should have been as shown by the following portion of the judgment:
determined by the trial court after the petition for cancellation of petitioner’s adverse
claim filed by Comandante was consolidated with Civil Case No. Q-99-38876.35 This is in x x x it will be NOTED that subject Adverse Claim annotated at the back of Transfer
consonance with Section 70 of PD 1529 which provides: Certificate of Title No. RT-6604 (82020) PR-18887, and carried over to defendants-Sps.
Pangan’s Title No. N-20909, is not merely anchored on defendant Reina Comandante’s
Section 70. Adverse Claim. – Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land "Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property" but also on her being the
adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original Attorney-In-Fact of the previous registered owners/parents/defendants Sps. Alfredo and
registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, Imelda Diaz about the Real Estate Mortgage Contract for a loan of ₱1,118,228.00 which
make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or is a blood money of the plaintiff. Moreover, subject Adverse Claim in LRC Case No. Q-
under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the 12009 (99) is NOT frivolous and invalid and consequently, REGISTRABLE by virtue of
registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in Section 110 of the Land Registration Act (now Section 70 of Presidential Decree No.
which the right or interest is claimed. 1529). 37 (Emphasis ours)

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s It does not escape our attention that the trial court merely echoed the claim of petitioner
residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall that his adverse claim subject of LRC Case No. Q-12009 (99) is not frivolous, invalid and
be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim is consequently registrable. We likewise lament the apparent lack of effort on the part of
shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said court to make even a short ratiocination as to how it came up with said conclusion.
said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified In fact, what followed the above-quoted portion of the summary judgment are mere
petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, That after cancellation, no recitals of the arguments raised by petitioner in his motion for summary judgment. And in
second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same the dispositive portion, the trial court merely casually ordered that petitioner’s adverse
claimant. claim be inscribed at the back of the title of the Pangans. What is worse is that despite
this glaring defect, the CA manifestly overlooked the matter even if respondents
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the vigorously raised the same before it.
Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse
claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of validity of such Be that as it may, respondents’ efforts of pointing out this flaw, which we find significant,
adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse have not gone to naught as will be hereinafter discussed.
claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in
any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse claim thus All the respondents contend that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a
registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by Comandante is null and void for being
thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of violative of Article 1347 of the Civil Code, hence, petitioner’s adverse claim which was
based upon such waiver is likewise void and cannot confer upon the latter any right or Anent the validity and effectivity of petitioner’s adverse claim, it is provided in Section 70
interest over the property. of PD 1529, that it is necessary that the claimant has a right or interest in the registered
land adverse to the registered owner and that it must arise subsequent to registration.
We agree with the respondents. Here, as no right or interest on the subject property flows from Comandante’s invalid
waiver of hereditary rights upon petitioner, the latter is thus not entitled to the registration
Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code, no contract may be of his adverse claim. Therefore, petitioner’s adverse claim is without any basis and must
entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. For consequently be adjudged invalid and ineffective and perforce be cancelled.
the inheritance to be considered "future", the succession must not have been opened at
the time of the contract. A contract may be classified as a contract upon future Albeit we have already resolved the issues raised by petitioner, we shall not stop here as
inheritance, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 1347, where the following the Diazes and Comandante in their Comment40 call our attention to the failure of the CA
requisites concur: to pass upon the issue of the propriety of the issuance by the trial court of the Summary
Judgment in favor of petitioner despite the fact that they have raised this issue before the
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened. appellate court. They argue that summary judgment is proper only when there is clearly
no genuine issue as to any material fact in the action. Thus, where the defendant
presented defenses tendering factual issue which call for presentation of evidence, as
(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and,
when he specifically denies the material allegations in the complaint, summary judgment
cannot be rendered.
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right
which is purely hereditary in nature.38
The Diazes and Comandante then enumerate the genuine issues in the case which they
claim should have precluded the trial court from issuing a summary judgment in
In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of Comandante’s Waiver of petitioner’s favor. First, the execution of the SPA in favor of Comandante referred to by
Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided), succession to petitioner in his complaint was never admitted by the Diazes. They assert that as such
either of her parent’s properties has not yet been opened since both of them are still fact is disputed, trial should have been conducted to determine the truth of the matter,
living. With respect to the other two requisites, both are likewise present considering that same being a genuine issue. Despite this, the trial court merely took the word of the
the property subject matter of Comandante’s waiver concededly forms part of the plaintiff and assumed that said document was indeed executed by them. Second,
properties that she expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such although Comandante acknowledges that she has a personal obligation with petitioner,
expectancy of a right, as shown by the facts, is undoubtedly purely hereditary in nature. she nevertheless, did not admit that it was in the amount of ₱1,118,228.00. Instead, she
claims only the amount of ₱500,000.00 or ₱600,000.00 (if inclusive of interest) as her
From the foregoing, it is clear that Comandante and petitioner entered into a contract obligation. Moreover, the Diazes deny borrowing any money from petitioner and neither
involving the former’s future inheritance as embodied in the Waiver of Hereditary Rights did the Pangans owe him a single centavo. Thus, the true amount of the obligation due
and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by her in petitioner’s favor. the petitioner and how each of the respondents are responsible for such amount are
genuine issues which need formal presentation of evidence. Lastly, they aver that the
In Tañedo v. Court of Appeals,39 we invalidated the contract of sale between Lazaro trial court ignored factual and material issues such as the lack of probative value of
Tañedo and therein private respondents since the subject matter thereof was a "one Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights as well as of the SPA; the fact that
hectare of whatever share the former shall have over Lot 191 of the cadastral survey of Comandante signed the mortgage contract and promissory note in her personal capacity;
Gerona, Province of Tarlac and covered by Title T-13829 of the Register of Deeds of and, that all such documents were prepared by petitioner who acted as a lawyer and the
Tarlac." It constitutes a part of Tañedo’s future inheritance from his parents, which creditor of Comandante at the same time.
cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.
Rule 35 of the Rules of Court provides for summary judgment, the pertinent provisions of
Guided by the above discussions, we similarly declare in this case that the Waiver of which are the following:
Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by
Comandante in favor of petitioner as not valid and that same cannot be the source of any Section 1. Summary Judgment for claimant. A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
right or create any obligation between them for being violative of the second paragraph counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the
of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions them. Also, although she admitted owing petitioner, same was not an absolute admission
or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. as she limited herself to an obligation amounting only to ₱600,000.00 inclusive of
charges and interests. She likewise claimed that such obligation is her personal
Section 2. Summary Judgment for the defending party. A party against whom a claim, obligation and not of her parents.
counterclaim or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time,
move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his The Diazes, for their part, also denied that they executed the SPA authorizing their
favor as to all or any part thereof. daughter to mortgage their property to petitioner as well as having any obligation to the
latter.
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The motion shall be served at least ten (10)
days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing Clearly, there are genuine issues in this case which require the presentation of evidence.
affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. After the For one, it is necessary to ascertain in a full blown trial the validity and due execution of
hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting the SPA, the Real Estate Mortgage and the Promissory Notes because the determination
affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of of the following equally significant questions depends on them, to wit: (1) Are the Diazes
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is obligated to petitioner or is the obligation a purely personal obligation of Comandante?
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. and, (2) Is the sum of ₱1,118,228.00 as shown in the Real Estate Mortgage and the
Promissory Note, the amount which is really due the petitioner?
As can be deduced from the above provisions, summary judgment is a procedural devise
resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. When the To stress, trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so
pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of facts to be tried, the Rules of only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as
Court allows a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. That is, pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment
when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by cannot take the place of trial.42 From the foregoing, it is apparent that the trial court
applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine should have refrained from issuing the summary judgment but instead proceeded to
issue, summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue is such fact which requires the conduct a full blown trial of the case. In view of this, the present case should be
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and proper disposition according to
claim.41 the rudiments of a regular trial on the merits and not through an abbreviated termination
of the case by summary judgment.
Here, we find the existence of genuine issues which removes the case from the
coverage of summary judgment. The variance in the allegations of the parties in their WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
pleadings is evident. dated December 12, 2003 insofar as it excluded the respondents Spouses Bienvenido
Pangan and Elizabeth Pangan from among those solidarily liable to petitioner Atty. Pedro
Petitioner anchors his complaint for sum of money and/or judicial foreclosure on the M. Ferrer, is AFFIRMED. The inscription of the adverse claim of petitioner Atty. Pedro M.
alleged real estate mortgage over the subject property allegedly entered into by Ferrer on T.C.T. No. N-209049 is hereby ordered CANCELLED. Insofar as its other
Comandante in behalf of her parents to secure payment of a loan amounting to aspects are concerned, the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE and VACATED. The case
₱1,118,228.00. To support this claim, petitioner attached to his complaint (1) the SPA is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 for further
alleged to have been executed by the Diazes; (2) the Real Estate Mortgage Contract proceedings in accordance with this Decision.
pertaining to the amount of ₱1,118,228.00; and, (3) a Promissory Note.
SO ORDERED
Comandante, in her Answer to petitioner’s Amended Complaint, assailed the validity and
due execution of the abovementioned documents. She asserted that the same were not MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
duly, knowingly and validly executed by her and that it was petitioner who prepared all of Associate Justice
CASE 38 is for this reason that the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a binding
international agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies with the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; The presence of US Armed requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution. The provision of Art. XVIII,
Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the fact that the presence
allowed “under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate x x x and recognized as a of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence “allowed under” the RP-US
treaty by the other contracting State”; Notice can be taken of the internationally Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been
known practice by the United States of submitting to its Senate for advice and ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US Senate, there is
consent agreements that are policymaking in nature, whereas those that carry out no violation of the Constitutional provision resulting from such presence. Nicolas
or further implement these policymaking agreements are merely submitted to vs. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438, G.R. No. 175888 February 11, 2009
Congress, under the provisions of the so-called Case-Zablocki Act, within 60 days
from ratification.—Applying the provision to the situation involved in these cases, G.R. No. 175888 February 11, 2009
the question is whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine
territory pursuant to the VFA is allowed “under a treaty duly concurred in by the SUZETTE NICOLAS y SOMBILON, Petitioner,
Senate x x x and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.” This Court vs.
finds that it is, for two reasons. First, as held in Bayan v. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs; RAUL
(2000), the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been GONZALEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice; EDUARDO ERMITA, in his
recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly capacity as Executive Secretary; RONALDO PUNO, in his capacity as Secretary of
authorized representative of the United States government. The fact that the VFA the Interior and Local Government; SERGIO APOSTOL, in his capacity as
was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States Senate does not Presidential Legal Counsel; and L/CPL. DANIEL SMITH, Respondents.
detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized
by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States law. Notice can be x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
taken of the internationally known practice by the United States of submitting to its
Senate for advice and consent agreements that are policymaking in nature,
G.R. No. 176051 February 11, 2009
whereas those that carry out or further implement thesepolicymaking agreements
are merely submitted to Congress, under the provisions of the so-called Case-
Zablocki Act, within sixty days from ratification. The second reason has to do with JOVITO R. SALONGA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, JOSE DE LA RAMA, EMILIO C.
the relation between the VFA and the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, CAPULONG, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., FLORIN HILBAY, and BENJAMIN
1951. This earlier agreement was signed and duly ratified with the concurrence of POZON, Petitioners,
both the Philippine Senate and the United States Senate. vs.
DANIEL SMITH, SECRETARY RAUL GONZALEZ, PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
SERGIO APOSTOL, SECRETARY RONALDO PUNO, SECRETARY ALBERTO
ROMULO, The Special 16th Division of the COURT OF APPEALS, and all persons
acting in their capacity, Respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; As an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual
Defense Treaty, it was not necessary to submit the Visiting Forces Agreement
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
(VFA) to the US Senate for advice and consent, but merely to the US Congress
under the Case-Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification; The provision of Art.
XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the fact that the G.R. No. 176222 February 11, 2009
presence of the US Armed Forces through the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is
a presence “allowed under” the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty.—As an BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN), represented by Dr. Carol Araullo;
implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it was not GABRIELA, represented by Emerenciana de Jesus; BAYAN MUNA, represented by
necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but merely Rep. Satur Ocampo; GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, represented by Rep. Liza Maza;
to the US Congress under the Case-Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification. It KILUSANG MAYO UNO (KMU), represented by Elmer Labog; KILUSANG
MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), represented by Willy Marbella; LEAGUE OF CONTRARY TO LAW."1
FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS), represented by Vencer Crisostomo; and THE PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW CENTER, represented by Atty. Rachel Pastores, Petitioners, Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the
vs. Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, the United States,
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, in her capacity as concurrent at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the proceedings.
Defense Secretary, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, FOREIGN
AFFAIRS SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO, JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL During the trial, which was transferred from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zambales
GONZALEZ, AND INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY RONALDO to the RTC of Makati for security reasons, the United States Government faithfully
PUNO, Respondents. complied with its undertaking to bring defendant Smith to the trial court every time his
presence was required.
DECISION
On December 4, 2006, the RTC of Makati, following the end of the trial, rendered its
AZCUNA, J.: Decision, finding defendant Smith guilty, thus:

These are petitions for certiorari, etc. as special civil actions and/or for review of the WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to adduce sufficient
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith v. Hon. Benjamin T. evidence against accused S/SGT. CHAD BRIAN CARPENTER, L/CPL. KEITH
Pozon, et al., in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212, dated January 2, 2007. SILKWOOD AND L/CPL. DOMINIC DUPLANTIS, all of the US Marine Corps assigned at
the USS Essex, are hereby ACQUITTED to the crime charged.
The facts are not disputed.
The prosecution having presented sufficient evidence against accused L/CPL. DANIEL J.
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States SMITH, also of the US Marine Corps at the USS Essex, this Court hereby finds him
Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of RAPE defined under Article
petitioner herein, sometime on November 1, 2005, as follows: 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, and, in
accordance with Article 266-B, first paragraph thereof, hereby sentences him to suffer
The undersigned accused LCpl. Daniel Smith, Ssgt. Chad Brian Carpentier, Dominic the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties provided for
Duplantis, Keith Silkwood and Timoteo L. Soriano, Jr. of the crime of Rape under Article under Article 41 of the same Code.
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353, upon a complaint
under oath filed by Suzette S. Nicolas, which is attached hereto and made an integral Pursuant to Article V, paragraph No. 10, of the Visiting Forces Agreement entered into by
part hereof as Annex "A," committed as follows: the Philippines and the United States, accused L/CPL. DANIEL J. SMITH shall serve his
sentence in the facilities that shall, thereafter, be agreed upon by appropriate Philippine
"That on or about the First (1st) day of November 2005, inside the Subic Bay Freeport and United States authorities. Pending agreement on such facilities, accused L/CPL.
Zone, Olongapo City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- DANIEL J. SMITH is hereby temporarily committed to the Makati City Jail.
named accused’s (sic), being then members of the United States Marine Corps, except
Timoteo L. Soriano, Jr., conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one Accused L/CPL. DANIEL J. SMITH is further sentenced to indemnify complainant
another, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with abuse of SUZETTE S. NICOLAS in the amount of ₱50,000.00 as compensatory damages plus
superior strength and taking advantage of the intoxication of the victim, did then and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sexually abuse and have sexual intercourse with
or carnal knowledge of one Suzette S. Nicolas, a 22-year old unmarried woman inside a SO ORDERED.2
Starex Van with Plate No. WKF-162, owned by Starways Travel and Tours, with Office
address at 8900 P. Victor St., Guadalupe, Makati City, and driven by accused Timoteo L. As a result, the Makati court ordered Smith detained at the Makati jail until further orders.
Soriano, Jr., against the will and consent of the said Suzette S. Nicolas, to her damage
and prejudice.
On December 29, 2006, however, defendant Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a
contingent of Philippine law enforcement agents, purportedly acting under orders of the
Department of the Interior and Local Government, and brought to a facility for detention This issue had been raised before, and this Court resolved in favor of the constitutionality
under the control of the United States government, provided for under new agreements of the VFA. This was in Bayan v. Zamora,4 brought by Bayan, one of petitioners in the
between the Philippines and the United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney present cases.
Agreement of December 19, 2006 which states:
Against the barriers of res judicata vis-à-vis Bayan, and stare decisis vis-à-vis all the
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United parties, the reversal of the previous ruling is sought on the ground that the issue is of
States of America agree that, in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed primordial importance, involving the sovereignty of the Republic, as well as a specific
between our two nations, Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps, mandate of the Constitution.
be returned to U.S. military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
The provision of the Constitution is Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 which states:
(Sgd.) Kristie A. Kenney (Sgd.) Alberto G. Romulo
Representative of the United States Representative of the Republic Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the
of America of the Philippines United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by
DATE: 12-19-06 DATE: December 19, 2006 the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast
by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty
by the other contracting State.
and the Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 22, 2006 which states:
The reason for this provision lies in history and the Philippine experience in regard to the
The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines and the Embassy of United States military bases in the country.
the United States of America agree that, in accordance with the Visiting Forces
Agreement signed between the two nations, upon transfer of Lance Corporal Daniel J. It will be recalled that under the Philippine Bill of 1902, which laid the basis for the
Smith, United States Marine Corps, from the Makati City Jail, he will be detained at the Philippine Commonwealth and, eventually, for the recognition of independence, the
first floor, Rowe (JUSMAG) Building, U.S. Embassy Compound in a room of United States agreed to cede to the Philippines all the territory it acquired from Spain
approximately 10 x 12 square feet. He will be guarded round the clock by U.S. military under the Treaty of Paris, plus a few islands later added to its realm, except certain naval
personnel. The Philippine police and jail authorities, under the direct supervision of the ports and/or military bases and facilities, which the United States retained for itself.
Philippine Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) will have access to the
place of detention to ensure the United States is in compliance with the terms of the
This is noteworthy, because what this means is that Clark and Subic and the other
VFA.
places in the Philippines covered by the RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947 were
not Philippine territory, as they were excluded from the cession and retained by the US.
The matter was brought before the Court of Appeals which decided on January 2, 2007,
as follows:
Accordingly, the Philippines had no jurisdiction over these bases except to the extent
allowed by the United States. Furthermore, the RP-US Military Bases Agreement was
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, we resolved to DISMISS the petition for never advised for ratification by the United States Senate, a disparity in treatment,
having become moot.3 because the Philippines regarded it as a treaty and had it concurred in by our Senate.

Hence, the present actions. Subsequently, the United States agreed to turn over these bases to the Philippines; and
with the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the territory covered
The petitions were heard on oral arguments on September 19, 2008, after which the by these bases were finally ceded to the Philippines.
parties submitted their memoranda.
To prevent a recurrence of this experience, the provision in question was adopted in the
Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of defendant L/CPL Smith 1987 Constitution.
because, first of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional.
The provision is thus designed to ensure that any agreement allowing the presence of Recalling with mutual pride the historic relationship which brought their two peoples
foreign military bases, troops or facilities in Philippine territory shall be equally binding on together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side-by-side against
the Philippines and the foreign sovereign State involved. The idea is to prevent a imperialist aggression during the last war.
recurrence of the situation in which the terms and conditions governing the presence of
foreign armed forces in our territory were binding upon us but not upon the foreign State. Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common
determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential
Applying the provision to the situation involved in these cases, the question is whether or aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area.
not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to the VFA is
allowed "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate xxx and recognized as a treaty Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the
by the other contracting State." preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive
system of regional security in the Pacific area.
This Court finds that it is, for two reasons.
Agreeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in
First, as held in Bayan v. Zamora,5 the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine any way or sense altering or diminishing any existing agreements or understandings
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America.
certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government.
Have agreed as follows:
The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States
Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty Article I. The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle
recognized by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States law. Notice any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a
can be taken of the internationally known practice by the United States of submitting to manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to
its Senate for advice and consent agreements that are policymaking in nature, whereas refrain in their international relation from the threat or use of force in any manner
those that carry out or further implement these policymaking agreements are merely inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
submitted to Congress, under the provisions of the so-called Case–Zablocki Act, within
sixty days from ratification.6 Article II. In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties
separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their
The second reason has to do with the relation between the VFA and the RP-US Mutual individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This earlier agreement was signed and duly ratified
with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United States Senate. Article III. The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult
together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in
The RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty states:7 the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of
either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific.
MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Signed at Washington, August 30, 1951. Article IV. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the
parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to
The Parties of this Treaty meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately
and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments, and desiring to reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be
strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area. terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and
maintain international peace and security.
Article V. For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is Clearly, therefore, joint RP-US military exercises for the purpose of developing the
deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, capability to resist an armed attack fall squarely under the provisions of the RP-US
or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the
public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the main RP-US
Military Defense Treaty. The Preamble of the VFA states:
Article VI. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way
the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of
responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and the Philippines,
security.
Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations
Article VII. This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of the Philippines and the United and their desire to strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific area;
Nations of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will
come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Reaffirming their obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951;
Manila.
Noting that from time to time elements of the United States armed forces may visit the
Article VIII. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it Republic of the Philippines;
one year after notice has been given to the other party.
Considering that cooperation between the United States and the Republic of the
In withness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty. Philippines promotes their common security interests;

Done in duplicate at Washington this thirtieth day of August, 1951. Recognizing the desirability of defining the treatment of United States personnel visiting
the Republic of the Philippines;
For the Republic of the Philippines:
Have agreed as follows:9
(Sgd.) Carlos P. Romulo
Accordingly, as an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it was
(Sgd.) Joaquin M. Elizalde not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but merely to
the US Congress under the Case–Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification. It is for
(Sgd.) Vicente J. Francisco this reason that the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a binding international
agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies with the requirements of Art.
(Sgd.) Diosdado Macapagal XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution.10

For the United States of America: The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the
fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence "allowed
under" the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself
(Sgd.) Dean Acheson
has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US Senate,
there is no violation of the Constitutional provision resulting from such presence.
(Sgd.) John Foster Dulles
The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of
(Sgd.) Tom Connally international law to abide by its terms and provisions.

(Sgd.) Alexander Wiley8

The VFA provides that in cases of offenses committed by the members of the US Armed As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to adopt
Forces in the Philippines, the following rules apply: rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is normally
encountered around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of one State do
Article V not extend or apply – except to the extent agreed upon – to subjects of another State
due to the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign
Criminal Jurisdiction armed forces.

xxx Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of the
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise
armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another State’s territory. On
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so
the contrary, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings.
principles of international law as part of the law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).
United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine
authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time
for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different
has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. The moment the accused has
position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States to be detained, e.g., after conviction, the rule that governs is the following provision of the
Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are VFA:
not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations
under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Article V
Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial
procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Criminal Jurisdiction
Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
xxx
Petitioners contend that these undertakings violate another provision of the Constitution,
namely, that providing for the exclusive power of this Court to adopt rules of procedure Sec. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States
for all courts in the Philippines (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). They argue that to allow the transfer personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and
of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines
for that accused, which also violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution (Art. shall have the right to visits and material assistance.
III, Sec. 1.).
It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during
Again, this Court finds no violation of the Constitution. the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement
to cover detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the
The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a detention shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also
different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our that the detention shall be "by Philippine authorities." Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney
territory and all other accused.11 Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of
the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory such detention is not "by Philippine authorities."
is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces
Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and Respondents should therefore comply with the VFA and negotiate with representatives of
conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining the United States towards an agreement on detention facilities under Philippine
power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over authorities as mandated by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA.
the forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties. 12
Next, the Court addresses the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in be immediately implemented. The parties to these present cases do not question the fact
Medellin v. Texas ( 552 US ___ No. 06-984, March 25, 2008), which held that treaties that the VFA has been registered under the Case-Zablocki Act. 1avvphi1

entered into by the United States are not automatically part of their domestic law unless
these treaties are self-executing or there is an implementing legislation to make them In sum, therefore, the VFA differs from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
enforceable. 1avvphi1

and the Avena decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), subject matter of the
Medellin decision. The Convention and the ICJ decision are not self-executing and are
On February 3, 2009, the Court issued a Resolution, thus: not registrable under the Case-Zablocki Act, and thus lack legislative implementing
authority.
"G.R. No. 175888 (Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon v. Alberto Romulo, et al.); G.R. No.
176051 (Jovito R. Salonga, et al. v. Daniel Smith, et al.); and G.R. No. 176222 (Bagong Finally, the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty was advised and consented to by the US
Alyansang Makabayan [BAYAN], et al. v. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.). Senate on March 20, 1952, as reflected in the US Congressional Record, 82nd
Congress, Second Session, Vol. 98 – Part 2, pp. 2594-2595.
The parties, including the Solicitor General, are required to submit within three (3) days a
Comment/Manifestation on the following points: The framers of the Constitution were aware that the application of international law in
domestic courts varies from country to country.
1. What is the implication on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement of the recent
US Supreme Court decision in Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Texas, dated March 25, As Ward N. Ferdinandusse states in his Treatise, DIRECT APPLICATION OF
2008, to the effect that treaty stipulations that are not self-executory can only be INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW IN NATIONAL COURTS, some countries require
enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect; and that, while treaties legislation whereas others do not.
may comprise international commitments, they are not domestic law unless
Congress has enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an It was not the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting Article XVIII,
intention that it be "self-executory" and is ratified on these terms? Sec. 25, to require the other contracting State to convert their system to achieve
alignment and parity with ours. It was simply required that the treaty be recognized as a
2. Whether the VFA is enforceable in the US as domestic law, either because it is treaty by the other contracting State. With that, it becomes for both parties a binding
self-executory or because there exists legislation to implement it. international obligation and the enforcement of that obligation is left to the normal
recourse and processes under international law.
3. Whether the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951 was concurred
in by the US Senate and, if so, is there proof of the US Senate advice and Furthermore, as held by the US Supreme Court in Weinberger v. Rossi,13 an executive
consent resolution? Peralta, J., no part." agreement is a "treaty" within the meaning of that word in international law and
constitutes enforceable domestic law vis-à-vis the United States. Thus, the US Supreme
After deliberation, the Court holds, on these points, as follows: Court in Weinberger enforced the provisions of the executive agreement granting
preferential employment to Filipinos in the US Bases here.
First, the VFA is a self-executing Agreement, as that term is defined in Medellin itself,
because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable, precisely because the Accordingly, there are three types of treaties in the American system:
Agreement is intended to carry out obligations and undertakings under the RP-US
Mutual Defense Treaty. As a matter of fact, the VFA has been implemented and 1. Art. II, Sec. 2 treaties – These are advised and consented to by the US Senate
executed, with the US faithfully complying with its obligation to produce L/CPL Smith in accordance with Art. II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution.
before the court during the trial.
2. Executive–Congressional Agreements: These are joint agreements of the
Secondly, the VFA is covered by implementing legislation, namely, the Case-Zablocki President and Congress and need not be submitted to the Senate.
Act, USC Sec. 112(b), inasmuch as it is the very purpose and intent of the US Congress
that executive agreements registered under this Act within 60 days from their ratification 3. Sole Executive Agreements. – These are agreements entered into by the
President. They are to be submitted to Congress within sixty (60) days of
 ratification under the provisions of the Case-Zablocki Act, after which they are
recognized by the Congress and may be implemented. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
As regards the implementation of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, military aid or
assistance has been given under it and this can only be done through implementing ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
legislation. The VFA itself is another form of implementation of its provisions. Associate Justice Associate Justice

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED, and the Court of Appeals’ RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 dated January 2, 2007 is MODIFIED. The Visiting Associate Justice Associate Justice
Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States,
entered into on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney
DANTE O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the
Associate Justice Associate Justice
VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to forthwith
negotiate with the United States representatives for the appropriate agreement on
detention facilities under Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
pending which the status quo shall be maintained until further orders by this Court. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
The Court of Appeals is hereby directed to resolve without delay the related matters
pending therein, namely, the petition for contempt and the appeal of L/CPL Daniel Smith TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
from the judgment of conviction. ARTURO D. BRION
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
No costs.

SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice CERTIFICATION

WE CONCUR: Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice