7/29/2019 Co Kim Chan v

1/4

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh 75 Phil 113 Nov. 16, 1945

Facts of the case:

Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese

occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation ofthe 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 andvoid 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. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthurs

proclamation, those courts could continue hearing the cases pending before

them.

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

7/29/2019 Co Kim Chan v

2/4

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

7/29/2019 Co Kim Chan v

3/4

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.

DECISION:

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.

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

7/29/2019 Co Kim Chan v

4/4

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: 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) 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) through insurrection (established as an independent

government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the

parent state)

digest copied from:http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-

chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/

http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/co-kim-chan-v-valdez-tan-keh/