EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945

CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner,

vs.
EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First
Instance of Manila, respondents.1

FERIA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner, CO KIM CHAM, in a petition for Mandamus, to order

respondent, Judge Dizon of the lower court to continue the proceedings
in civil case No. 3012 of said court, initiated under the regime of the
so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese
military occupation of these Islands. The respondent judge refused to
take cognizance of and continue the proceedings in said case on the
ground that the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944, by General
Douglas MacArthur, invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings
and judgments of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine
Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established
during the Japanese military occupation, and that, the lower courts
have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial
proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the
Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority.
Respondent contends that the government established in the
Philippines during the Japanese occupation was no de
facto government.

ISSUE:

Whether or not judicial acts and proceedings during the Japanese

occupation were good and valid, and remained after liberation and
reoccupation by the United States; whether or not the proclamation
issued by General MacArthur invalidated all judicial acts and
proceedings; and whether or not courts could continue pending
proceedings if the same have not been invalidated by the
proclamation.

HELD:

The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the

Philippines during Japanese occupation was a de facto government; all
acts of a de facto government which are not of political complexion
remain good and valid even after liberation, by virtue of the principle
of postliminy in international law. The proclamation should not be
construed to violate the law of nations and where great inconvenience
will result from a particular construction, or great mischief is done,
such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that
such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless
required by clear and unequivocal words. The phrase “processes of
any other government” should not be construed to refer to judicial
processes, it could not have been the intention of the makers of law to
violate international law, and cause great inconvenience. Courts may
continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein
before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, until
abolished or the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them
are repealed by the said government.

Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First

Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to
final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012.