P.

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Peaceful settlement of disputes is compulsory. If a bilateral settlement fails, UNCLOS requires submission of the
dispute for
compulsory settlement in one of the tribunals clothed with jurisdiction. The alternatives are the International Tribunal
for the
Law of the Sea, the ICJ, or an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Convention.
Q. PEACEFUL USE OF THE OCEANS
In exercising their rights and performing their duties under UNCLOS, states shall refrain from any threat or use of
force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
principles
of international law embodied in the UN Charter.
R. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL OBJECTS
States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea.

Jurisdiction
Brownwell v. Sun Life Assurance Company
effect in a country other than the country of origin, provided
the former, in which it is sought to be made operative, gives its consent thereto.
it is enough that said consent be implied from its conduct or from that of its authorized officers.
Philippines is based concurrently on the tacit consent thereto and the conduct of the Philippine
Government itself in receiving the benefits of its provisions.
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw
competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried.
The jurisdiction of piracy unlike other crimes has no territorial limits.
o Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas without lawful authority and done animo
furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
Tubb v. Greiss
its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place.
o Grant of free passage implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during their passage and
permits the foreign general to use that discipline, and to inflict those punishments which the
government of his army may require.

HERBERT BROWNELL, JR.versusSUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

G.R. No. L-5731 June 22, 1954
FACTS:
Subject of this petition is the endowment policy which insured Aihara
andG a y a p a n a n d u p o n i t s m a t u r i t y t h e p r o c e e d s w e r e p a y a b l e t o s a i d i n s u r e d .
Brownell instituted this case to compel Sun Life to comply with the demand topay
representing the half of the proceeds of endowment policy and payable toone Naogiro
Aihara, a Japanese national. Such claim is based on Section 5(b)(2) of the Trading with
the Enem y Act of the United States. W hich claim
wasa p p r o v e d a n d g r a n t e d b y t h e l o w e r c o u r t o r d e r i n g S L A C O C t o p a y
h e r e i n petitioner.
ISSUE:

W h e t h e r o r n o t s u c h A c t i s s t i l l b i n d i n g d e s p i t e
e c o m p l e t e independence of the Philippines from American government?
HELD:
Yes. T h e e x t e n s i o n o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e P r o p e r t y A c t o f 1 9 4 6 i s c l e a r l y
i m p l i e d from the acts of the President of the Philippines and the Secretary of
ForeignAffairs, as well as by the enactment of R.A. Nos. 7, 8 and 477.

t h

FACTS: On or about June 30, 1920, six vintas intercepted two Dutch boats which was on its way
between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. The six vintas were manned by
24 armed Moros. The dutch boats were carrying men, women and children. At first, the Moros
asked for food, but once on the Dutch boats, took for themselves all the vessels cargo, attacked
some of the men and brutally violated 2 of the women by methods too horrible to be described.
All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the 2 young women, were again placed on it
and holes were made on it and holes were made on it, with the idea that it would submerge. Two
of the Moro pirates, late identified as Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to Tawi-tawi, Sulu where
they were arrested.
STATE: Piracy.
ACCUSED: The offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI of Sulu nor any court of
the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in
force in the Philippine Islands.
HELD: It cannot be contended with any degree of force that the CFI of Sulu was without
jurisdiction on the case. Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all
mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may
be found or into which he may be carried. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed
within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. The crime of piracy was accompanied by
rape and the abandonment of persons without means of saving themselves. LOl-lo was penalized
with death by being hanged until dead while Saraw were penalized with life imprisonment.

1. HAW PIA v CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

FACTS
Haw Pia had previously contracted a loan from China Banking Corporation in the
amount of P5,103.35, which, according to Haw Pia, had been completely paid,
on different occasions from 1942 to 1944 through Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., which
was appointed by the Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of China
Banking Corp. With this, Haw Pia instituted an action against China Banking
Corp. to compel the bank to execute a deed of cancellation of mortgage on the
property used as security for the loan and to deliver its title.
However, upon service of summons, China Banking Corp. demanded from Haw
Pia for the payment of the sum of its indebtedness with interests, which also
constituted its counter claim in its answer.
RTC rendered a decision in favor of China Banking Corp. on the basis that there
was no evidence to show that Bank of Taiwan was authorized by China Banking
Corp. to accept Haw Pia's payment and that Bank of Taiwan, as an agency of
the Japanese invading army, was not authorized under the international law to
liquidate the business of China Banking Corp. As such, Haw Pia's payment to
Bank of Taiwan has not extinguished his indebtedness to China Banking Corp.
ISSUE
Whether the Japanese Military Administration had authority to order the
liquidation of the business of China Banking Corp. and to appoint Bank of
Taiwan as liquidator authorized as such to accept payment
HELD
YES. Under international law, the Japanese Military authorities had power to
order the liquidation of China Banking Corp. and to appoint and authorize Bank
of Taiwan as liquidator to accept the payment in question, because such

liquidation is not confiscation of the properties of China Banking Corp., but a

mere sequestration of its assets which required its liquidation.
The sequestration or liquidation of enemy banks in occupied territories is
authorized expressly, not only by the US Army and Naval Manual of Military
Government and Civil Affairs, but also similar manuals of other countries,
without violating Art. 46 or other articles of the Hague Regulations. They do not
amount to an outright confiscation of private property.
The purpose of such sequestration, as expounded in the Annual Report of the
Office of the Alien Custodian, is that enemy-owned property can be used to
further the interest of the enemy and to impede their war efforts. All enemycontrolled
assets can be used to finance propaganda, espionage, and sabotage
in these countries or in countries friendly to their cause.
It is presumed that Japan, in sequestering and liquidating China Banking Corp.,
must have acted in accordance, either with her own Manual of the Army and
Navy and Civil Affairs OR with her Trading with the Enemy Act, and even if not,
it being permitted to the Allied Nations, specially the US and England, to
sequestrate, impound, and block enemy properties found within their own
domain or in enemy territories occupied during the war by their armed forces,
and it not being contrary to Hague Regulations or international law, Japan had
also the right to do the same in the Philippines by virtue of the international law
principle that "what is permitted to one belligerent is also allowed to the other."
Taking these into consideration, it appears that Japan did not intend to
confiscate or appropriate the assets of said banks or the debts due them from
their debtors.
The fact that the Japanese Military authorities failed to pay the enemy banks
the balance of the money collected by the Bank of Taiwan from the debtors of
the said banks, did not and could not change the sequestration by them of the
bank's assets during the war, into an outright confiscation thereof. It was
physically impossible for the Japanese Military authorities to do so because they
were forcibly driven out of the Philippines, following the readjustment of rights
of private property on land seized by the enemy provided by the Treaty of
Versailles and other peace treaties entered into at the close of WWI. The
general principles underlying such arrangements are that the owners of
properties seized are entitled to receive compensation for the loss or damage
inflicted on their property by the emergency war measures taken by the enemy.
Since Japan war notes were issued as legal tender, Japan was bound to
indemnify the aggrieved banks for the loss or damage on their property, in
terms of Phil. Pesos of US $.
Since the Japanese Military Forces had power to sequestrate and impound the
assets of China Banking Corp. and to appoint Bank of Taiwan as liquidator, it
follows that payments of Haw Pia to Bank of Taiwan extinguished his obligations
to China Banking Corp.