00040
2
cms
Ref.:
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
CO 537/1374
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet. Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
1
2
Ins
-12-
40
longed to persons, including juridical persons, residing in such territories, said warning being also applicable both to transfers or
deargs which have taken the form of open looting or plunder and to those apparently legal in form, even where they purport to have been
voluntarily effected. Following that policy, General MacArthur, on
October 23, 1944, shortly after arriving on Leyte, decalred null and
void in the liberated areas of the Philippines all acts of any govern-
ment in this Country other than those of the Philippine Commonwealth.
Said acts are the processes of government which are not judicial, or
proceedings before the courts (Ko Kin Chan v. Tan Keh, supra). Among
the annulled acts are the orders of confiscation or liquidation of
private property and business, issued by the Japanese Government in
this country during the occupation.
The defendant argues that having made the payment through
force and intimidation, ita obligation has been extinguished. It
contends that it was compelled to make said payment because in Admini-
strative Order No. 1. of the Bureau of Financing (Exhibit B) it was
declared that those who did not pay their debts to the banks would be
considered hostile persons and be subject to a severe penalty; because
Administrative Order No. 11 (Exhibit C) of the Japanese Military Ad-
ministration provided for liquidation of the plaintiff bank and payment
to it of all debts; because the defendant was repeatedly required to
pay by the liquidator, the Bank of Taiwan, by General Order of the Jap-
anese Military Administration and by the Chief of the Office of the
Enemy Property Custodian of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines
(Paragraph 8 of Stipulation of Facts); and because the defendant was
compelled to sell its Hacienda in order to raise funds with which to pay the debt in question, having been required by the office of said Custo- dian to pay to the Bank of Taiwan, first of all, the mortgage debt in question. for these reasons, the defendant concludes that the payment
made by it was effected through force and intimidation and that it has
been relieved of its obligation. And in support of its view, it cites
the case of Bishop of Jaro va. De la Pena, 26 Phil. 144, and Mandeville v.
The Court believes that the propos-
Bank of Louisiana, 92 A. Dec. 542.
Page 255Page 256