G.R. No. L-3981 July 30, 1951
PHILIPPINE ALIEN PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, petitioner, vs. HON. OSCAR CASTELO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, PEDRO C. HERNAEZ and ASUNCION DE LA RAMA VDA. DE ALUNAN, in her own behalf and as Administratrix of the Estate of her deceased husband Rafael R. Alunan, respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Alien Property Administration (PAPA), an agency of the United States created to vest enemy-owned properties, vested eight parcels of land in Manila owned by respondents Pedro C. Hernaez and the estate of Rafael R. Alunan on April 22, 1947. Respondents filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the properties and claimed damages of P5,000 monthly from the date of vesting. PAPA answered, asserting the properties were sold to Hakodate Dock Co., Ltd., an enemy entity, and raised an affirmative defense that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claim for damages due to lack of statutory consent to sue the United States for such damages. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them the legal owners and ordering PAPA to return the properties and pay P3,375 monthly from May 1947 until possession is restored. Before the expiration of the period to appeal, respondents moved for execution of the monetary award. The respondent judge granted the motion, citing as a “good reason” that PAPA might cease to exist before the final termination of the case on appeal. PAPA objected and filed this petition for certiorari after its motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of execution pending appeal based on the reason that the petitioner, an agency of the United States Government, might cease to exist before the final termination of the appellate proceedings.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders granting execution pending appeal. The Court ruled that the reason given by the respondent judge was not legally tenable. A suit against PAPA involving vested properties is a suit against the United States, which enjoys immunity from suit unless Congress gives its express consent. While consent was granted under the Trading with the Enemy Act for actions to establish title or interest in vested property, no such congressional consent was given for a suit to recover damages for the use of such property. Therefore, the court had no jurisdiction over the claim for damages. The issuance of the writ to enforce the monetary award would effectively allow a suit against the United States without its consent. Furthermore, the properties vested by PAPA are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or execution under Section 9(f) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The petitioner could not have waived the objection to jurisdiction, as the consent to be sued is solely a congressional prerogative. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.