CO KIM CHAN V VALDEZ TAN KEH

GR No. L-5. September 17, 1945

Feria, J.

FACTS:

Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First
Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio
Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas
MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the
Philippines and, without an enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and
continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the
Philippine government under the Japanese).

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid
and remained valid even after the American occupation.
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared that all
laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said
Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy
occupation and control invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the courts.
3. Whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthurs proclamation, those courts could
continue hearing the cases pending before them.

HELD:

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.

RATIO:

Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a de facto government are
good and valid. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the
Japanese occupation may be considered de facto governments, supported by the military force and
deriving their authority from the laws of war.

Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless suspended or changed by the
conqueror. Civil obedience is expected even during war, for the existence of a state of insurrection and
war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the regular administration
of the laws. And if they were not valid, then it would not have been necessary for MacArthur to come
out with a proclamation abrogating them.

The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase processes of any other
government and whether or not he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of
courts during the Japanese military occupation.

IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto
governments are valid and remain valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated, then it
could not have been MacArthurs intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be in violation of
international law.

A well-known rule of statutory construction is: A statute ought never to be construed to violate the law
of nations if any other possible construction remains.

Another is that where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great mischief
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.
Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the dockets and violate
international law, therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to mean that judicial
proceedings are included in the phrase processes of any other governments.

In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use by the
occupant, they become his and derive their force from him. The laws and courts of the Philippines did
not become, by being continued as required by the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan.

It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, law once established continues until changed
by some competent legislative power. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF
SOVEREIGNTY. Until, of course, the new sovereign by legislative act creates a change.

Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the Philippines, and the laws
and courts of the Philippines had become courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and
conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same 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.

SUMMARY OF RATIO:

1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws continue even during
occupation unless repealed.

2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on judicial
proceedings because such a construction would violate the law of nations.

3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending before it.

3 kinds of de facto government:

1. one established through rebellion (govt gets possession and control through force or the voice of the
majority and maintains itself against the will of the rightful government)

2. through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory
of the enemy in the course of war; denoted as a government of paramount force)

3. through insurrection (established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who

rise in insurrection against the parent state)