00043
2
cms
Ref.:
CO 537/1374
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
2
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
!
-
Dai.
00 524/12MA
Ins
N
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
1
2
-15-
43
Fourthly, assuming that said law went to the extent accorded to it by the
defendant in view of the cited opinion of one of the members of Congress,
it would then be an infringement of the Constitution because it would re-
sult in nullifying a credit and relieving a debtor of his obligations,
thus impairing the obligation of the contract and depriving the creditor
of his property without compensation and without due process of law.
Furthermore, if it was the intention of Congress in passing
Baid law to validate even the acts of confiscation of private property,
committed by the Japanese, then the state itself would admit the illegality
"ab initio" of such acts in the light of any other legal provisions such
as those of Internal Law or the Hague Regulations. And who knows if one
of the reasons why the President of the United States had to disapprove
aaid law was that the same might have the effect of having a victorious
nation sanction the ultra vires acts of a defeated invader.
In conclusion, the Court finds and so declares that the acts
of the Japanese belligerent in the Philippines were governed by and sub-
ject to the Hague Regulations of 1907 which declare the inviolability of
private property of the nationals of an occupied territory and prohibit
their confiscation; that said Regulations were in force during the
that the credit in occupation of the country by said belligerent; question, in accordance with the provisions of said Regulations, is exempt
from confiscation; and that, consequently, the sequestration and subse-
quent disposition of said credit by the bank liquidator appointed by the
Japanese invader, are clearly in violation of said Regulations. Having
been done against the law, and there being no law validating them, the
said confiscatory acts of the Japanese belligerent are null and void.
(Article 4, Civil Code), For this reason, and because the payment of
the credit in question has not been made to the person in whose favour
the obligation of the defendant had been constituted, or to another
authorized to receive in in its name, said payment is also null and void,
(Article 1162, Civil Code), and does not extinguish the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff. It results, therefore, that said obligation
and the mortgage (Exhibit A) as security therefor are in full force and effect, and the cancellation of said mortgage made by the Bank of Taiwan