DECISION OF THE COMMISSION THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, in its own name and representing JOSÉ C. MONTEVERDE, V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Registry No. 17 This is a claim for 17,634 balboas, on behalf of José C. Monteverde, or the Government of Panama, as their interests may appear. Monteverde is an Italian subject, but jurisdiction to decide the claim is expressly conferred upon the Commission by art. I of the convention under which it acts. The facts of this case are substantially identical with those in the claim of Abundio Caselli (Registry No. 16). Monteverde is the successor in interest of Pellas who, with Caselli, was in 1909 the owner pro indiviso of that part of the El Tivoli property with which both claims are concerned. Like Caselli, Pellas sold his half interest in the property in 1909, to the Government of Panama. Pellas died, and in 1912 his widow assigned to Monteverde all her rights relating to El Tivoli. Like Caselli, Monteverde brought suit against the Government to rescind for lesión enorme. His first suit was unsuccessful, but in his second suit the Supreme Court of Panama, on November 1, 1918, entered a decree in his favor giving the Government the option of returning the property or paying the balance of the price declared by the Court to be just. The Government never returned the property but has chosen the other alternative and paid to Monteverde the price decreed by the Court. The property, which is the identical tract with which the Commission dealt in the Caselli case, became a part of the Canal Zone by the Boundary Convention of 1914. The only difference between this and the Caselli case is that here it is even more clear that the claim belongs in its entirety to the Government of Panama. As to the merits of the claim the considerations are identical with those in the Caselli case. The Commission holds that the claim is unfounded on the authority of its Decision in that case. The Commission decides that the claim must be disallowed. Done at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of June, 1933. D. W. VAN HEECKEREN Presiding Commissioner ELIHU ROOT, Jr. Commissioner DISSENTING OPINION For the same reasons set forth in the case of Panama as substitute for Caselli, Registry No. 16, I am not in agreement with this Decision. H. F. ALFARO COMMENT The Decision of the majority of the Commission, based principally upon the ground that the Government of Panama is not entitled, under article VI of the treaty of 1903, to indemnification for government-owned lands acquired by the United States in the Canal Zone, is doubtless correct. The Dissenting Opinion of the Commissioner of Panama seems to be based upon the premise that if these claims had been submitted to the Joint Land Commission, under articles VI and XV of the treaty of 1903, an award would have been obtained. Such a position, however, overlooks the fact that the United States has agreed, by the treaty of 1903, to pay indemnity only in those cases falling under the terms of article VI of the same treaty and that the Joint Land Commission would have no authority to make an award against the United States in any other claim. The Commissioner of Panama cited no authority or precedent to indicate that the majority of the Commission were wrong in their interpretation of article VI. Had these claims been submitted to the Joint Land Commission, the first question would have been that as to whether the United States agreed, by article VI of the convention, to pay for lands owned by the Government of Panama. In deciding that question, the Joint Land Commission would doubtless have reached the same conclusion as that reached by this Commission, namely, that the United States had not undertaken by article VI to make specific monetary payments to the Government of Panama for particular parcels of government-owned lands. The Panamanian Commissioner, in stating that "the authority of the Commission [Joint Land Commission] was limited in each case to passing upon the validity of the titles of the claimant and upon the amount of indemnity", failed to recognize that that Commission was obligated to pass upon the question of its jurisdiction in each claim filed. It did so, and dismissed those claims not coming within its jurisdiction. See for example the decision of the Joint Land Commission in the Delgado case, Docket No. 749, at page 330 of the Panama Canal Record of March 13, 1918. Such, doubtless, would have been the decision of the Joint Land Commission if these claims had been presented to it. CLAIM on behalf of JOSÉ AZAEL RUIZ DOCKET REGISTRY NO. 18 Syllabus The United States was held liable "under international law" for the acts of sailors, on shore leave from American naval vessels, in trespassing upon the claimant's property and eating "ripe fruit which he had intended to harvest and market ". SUMMARY OF FACTS The Government of Panama alleged that in March 1931 certain seamen obtained shore leave from unnamed American naval vessels in the Las Perlas Archipelago, landed on the Island of Saboga, and took fruits and cocoanuts from the claimant's plantation, without his permission. Panama alleged that the resulting damage was $125, that the claimant has never received compensation, and that the Government of the United States was responsible for these alleged depredations by sailors of the United States Navy. The United States denied liability, contending that the facts upon which the claim was based were not adequately established, that no complaint had ever been made by the claimant, and that, even if the acts occurred as alleged, the United States was not responsible for the acts of sailors on leave. 635 |