Lim, etc. vs. Brownell, Jr., etc., G.R. No. L-8587
FACTS:
This This is an appe appeal al from from an orde orderr of the the Cour Courtt of Firs Firstt Inst Instan ance ce of Mani Manila la,, dismissing plaintiff's action for the recovery of real property for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The property in dispute consists of four parcels of land situated in Tondo, City of Manila, with a total area of 29,151 square meters. The lands were, after the last world war, found by the Alien Property Custodian of the United States to be registered in the name name of Asaic Asaichi hi Kaga Kagawa wa,, natio nationa nall of an enemy enemy count country, ry, Japa Japan, n, as evide evidence nced d by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 64904 to 65140, 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 Property Custodian) Custodian) under the authority authority of the same statute issued a supplemental vesting order, vesting in himself title to the remaining Lots Nos. 3 and 4. On August 3, 1948, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator (acting on behalf of the President of the United States) and the President of the Philippines, executed two formal agreements, one referring to Lots 1 and 2 and the other to Lots 3 and 4, whereby the said Administrator transferred transferred all the said four lots to the Republic of the Philippines upon the latter's undertaking fully to indemnify the United States for all claims in relation to the property transferred, which claims are payable by the United States of America or the Philippine Alien Property Administrator of the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, and for all such costs and expenses of administration as may by law be charged against the property or proceeds thereof hereby transferred. On November 15, 1948, the latter's son Benito E. Lim filed a formal notice of claim to the property with the Philippine Philippine Alien Property Property Administrator On the theory that the lots in question still belonged belonged to Arsenia Enriquez. Enriquez. that they were mortgaged by her to the Mercantile Bank of China; that the mortgage having been foreclosed, the property was sold at public auction during the war to the Japanese Asaichi Kagawa, who, by means means of threat threat and intimida intimidation tion succeeded succeeded in prevent preventing ing Arsenia Arsenia Enriqu Enriquez ez from exercising her right of redemption; and that Kagawa never acquired any valid title to the property because he was ineligible under the Constitution to acquire residential land in the Philippines by reason of alien age.
On March 7, 1950, the claim was disallowed by the Vested Property Claims Committee of the Philippine Alien Property Administrator, and copy of the decision disallowing the claim was received by claimant's counsel on the 15th of that month On November 13, 1950, the 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:
1. Whether or not Intervenor-Appellee (Republic of the Philippines) be sued?
HELD:
1. No suit or claim for the return of said properties pursuant to Section 9 or 32 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act was filed by Plaintiff within two years from the date of vesting, the “later” date and the last on which suit could be brought. A condition precedent to a suit for the return of property vested under Trading with the Enemy Act is that it should be filed not later than April 30, 1949, or within two years from the date of vesting, whichever is later, but in computing the two years, the period during which there was pending a suitor claim for the return of the property of the Act shall be excluded.
The court states that In view of the foregoing, 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.
