CO537-(1262-1649) — Page 255

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