Holy See v.

Rosario (December 1, 1994, 238 SCRA 524)

By: Jose Luis P. Gomez

Petitioner: THE HOLY SEE

Respondents: THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61) AND
STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC

Topic: Art. 14. Immunity from suit of foreign dignitaries and States

Facts:
●​ The petitioner in this case is the Holy See, which exercises sovereign authority over Vatican City in Rome and is represented
in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. The private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a local corporation
involved in real estate.

●​ The dispute centers on a 6,000-square-meter parcel of land in Parañaque registered under the Holy See's name. This property
was adjacent to two lots owned by the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). All three lots were sold to Ramon Licup through
Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., who acted as the agent of the sellers. Licup later transferred his rights to Starbright Sales
Enterprises, Inc.

●​ A conflict arose when squatters refused to vacate the properties sold to Starbright, prompting a dispute over which party bore
the responsibility for evicting the occupants. The situation became more complicated when the Holy See sold Lot 5-A to
Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation.

●​ As a result, Starbright filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 61, Makati) seeking the annulment of the
sale of the three parcels, specific performance, and damages against the Holy See (represented by the Papal Nuncio), Msgr.
Cirilos, PRC, and Tropicana.

●​ On June 8, 1990, the Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Holy See asserted sovereign
immunity, while Msgr. Cirilos argued he was not a proper party. However, on June 20, 1991, the RTC denied the motion,
stating that the Holy See had waived its immunity by entering into a commercial transaction.

●​ In response, the Holy See filed a motion for reconsideration on July 12, 1991, and later, on August 30, requested a hearing to
present factual evidence supporting its immunity claim. On October 1, 1991, the RTC postponed resolving the motion for
reconsideration until after trial and directed the Holy See to file its answer.

●​ The matter was then elevated to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, primarily challenging the
RTC’s ruling on the issue of sovereign immunity.

●​ On December 9, 1991, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) filed a Motion for Intervention, asserting its interest in the
case due to the diplomatic status of the Holy See. The DFA confirmed that the Embassy of the Holy See is an accredited
diplomatic mission, and thus enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

Issue:
WON the Holy See is immune from suit.

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the Holy See is immune from suit, affirming that the Republic of the Philippines recognizes the
Holy See as a foreign sovereign. Diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Philippines, through the Papal Nuncio as its
ambassador, have existed since 1957. This reflects a general norm in international relations.

The Court discussed two established theories on sovereign immunity. Under the absolute or classical doctrine, a sovereign state cannot
be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. In contrast, the restrictive theory limits immunity only to a state’s public or
governmental acts (acts jure imperii) and does not cover private or commercial acts (acts jure gestionis).
Holy See v. Rosario (December 1, 1994, 238 SCRA 524)
By: Jose Luis P. Gomez
If a state acts in its sovereign capacity especially not for commercial profit the act is considered jure imperii. In this case, if the Holy
See had engaged in land transactions purely for commercial gain, the sale might fall under jure gestionis. However, the Holy See
claimed, and this was not contested, that it did not acquire and sell Lot 5-A for profit but to use the land for its mission—the Apostolic
Nunciature in the Philippines.

Furthermore, Lot 5-A was not purchased in a business transaction but was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila specifically for the
construction of the Papal Nuncio's residence. The land was acquired and disposed of for a diplomatic, not commercial, purpose. This
is consistent with Articles 20 to 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which affirms a foreign mission’s right to
acquire property necessary for its operations. The Philippines ratified this treaty on November 15, 1965.

The Holy See later decided to dispose of the property because the presence of squatters rendered it unusable for its intended purpose.
This justification acknowledged by the private respondent in its own complaint demonstrated that the sale was not for profit but due to
practical limitations in fulfilling the land’s intended use.

However, the Court emphasized that the private respondent is not without recourse. Under international and transnational law, if a
person is harmed by the actions of a foreign sovereign, they may seek relief through their own government. In this case, Starbright
Sales Enterprises, Inc. can request the Philippine government to assert its claims diplomatically against the Holy See. The Department
of Foreign Affairs would first assess whether taking up the case would affect diplomatic relations. If it chooses to do so, the claim
would shift from a private grievance to an official state matter.