CASE DIGEST: LANDTITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT – SECTION 5, ARTICLE III OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION) RAMIREZ VS VDA DE RAMIREZ, RAMIREZ, G.R. No. L-2!52 F"#$%&$' F"#$%&$' 5, !2 FACTS OF THE CASE: The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the principal beneciaries, namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez and his companion !anda de !robles"i# *o+" E%"o R&/$"0, R&/$"0 , a $ilipino national, died in %pain on December &&, &'(), with only his widow as compulsory heir# *is will was admitted to probate by the +ourt of $irst $irst nstan nstance ce of Manila Manila,, on July -., &'(/# &'(/# M&$& appointed M&$& L%+& P&1&o+ P&1&o+ was appointed administratri0 of the estate# The 34o3 M&$"11" is M&$"11" is a $rench who li1es in 2aris, while the o/&o 6&4& is 6&4& is an 3ustrian who li1es in %pain# Moreo1er, the testator pro1ided for substituti substitutions# ons# 4n June -5, &'((, the &4/+7$&7$8 submitted &4/+7$&7$8 submitted a pro6ect of partition as follows: the $o"$7' o9 7" 4""&+"4 + 7o #" 4;4"4 7o 73o &$7+# &$7+# O" O " &$7 &$ 7 shall go to the widow in satisfaction of her legitime the o7"$ &$7 o$ <9$"" o$7o< shall o$7o< shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez# $urthermore, o" 7$4 (=>) o9 7" 9$"" o$7o is o$7o is charged with the widow7s usufruct and 7" $"/& 73o-7$4+ (2=>) with a usufruct in fa1or of !anda# opposed the pro6ect of partition on the grounds: 8a9 that *o$" &4 Ro#"$7o Ro#"$7o opposed the pro1isions for 1ulgar substitution in fa1or of !anda de !robles"i with respect to the widow7s usufruct and in fa1or of Juan 2ablo Jan"ows"i and *oracio # Ramirez, with respect to !anda7s usufruct are in1alid because the rst heirs Marcelle and !anda9 sur1i1ed the testator 8b9 that the pro1isions for deicommissary substitutions are also in1alid because the rst heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the rst degree, as pro1ided in 3rticle ;(5 of the +i1il +ode 8c9 that the grant of a usufruct o1er real property in the 2hilippines in fa1or of !anda !robles"i, who is an alien, 1iolates %ection /, 3rticle of the 2hilippine +onstitution and that 8d9 the proposed partition of the testator7s interest in the %anta +ruz 8Escolta9
uisition of lands by aliens# RULING: The RULING: The !>5 Co+77%7o which Co+77%7o which is controlling pro1ides as follows: SEC. 5. S&;" agricultural land shall be transferred transferred or &+"+ o9 "$"47&$' +%"++o, +%"++o, no pri1ate agricultural assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 2hilippines# (A$7. ?III.) T" o%$7 & @%o upheld @%o upheld the 1alidity of the usufruct gi1en to !anda on the ground that the +onstituti +onstitution on co1ers co1ers not only successio succession n by operation operation of law but also testamentary testamentary succession# !e are of the opinion that the Co+77%7o&1 $o;+o which $o;+o which enables aliens to ac>uire ac>uire pri1ate lands does not e0tend to testamenta testamentary ry succession succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless# 3ny alien would be able to circum1ent the prohibition by paying money to a 2hilippine landowner in e0change for a de1ise of a piece of land#
This opinion notwithstanding, we %o14 7" %+%9$%7 9&;o$ o9 6&4& because a usufruct, albeit a real right, does not 1est title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the ;"+7 o9 771" 7o 1&4 9&;o$ o9 &1"+ which &1"+ which is proscribed by the +onstitution# n 1iew of the foregoing, the "+7&7" o9 *o+" E%"o R&/$"0 was R&/$"0 was ordered distributed as follows: O"-&19 (=2) 7"$"o9 to to his widow as her legitime O"-&19 (=2) 7"$"o9 3 + 7" 9$"" o$7o to o$7o to Roberto and Jorge Ramirez in na"ed ownership and the usufruct to !anda de !robles"i with a simple substitution in fa1or of Juan 2ablo Jan"ows"i Jan"ows"i and *orace *orace # # Ramirez#
CASE DIGEST 2: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT) PHILIPPINE ANBING CORPORATION VS LUI SHE, G.R. No. L-5, S"7"/#"$ 2, ! FACTS OF THE CASE: CASE: *%+7& S&7o+ ' C&o F&%+7o &4 "$ ++7"$ Lo$"0o were Lo$"0o were the owners in common of a piece of land in Manila with an area of -,/;-#5? s>uare meters# n it are 73o $"+4"7&1 o%+"+ o%+"+ with entrance on $lorentino Torres street and the *en !ah Restaurant Restaurant with entrance on Rizal 31enue# The sisters li1ed in one of the houses, while restaurant# 6o had long@ 6o H", & C"+", C"+" , li1ed with his family in the restaurant# 6o had been a long@ time lessee of a portion of the property, paying a monthly rental of 2-,(-?# *%+7& S&7o+ became the owner of the entire property as her sister died with no other heir# *%+7& S&7o+ e0ecuted S&7o+ e0ecuted a o7$&7 o9 1"&+" 9&;o$ o9 6o, 6o, co1ering the portion then already leased to him and another portion fronting $lorentino Torres Torres street# The 1"&+" was 1"&+" was for /? years, although the lessee was gi1en the right to withdraw at any time from the agreement and the monthly rental was 25,&-?# The contract was amended so as to co1er the entire property# 4n December -& she e0ecuted another o7$&7 ; 6o 2&-?,???, payable within within ten years at a 7" o7o 7o #%' 7" 1"&+"4 $"/+"+ for 2&-?,???, monthly monthly installment installment of 2&,???# 2&,???# The option option was conditioned conditioned on his obtaining 2hilippine 2hilippine citizenship citizenship,, a petition petition for which which was then pending in the +ourt of $irst nstance nstance of Rizal# *owe1er the &1&7o 9o$ &7%$&10&7o was withdrawn when it was disco1ered that he was not a resident of Rizal# %he then led a "77o 7o &4o7 / &4 + 14$" on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them 2hilippine citizenship # The error was disco1ered and the proceedings were abandoned# 4n =o1ember &;, &'/; she e0ecuted two other contracts, one e0tending the term of the lease to '' years, and another 0ing the term of the option of /? years# n the two wills e0ecuted on 3ugust -) and -', &'/' she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into with !ong, but in a later date she appears to ha1e a change of heart# C1&/ 7&7 7" ;&$o%+ o7$&7+ 3"$" /&4" #' "$ #"&%+" o9 /&&7o+ &4 4%"/"7+ practiced by him, she now directed her e0ecutor to secure the annulment of the contracts# 3 complaint was led in +$ alleging that the contracts contracts were obtained by !ong Athrough fraud, misrepresentation, ine>uitable conduct, undue inBuence and abuse of condence and trust of and 8by9 ta"ing ad1antage of the helplessness of the plaintiC and were made to circum1ent the constitutional pro1ision prohibiting aliens from ac>uiring lands in the 2hilippine 2hilippines s and also of the 2hilippine 2hilippine =aturaliza =aturalization tion aws#A n his answer, answer, !ong insisted that the 1arious contracts were freely and 1oluntarily entered into by the parties#
documents were declared null and 1oid# A97"$ 7" &+" 3&+ +%#/77"4 9o$ 4"+o , both parties died# !ong was substituted by his wife, ui %he, the o7"$ 4"9"4&7 in this case, while Justina %antos was substituted by the 2hilippine uestion and the land sub6ect@matter of the contracts be returned to the estate of Justina %antos as represented by the 2hilippine uire#
REPULIC VS QUASHA, G.R. No. L->2!! A%%+7 , !2
FACTS OF THE CASE: R"+o4"7, 611&/ H. Q%&+&, an 3merican citizen, had ac>uired by purchase on -( =o1ember &'/) a parcel of land with the permanent impro1ements thereon, in $orbes 2ar", Municipality of Ma"ati, with an area of 2, +@. /. /o$" o$ 1"++, and co1ered by a T# +# T# *e led a petition in the +$ of Rizal a1erring the ac>uisition of said real estate# The R"%#1 claimed that upon e0piration of the 2arity 3mendment on 5 July &'.), rights ac>uired by citizens of the Fnited %tates of 3merica shall cease and be of no further force and eCect# %uch claims necessarily aCect the rights and interest of the plaintiC, for which reason 1&7 Q%&+& sought a 4"1&$&7o o9 + $7+ %4"$ 7" P&$7' A/"4/"7, said plaintiC contending that the ownership of properties during the eCecti1ity of the 2arity 3mendment continues notwithstanding the termination and eCecti1ity of the 3mendment# The So17o$ G""$&1 contended that the 1&4 &@%$"4 #' 1&7 constituted pri1ate agricultural land and that the ac>uisition 1iolated section /, 3rticle G, of the +onstitution of the 2hilippines, which prohibits the transfer of pri1ate agricultural land to non@$ilipinos, "8"7 by hereditary succession and &++%/ 7&7 Q%&+&+ &@%+7o 3&+ ;&14, any and all rights by him so ac>uired Awill e0pire ipso facto and ipso 6ure at the end of the day on 5 July &'.), if he continued to hold the property until then, and will be sub6ect to escheat or re1ersion proceedingsA by the Republic# The CFI o9 R0&1 held that &@%+7o #' 7" 1&7 7" $;&7" &$%17%$&1 1&4 co1ered by Transfer +erticate of Title in his name was 1alid, and that 1&7 has a right to continue in ownership of the said property e1en beyond July 5, &'.)# ISSUE: !hether or not by 1irtue of the so@called 2arity 3mendment to the 2hilippine +onstitution respondent Huasha could 1alidly ac>uire ownership of the pri1ate residential land in $orbes 2ar", Ma"ati, Rizal, which is concededly classied pri1ate agricultural land# NO
*ence, the o7$&7+ @%"+7o are annulled and set aside and the 1&4 +%#"7/&77"$ o9 7" o7$&7+ is ordered returned to the estate of Justina %antos as represented by the 2hilippine
RULING: A2arity 3mendmentA pro1ides that: =otwithstanding the pro1ision of section one, 3rticle Thirteen, and section eight, 3rticle $ourteen, of the foregoing +onstitution, during the eectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into by the 2resident of the 2hilippines with the 2resident of the Fnited %tates on the fourth of July , nineteen hundred and forty@si0, pursuant to the pro1isions of +ommonwealth 3ct =umbered %e1en hundred and thirty@three, but in no case to extend beyond the third of July, nineteen hundred and seventyfour , the disposition, e0ploitation, de1elopment, and utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces and sources of potential energy, and other natural resources of the 2hilippines, and the operation of public utilities , shall, if open to any person, be open to citizens of the Fnited states and to all forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the Fnited %tates in the same manner as to, and under the same conditions imposed upon, citizens of the 2hilippines or corporations or associations owned or controlled by citizens of the 2hilippines#
CASE DIGEST >: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP)
E0amination of the A2arity 3mendmentA, as ratied, re1eals that it o1' "+7+"+ & "8$"++ "8"7o 7o 73o (2) $o;+o+ o9 o%$ Co+77%7o, to wit: 8a9 S"7o , A$71" ?III, re disposition, e0ploitation, de1elopment and utilization of agricultural, timber and mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the 2hilippines and
The Co+77%7o&1 $o;+o that A%a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 2hilippinesA is an e0pression of public policy to conser1e lands for the $ilipinos# !e hold that under the +onstitution aliens may not ac>uire pri1ate or public agricultural lands, including residential lands#
8b9 S"7o , A$71" ?IV, regarding operation of public utilities # 3s originally drafted by the framers of the +onstitution, the $;1"" 7o &@%$" &4 "81o7 &$%17%$&1 1&4+ of the public domain, &4 o7"$ &7%$&1 $"+o%$"+ o9 7" P1"+, &4 7o o"$&7" %#1 %717"+, were reser1ed to $ilipinos and entities owned or controlled by them: but the AP&$7' A/"4/"7A e0pressly e0tended the pri1ilege to citizens of the Fnited %tates of 3merica andIor to business enterprises owned or controlled by them# Thus, whether from the P1" o$ 7" A/"$& +4", the 7"7o 3&+ 7o +"%$" &$7' 9o$ U7"4 S7&7"+ 70"+, o1' 73o /&77"$+: 8&9 e0ploitation, de1elopment and utilization of public lands, and other natural resources of the 2hilippines and 8-9 the operation of public utilities# t is easy to see that &11 "8"7o&1 $7+ o9"$$"4 %o U7"4 S7&7"+ 70"+ &4 #%+"++ "77"+ o3"4 o$ o7$o11"4 #' 7"/, %4"$ 7" A/"4/"7 , are sub6ect to one and the same resolutory term or period : they are to last Aduring the eCecti1ity of the E0ecuti1e 3greement entered into on ) July &')( A, Abut in no case to extend beyond the, third of July, 1!"< # =one of the pri1ileges conferred by the A2arity 3mendmentA are e0cepted from this resolutory period # *ence, the +ourt ruled that the $o;+o+ o9 7" uisition was sub6ect to it # $urther, the decision of the +$ of Rizal was re1ersed and declared that, under the uire and own, sa1e in cases of hereditary succession, pri1ate agricultural lands in the 2hilippines and that &11 o7"$ $7+ & @%$"4 #' 7"/ %4"$ +&4 &/" 4/"7 will e0pire on 5 July &'.)#
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) HULST VS PR UILDERS, G.R. No. 5>
S"7"/#"$ >, 2
FACTS OF THE CASE: *&o#%+ "$&$4 H%1+7 ("77o"$) &4 + +o%+" I4& *o&& H%1+7-V& I0"$" (I4&), Dutch nationals, entered into a +ontract to %ell with 2R m residential unit in respondent7s townhouse pro6ect in
Meanwhile, +o%+"+ H%1+7 4;o$"4# I4& assigned her rights o1er the purchased property to petitioner# $rom then on, petitioner alone pursued the case# 3 writ of e0ecution was issued and le1ied on respondent7s &/ parcels of land co1ered by &5 Transfer +erticates of Title 8T+T9 in Barangay =iyugan, aurel, uacy of the price is not a suKcient ground to annul the sale, the o%$7 is 6ustied to inter1ene where the inade>uacy of the price shoc"s the conscience#
ISSUE: !hether or not petitioner and his wife, who are Dutch nationals are allowed to own real property in the 2hilippines# NO
RULING: The +ourt ruled that before resol1ing the >uestion whether the +3 erred in aKrming the 4rder of the *FR< setting aside the le1y made by the sheriC, it bets this +ourt to address a /&77"$ o9 %#1 &4 &7o&1 /o$7&" which completely escaped the attention of the *FR< 3rbiter and the +3: "77o"$ &4 + 39" &$" 9o$" &7o&1+ who are dis>ualied under the +onstitution from owning real property in their names#
S"7o o9 A$71" ?II o9 7" ! Co+77%7o pro1ides: S". . %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, o $;&7" 1&4+ +&11 #" 7$&+9"$$"4 o$ o;"'"4 "8"7 7o 4;4%&1+, corporations, or associations @%&1J"4 7o &@%$" o$ o14 1&4+ o9 7" %#1 4o/&.
The &&7' 7o &@%$" $;&7" 1&4 is made dependent upon the capacity to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain# P$;&7" 1&4 /&' #" 7$&+9"$$"4 o$ o;"'"4 o1' 7o 4;4%&1+ o$ "77"+ A>ualied to ac>uire lands of the public domain#A The ! Co+77%7o reser1ed the right to participate in the disposition, e0ploitation, de1elopment and utilization of lands of the public domain for $ilipino citizens or corporations at least (? percent of the capital of which is owned by $ilipinos . A1"+, 3"7"$ 4;4%&1+ o$ o$o$&7o+, ha1e been dis>ualied from ac>uiring public lands hence, they ha1e also been dis>ualied from ac>uiring pri1ate lands#
ISSUE: !hether or not Joa>uin Teng Hueen Tan, a naturalized $ilipino citizen can own the disputed lot# LE% S" "77o"$ &4 + 39", #" D%7 &7o&1+, are proscribed under the +onstitution from ac>uiring and owning real property, it is une>ui1ocal that the +ontract to %ell entered into by petitioner together with his wife and respondent is 1oid# U4"$ A$71" ! () &4 () o9 7" C;1 Co4", all contracts whose cause, ob6ect or purpose is contrary to law or public policy and those e0pressly prohibited or declared 1oid by law are ine0istent and 1oid from the beginning# A$71" o9 7" +&/" Co4" pro1ides that the action or defense for the declaration of the ine0istence of a contract does not prescribe# 3 ;o4 o7$&7 is e>ui1alent to nothing it produces no ci1il eCect# t does not create, modify or e0tinguish a 6uridical relation#
$urther, under A$71" , one who repudiates the agreement and demands his money before the illegal act has ta"en place is entitled to reco1er# P"77o"$ + 7"$"9o$" "771"4 7o $"o;"$ 3&7 " &+ &4, although the basis of his claim for rescission, which was granted by the *FR<, was not the fact that he is not allowed to ac>uire pri1ate land under the 2hilippine +onstitution#
CASE DIGEST 5: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP)
RULING: ndependently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the "77o"$ &o7 &;" 7" +&1" &%11"4 &4 $"o;"$ 7" 1o7 +" "$+"19 &+ +o14. !hile the ;"4"" 3&+ & &1" &7 7" 7/" o9 7" +&1", the land has since become the property, of respondent Joa>uin Teng, a naturalized 2hilippine citizen, who is constitutionally >ualied to own land# The 17&7"4 $o"$7' is now in the hands of a naturalized $ilipino # t is o 1o"$ o3"4 #' & 4+@%&1J"4 ;"4""# R"+o4"7, &+ & &7%$&10"4 70", was constitutionally >ualied to own the sub6ect property# There would be no more public policy to be ser1ed in allowing petitioner to reco1er the land as it is already in the hands of a >ualied person # $uther, in the case of %arsosa da# de uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization# L&"+ also militates against petitioner7s cause# %he sold the disputed lot in &'5;# %he instituted the action to annul the sale only on July &/, &'(;# !hat the +ourt said in the cited arsosa case applies with e>ual force to the petitioner, it is li"ewise inescapable that petitioner had slept on her rights for -( years from &'5( to &'(-# ' "$ 1o &7o o9 "8%+" "1"7, she should be held barred from asserting her claim to the litigated property# L&"+ has been dened as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and une0plained length of time, to do that which by e0ercising due diligence could or should ha1e been done earlier it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it# R"+o4"7 , therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of the property#
DE CASTRO VS QUEEN TAN, G.R. No. L->!5 A$1 >, !
FACTS OF THE CASE: P"77o"$ F1o/"& G"$o& 4" C&+7$o sold a &,-/; s># m# residential lot in uin Teng Hueen Tan, Tan Teng uin, became a naturalized $ilipino# S8 '"&$+ &97"$ T& T&+ 4"&7, his heirs e0ecuted an "87$&-%4&1 +"771"/"7 o9 "+7&7" 37 +&1", whereby the disputed lot in its entirety was alloted to Joa>uin# P"77o"$ commenced suit against the heirs of Tan Tai for &%1/"7 o9 7" +&1" for alleged 1iolation of the &'5/ +onstitution prohibiting the sale of land to aliens# R"+o4"7+ mo1ed to 4+/++ 7" o/1&7 on the grounds of 8a9 lac" of cause of action, the plaintiC being in pari delicto with the 1endee, and the land being already owned by a 2hilippine citizen 8b9 laches and 8c9 ac>uisiti1e prescription# The o%$7 a #uo 4+/++"4 7" o/1&7, sustaining the rst two grounds in1o"ed by the mo1ants#
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) LEE VS REPULIC, G.R. No. 2!5. O7o#"$ >, 2 FACTS OF THE CASE: %ometime in March &'5(, Rafael, +armen, $rancisco, Jr#, Ramon, ourdes, Mercedes, +oncepcion, Mariano, Jose, oreto, Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy, &11 +%$&/"4 D1&+& sold to ee iong, a +hinese citizen, a parcel of land with an appro0imate area of &,(5& s>uare meters, and co1ered by 4riginal +erticate of situated at the corner of Ro0as 31enue and 2a1ia %treet, Ro0as +ity# *owe1er, in &');, the 9o$/"$ o3"$+ led with the +ourt of $irst nstance, +apiz an action against the heirs of ee iong for annulment of sale and reco1ery of land# The 1&7+ assailed the 1alidity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens ac>uiring ownership of pri1ate agricultural land, including residential, commercial or industrial land# The same former owners led with the +$, +apiz an &7o 9o$ $"o;"$' o9 7" +&/" &$"1 o9 1&4# +iting the case of !hilippine Ban"ing Corporation v# $ui he , they submitted that the sale to ee iong was null and 1oid for being 1iolati1e of the +onstitution# E10&#"7 M&%"1-L"" &4 P&7& % L"" led with the RT+, Ro0as +ity a petition for
uired her share in ot through an e0tra@6udicial settlement and donation e0ecuted in her fa1or by her deceased husband ee uired her share in the same lot by succession from her deceased husband ee uire title to the lot because he was a +hinese citizen and was constitutionally not >ualied to own the sub6ect land# CA declared that the reconstitution is 1oid#
1alid# Thus, the +%#+"@%"7 7$&+9"$ o9 7" $o"$7' 7o @%&1J"4 F1o+ /&' o 1o"$ #" /%"4 o 7" #&++ o9 7" ;&147' o9 7" 7&1 7$&+9"$# The ob6ecti1e of the constitutional pro1ision to "eep our lands in $ilipino hands has been achie1ed# ncidentally, it must be mentioned that $"o+77%7o o9 7" o$&1 "$7J&7" o9 771" /%+7 #" #&+"4 o & o3"$+ 4%1&7", secondary e1idence thereof, or other 1alid sources of the title to be reconstituted# n this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description appro1ed by the and Registration 3uthority# This renders the order of reconstitution 1oid for lac" of factual support# Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land#
ISSUE: !hether or not ee iong predecessors@in@interest has the >ualication to own land in the 2hilippines# ES RULING: The +&1" o9 7" 1&4 @%"+7o was consummated sometime in March &'5(, during the eCecti1ity of the &'5/ +onstitution# Fnder the !>5 Co+77%7o, aliens could not ac>uire pri1ate agricultural lands, sa1e in cases of hereditary succession# Thus, L"" Lo, & C"+" 70", was dis>uali ed to ac>uire th e land in >uestion # The fact that the +ourt did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not 1alidate the transaction, for it was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens ac>uiring lands of the public or pri1ate domain# *owe1er, the $o"$ &$7' 7o &++&1 7" 11"&17' o9 7" 7$&+&7o was not the parties to the transaction# n +&1"+ o9 $"&1 "+7&7" 7o &1"+ &" o9 o14 771" 7"$"7o #' ;$7%" o9 7" $o;+o+ o9 7" Co+77%7o both the 1endor and the 1endee are deemed to ha1e committed the constitutional 1iolation and being thus in par i deli cto the courts will not aCord protection to either party# The proper party to assail the sale is the %olicitor Neneral# This was what was done in this case when the %olicitor Neneral initiated an action for annulment of 6udgment of reconstitution of title# !hile it too" the Republic /o$" 7& +87' '"&$+ 7o &++"$7 7+"19, it is not barred from initiating such action# P$"+$7o ";"$ 1"+ &&+7 7" S7&7"# 3lthough o3"$+ o9 7" 1&4 &o7 $";"$7 7o 7" o$&1 +"11"$+, because of the doctrine of pari delicto , the So17o$ G""$&1 may initiate an action for re1ersion or esch eat 8 power of a state to ac%uire title to property for which there is no owner 9 of the land to the %tate, sub6ect to other defenses, as hereafter set forth# I 7+ &+", subse>uent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of $ilipinos# The o$&1 ;"4"", L"" Lo, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subse>uently their heirs, petitioners herein# P"77o"$+ &$" F1o 70"+, a fact the %olicitor Neneral does not dispute# The o+77%7o&1 $o+$7o o &1" o3"$+ o9 1&4+ o9 7" %#1 o$ $;&7" 4o/& was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non@$ilipinos# I 7+ &+", howe1er, there would be no more public policy 1iolated since the land is in the hands of $ilipinos >ualied to ac>uire and own such land# f 1&4 + ;&141' 7$&+9"$$"4 7o & &1" 3o +%#+"@%"71' #"o/"+ & 70" o$ 7$&+9"$+ 7 7o & 70", the Baw
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) MATTHE6S VS TALOR, G.R. No. 5, *%" 22, 2!
FACTS OF THE CASE: R"+o4"7 "&/ A. T&'1o$, a uare@meter lot 8uisition and impro1ement of the uired his consent# RTC declared the agreement null and 1oid and considered the
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) ISSUE: !hether or not an 3greement of ease of a parcel of land entered into by a $ilipino wife without the consent of her
RULING: The court ruled that the trial and appellate courts both focused on the property relations of petitioner and respondent in light of the +i1il +ode and $amily +ode pro1isions# They, howe1er, failed to obser1e the applicable constitutional principles, which, in fact, are the more decisi1e# S"7o , A$71" ?II o9 7" ! Co+77%7o +7&7"+: KS"7o # S&;" &+"+ o9 "$"47&$' +%"++o, no pri1ate lands shall be transferred or con1eyed e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain#P A1"+, 3"7"$ 4;4%&1+ o$ o$o$&7o+, ha1e been dis>ualied from ac>uiring lands of the public domain# *ence, by 1irtue of the aforecited constitutional pro1ision, they are also dis>ualied from ac>uiring pri1ate lands# The $/&$' %$o+" o9 7+ o+77%7o&1 $o;+o is the conser1ation of the national patrimony# 4ur fundamental law cannot be any clearer# The $7 7o &@%$" 1&4+ o9 7" %#1 4o/& is reser1ed only to $ilipino citizens or corporations at least si0ty percent of the capital of which is owned by $ilipinos# The $%1" + 1"&$ &4 "8#1": aliens are absolutely not allowed to ac>uire public or pri1ate lands in the 2hilippines, sa1e only in constitutionally recognized e0ceptions# !e nd and so hold that "&/ has no right to nullify the 3greement of ease between Joselyn and petitioner# "&/, #" & &1", is absolutely prohibited from ac>uiring pri1ate and public lands in the 2hilippines# Co+4"$ 7&7 *o+"1' &"&$"4 7o #" 7" 4"+&7"4 <;"4""< 7" D""4 o9 S&1" o9 +&4 $o"$7', she ac>uired sole ownership thereto# This is true e1en if we sustain uisition# ' "7"$ 7o +% o7$&7 o3 7&7 7 3&+ 11"&1, no implied trust was created in his fa1or no reimbursement for his e0penses can be allowed and no declaration can be made that the sub6ect property was part of the con6ugalIcommunity property of the spouses# n any e1ent, he had and has no capacity or personality to >uestion the subse>uent lease of the
BRIVENBO VS REGISTER OF DEEDS, G.R. No. L->
No;"/#"$ 5, !
FACTS OF THE CASE: A1"8&4"$ A. B$;"7o$ &1", bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate, nc#, in December of &')&, the registration of which was interrupted by the war# n May, &')/, he sought to accomplish said registration but was denied by the register of deeds of Manila on the ground that, being an alien, he cannot ac>uire land in this 6urisdiction# B$;"o then brought the case to the +ourt of $irst nstance of Manila by means of a consulta, and that o%$7 $"4"$"4 %4/"7 sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds, from which ri1en"o appealed to this +ourt#
ISSUE: !hether or not an alien under our +onstitution may ac>uire residential land# NO
RULING: Fnder S"7o o9 A$71" ?III o9 7" Co+77%7o, A natural resources, with the e0ception of public agricultural land, shall not be aliented,A and with $"+"7 7o %#1 &$%17%$&1 1&4+, their alienation is limited to $ilipino citizens# ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 2hilippines# f the term A$;&7" &$%17%$&1 1&4+< is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that Aaliens may freely ac>uire and possess not only residential lots and houses for themsel1es but entire subdi1isions, and whole towns and cities,A and that Athey may 1alidly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes, factories, industrial plants, sheries, hatcheries, schools, health and 1acation resorts, mar"ets, golf courses, playgrounds, airelds, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in appellant7s words, strictly agricultural#A T" "81%+o o9 &1"+ 9$o/ 7" $;1"" o9 &@%$ public agricultural lands and of o$ning real estate is a necessary part of the 2ublic and aws of the 2hilippines to "eep pace with the idea of preser1ing the 2hilippines for the $ilipinos#A
t is well to note at this 6uncture that in the present case we ha1e no choice# !e are construing the +onstitution as it is and not as we may desire it to be# 2erhaps the eCect of our construction is to preclude aliens, admitted freely into the 2hilippines from owning sites where they may build their homes#
will not attempt to compromise it e1en in the name of amity or e>uity# !e are satised, howe1er, that &1"+ are not completely e0cluded by the +onstitution from the use of lands for residential purposes# S" 7"$ $"+4"" 7" P1"+ + 7"/o$&$', they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the +onstitution# So%14 7"' 4"+$" 7o $"/& "$" 9o$";"$ &4 +&$" o%$ 9o$7%"+ &4 /+9o$7%"+, $ilipino citizenship is not im possible to ac>uire# $or all the foregoing, we hold that under the + onstitution &1"+ /&' o7 &@%$" $;&7" o$ %#1 &$%17%$&1 1&4+, 1%4 $"+4"7&1 1&4+. The Co%$7 aKrmed the decision of +$ of Manila sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds to register the disputed lot#
CASE DIGEST !: LANDTITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) ARSOIA VS. CUENCO, G.R. NO. L->> APRIL , !2 FACTS OF THE CASE: The 1o7 o7$o;"$+' is a one@half portion 8on the northern side9 of two ad6oining parcels of coconut land located at uestion that 7" +&1" o9 7" 1&4 @%"+7o !> #' E9&& 7o O B Po was ine0istent and 1oid from the beginning 83rt# &)?' Q., +i1il +ode9 because it was a contract e0ecuted against the mandatory pro1ision of the !>5 Co+77%7o , which is an e0pression of public policy to conser1e lands for the $ilipinos# S&4 $o;+o $"&4+: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations,
ualied to own the sub6ect property# There would be no more public policy to be ser1ed in allowing petitioner Epifania to reco1er the land as it is already in the hands of a >ualied person # A1' #' &&1o' 7" $%1 o9 7+ %ourt in &as#ue' vs. (iap and )i *eng (iap + *ons : ### if the ban on aliens from ac>uiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this +ourt in the ri1en"o case, is to $"+"$;" 7" &7o+ 1&4+ 9o$ 9%7%$" ""$&7o+ o9 F1o+ , that &/ o$ %$o+" would not be thwarted but achie1ed by ma"ing lawful the ac>uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization# !hile, strictly spea"ing, O B Po, $;&7" $"+o4"7+ ;"4o$, had no rights of ownership to transmit, it is li"ewise inescapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her rights for -( years from &'5( to &'(- #
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) REPULIC VS IAC, GONZALES, G.R. No. *%1' , !!
FACTS OF THE CASE: The case principally concerns C%& B/ U' T" ", who became a naturalized $ilipino citizen on January .,&'.. and was the adopted son of Nregorio Reyes Fy Fn# The case in1ol1ed 7$"" (>) &$"1+ o9 1&4, which were respecti1ely ad6udicated in a land registration cases to two persons, as follows: &9 Lo7+ &4 2, to the %pouses uez, married to Marcela Masaganda# *owe1er, o 4"$"" o9 oJ$/&7o &4 $"+7$&7o 3&+ "7"$"4 &7 7" 7/"#
Lo7+ &4 2 and ot /)' were sold by the respe1cti1e owners to Nregorio Reyes Fy Fn# %ubse>uently, G$"o$o R"'"+ U' U 4"4 , and his adopted son, +hua im Fy Teng, too" possession of the property # These 7$"" (>) &$"1+ o9 1&4 together with se1eral others, later became sub6ect of a compromise agreement in a litigation in the +$ of Huezon
2ro1ince# ater, C%& B/ then led a petition for issuance of decree of conrmation and registration of sub6ect parcels of land# CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) The +$ of Huezon nds that "$" "77o"$ C%& B/ &1&+ U' T" " has duly established his registerable title o1er the properties in >uestion in this land registration case# The R"%#1 challenged the correctness of the 4rder and appealed it to the +ourt of 3ppeals# The R"%#1+ 7"o$' is that the con1eyances to +hua im were made while he was still an alien, i#e#, prior to his ta"ing oath as a naturalized 2hilippine citizen on January ., &'.., at a time when he was dis>ualied to ac>uire ownership of land in the 2hilippines 83RT G, %E+# /, &'5/ +onstitution 3RT# G, %ec# &), &'.5 +onstitution9 hence, his &++"$7"4 771"+ &$" %11 &4 ;o4.
ISSUE: !hether or not a con1eyance of a residential land to an alien prior to his ac>uisition of $ilipino citizenship by naturalization 1alid# ES RULING: 2lainly, the o;"'&"+ 3"$" /&4" #"9o$" 7" !>5 Co+77%7o 3"7 7o ""7, i#e#, at a time when there was no prohibition against ac>uisition of pri1ate agricultural lands by aliens# G$"o$o R"'"+ U' U therefore ac>uired good title to the lands thus purchased by him , and his ownership was not at all aCected either 8&9 by the principle subse>uently enunciated in the &'5/ +onstitution that aliens were incapacitated to ac>uire lands in the country, since that constitutional principle has no retrospecti1e application, or 8-9 by his and his successor7s omission to procure the registration of the property prior to the coming into eCect of the + onstitution# t is a fact, furthermore, that +" 7" 4"&7 o9 G$"o$o R"'"+ U' U, +hua im Fy Teng ualied to own the sub6ect property# There would be no more public policy to be ser1ed in allowing petitioner Epifania to reco1er the land as it is already in the hands of a >ualied person # 3pplying by analogy the ruling of this +ourt in &as#ue' vs. (iap and )i *eng (iap + *ons ### if the ban on aliens from ac>uiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this +ourt in the ri1en"o case, is to $"+"$;" 7" &7o+ 1&4 9o$ 9%7%$" ""$&7o+ o9 F1o+, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achie1ed by ma"ing lawful the ac>uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization#
VASQUEZ VS LI SENG GIAP, G.R. No. L->, *&%&$' >, !55
$3+T% 4$ T*E +3%E: 4n January --, &')?, 1&7 Soo$o V&+@%"0 sold and transferred to defendant i %eng Niap, then C"+" 70" , for the sum of 2&),/??, a parcel of land together with a house of strong materials e0isting thereon in Tondo, +ity of Manila# D"9"4&7 L S" G& sold and transferred unto defendant i %eng Niap U %ons, nc#, whose shareholdings then were owned by +hinese citizens, for the same sum of 2&),/??, the abo1e@mentioned parcel, together with the impro1ements thereon, and duly registered under Transfer +erticate of Title =o# /'(;) of the 4Kce of the Register of Deeds on 3ugust -5, &')?#
D"9"4&7 L S" G& was duly naturalized as a $ilipino citizen on May &?, &')&# Moreo1er, defendant i %eng Niap U %ons, nc#, is now a $ilipino corporation, '(#(. per cent of its stoc" being owned by $ilipinos, and duly authorized by its articles of incorporation to own, ac>uire or dispose of real properties#
Thereafter, 1&7 J1"4 a complaint 7o $"+4 7" +&1" o9 & &$"1 o9 1&4 7o"7"$ 37 7" /$o;"/"7+ "$"7"4 7"$"o , which was sold by the plaintiC to the defendant i %eng Niap on -- January &')?, on the $o%4 that the 1endee was an alien and under the +onstitution incapable to own and hold title to lands#
ISSUE: !hether or not the con1eyance of real property to an alien, who was later naturalized as a $ilipino citizen maybe annulled# NO
RULING: Ma6ority of the +ourt has ruled that in %ales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by 1irtue of the pro1isions of the +onstitution #o7 7" ;"4o$ &4 7" ;"4"" are deemed to ha1e committed the constitutional 1iolation and being thus in pari delicto the courts will not aCord protection to either party#
*owe1er, if the #& o &1"+ 9$o/ &@%$ o7 o1' &$%17%$&1 #%7 &1+o %$#& 1&4+, as construed by this +ourt in the ri1en"o case, is to preser1e the nation7s lands for future generations of $ilipinos, that &/ o$ %$o+" 3o%14 o7 #" 73&$7"4 #%7 &";"4 by ma"ing lawful the ac>uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization#
The 771" 7o 7" &$"1 o9 1&4 o9 7" ;"4"", & &7%$&10"4 F1o 70" , being 1alid that of the domestic corporation to which the parcel of land has been transferred, must also be 1alid, '(#(. per cent of i ts capital stoc" being owned by $ilipinos#
CASE DIGEST 2: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) ONG CHING PO VS CA, G.R. No+. >2-> D""/#"$ 2, !!
FACTS OF THE CASE: 4n July -5, &')., O *o *o sold a parcel of to pri1ate respondent %oledad 2arian, the wife of 4ng Lee# The 1&77"$, 7" #$o7"$ o9 "77o"$ O C Po, died in January &';5 while "77o"$ O C Po died in 4ctober &';(# The said sale was e1idenced by a notarized Deed of %ale written in English# %ubse>uently, the document was registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila, which issued a Transfer +erticate of Title in the name of pri1ate respondent# Ao$4 7o $;&7" $"+o4"7, she entrusted the administration of the lot and building to petitioner 4ng +hing 2o when she and her husband settled in loilo# !hen her husband died, she demanded that the lot be 1acated because she was going to sell it# Fnfortunately, petitioners refused to 1acate the said premises# *ence, $;&7" $"+o4"7 led a case for unlawful detainer against petitioner 4ng +hing 2o# The MTC dismissed her case, which was aKrmed by the RTC, and then the CA# P"77o"$+, o 7" o7"$ &4, claimed that on July -5, &')(, petitioner 4ng +hing 2o bought the said parcel of land from 4ng Joi Jong# The +&1" was e1idenced by a photo copy of a Deed of %ale written in +hinese with the letter head A%incere Trading +o# A 4n December (, &';5, "77o"$ O C Po e0ecuted a Deed of 3bsolute %ale con1eying to his children, petitioners Jimmy and Da1id 4ng, the same property sold by 4ng Joi Jong to pri1ate respondent in &').# 4n December &- &';/, "77o"$+ O C Po, *//' O &4 D&;4 O led an action for recon1eyance and damages against pri1ate respondent in the Regional Trial +ourt # !hile, $;&7" $"+o4"7 led an action for >uieting of title against petitioners 4ng +hing 2o and his wife, petitioner Lu %io" ian, in the Regional Trial +ourt# The cases were consolidated, and the 7$&1 o%$7 rendered a decision in fa1or of pri1ate respondent, which was aKrmed by the +3#
ISSUE: !hether or not petitioners, who are aliens be declared as lawful owners of the sub6ect parcel of land# NO RULING: S"7o , A$71" ?II o9 7" ! Co+77%7o pro1ides: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate lands shall be transferred or con1eyed e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands in the public domain# The capacity to ac>uire pri1ate land is made dependent upon the capacity to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain# 2ri1ate land may be transferred or con1eyed only to indi1iduals or entities A>ualied to ac>uire lands of the public domainA# The !>5 Co+77%7o reser1ed the right to participate in the Adisposition, e0ploitation, de1elopment and utilizationA of all Alands of the public domain and other natural resources of the 2hilippinesA for $ilipino citizens or corporations at least si0ty percent of the capital of which was owned by $ilipinos# A1"+, 3"7"$ 4;4%&1+ o$ o$o$&7o+, ha1e been dis>ualied from ac>uiring public lands hence, they ha1e also been dis>ualied from ac>uiring pri1ate lands# P"77o"$ O C Po was a +hinese citizen therefore, he was dis>ualied from ac>uiring and owning real property# 3ssuming that the genuineness and due e0ecution of E0hibit A
CASE DIGEST >: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) FRENZEL VS CATITO, G.R. No. >!5. *%1' , 2> FACTS OF THE CASE: P"77o"$ A19$"4 F$70 F$"0"1 is an 3ustralian citizen of Nerman descent# *e arri1ed in the 2hilippines in &'.), and thereafter married Teresita %antos, a $ilipino citizen# n &';& A19$"4 &4 T"$"+7& separated from bed and board without
obtaining a di1orce# %ometime in $ebruary &';5, 3lfred arri1ed in %ydney, 3ustralia for a 1acation and went to a night spot in %ydney, for a massage where he met Ederlina +atito, a $ilipina and a nati1e of ualied from owning lands in the 2hilippines, he agreed that only Ederlinas name would appear in the deed of sale as the buyer of the property, as well as in the title co1ering the same# 3fter all, he was planning to marry Ederlina and he belie1ed that after their marriage, the two of them would 6ointly own the property# 3lfred decided to stay in the 2hilippines for good and li1e with Ederlina, so he decided to sell his 1arious properties in 3ustralia and 2apua =ew Nuinea# !hile 3lfred was in 2apua =ew Nuinea, he recei1ed a etter from laus Muller who was then residing in
$"/"47&7o, 7" 1&3 + %'"14# The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement it lea1es the parties where it nds them# Fnder 3rticle &)&- of the =ew +i1il +ode, the petitioner cannot ha1e the sub6ect properties deeded to him or allow him to reco1er the money he had spent for the purchase thereof# E@%7' &+ & $%1" 311 9o11o3 7" 1&3 &4 311 o7 "$/7 7&7 7o #" 4o" 4$"71' 3, #"&%+" o9 %#1 o1', &o7 #" 4o" 4$"71'# !here the wrong of one party e>uals that of the other, the defendant is in the stronger position ### it signies that in such a situation, neither a court of e>uity nor a court of law will administer a remedy# The rule is e0pressed in the ma0ims: EG D44 M34 =4= 4RTFR 3+T4 and = 23R DE+T4 24T4R E%T +4=DT4 DE$E=DE=T%# t is e1ident that the 1&7 3&+ 9%11' &3&$" 7&7 &+ & o-70" o9 7" P1"+, he was dis>ualied from 1alidly purchasing any land within the country# $utile, too, is petitioners reliance on 3rticle -- of the =ew +i1il +ode that W=o person should un6ustly enrich himself at the e0pense of anotherP# 3n action for reco1ery of what has been paid without 6ust cause has been designated as an accion in rem verso # This $o;+o 4o"+ o7 &1' 9, &+ 7+ &+", the action is proscribed by the +onstitution or by the applicat ion of the pari delicto doctrine# t may be unfair and un6ust to bar the petitioner from ling an accion in rem verso o1er the sub6ect properties, or from reco1ering the money he paid for the said properties, but, as ord Manseld stated in the early case of &olman vs# Johnson: The o#"7o 7&7 & o7$&7 + //o$&1 o$ 11"&1 &+ #"73"" 7" 1&7 &4 7" 4"9"4&7, sounds at all times 1ery ill in the mouth of the defendant# t is not for his sa"e, howe1er, that the ob6ection is e1er allowed but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the ad1antage of, contrary to the real 6ustice, as between him and the plaintiC#
ISSUE: !hether or not an alien is entitled to reimbursements of the properties purchased in the 2hilippines in name of another through the use of his own funds . NO
FACTS OF THE CASE: P"77o"$ E1"& %"&;"7%$& M%11"$ &4 $"+o4"7 H"1/%7 M%11"$ were married in *amburg, Nermany and resided therein at a house owned by respondentOs parents but decided to mo1e and reside permanently in the 2hilippines in &''-# uired using paraphernal funds of the respondent# *owe1er, it ruled that respondent cannot reco1er his funds because the property was purchased in 1iolation of %ection ., 3rticle G of the +onstitution# t pro1ides that Asa1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate lands shall be transferred or con1eyed e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold
RULING: S"7o , A$71" ?IV o9 7" !> Co+77%7o pro1ides, as follows: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate land shall be transferred or con1eyed e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands in the public domain# L&4+ o9 7" %#1 4o/&, 3 1%4" $;&7" 1&4+, may be transferred or con1eyed only to indi1iduals or entities >ualied to ac>uire or hold pri1ate lands or lands of the public domain# A1"+, 3"7"$ 4;4%&1+ o$ o$o$&7o+, ha1e been dis>ualied from ac>uiring lands of the public domain# *ence, they ha1e also been dis>ualied from ac>uiring pri1ate lands# E1en if, as claimed by the petitioner, the sales in >uestion were entered into by him as the real 1endee, the said 7$&+&7o+ &$" ;o1&7o o9 7" Co+77%7o hence, are null and 1oid ab initio# 3 o7$&7 7&7 ;o1&7"+ 7" Co+77%7o &4 7" 1&3, is null and 1oid and 1ests no rights and creates no obligations# t produces no legal eCect at all# The "77o"$, #" & &$7' 7o & 11"&1 o7$&7 , cannot come into a court of law and as" to ha1e his illegal ob6ecti1e carried out# 4ne who loses his money or property by "nowingly engaging in a contract or transaction which in1ol1es his own moral turpitude may
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) MULLER VS MULLER, G.R. No. !5 A%%+7 2!, 2
without pre6udice to a 1oluntary partition by the parties of the said real property# 0 0 0 CA modied the decision of the RT+, and directed respondent Elena uisition of the land and the amount for the construction of the house situated in 3ntipolo, Rizal#
*ence, the +ourt re1ersed the decision of the +3# t ruled that petitioner uisition of the land as well as the house constructed in 3ntipolo +ity#
ISSUE: !hether or not respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the ac>uisition of the 3ntipolo property . NO RULING: S"7o , A$71" ?II o9 7" ! Co+77%7o states: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate lands shall be transferred or con1eyed e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain# A1"+, 3"7"$ 4;4%&1+ o$ o$o$&7o+, are dis>ualied from ac>uiring lands of the public domain# *ence, they are also dis>ualied from ac>uiring pri1ate lands# The $/&$' %$o+" o9 7" o+77%7o&1 $o;+o is the conser1ation of the national patrimony# Respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition and e0pressly admitted his "nowledge thereof to this +ourt# *e declared that he had the 3ntipolo property titled in the name of petitioner because of the said prohibition# *is attempt at subse>uently asserting or claiming a right on the said property cannot be sustained# Thus, in the instant case, $"+o4"7 &o7 +"" $"/#%$+"/"7 o 7" $o%4 o9 "@%7' where it is clear that he willingly and "nowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition# $urther, the distinction made between transfer of ownership as opposed to reco1ery of funds is a futile e0ercise on respondentOs part# To &11o3 $"/#%$+"/"7 would in eCect permit respondent to en6oy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed to own# Thus, it is li"ewise proscribed by law# $inally, the 9%4&/"7&1 1&3 prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land# S"7o , A$71" ?IV o9 7" !> Co+77%7o ordains that, AS&;" &+"+ o9 "$"47&$' +%"++o, o $;&7" 1&4 +&11 #" 7$&+9"$$"4 o$ o;"'"4 "8"7 7o 4;4%&1+, o$o$&7o+, o$ &++o&7o+ @%&1J"4 7o &@%$" o$ o14 1&4+ o9 7" %#1 4o/&.A n +heesman 1s 3+, the court ruled that petitioner Thomas +heesman was, of course, charged with "nowledge of this prohibition# Thus, assuming that it was his intention that the lot in >uestion be purchased by him and his wife, he &@%$"4 o $7 3&7";"$ o;"$ 7" $o"$7' #' ;$7%" o9 7&7 %$&+" &4 &77"/7 7o &@%$" & $7 o$ 7"$"+7 1&4, ;&$o%+1' &4 1&4"+7"1', " o31' ;o1&7"4 7" Co+77%7o 7" +&1" &+ 7o / 3&+ %11 &4 ;o4# n any e1ent, he had and has no capacity or personality to >uestion the subse>uent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely e0ercising the prerogati1e of a husband in respect of con6ugal property# To sustain such a theory would permit indirect contro1ersion of the constitutional prohibition# f the property were to be declared con6ugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and right o1er land, as he would then ha1e a decisi1e 1ote as to its transfer or disposition# This is a right that the +onstitution does not permit him to ha1e# 3s already obser1ed, the nding that his wife had used her own money to purchase the property cannot, and will not, at this stage of the proceedings be re1iewed and o1erturned# uisition, the considerations 6ust set out to militate, on high constitutional grounds, against his reco1ering and holding the property so ac>uired, or any part thereof# 3nd whether in such an e1ent, he may reco1er from his wife any share of the money used for the purchase or charge her with unauthorized disposition or e0penditure of con6ugal funds is not now in>uired into that would be, in the premises, a purely academic e0ercise#
CASE DIGEST 5: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) REES VS GRAGEDA, G.R. No. L-> M&$ 2, !>
FACTS OF THE CASE: 4n 3pril &-, &'5', M&8/o Ro, 9o$ &4 + o3 #"&19 &4 7&7 o9 7" /o$+ M&$& Ro, F1o/"o Ro, P$+o Ro, &4 Lo%$4"+ Ro, e0ecuted a Deed of 3bsolute %ale o1er ot 55' and a portion of ot 5-. in fa1or of the petitioner Donato Reyes Lap who was then a +hinese national# R"+o4"7 *o+" A. Ro is the eldest son of Ma0imino Rico, one of the 1endors herein# %ubse>uently, the "77o"$ &+ ;"4"" caused the registration of the instrument of sale and the cancellation of 4riginal +erticates of Title and the conse>uent issuance in his fa1or of Transfer +erticate of Title co1ering the two lots sub6ect matter of the +ontract of %ale # 3fter the 1&+" o9 "&$1' J97"" '"&$+ 9$o/ &4 &97"$ 7" "8"%7o o9 7" 4""4 o9 &#+o1%7" +&1", Donato Reyes Lap was admitted as a $ilipino citizen through naturalization# 4n December &, &'(., the "77o"$ ceded the ma6or portion of ot =o# 5-. consisting of &,?.; s>uare meters in fa1or of his engineer son , F"18 &, who was also a $ilipino citizen because of the $ilipino citizenship of his mother and the naturalization of his father Donato Reyes Lap# %ubse>uently, Lo%$4"+ Ro, &%7 &4 o-"$ o9 $"+o4"7 *o+" A. Ro, sold the remaining portion of ot 5-. to the petitioner who had his rights thereon duly registered under 3ct )'( # P"77o"$, Do&7o R"'"+ &p, has been in possession of the lots in >uestion since &'5', openly, publicly, continuously, and ad1ersely in the concept of owner until the present time # The petitioner has one sur1i1ing son by his rst marriage to a $ilipino wife# *e has 1e children by his second marriage also to a $ilipina and has a total of -5 grandchildren all of whom are $ilipino citizens# R"+o4"7 o%$7 declared as absolutely null and 1oid the sale of a residential lot in Nuinobatan, 3lbay to a +hinese national and ordered its recon1eyance to the 1endors thirty years after the sale +7" o9 7" 9&7 that the 1endee had been a naturalized $ilipino citizen for fteen years at the time# The respondent court considered S"7o 5, A$71" ?III o9 7" !>5 Co+77%7o that Ano pri1ate agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 2hilippinesA to be an absolute and un>ualied prohibition and, therefore, ruled that a con1eyance contrary to it would not be 1alidated nor its 1oid nature altered by the subse>uent naturalization of the 1endee#
ISSUE: !hether or not the 1endee, who was subse>uently naturalized as a $ilipino citizen, is authorized to own sub6ect parcel of land . ES
RULING: T" Co%$7 7"4 the rulings in 'as%ue( v# $eng eng )iap et al# and arosa 'da# de Bersabia v# Cuenco : There should be no >uestion that the sale of the land in >uestion in &'5( by Epifania to 4ng ing 2o was ine0istent and 1oid from the beginning 83rt# &)?' Q., +i1il +ode9 because it was a contract e0ecuted against the mandatory pro1ision of the &'5/ +onstitution, which is an e0pression of public policy to conser1e lands for the $ilipinos# S&4 $o;+o $"&4+: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations, >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain# *ad this been a suit between Epifania and 4ng ing 2o she could ha1e been declared entitled to the litigated land on the basis, as claimed, of the ruling in 2hilippine ualied 1endee# R"+o4"7, &+ & &7%$&10"4 70" , was constitutionally >ualied to own the sub6ect property # There would be no more public policy to be ser1ed in allowing petitioner Epifania to reco1er the land as it is already in the hands of a >ualied person# 3pplying by analogy the ruling of this +ourt in V&+@%"0 ;+. G& &4 L" S" G& So+: ### if the #& o &1"+ 9$o/ &@%$ o7 o1' &$%17%$&1 #%7 &1+o %$#& 1&4+, as construed by this +ourt in the ri1en"o case, is to preser1e the nation7s lands for future generations of $ilipinos, that &/ o$ %$o+" 3o%14 o7 #" 73&$7"4 #%7 &";"4 by ma"ing lawful the ac>uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization# *ence, the ruling of respondent court was re1ersed# The con1eyance of the property to the 1endee who was a +hinese citizen at the time of con1eyance is 1alidated by the subse>uent naturalization of the 1endee#
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) GODINEZ VS LUEN, G.R. No. L->> *&%&$' 2, !>
FACTS OF THE CASE: The 1&7+ led this case to reco1er a parcel of land sold by their father, now deceased, to $ong 2a" uen, an alien, on the ground that the sale was null and 1oid ab initio since it 1iolates applicable pro1isions of the +onstitution and the +i1il +ode # The 1&7+ led a complaint in the +$ of %ulu alleging that they are the heirs of Jose Nodinez who was married to Martina 3l1arez Nodinez sometime in &'&?# During the marriage of their parents they ac>uired a parcel of land lot =o# ') of Jolo townsite with an area of 5,((/ s>uare meters as e1idenced by 4riginal +erticate of Title in the name of Jose Nodinez# Their mother died sometime in &'5; lea1ing the plaintiCs as their sole sur1i1ing heirs# 4n =o1ember -., &')&, without the "nowledge of the plaintiCs, the said *o+" Go4"0, sold the aforesaid parcel of land to the defendant $ong 2a" uen, a +hinese citizen# 3 TCT was then issued by the Register of Deeds to the said defendant, which is null and 1oid ab initio since the transaction constituted a non@e0istent contract# T"$"&97"$, 4"9"4&7 Fo P& L%" e0ecuted a power of attorney in fa1or of his o-4"9"4&7 B3& P% M, &1+o & &1", who con1eyed and sold the abo1e described parcel of land to co@defendant Trinidad %# =a1ata , who is aware of and with full "nowledge that $ong 2a" uen is a +hinese citizen as well as wan 2un Ming, who under the law are prohibited and dis>ualied to ac>uire real property in this 6urisdiction# %ince one@half of the said property is con6ugal property inherited by the plaintiCs from their mother, *o+" Go4"0 could not ha1e legally con1eyed the entire property# =otwithstanding repeated demands on said defendant to surrender to plaintiCs the said property she refused, hence, 1&7+ led a complaint that they be ad6udged as the owners of the parcel of land in >uestion and the T+T issued in the name of defendant $ong 2a" uen as well as the T+T issued in the name of defendant =a1ata be declared null and 1oid ab initio# D"9"4&7 N&;&7& led her answer alleging that 7" o/1&7 4o"+ o7 +7&7" & &%+" o9 &7o since it appears from the allegation that the property is registered in the name of Jose Nodinez so that as his sole property he may dispose of the same # The &%+" o9 &7o &+ #"" #&$$"4 #' 7" +7&7%7" o9 1/7&7o+ as the alleged document of sale e0ecuted by Jose Nodinez on =o1ember -., &')& , con1eyed the property to defendant $ong 2a" uen as a result of which a title was issued to said defendant# The 1o3"$ o%$7 dismissed the complaint on the ground that their cause of action has prescribed# ISSUE: !hether or not the heirs of a person who sold a parcel of land to an alien in 1iolation of a constitutional prohibition may reco1er the property if it had, in the meantime, been con1eyed to a $ilipino citizen >ualied to own and possess it# NO RULING: There can be no dispute that the sale in &')& by Jose Nodinez of his residential lot ac>uired from the 5 Co+77%7o 3 $o;4"4: %a1e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri1ate agricultural land will be transferred or assigned e0cept to indi1iduals, corporations, or associations >ualied to ac>uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 2hilippines# !e see no necessity from the facts of this case to pass upon the nature of the contract of sale e0ecuted by Jose Nodinez and $ong 2a" uen whether 1oid ab initio, illegal per se or merely pro@e0hibited# t is enough to stress that insofar as the ;"4"" + o"$"4, prescription is una1ailing#
limitations# $rom the fact that prescription may not be used to defend a contract which the +onstitution prohibits, it does not necessarily follow that the appellants may be allowed to reco1er the property sold to an alien# 3s earlier mentioned, Fo P& L%", 7" 4+@%&1J"4 &1" ;"4"" later sold the same property to Trinidad %# =a1ata, a $ilipino citizen >ualied to ac>uire real property# n *errera 1# uy im Nuan the court declared that where land is sold to a +hinese citizen, who later sold it to a $ilipino, the sale to the latter cannot be impugned# n S&$+o+& ;4&. 4" &$+o#& ;. C%"o we had occasion to pass upon a factual situation substantially similar to the one in the instant case# !e ruled: ualied 1endee# Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally >ualied to own the sub6ect property# There would be no more public policy to be ser1ed in allowing petitioner Epifania to reco1er the land as it is already in the hands of a >ualied person# 3pplying by analogy the ruling of this +ourt in V&+@%"0 ;+. G& So+: ### if the #& o &1"+ 9$o/ &@%$ o7 o1' &$%17%$&1 #%7 &1+o %$#& 1&4+, as construed by this +ourt in the ri1en"o case, is to preser1e the nation7s lands for future generations of $ilipinos, that &/ o$ %$o+" 3o%14 o7 #" 73&$7"4 #%7 &";"4 by ma"ing lawful the ac>uisition of real estate by aliens who became $ilipino citizens by naturalization# !hile, strictly spea"ing, 4ng ing 2o, $;&7" $"+o4"7+ ;"4o$, &4 o $7+ o9 o3"$+ 7o 7$&+/7, it is li"ewise in escapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her rights for -( years from &'5( to &'(- #
CASE DIGEST : LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP) LEE VS REPULIC, G.R. No. 2!5. O7o#"$ >, 2 FACTS OF THE CASE: %ometime in March &'5(, R&9&"1, C&$/", F$&+o, *$., R&/o, Lo%$4"+, M"$"4"+, Co"o, M&$&o, *o+", Lo$"7o, M&%"1, R0&1 &4 *//', &11 +%$&/"4 D1&+& sold to ee iong, a +hinese citizen, a parcel of land with an appro0imate area of &,(5& s>uare meters, designated as ot 5'; and co1ered by 4riginal +erticate of Title, situated at the corner of Ro0as 31enue and 2a1ia %treet, Ro0as +ity# *owe1er, in &');, the 9o$/"$ o3"$+ led with the +$, +apiz an action against the heirs of ee iong for annulment of sale and reco1ery of land# The 1&7+ assailed the 1alidity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens ac>uiring ownership of pri1ate agricultural land, including residential, commercial or industrial land# RebuCed in the trial court and the +ourt of 3ppeals, plaintiCs appealed to the %upreme +ourt, which ruled that another $1" o9 1&3 sets in to bar the e>ually guilty 1endor from reco1ering the title which he had 1oluntarily con1eyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto # n &'(;, the +&/" 9o$/"$ o3"$+ led with +$, +apiz an action for reco1ery of the same parcel of land# +iting the case of !hilippine Ban"ing Corporation v# $ui he , they submitted that the sale to ee iong was null and 1oid for being 1iolati1e of the +onstitution# n &''5, E10&#"7 M&%"1-L"" &4 P&7& % L"" led with the RT+, Ro0as +ity a petition for reconstitution of title of ot =o# 5'; of the +apiz +adastre since it was burned during the war# P"77o"$+ alleged that they were the widows of the deceased ee uired her share in ot =o# 5'; through an e0tra@6udicial settlement and donation e0ecuted in her fa1or by her deceased husband ee uired her share in the same lot by succession from her deceased husband ee uire title to the lot because he was a +hinese citizen and was constitutionally not >ualied to own the sub6ect land# +3 declared that the 6udgment of reconstitution was 1oid# ISSUE: !hether or not ee iongOs predecessors@in@interest can 1alidly own the sub6ect parcels of land# ES RULING: The +&1" o9 7" 1&4 @%"+7o was consummated sometime in March &'5(, during the eCecti1ity of the &'5/ +onstitution# Fnder the !>5 Co+77%7o, aliens could not ac>uire pri1ate agricultural lands, sa1e in cases of hereditary succession# Thus, L"" Lo, & C"+" 70", was dis>ualied to ac>uire the land in >uestion# n +&1"+ o9 $"&1 "+7&7" 7o &1"+ incapable of holding title thereto by 1irtue of the pro1isions of the +onstitution both the 1endor and the 1endee are deemed to ha1e committed the constitutional 1iolation and being thus in pari delicto the courts will not aCord protection to either party# The $o"$ &$7' 7o &++&1 7" +&1" + 7" So17o$ G""$&1. This was what was done in this case when the %olicitor Neneral initiated an action for annulment of 6udgment of reconstitution of title# !hile it too" the Republic more than si0ty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action# P$"+$7o ";"$ 1"+ &&+7 7" S7&7"# 3lthough ownership of the land cannot re1ert to the original sellers, because of the doctrine of pari delicto , the So17o$ G""$&1 may initiate an action for re1ersion or escheat of the land to the %tate, sub6ect to other defenses, as hereafter set
n this case, subse>uent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of $ilipinos# The o$&1 ;"4"", L"" Lo, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subse>uently their heirs, petitioners herein# 2etitioners are $ilipino citizens, a fact the %olicitor Neneral does not dispute# The o+77%7o&1 $o+$7o o &1" o3"$+ o9 1&4+ o9 7" %#1 o$ $;&7" 4o/& was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non@$ilipinos# n this case, howe1er, there would be no more public policy 1iolated since the land is in the hands of $ilipinos >ualied to ac>uire and own such land# f 1&4 + ;&141' 7$&+9"$$"4 7o & &1" 3o +%#+"@%"71' #"o/"+ & 70" o$ 7$&+9"$+ 7 7o & 70", the Baw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered 1alid# Thus, the +%#+"@%"7 7$&+9"$ o9 7" $o"$7' 7o @%&1J"4 F1o+ may no longer be impugned on the basis of the in1alidity of the initial transfer# The o#"7;" o9 7" o+77%7o&1 $o;+o 7o "" o%$ 1&4+ F1o &4+ &+ #"" &";"4. ncidentally, it must be mentioned that $"o+77%7o o9 7" o$&1 "$7J&7" o9 771" must be based on an owners duplicate, secondary e1idence thereof, or other 1alid
sources of the title to be reconstituted# n this case, $"o+77%7o was based on the plan and technical description appro1ed by the and Registration 3uthority# This renders the o$4"$ o9 $"o+77%7o 1oid for lac" of factual support# 3 %4/"7 37 &#+o1%7"1' o7 7o +%o$7 it is 1oid# 3s earlier mentioned, a $"o+77%7o o9 771" is the re@ issuance of a new certicate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition# t does not pass upon the ownership of the land co1ered by the lost or destroyed title# 3ny &" 7" o3"$+ o9 7" $o"$7' must be the sub6ect of a separate suit# Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land#
