lt cases - citizenship requirements

8/15/2019 LT Cases - Citizenship Requirements

1/107

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982

TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIRE, MARIA LUISA !ALA"IOS,A#$%&%'(ra(r%), petitioner-appellee,vs.

MAR"ELLE *. +*A. *E RAMIRE, ET AL., oo'%(or', JORGE a ROERTO RAMIRE, legatees,oppositors- appellants.

AA* SANTOS, J.:

The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramire

among the prin!ipal "enefi!iaries, namel#$ his %i&o% 'ar!elle Demoron &e Ramire( his t%o

gran&nephe%s Ro"erto an& Jorge Ramire( an& his !ompanion )an&a &e )ro"les*i.

The tas* is not trou"le-free "e!ause the %i&o% 'ar!elle is a +ren!h %ho lives in aris, %hile the!ompanion )an&a is an ustrian %ho lives in Spain. 'oreover, the testator provi&e& for su"stitutions.

Jose Eugenio Ramire, a +ilipino national, &ie& in Spain on De!em"er , /01, %ith onl# his %i&o% as

!ompulsor# heir. 2is %ill %as a&mitte& to pro"ate "# the Court of +irst Instan!e of 'anila, 3ran!h 4, on

Jul# 56, /07. 'aria 8uisa ala!ios %as appointe& a&ministratri9 of the estate. In &ue time she su"mitte&

an inventor# of the estate as follo%s$

INVENTRIO

:na se9ta parte ;oras # e&ifi!a!iones, situa&oen

la Es!olta, 'anila............................................................. 7??,???.??

:na se9ta parte ;


2/107

tia&a !on pren&a &e las a!!iones &e 8a Carlota ......... 7,???,??

V8OR 8I:IDO........................................... 7?6,/60./6

The testamentar# &ispositions are as follo%s$

.En nu&a propie&a&, a D. Ro"erto # D. Jorge Ramire, am"as menores &e e&a&,

resi&entes en 'anila, I.+., !alle Blright, No. @@, 'alate, hi>os &e su so"rino D. Jose 'a.

Ramire, !on sustitu!ion vulgar a favor &e sus respe!tivos &es!en&ientes, #, en su &efe!to,!on sustitu!ion vulgar re!ipro!al entre am"os.

El pre!e&ente lega&o en nu&a propie&a& &e la parti!ipa!ion in&ivisa &e la fin!a Santa Cru

3uil&ing, lo or&ena el testa&or a favor &e los legatarios nom"ra&os, en aten!ion a ue &i!ha

propie&a& fue !rea!ion &el ueri&o pa&re &el otorgante # por ser auellos !ontinua&ores &el

apelli&o Ramire,

3.F en usufru!to a sa"er$

a. En !uanto a una ter!era parte, a favor &e la esposa &el testa&or, Da. 'ar!elle Ramire,

&omi!ilia&a en IE ECO, !alle &el General Gallieni No. AA, Seine +ran!ia, !on sustitu!ionvulgar u fi&ei!omisaria a favor &e Da. )an&a &e )ro"les*i, &e alma &e 'allor!a, Son

Rapina veni&a &e los Re#es A,

".F en !uanto a las &os ter!eras partes restantes, a favor &e la nom"ra&a Da. )an&a &e

Nro"les*i !on sustitu!ion vulgar v fi&ei!omisaria a sa"er$

En !uanto a la mita& &e &i!has &os ter!eras partes, a favor &e D. Juan a"lo Jan*o%s*i, &e

Son Rapina alma &e 'allor!a( # en!uanto a la mita& restante, a favor &e su so"rino, D.

2ora!e V. Ramire, San 8uis 3uil&ing, +lori&a St. Ermita, 'anila, I.+.

pesar &e las sustitu!iones fi&ei!oniisarias pre!e&entemente or&ina&as, las usufiru!tuarias

nom"ra&as !on>untamente !on los nu&o propietarios, po&ran en !ualuier memento ven&er

a ter!ero los "ienes o">eto &elega&o, sin interven!ion alguna &e los titulares

fi&ei!omisaarios.

On June 5A, /00, the a&ministratri9 su"mitte& a pro>e!t of partition as follo%s$ the propert# of the

&e!ease& is to "e &ivi&e& into t%o parts. One part shall go to the %i&o% Ben pleno &ominioH in satisfa!tion

of her legitime( the other part or Hfree portionH shall go to Jorge an& Ro"erto Ramire Hen nu&a

proprie&a&.H +urthermore, one thir& ;


3/107

It is the one-thir& usufru!t over the free portion %hi!h the appellants uestion an& >ustifia"l# so. It

appears that the !ourt a quo approve& the usufru!t in favor of 'ar!elle "e!ause the testament provi&es

for a usufru!t in her favor of one-thir& of the estate. The !ourt a quo erre& for 'ar!elle %ho is entitle& to

one-half of the estate Hen pleno &ominioH as her legitime an& %hi!h is more than %hat she is given un&er

the %ill is not entitle& to have an# a&&itional share in the estate. To give 'ar!elle more than her legitime

%ill run !ounter to the testatorBs intention for as state& a"ove his &ispositions even impaire& her legitime

an& ten&e& to favor )an&a.

5. The su"stitutions.

It ma# "e useful to re!all that HSu"stitution is the appoint- >u&gment of another heir so that he ma# enter

into the inheritan!e in &efault of the heir originall# institute&.H ;rt. @76, Civil Co&e. n& that there are

several *in&s of su"stitutions, namel#$ simple or !ommon, "rief or !ompen&ious, re!ipro!al, an&

fi&ei!ommissar# ;rt. @7@, Civil Co&e.= !!or&ing to Tolentino, Hlthough the Co&e enumerates four

!lasses, there are reall# onl# t%o prin!ipal !lasses of su"stitutions$ the simple an& the fideicommissary .

The others are merel# variations of these t%o.H ; Civil Co&e, p. @7 /6A.=

The simple or vulgar is that provi&e& in rt. @7/ of the Civil Co&e %hi!h rea&s$

RT. @7/. The testator ma# &esignate one or more persons to su"stitute the heir or heirsinstitute& in !ase su!h heir or heirs shoul& &ie "efore him, or shoul& not %ish, or shoul& "e

in!apa!itate& to a!!ept the inheritan!e.

simple su"stitution, %ithout a statement of the !ases to %hi!h it refers, shall !omprise the

three mentione& in the pre!e&ing paragraph, unless the testator has other%ise provi&e&.

The fi&ei!ommissar# su"stitution is &es!ri"e& in the Civil Co&e as follo%s$

RT. @0A. fi&ei!ommissar# su"stitution "# virtue of %hi!h the fi&u!iar# or first heir

institute& is entruste& %ith the o"ligation to preserve an& to transmit to a se!on& heir the

%hole or part of inheritan!e, shall "e vali& an& shall ta*e effe!t, provi&e& su!h su"stitution&oes not go "e#on& one &egree from the heir originall# institute&, an& provi&e& further that

the fi&u!iar# or first heir an& the se!on& heir are living at time of the &eath of the testator.

It %ill "e note& that the testator provi&e& for a vulgar su"stitution in respe!t of the lega!ies of Ro"erto

an& Jorge Ramire, the appellants, thus$ !on sustitu!ion vulgar a favor &e sus respe!tivos &es!en&ientes,

#, en su &efe!to, !on su"stitution vulgar re!ipro!al entre am"os.

The appellants &o not uestion the legalit# of the su"stitution so provi&e&. The appellants uestion the

sustitu!ion vulgar # fi&ei!omisaria a favor &e Da. )an&a &e )ro"les*iH in !onne!tion %ith the one-thir&

usufru!t over the estate given to the %i&o% 'ar!elle 2o%ever, this uestion has "e!ome moot "e!ause as

)e have rule& a"ove, the %i&o% is not entitle& to an# usufru!t.

The appellants also uestion the sustitu!ion vulgar # fi&ei!omisaria in !onne!tion %ith )an&aBs usufru!t

over t%o thir&s of the estate in favor of Juan a"lo Jan*o%s*i an& 2ora!e v. Ramire.

The# allege that the su"stitution in its vulgar aspe!t as voi& "e!ause )an&a survive& the testator or

state& &ifferentl# "e!ause she &i& not pre&e!ease the testator. 3ut ing "efore the testator is not the

onl# !ase for vulgar su"stitution for it also in!lu&es refusal or in!apa!it# to a!!ept the inheritan!e as

provi&e& in rt. @7/ of the Civil Co&e, supra. 2en!e, the vulgar su"stitution is vali&.

s regar&s the su"stitution in its fi&ei!ommissar# aspe!t, the appellants are !orre!t in their !laim that it is

voi& for the follo%ing reasons$

;a= The su"stitutes ;Juan a"lo Jan*o%s*i an& 2ora!e V. Ramire= are not relate& to )an&a, the heir

originall# institute&. rt. @0A of the Civil Co&e vali&ates a fi&ei!ommissar# su"stitution Hprovi&e& su!h

su"stitution &oes not go "e#on& one &egree from the heir originall# institute&.H

)hat is meant "# Hone &egreeH from the first heir is e9plaine& "# Tolentino as follo%s$

S!aevola 'aura, an& Traviesas !onstrue H&egreeH as &esignation, su"stitution, or

transmission. The Supreme Court of Spain has &e!i&e&l# a&opte& this !onstru!tion. +rom


4/107

this point of vie%, there !an "e onl# one tranmission or su"stitution, an& the su"stitute nee&

not "e relate& to the first heir. 'anresa, 'orell an& San!he Roman, ho%ever, !onstrue the

%or& H&egreeH as generation, an& the present Co&e has o"viousl# follo%e& this

interpretation. "# provi&ing that the su"stitution shall not go "e#on& one &egree Hfrom the

heir originall# institute&.H The Co&e thus !learl# in&i!ates that the se!on& heir must "e

relate& to an& "e one generation from the first heir.

+rom this, it follo%s that the fi&ei!ommissar# !an onl# "e either a !hil& or a parent of the

first heir. These are the onl# relatives %ho are one generation or &egree from the fi&u!iar#;Op. cit., pp. /A-/1.=

;"= There is no a"solute &ut# impose& on )an&a to transmit the usufru!t to the su"stitutes as reuire& "#

rts. @07 an& @06 of the Civil Co&e. In fa!t, the appellee a&mits Hthat the testator !ontra&i!ts the

esta"lishment of a fi&ei!ommissar# su"stitution %hen he permits the properties su">e!t of the usufru!t to

"e sol& upon mutual agreement of the usufru!tuaries an& the na*e& o%ners.H ;3rief, p. 50.=

A. The usufru!t of )an&a.

The appellants !laim that the usufru!t over real properties of the estate in favor of )an&a is voi& "e!ause

it violates the !onstitutional prohi"ition against the a!uisition of lan&s "# aliens.

The /A7 Constitution %hi!h is !ontrolling provi&es as follo%s$

SEC. 7. Save in !ases of here&itar# su!!ession, no private agri!ultural lan& shall "e

transferre& or assigne& e9!ept to in&ivi&uals, !orporations, or asso!iations ualifie& to

a!uire or hol& lan&s of the pu"li! &omain in the hilippines. ;rt. 4III.=

The !ourt a quo uphel& the vali&it# of the usufru!t given to )an&a on the groun& that the Constitution

!overs not onl# su!!ession "# operation of la% "ut also testamentar# su!!ession. )e are of the opinion

that the Constitutional provision %hi!h ena"les aliens to a!uire private lan&s &oes not e9ten& to

testamentar# su!!ession for other%ise the prohi"ition %ill "e for naught an& meaningless. n# alien %oul&"e a"le to !ir!umvent the prohi"ition "# pa#ing mone# to a hilippine lan&o%ner in e9!hange for a &evise

of a pie!e of lan&.

This opinion not%ithstan&ing, )e uphol& the usufru!t in favor of )an&a "e!ause a usufru!t, al"eit a real

right, &oes not vest title to the lan& in the usufru!tuar# an& it is the vesting of title to lan& in favor of

aliens %hi!h is pros!ri"e& "# the Constitution.

IN VIE) O+ T2E +OREGOING, the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramire is here"# or&ere& &istri"ute& as follo%s$

One-half ;


5/107

"ASTRO, J.:

Justina Santos # Canon +austino an& her sister 8oreno %ere the o%ners in !ommon of a pie!e of lan& in'anila. This par!el, %ith an area of 5,[email protected]? suare meters, is lo!ate& on Rial venue an& opens into+lorentino Torres street at the "a!* an& Katu"usan street on one si&e. In it are t%o resi&ential houses %ithentran!e on +lorentino Torres street an& the 2en )ah Restaurant %ith entran!e on Rial venue. Thesisters live& in one of the houses, %hile )ong 2eng, a Chinese, live& %ith his famil# in the restaurant.)ong ha& "een a long-time lessee of a portion of the propert#, pa#ing a monthl# rental of 5,05?.

On Septem"er 55, /76 Justina Santos "e!ame the o%ner of the entire propert# as her sister &ie& %ith noother heir. Then alrea %ell a&van!e& in #ears, "eing at the time /? #ears ol&, "lin&, !ripple& an& aninvali&, she %as left %ith no other relative to live %ith. 2er onl# !ompanions in the house %ere her 6 &ogsan& @ mai&s. 2er other%ise &rear# e9isten!e %as "rightene& no% an& then "# the visits of )ongBs four!hil&ren %ho ha& "e!ome the >o# of her life. )ong himself %as the truste& man to %hom she &elivere&various amounts for safe*eeping, in!lu&ing rentals from her propert# at the !orner of Ongpin an& Salaarstreets an& the rentals %hi!h )ong himself pai& as lessee of a part of the Rial venue propert#. )ongalso too* !are of the pa#ment( in her "ehalf, of ta9es, la%#ersB fees, funeral e9penses, masses, salaries ofmai&s an& se!urit# guar&, an& her househol& e9penses.

HIn grateful a!*no%le&gment of the personal servi!es of the lessee to her,H Justina Santos e9e!ute& onNovem"er 7, /76 a !ontra!t of lease ;lff E9h. A= in favor of )ong, !overing the portion then alrealease& to him an& another portion fronting +lorentino Torres street. The lease %as for 7? #ears, although

the lessee %as given the right to %ith&ra% at an# time from the agreement( the monthl# rental %asA,5?. The !ontra!t !overe& an area of ,51 suare meters. Ten &a#s later ;Novem"er 57=, the !ontra!t%as amen&e& ;lff E9h. 1= so as to ma*e it !over the entire propert#, in!lu&ing the portion on %hi!h thehouse of Justina Santos stoo&, at an a&&itional monthl# rental of A0?. +or his part )ong un&ertoo* topa#, out of the rental &ue from him, an amount not e9!ee&ing ,??? a month for the foo& of her &ogsan& the salaries of her mai&s.

On De!em"er 5 she e9e!ute& another !ontra!t ;lff E9h. 6= giving )ong the option to "u# the lease&premises for 5?,???, pa#a"le %ithin ten #ears at a monthl# installment of ,???. The option, %ritten inTagalog, impose& on him the o"ligation to pa# for the foo& of the &ogs an& the salaries of the mai&s in herhousehol&, the !harge not to e9!ee& ,@?? a month. The option %as !on&itione& on his o"taininghilippine !itienship, a petition for %hi!h %as then pen&ing in the Court of +irst Instan!e of Rial. Itappears, ho%ever, that this appli!ation for naturaliation %as %ith&ra%n %hen it %as &is!overe& that he

%as not a resi&ent of Rial. On O!to"er 5@, /7@ she file& a petition to a&opt him an& his !hil&ren on theerroneous "elief that a&option %oul& !onfer on them hilippine !itienship. The error %as &is!overe& an&the pro!ee&ings %ere a"an&one&.

On Novem"er @, /7@ she e9e!ute& t%o other !ontra!ts, one ;lff E9h. 7= e9ten&ing the term of thelease to // #ears, an& another ;lff E9h. 0= fi9ing the term of the option of 7? #ears. 3oth !ontra!ts are%ritten in Tagalog.

In t%o %ills e9e!ute& on ugust 51 an& 5/, /7/ ;Def E9hs. 5@7 L 56/=, she "a&e her legatees to respe!tthe !ontra!ts she ha& entere& into %ith )ong, "ut in a !o&i!il ;lff E9h. 6= of a later &ate ;Novem"er 1,/7/= she appears to have a !hange of heart. Claiming that the various !ontra!ts %ere ma&e "# her"e!ause of ma!hinations an& in&u!ements pra!ti!e& "# him, she no% &ire!te& her e9e!utor to se!ure theannulment of the !ontra!ts.

On Novem"er @ the present a!tion %as file& in the Court of +irst Instan!e of 'anila. The !omplaintallege& that the !ontra!ts %ere o"taine& "# )ong Hthrough frau&, misrepresentation, ineuita"le !on&u!t,un&ue influen!e an& a"use of !onfi&en!e an& trust of an& ;"#= ta*ing a&vantage of the helplessness of theplaintiff an& %ere ma&e to !ir!umvent the !onstitutional provision prohi"iting aliens from a!uiring lan&sin the hilippines an& also of the hilippine Naturaliation 8a%s.H The !ourt %as as*e& to &ire!t theRegister of Dee&s of 'anila to !an!el the registration of the !ontra!ts an& to or&er )ong to pa# JustinaSantos the a&&itional rent of A,5? a month from Novem"er 7, /76 on the allegation that thereasona"le rental of the lease& premises %as 0,51? a month.

In his ans%er, )ong a&mitte& that he en>o#e& her trust an& !onfi&en!e as proof of %hi!h he volunteere&the information that, in a&&ition to the sum of A,??? %hi!h he sai& she ha& &elivere& to him forsafe*eeping, another sum of 55,??? ha& "een &eposite& in a >oint a!!ount %hi!h he ha& %ith one of her

mai&s. 3ut he &enie& having ta*en a&vantage of her trust in or&er to se!ure the e9e!ution of the !ontra!tsin uestion. s !ounter!laim he sought the re!over# of /,5?.1/ %hi!h he sai& she o%e& him fora&van!es.

)ongBs a&mission of the re!eipt of 55,??? an& A,??? %as the !ue for the filing of an amen&e&!omplaint. Thus on June /, /0?, asi&e from the nullit# of the !ontra!ts, the !olle!tion of various amountsallege&l# &elivere& on &ifferent o!!asions %as sought. These amounts an& the &ates of their &eliver# areAA,651.56 ;Nov. 1, /76=( 6,A11.15 ;De!. , /76=( ?,??? ;De!. 0, /76=( 55,??? an& A,??? ;asa&mitte& in his ans%er=. n a!!ounting of the rentals from the Ongpin an& Rial venue properties %asalso &eman&e&.


6/107

In the meantime as a result of a petition for guar&ianship file& in the Juvenile an& Domesti! RelationsCourt, the Se!urit# 3an* L Trust Co. %as appointe& guar&ian of the properties of Justina Santos, %hileEphraim G. Go!hang!o %as appointe& guar&ian of her person.

In his ans%er, )ong insiste& that the various !ontra!ts %ere freel# an& voluntaril# entere& into "# theparties. 2e li*e%ise &is!laime& *no%le&ge of the sum of AA,651.56, a&mitte& re!eipt of 6,A11.15 an&?,???, "ut !onten&e& that these amounts ha& "een spent in a!!or&an!e %ith the instru!tions of JustinaSantos( he e9presse& rea&iness to !ompl# %ith an# or&er that the !ourt might ma*e %ith respe!t to thesums of 55,??? in the "an* an& A,??? in his possession.

The !ase %as hear&, after %hi!h the lo%er !ourt ren&ere& >u&gment as follo%s$

ll the &o!uments mentione& in the first !ause of a!tion, %ith the e9!eption of the first %hi!h isthe lease !ontra!t of 7 Novem"er /76, are &e!lare& null an& voi&( )ong 2eng is !on&emne& topa# unto plaintiff thru guar&ian of her propert# the sum of 77,771.57 %ith legal interest from the&ate of the filing of the amen&e& !omplaint( he is also or&ere& to pa# the sum of A,5?.?? forever# month of his o!!upation as lessee un&er the &o!ument of lease herein sustaine&, from 7Novem"er /7/, an& the mone#s he has !onsigne& sin!e then shall "e impute& to that( !ostsagainst )ong 2eng.

+rom this >u&gment "oth parties appeale& &ire!tl# to this Court. fter the !ase %as su"mitte& for &e!ision,"oth parties &ie&, )ong 2eng on O!to"er 5, /05 an& Justina Santos on De!em"er 5@, /01. )ong %as

su"stitute& "# his %ife, 8ui She, the other &efen&ant in this !ase, %hile Justina Santos %as su"stitute& "#the hilippine 3an*ing Corporation.

Justina Santos maintaine& no% reiterate& "# the hilippine 3an*ing Corporation that the lease!ontra!t ;lff E9h. A= shoul& have "een annulle& along %ith the four other !ontra!ts ;lff E9hs. 1-6="e!ause it la!*s mutualit#( "e!ause it in!lu&e& a portion %hi!h, at the time, %as in custodia legis( "e!ausethe !ontra!t %as o"taine& in violation of the fi&u!iar# relations of the parties( "e!ause her !onsent %aso"taine& through un&ue influen!e, frau& an& misrepresentation( an& "e!ause the lease !ontra!t, li*e therest of the !ontra!ts, is a"solutel# simulate&.

aragraph 7 of the lease !ontra!t states that HThe lessee ma# at an# time %ith&ra% from this agreement.HIt is !laime& that this stipulation offen&s arti!le A?@ of the Civil Co&e %hi!h provi&es that Hthe !ontra!tmust "in& "oth !ontra!ting parties( its vali&it# or !omplian!e !annot "e left to the %ill of one of them.H

)e have ha& o!!asion to &elineate the s!ope an& appli!ation of arti!le A?@ in the earl# !ase of Taylor v.y Tieng !iao. )e sai& in that !ase$

rti!le 570 no% art. A?@ of the Civil Co&e in our opinion !reates no impe&iment to the insertionin a !ontra!t for personal servi!e of a resolutor# !on&ition permitting the !an!ellation of the!ontra!t "# one of the parties. Su!h a stipulation, as !an "e rea&il# seen, &oes not ma*e either thevali&it# or the fulfillment of the !ontra!t &epen&ent upon the %ill of the part# to %hom is !on!e&e&the privilege of !an!ellation( for %here the !ontra!ting parties have agree& that su!h option shalle9ist, the e9er!ise of the option is as mu!h in the fulfillment of the !ontra!t as an# other a!t %hi!hma# have "een the su">e!t of agreement. In&ee&, the !an!ellation of a !ontra!t in a!!or&an!e %ith!on&itions agree& upon "eforehan& is fulfillment.5

n& so it %as hel& in "elencio v. #y Tiao $ay

A

that a Hprovision in a lease !ontra!t that the lessee, at an#time "efore he ere!te& an# "uil&ing on the lan&, might res!in& the lease, !an har&l# "e regar&e& as aviolation of arti!le 570 no% art. A?@ of the Civil Co&e.H

The !ase of Singson %ncarnacion v. aldomar 1 !annot "e !ite& in support of the !laim of %ant ofmutualit#, "e!ause of a &ifferen!e in fa!tual setting. In that !ase, the lessees argue& that the# !oul&o!!up# the premises as long as the# pai& the rent. This is of !ourse untena"le, for as this Court sai&, HIfthis &efense %ere to "e allo%e&, so long as &efen&ants ele!te& to !ontinue the lease "# !ontinuing thepa#ment of the rentals, the o%ner %oul& never "e a"le to &is!ontinue it( !onversel#, although the o%nershoul& &esire the lease to !ontinue the lessees !oul& effe!tivel# th%art his purpose if the# shoul& prefer toterminate the !ontra!t "# the simple e9pe&ient of stopping pa#ment of the rentals.H 2ere, in !ontrast, theright of the lessee to !ontinue the lease or to terminate it is so !ir!ums!ri"e& "# the term of the !ontra!tthat it !annot "e sai& that the !ontinuan!e of the lease &epen&s upon his %ill. t an# rate, even if no term

ha& "een fi9e& in the agreement, this !ase %oul& at most >ustif# the fi9ing of a perio&7

"ut not theannulment of the !ontra!t.

Nor is there merit in the !laim that as the portion of the propert# formerl# o%ne& "# the sister of JustinaSantos %as still in the pro!ess of settlement in the pro"ate !ourt at the time it %as lease&, the lease isinvali& as to su!h portion. Justina Santos "e!ame the o%ner of the entire propert# upon the &eath of hersister 8oreno on Septem"er 55, /76 "# for!e of arti!le 666 of the Civil Co&e. 2en!e, %hen she lease&the propert# on Novem"er 7, she &i& so alrea as o%ner thereof. s this Court e9plaine& in uphol&ingthe sale ma&e "# an heir of a propert# un&er >u&i!ial a&ministration$

That the lan& !oul& not or&inaril# "e levie& upon %hile in custodia legis &oes not mean that one ofthe heirs ma# not sell the right, interest or parti!ipation %hi!h he has or might have in the lan&s


7/107

un&er a&ministration. The or&inar# e9e!ution of propert# in custodia legis is prohi"ite& in or&er toavoi& interferen!e %ith the possession "# the !ourt. 3ut the sale ma&e "# an heir of his share in aninheritan!e, su">e!t to the result of the pen&ing a&ministration, in no %ise stan&s in the %a# ofsu!h a&ministration.0

It is ne9t !onten&e& that the lease !ontra!t %as o"taine& "# )ong in violation of his fi&u!iar# relationship%ith Justina Santos, !ontrar# to arti!le 010, in relation to arti!le /1 of the Civil Co&e, %hi!h &isualifiesHagents ;from leasing= the propert# %hose a&ministration or sale ma# have "een entruste& to them.H 3ut)ong %as never an agent of Justina Santos. The relationship of the parties, although a&mitte&l# !lose an&

!onfi&ential, &i& not amount to an agen!# so as to "ring the !ase %ithin the prohi"ition of the la%.

Just the same, it is argue& that )ong so !ompletel# &ominate& her life an& affairs that the !ontra!tse9press not her %ill "ut onl# his. Counsel for Justina Santos !ites the testimon# of tt#. Tomas S. Fumol%ho sai& that he prepare& the lease !ontra!t on the "asis of &ata given to him "# )ong an& that she tol&him that H%hatever 'r. )ong %ants must "e follo%e&.H6

The testimon# of tt#. Fumol !annot "e rea& out of !onte9t in or&er to %arrant a fin&ing that )ongpra!ti!all# &i!tate& the terms of the !ontra!t. )hat this %itness sai& %as$

Di& #ou e9plain !arefull# to #our !lient, DoMa Justina, the !ontents of this &o!ument "efore shesigne& it

I e9plaine& to her ea!h an& ever# one of these !on&itions an& I also tol& her these !on&itions%ere uite onerous for her, I &onBt reall# *no% if I have e9presse& m# opinion, "ut I tol& her that%e %oul& rather not e9e!ute an# !ontra!t an#more, "ut to hol& it as it %as "efore, on a ver"almonth to month !ontra!t of lease.

3ut, she &i& not follo% #our a&vi!e, an& she %ent %ith the !ontra!t >ust the same

She agree& first . . .

gree& %hat

gree& %ith m# o">e!tives that it is reall# onerous an& that I %as reall# right, "ut after that, I%as !alle& again "# her an& she tol& me to follo% the %ishes of 'r. )ong 2eng.

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

So, as far as !onsent is !on!erne&, #ou %ere satisfie& that this &o!ument %as perfe!tl# proper

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Four 2onor, if ' (ave to e)press my personal opinion, I %oul& sa# she is not, "e!ause, as I sai&"efore, she tol& me H)hatever 'r. )ong %ants must "e follo%e&.H @

)ong might in&ee& have supplie& the &ata %hi!h tt#. Fumol em"o&ie& in the lease !ontra!t, "ut to sa#this is not to &etra!t from the "in&ing for!e of the !ontra!t. +or the !ontra!t %as full# e9plaine& to JustinaSantos "# her o%n la%#er. One in!i&ent, relate& "# the same %itness, ma*es !lear that she voluntaril#!onsente& to the lease !ontra!t. This %itness sai& that the original term fi9e& for the lease %as // #ears

"ut that as he &ou"te& the vali&it# of a lease to an alien for that length of time, he trie& to persua&e herto enter instea& into a lease on a month-to-month "asis. She %as, ho%ever, firm an& un#iel&ing. Instea&of hee&ing the a&vi!e of the la%#er, she or&ere& him, HJust follo% 'r. )ong 2eng.H/ Re!ounting thein!i&ent, tt#. Fumol &e!lare& on !ross e9amination$

Consi&ering her age, ninet# ;/?= #ears ol& at the time an& her !on&ition, she is a %ealth# %oman,it is >ust natural %hen she sai& HT(is is *(at ' *ant and t(is *ill be done.H In parti!ular referen!e tothis !ontra!t of lease, %hen I sai& HThis is not proper,H she sai& H+ou ust go a(ead, you preparet(at, ' am t(e o*ner, and if t(ere is any illegality, ' am t(e only one t(at can question t(eillegality .H?

tt#. Fumol further testifie& that she signe& the lease !ontra!t in the presen!e of her !lose frien&,2ermenegil&a 8ao, an& her mai&, Nativi&a& 8una, %ho %as !onstantl# "# her si&e. n# of them !oul&

have testifie& on the un&ue influen!e that )ong suppose&l# %iel&e& over Justina Santos, "ut neither ofthem %as presente& as a %itness. The truth is that even after giving his !lient time to thin* the matterover, the la%#er !oul& not ma*e her !hange her min&. This persua&e& the lo%er !ourt to uphol& thevali&it# of the lease !ontra!t against the !laim that it %as pro!ure& through un&ue influen!e.

In&ee&, the !harge of un&ue influen!e in this !ase rests on a mere inferen!e5 &ra%n from the fa!t thatJustina Santos !oul& not rea& ;as she %as "lin&= an& &i& not un&erstan& the English language in %hi!h the!ontra!t is %ritten, "ut that inferen!e has "een over!ome "# her o%n evi&en!e.

Nor is there merit in the !laim that her !onsent to the lease !ontra!t, as %ell as to the rest of the !ontra!tsin uestion, %as given out of a mista*en sense of gratitu&e to )ong %ho, she %as ma&e to "elieve, ha&save& her an& her sister from a fire that &estro#e& their house &uring the li"eration of 'anila. +or %hile a


8/107

%itness !laime& that the sisters %ere save& "# other persons ;the "rothers E&il"erto an& 'ariano Sta.na=A it %as Justina Santos herself %ho, a!!or&ing to her o%n %itness, 3en>amin C. lono, sai& Hver#emphati!all#H that she an& her sister %oul& have perishe& in the fire ha& it not "een for )ong.1 2en!e there!ital in the &ee& of !on&itional option ;lff E9h. 6= that HItong si )ong 2eng ang si#ang nagligtas saaming &ala%ang mag*apati& sa halos a# ti#a* na *amata#anH, an& the euall# emphati! avo%al ofgratitu&e in the lease !ontra!t ;lff E9h. A=.

s it %as %ith the lease !ontra!t ;lff E9h. A=, so it %as %ith the rest of the !ontra!ts ;lff E9hs. 1-6= the !onsent of Justina Santos %as given freel# an& voluntaril#. s tt#. lono, testif#ing for her, sai&$

In nearl# all &o!uments, it %as either 'r. )ong 2eng or Ju&ge Torres an&ust uote&,

%hile &ispelling &ou"t as to the intention of Justina Santos, at the same time gives the !lue to %hat %evie% as a s!heme to !ir!umvent the Constitutional prohi"ition against the transfer of lan&s to aliens. HTheilli!it purpose then "e!omes the illegal causaH/ ren&ering the !ontra!ts voi&.

Ta*en singl#, the !ontra!ts sho% nothing that is ne!essaril# illegal, "ut !onsi&ere& !olle!tivel#, the# revealan insi&ious pattern to su"vert "# in&ire!tion %hat the Constitution &ire!tl# prohi"its. To "e sure, a leaseto an alien for a reasona"le perio& is vali&. So is an option giving an alien the right to "u# real propert# on!on&ition that he is grante& hilippine !itienship. s this Court sai& in riveno v. /egister of #eeds$5?

liens are not !ompletel# e9!lu&e& "# the Constitution from the use of lan&s for resi&entialpurposes. Sin!e their resi&en!e in the hilippines is temporar#, the# ma# "e grante& temporaryrig(ts suc( as a lease contract *(ic( is not forbidden by t(e 0onstitution. Shoul& the# &esire toremain here forever an& share our fortunes an& misfortunes, +ilipino !itienship is not impossi"le to

a!uire.

3ut if an alien is given not onl# a lease of, "ut also an option to "u#, a pie!e of lan&, "# virtue of %hi!h the+ilipino o%ner !annot sell or other%ise &ispose of his propert#,5 this to last for 7? #ears, then it "e!omes!lear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of o%nership %here"# the o%ner &ivests himself in stagesnot onl# of the right to en>o# the lan& ; us possidendi, us utendi, us fruendi an& us abutendi = "ut alsoof the right to &ispose of it ; us disponendi = rights the sum total of %hi!h ma*e up o%nership. It is >ustas if to&a# the possession is transferre&, tomorro%, the use, the ne9t &a#, the &isposition, an& so on, untilultimatel# all the rights of %hi!h o%nership is ma&e up are !onsoli&ate& in an alien. n& #et this is >uste9a!tl# %hat the parties in this !ase &i& %ithin the spa!e of one #ear, %ith the result that Justina SantosBo%nership of her propert# %as re&u!e& to a hollo% !on!ept. If this !an "e &one, then the Constitutional


9/107

"an against alien lan&hol&ing in the hilippines, as announ!e& in riveno v. /egister of #eeds,55 is in&ee&in grave peril.

It &oes not follo% from %hat has "een sai&, ho%ever, that "e!ause the parties are in pari delicto the# %ill"e left %here the# are, %ithout relief. +or one thing, the original parties %ho %ere guilt# of a violation ofthe fun&amental !harter have &ie& an& have sin!e "een su"stitute& "# their a&ministrators to %hom it%oul& "e un>ust to impute their guilt.5A +or another thing, an& this is not onl# !ogent "ut also important,arti!le 10 of the Civil Co&e provi&es, as an e9!eption to the rule on pari delicto, that H)hen theagreement is not illegal per se "ut is merel# prohi"ite&, an& the prohi"ition "# la% is &esigne& for the

prote!tion of the plaintiff, he ma#, if pu"li! poli!# is there"# enhan!e&, re!over %hat he has pai& or&elivere&.H The Constitutional provision that HSave in !ases of here&itar# su!!ession, no privateagri!ultural lan& shall "e transferre& or assigne& e9!ept to in&ivi&uals, !orporations, or asso!iationsualifie& to a!uire or hol& lan&s of the pu"li! &omain in the hilippinesH51 is an e9pression of pu"li! poli!#to !onserve lan&s for the +ilipinos. s this Court sai& in riveno$

It is %ell to note at this >un!ture that in the present !ase %e have no !hoi!e. )e are !onstruing theConstitution as it is an& not as %e ma# &esire it to "e. erhaps the effe!t of our !onstru!tion is topre!lu&e aliens a&mitte& freel# into the hilippines from o%ning sites %here the# ma# "uil& theirhomes. 3ut if this is the solemn man&ate of the Constitution, %e %ill not attempt to !ompromise iteven in the name of amit# or euit# . . . .

+or all the foregoing, %e hol& that un&er the Constitution aliens ma# not a!uire private or pu"li!

agri!ultural lan&s, in!lu&ing resi&ential lan&s, an&, a!!or&ingl#, >u&gment is affirme&, %ithout!osts.57

That poli!# %oul& "e &efeate& an& its !ontinue& violation san!tione& if, instea& of setting the !ontra!tsasi&e an& or&ering the restoration of the lan& to the estate of the &e!ease& Justina Santos, this Courtshoul& appl# the general rule of pari delicto. To the e9tent that our ruling in this !ase !onfli!ts %ith thatlai& &o%n in /ellosa v. Ga* 0(ee 1un 50 an& su"seuent similar !ases, the latter must "e !onsi&ere&as pro tanto ualifie&.

The !laim for in!rease& rentals an& attorne#Bs fees, ma&e in "ehalf of Justina Santos, must "e &enie& forla!* of merit.

n& %hat of the various amounts %hi!h )ong re!eive& in trust from her It appears that he *ept t%o

!lasses of a!!ounts, one pertaining to amount %hi!h she entruste& to him from time to time, an& anotherpertaining to rentals from the Ongpin propert# an& from the Rial venue propert#, %hi!h he himself %asleasing.

)ith respe!t to the first a!!ount, the evi&en!e sho%s that he re!eive& AA,651.56 on Novem"er @, /76;lff E9h. 0=( 6,A71.15 on De!em"er , /76 ;lff E9h. A=( ?,??? on De!em"er 0, /76 ;lff E9h.1= ( an& @,/[email protected]? on ugust 50, /7/ ;Def. E9h. 510=, or a total of 6?,??6./. 2e !laims, ho%ever,that he settle& his a!!ounts an& that the last amount of @,/[email protected]? %as in fa!t pa#ment to him of %hat inthe liui&ation %as foun& to "e &ue to him.

2e ma&e &is"ursements from this a!!ount to &is!harge Justina SantosB o"ligations for ta9es, attorne#sBfees, funeral servi!es an& se!urit# guar& servi!es, "ut the !he!*s ;Def E9hs. 516-56@= &ra%n "# him forthis purpose amount to onl# A@,[email protected] 3esi&es, if he ha& reall# settle& his a!!ounts %ith her on

ugust 50, /7/, %e !annot un&erstan& %h# he still ha& 55,??? in the "an* an& A,??? in hispossession, or a total of 57,???. In his ans%er, he offere& to pa# this amount if the !ourt so &ire!te& him.On these t%o groun&s, therefore, his !laim of liui&ation an& settlement of a!!ounts must "e re>e!te&.

fter su"tra!ting A@,115.@1 ;e9pen&itures= from 6?,??6./ ;re!eipts=, there is a &ifferen!e of A,701%hi!h, a&&e& to the amount of 57,???, leaves a "alan!e of 70,701.A75@ in favor of Justina Santos.

s to the se!on& a!!ount, the evi&en!e sho%s that the monthl# in!ome from the Ongpin propert# until itssale in Rial venue Jul#, /7/ %as ,???, an& that from the Rial venue propert#, of %hi!h )ong %asthe lessee, %as A,5?. gainst this a!!ount the househol& e9penses an& &is"ursements for the !are ofthe 6 &ogs an& the salaries of the @ mai&s of Justina Santos %ere !harge&. This a!!ount is !ontaine& in anote"oo* ;Def. E9h. 0= %hi!h sho%s a "alan!e of /,5?.1/ in favor of )ong. 3ut it is !laime& that therental from "oth the Ongpin an& Rial venue properties %as more than enough to pa# for her monthl#

e9penses an& that, as a matter of fa!t, there shoul& "e a "alan!e in her favor. The lo%er !ourt &i& notallo% either part# to re!over against the other. Sai& the !ourt$

The &o!uments "ear the earmar*s of genuineness( the trou"le is that the# %ere ma&e onl# "#+ran!is!o )ong an& ntonia 'atias, ni!*-name& Toning, %hi!h %as the %a# she signe& the loosesheets, an& there is no !lear proof that DoMa Justina ha& authorie& these t%o to a!t for her insu!h liui&ation( on the !ontrar# if the result of that %as a &efi!it as allege& an& sought to "e theresho%n, of /,5?.1/, that %as not %hat DoMa Justina apparentl# un&erstoo& for as the Courtun&erstan&s her statement to the 2onora"le Ju&ge of the Juvenile Court . . . the reason %h# shepreferre& to sta# in her home %as "e!ause there she &i& not in!ur in an# &e"ts . . . this "eing the!ase, . . . the Court %ill not a&>u&i!ate in favor of )ong 2eng on his !ounter!laim( on the otherhan&, %hile it is !laime& that the e9penses %ere mu!h less than the rentals an& there in fa!t shoul&


10/107

"e a superavit, . . . this Court must !on!e&e that &ail# e9penses are not eas# to !ompute, for thisreason, the Court fa!e& %ith the !hoi!e of the t%o alternatives %ill !hoose the mi&&le !ourse %hi!hafter all is permitte& "# the rules of proof, Se!. 0/, Rule 5A for in the or&inar# !ourse of things, aperson %ill live %ithin his in!ome so that the !on!lusion of the Court %ill "e that there is neither&efi!it nor superavit an& %ill let the matter rest here.

3oth parties on appeal reiterate their respe!tive !laims "ut %e agree %ith the lo%er !ourt that "oth !laimsshoul& "e &enie&. si&e from the reasons given "# the !ourt, %e thin* that the !laim of Justina Santostotalling A6,5A7, as rentals &ue to her after &e&u!ting various e9penses, shoul& "e re>e!te& as the

evi&en!e is none too !lear a"out the amounts spent "# )ong for foo&5/

massesA?

an& salaries of hermai&s.A 2is !laim for /,5?.1/ must li*e%ise "e re>e!te& as his averment of liui&ation is "elie& "# hiso%n a&mission that even as late as /0? he still ha& 55,??? in the "an* an& A,??? in his possession.

CCORDING8F, the !ontra!ts in uestion ;lff E9hs. A-6= are annulle& an& set asi&e( the lan& su">e!t-matter of the !ontra!ts is or&ere& returne& to the estate of Justina Santos as represente& "# the hilippine3an*ing Corporation( )ong 2eng ;as su"stitute& "# the &efen&ant-appellant 8ui She= is or&ere& to pa#the hilippine 3an*ing Corporation the sum of 70,701.A7, %ith legal interest from the &ate of the filing ofthe amen&e& !omplaint( an& the amounts !onsigne& in !ourt "# )ong 2eng shall "e applie& to thepa#ment of rental from Novem"er 7, /7/ until the premises shall have "een va!ate& "# his heirs. Costsagainst the &efen&ant-appellant.

0oncepcion, 0.2., /eyes, 2..$., #izon, "aalintal, engzon, 2.!., 3aldivar, Sanc(ez and 4ngeles, 22.,

concur.

Seara(e O%&%o&'

FERNAN*O, J., !on!urring$

)ith the a"le an& %ell-%ritten opinion of Justi!e Castro, I am in full agreement. The e9position of the fa!tsleaves nothing to "e &esire& an& the statement of the la% is nota"le for its !omprehensiveness an& !larit#.This !on!urring opinion has "een %ritten solel# to e9press %hat I !onsi&er to "e the unfortunate an&&eplora"le !onseuen!es of appl#ing the pari delicto !on!ept, as %as, to m# min&, in&is!riminatel# &one,to alien lan&hol&ing &e!lare& illegal un&er the riveno &o!trine in some past &e!isions.

It is to "e remem"ere& that in riveno v. T(e /egister of #eeds of "anila, this Court over strong&issents hel& that residential an& commercial lots ma# "e !onsi&ere& agri!ultural %ithin the meaning ofthe !onstitutional provision prohi"iting the transfer of an# private agri!ultural lan& to in&ivi&uals,!orporations or asso!iations not ualifie& to a!uire or hol& lan&s of the pu"li! &omain in the hilippinessave in !ases of here&itar# su!!ession.

That provision of the Constitution too* effe!t on Novem"er 7, /A7 %hen the Common%ealthGovernment %as esta"lishe&. The interpretation as set forth in the riveno &e!ision %as onl# han&e&&o%n on Novem"er 7, /16. rior to that &ate there %ere man# %ho %ere of the opinion that thephrase agricultural land shoul& "e !onstrue& stri!tl# an& not "e ma&e to!over residential an& commercial lots. !ting on that "elief, several transa!tions %ere entere& intotransferring su!h lots to alien ven&ees "# +ilipino-ven&ors.

fter the riveno &e!ision, some +ilipino ven&ors sought re!over# of the lots in uestion on the groun&that the sales %ere null an& voi&. No &efinite ruling %as ma&e "# this Court until Septem"er of /7A,%hen on the 5/th of sai& month, /ellosa v. Ga* 0(ee 1un,5 autista v. y 'sabelo,A Talento v."aii ,1 0aoile v. 0(iao !eng7 %ere &e!i&e&.

Of the four &e!isions in Septem"er, /7A, the most e9tensive &is!ussion of the uestion is foun& in /ellosav. Ga* 0(ee 1un, the opinion "eing penne& "# retire& Justi!e 3autista ngelo %ith the !on!urren!e onl#of one Justi!e, Justi!e 8a"ra&or, also retire&. +ormer Chief Justi!e aras as %ell as the former Justi!es

Tuason an& 'ontema#or !on!urre& in the result. The ne!essar# si9th vote for a &e!ision %as given "# thethen Justi!e 3engon, %ho ha& a t%o-paragraph !on!urring opinion &isagreeing %ith the main opinion asto the for!e to "e a!!or&e& to the t%o !ases,0 therein !ite&. There %ere t%o &issenting opinions "# formerJusti!es a"lo an& le9 Re#es. The &o!trine as announ!e& in the /ellosa !ase is that %hile the sale "# a+ilipino-ven&or to an alien-ven&ee of a resi&ential or a !ommer!ial lot is null an& voi& as hel& inthe riveno !ase, still the +ilipino-ven&or has no right to re!over un&er a !ivil la% &o!trine, the parties"eing in pari delicto. The onl# reme to prevent this !ontinuing violation of the Constitution %hi!h the&e!ision implie&l# san!tions "# allo%ing the alien ven&ees to retain the lots in uestion is either es!heat orreversion. Thus$ H3# follo%ing either of these reme&ies, or "# approving an implementar# la% as a"ovesuggeste&, %e !an enfor!e the fun&amental poli!# of our Constitution regar&ing our natural resour!es%ithout &oing violen!e to the prin!iple of pari delicto.H6


11/107

)ere the parties reall# in pari delicto 2a& the sale "# an& "et%een +ilipino-ven&or an& alien-ven&eeo!!urre& after the &e!ision in the riveno !ase, then the a"ove vie% %oul& "e !orre!t that "oth +ilipino-ven&or an& alien-ven&ee !oul& not "e !onsi&ere& as inno!ent parties %ithin the !ontemplation of the la%.3oth of them shoul& "e hel& euall# guilt# of evasion of the Constitution.

Sin!e, ho%ever, the sales in uestion too* pla!e prior to the riveno &e!ision, at a time %hen theassumption !oul& "e honestl# entertaine& that there %as no !onstitutional prohi"ition against the sale of!ommer!ial or resi&ential lots "# +ilipino-ven&or to alien-ven&ee, in the a"sen!e of a &efinite &e!ision "#the Supreme Court, it %oul& not "e &oing violen!e to reason to free them from the imputation of eva&ing

the Constitution. +or evi&entl# evasion implies at the ver# least *no%le&ge of %hat is "eing eva&e&. Thene% Civil Co&e e9pressl# provi&es$ H'ista*es upon a &ou"tful or &iffi!ult uestion of la% ma# "e the "asisof goo& faith.H@

!!or&ing to the /ellosa opinion, "oth parties are euall# guilt# of evasion of the Constitution, "ase& onthe "roa&er prin!iple that H"oth parties are presume& to *no% the la%.H This statement that the salesentere& into prior to the riveno &e!ision %ere at that time alrea vitiate& "# a guilt# *no%le&ge of theparties ma# "e too e9treme a vie%. It appears to ignore a postulate of a !onstitutional s#stem, %hereinthe %or&s of the Constitution a!uire meaning through Supreme Court a&>u&i!ation.5a*p(6l.n7t

Referen!e ma# "e ma&e "# %a# of analog# to a &e!ision a&>u&ging a statute voi&. :n&er the ortho&o9theor# of !onstitutional la%, the a!t having "een foun& un!onstitutional %as not a la%, !onferre& no rights,impose& no &ut#, affor&e& no prote!tion./ s pointe& out "# former Chief Justi!e 2ughes though in 0(icot

0ounty #rainage #istrict v. a)ter State an $?

HIt is uite !lear, ho%ever, that su!h "roa& statements asto the effe!t of a &etermination of un!onstitutionalit# must "e ta*en %ith ualifi!ations. The a!tuale9isten!e of a statute, prior to su!h a &etermination, is an operative fa!t an& ma# have !onseuen!es%hi!h !annot >ustl# "e ignore&. The past !annot al%a#s "e erase& "# a ne% >u&i!ial &e!laration. The effe!tof su"seuent ruling as to invali&it# ma# have to "e !onsi&ere& in various aspe!ts, %ith respe!t toparti!ular relations, in&ivi&ual an& !orporate, an& parti!ular !on&u!t, private an& offi!ial. uestions ofrights !laime& to have "e!ome veste&, of status, of prior &eterminations &eeme& to have finalit# an& a!te&upon a!!or&ingl#, of pu"li! poli!# in the light of the nature "oth of the statute an& of its previousappli!ation, &eman& e9amination.H

fter the riveno &e!ision, there is no &ou"t that !ontinue& possession "# alien-ven&ee of propert#a!uire& "efore its promulgation is violative of the Constitution. It is as if an a!t granting aliens the rightto a!uire resi&ential an& !ommer!ial lots %ere annulle& "# the Supreme Court as !ontrar# to the

provision of the Constitution prohi"iting aliens from a!uiring private agri!ultural lan&.

The uestion then as no%, therefore, %as an& is ho% to &ivest the alien of su!h propert# rights on termseuita"le to "oth parties. That uestion shoul& "e >ustl# resolve& in a!!or&an!e %ith the man&ates of theConstitution not "# a %holesale !on&emnation of "oth parties for entering into a !ontra!t at a time %henthere %as no "an as #et arising from the riveno &e!ision, %hi!h !oul& not have "een anti!ipate&.:nfortunatel#, un&er the /ellosa !ase, it %as assume& that the parties, "eing in pari delicto, %oul& "e leftin the situation in %hi!h the# %ere, neither "eing in a position to see* >u&i!ial re&ress.

)oul& it not have "een more in !onsonan!e %ith the Constitution, if instea& the &e!ision !ompelle& therestitution of the propert# "# the alien-ven&ee to the +ilipino-ven&or Kriven*o &e!ision hel& in !lear,e9pli!it an& unam"igous language that$ H)e are &e!i&ing the instant !ase un&er se!tion 7 of rti!le 4III of the Constitution %hi!h is more !omprehensive an& more a"solute in the sense that it prohi"its the transfer

to aliens of an# private agri!ultural lan& in!lu&ing resi&ential lan& %hatever its origin might have"een . . . . This prohi"ition Rep. !t No. AA ma*es no &istin!tion "et%een private lan&s that are stri!tl#agri!ultural an& private lan&s that are resi&ential or !ommer!ial. The prohi"ition em"ra!es the sale ofprivate lan&s of an# *in& in favor of aliens, %hi!h is again a !lear implementation an& a legislativeinterpretation of the !onstitutional prohi"ition. . . . It is %ell to note at this >un!ture that in the present!ase %e have no !hoi!e. )e are !onstruing the Constitution as it is an& not as %e ma# &esire it to "e.erhaps the effe!t of our !onstru!tion is to pre!lu&e aliens, a&mitte& freel# into the hilippines, fromo%ning sites %here the# ma# "uil& their homes. 3ut if this is the solemn man&ate of the Constitution, %e%ill not attempt to !ompromise it even in the name of amit# or euit#.H

lien-ven&ee is therefore in!apa!itate& or &isualifie& to a!uire an& hol& real estate. That in!apa!it# an&that &isualifi!ation shoul& &ate from the a&option of the Constitution on Novem"er 7, /A7. Thatin!apa!it# an& that &isualifi!ation, ho%ever, %as ma&e *no%n to +ilipino-ven&or an& to alien-ven&ee onl#upon the promulgation of the riveno &e!ision on Novem"er 7, /16. lien-ven&ee, therefore, !annot"e allo%e& to !ontinue o%ning an& e9er!ising a!ts of o%nership over sai& propert#, %hen it is !learl#in!lu&e& %ithin the Constitutional prohi"ition. lien-ven&ee shoul& thus "e ma&e to restore the propert#%ith its fruits an& rents to +ilipino-ven&or, its previous o%ner, if it !oul& "e sho%n that in the utmost goo&faith, he transferre& his title over the same to alien-ven&ee, upon restitution of the pur!hase pri!e of!ourse.

The Constitution "ars alien-ven&ees from o%ning the propert# in uestion. 3# &ismissing those suits, thelots remaine& in alien han&s. Not%ithstan&ing the solution of es!heat or reversion offere&, the# are still atthe moment of %riting, for the most part in alien han&s. There have "een after almost t%ent# #ears nopro!ee&ings for es!heat or reversion.


12/107

Fet it is !lear that an alien-ven&ee !annot !onsistentl# %ith the !onstitutional provision, as interprete& intheriveno &e!ision, !ontinue o%ning an& e9er!ising a!ts of o%nership over the real estate in uestion. Itought to follo% then, if su!h a !ontinuing violation of the fun&amental la% is to "e put an en& to, that the+ilipino-ven&or, %ho in goo& faith entere& into, a !ontra!t %ith an in!apa!itate& person, transferringo%nership of a pie!e of lan& after the Constitution %ent into full for!e an& effe!t, shoul&, in the light of theruling in the riveno !ase, "e restore& to the possession an& o%nership thereof, %here he has file& theappropriate !ase or pro!ee&ing. n# other !onstru!tion %oul& &efeat the en&s an& purposes not onl# ofthis parti!ular provision in uestion "ut the rest of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution fro%ns upon the title remaining in the alien-ven&ees. Restoration of the propert# uponpa#ment of pri!e re!eive& "# +ilipino ven&or or its reasona"le euivalent as fi9e& "# the !ourt is theans%er. To give the !onstitutional provision full for!e an& effe!t, in !onsonan!e %ith the &i!tates of euit#an& >usti!e, the restoration to +ilipino-ven&or upon the pa#ment of a pri!e fi9e& "# the !ourt is the "etterreme. 2e thought he !oul& transfer the propert# to an alien an& &i& so. fter the riveno !ase ha&ma&e !lear that he ha& no right to sell nor an alien-ven&ee to pur!hase the propert# in uestion, theo"vious solution %oul& "e for him to rea!uire the same. That %a# the Constitution %oul& "e given, as itought to "e given, respe!t an& &eferen!e.

It ma# "e sai& that it is too late at this stage to hope for su!h a solution, the Rellosa opinion, althoughoriginall# !on!urre& in "# onl# one >usti!e, "eing too firml# im"e&&e&. The %riter ho%ever sees a %el!omesign in the a&option "# the Court in this !ase of the !on!urring opinion of the then Justi!e, later ChiefJusti!e, 3engon. 2a& it "een follo%e& then, the pro"lem %oul& not "e still %ith us no%. +ortunatel#, it is

never too late not even in !onstitutional a&>u&i!ation.

EN 3NC

G.R. No. L-55 Ju&e 12, 195:

T/E !EO!LE OF T/E !/ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

ILLIAM /. ;UAS/A, &efen&ant-appellant.

2ose !. $aurel for appellant and 8illiam 1. 9uas(a in (is o*n be(alf.

Office of t(e Solicitor General 2uan /. $i*ag and 4ssistant Solicitor General :rancisco 0arreon forappellee.

RE4ES, J.<

)illiam 2. uasha, a mem"er of the hilippine "ar, %as !harge& in the Court of +irst Instan!e of 'anila

%ith the !rime of falsifi!ation of a pu"li! an& !ommer!ial &o!ument in that, having "een entruste& %ith the

preparation an& registration of the arti!le of in!orporation of the a!ifi! ir%a#s Corporation, a &omesti!

!orporation organie& for the purpose of engaging in "usiness as a !ommon !arrier, he !ause& it to appear

in sai& arti!le of in!orporation that one rsenio 3a#lon, a +ilipino !itien, ha& su"s!ri"e& to an& %as the

o%ner of 0?.??7 per !ent of the su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!* of the !orporation %hen in realit#, as the a!!use&

%ell *ne%, su!h %as not the !ase, the truth "eing that the o%ner of the portion of the !apital sto!*su"s!ri"e& to "# 3a#lon an& the mone# pai& thereon %ere meri!an !itien %hose name &i& not appear in

the arti!le of in!orporation, an& that the purpose for ma*ing this false statement %as to !ir!umvent the

!onstitutional man&ate that no !orporation shall "e authorie to operate as a pu"li! utilit# in the

hilippines unless 0? per !ent of its !apital sto!* is o%ne& "# +ilipinos.

+oun& guilt# after trial an& senten!e& to a term of imprisonment an& a fine, the a!!use& has appeale& to

this Court.

The essential fa!ts are not in &ispute. On Novem"er 1,/10, the a!ifi! ir%a#s Corporation registere& its

arti!les of in!orporation %ith the Se!urities an& E9!hange& Commission. The arti!le %ere prepare& an& the

registration %as effe!te& "# the a!!use&, %ho %as in fa!t the organier of the !orporation. The arti!lestate& that the primar# purpose of the !orporation %as to !arr# on the "usiness of a !ommon !arrier "#

air, lan& or %ater( that its !apital sto!* %as ,???,???, represente& "# /,??? preferre& an& ??,???

!ommon shares, ea!h preferre& share "eing of the par value of p?? an& entitle& to


13/107

an& 7/,??? !ommon shares, of the total par value of 7/,???( an& that 3a#lon an& the meri!an

su"s!ri"ers ha& alrea pai& 57 per !ent of their respe!tive su"s!riptions. Ostensi"l# the o%ner of, or

su"s!ri"er to, 0?.??7 per !ent of the su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!* of the !orporation, 3a#lon nevertheless &i&

not have the !ontrolling vote "e!ause of the &ifferen!e in voting po%er "et%een the preferre& shares an&

the !ommon shares. Still, %ith the !apital stru!ture as it %as, the arti!le of in!orporation %ere a!!epte&

for registration an& a !ertifi!ate of in!orporation %as issue& "# the Se!urities an& E9!hange Commission.

There is no uestion that 3a#lon a!tuall# su"s!ri"e& to 0?.??7 per !ent of the su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!* of

the !orporation. 3ut it is a&mitte& that the mone# pai& on his su"s!ription &i& not "elong to him "ut to themeri!ans su"s!ri"ers to the !orporate sto!*. In e9planation, the a!!use& testifie&, %ithout !ontra&i!tion,

that in the pro!ess of organiation 3a#lon %as ma&e a trustee for the meri!an in!orporators, an& that the

reason for ma*ing 3a#lon su!h trustee %as as follo%s$

. !!or&ing to this arti!le of in!orporation rsenio 3a#lon su"s!ri"e& to ,A7 preferre& shares

%ith a total value of ,A7. Do #ou *no% ho% that !ame to "e

. Fes.

The people %ho %ere &esirous of forming the !orporation, %hose names are liste& on page 6 of this

!ertifie& !op# !ame to m# house, 'essrs. Shannahan, Onstott, OB3annon, Caven, err# an& nastasa*asone evening. There %as !onsi&era"le &iffi!ult# to get them all together at one time "e!ause the# %ere

pilots. The# ha& &iffi!ult# in &e!i&ing %hat their respe!tive share hol&ings %oul& "e. Onstott ha& investe&

a !ertain amount of mone# in airplane surplus propert# an& the# ha& o"taine& a !onsi&era"le amount of

mone# on those planes an& as I re!all the# %ere &esirous of getting a !orporation forme& right a%a#. n&

the# %ante& to have their respe!tive shares hol&ings resolve& at a latter &ate. The# state& that the# !oul&

get together that the# feel that the# ha& no time to settle their respe!tive share hol&ings. )e &is!usse&

the matter an& finall# it %as &e!i&e& that the "est %a# to han&le the things %as not to put the shares in

the name of an#one of the intereste& parties an& to have someone a!t as trustee for their respe!tive

shares hol&ings. So %e loo*e& aroun& for a trustee. n& he sai& HThere are a lot of people %hom I trust.H

2e sai&, HIs there someone aroun& %hom %e !oul& get right a%a#H I sai&, HThere is rsenio. 2e %as m#

"o# &uring the li"eration an& he !are& for me %hen i %as si!* an& i sai& i !onsi&er him m# frien&.H I sai&.The# all *ne% rsenio. 2e is a ver# *in& man an& that %as %hat %as &one. That is ho% it !ame a"out.

Defen&ant is a!!use& un&er arti!le 65 paragraph , in !onne!tion %ith arti!le 6, paragraph 1, of the

Revise& enal Co&e, %hi!h rea&$

RT. 6. :alsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastic minister . The penalt#

of prision mayor an& a fine not to e9!ee& 7,??? pesos shall "e impose& upon an# pu"li! offi!er,

emplo#ee, or notar# %ho, ta*ing a&vantage of his offi!ial position, shall falsif# a &o!ument "#

!ommitting an# of the follo%ing a!ts$

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

1. 'a*ing untruthful statements in a narration of fa!ts.

RT. 65. :alsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The penalt#

of prision correccional in its me&ium an& ma9imum perio& an& a fine of not more than 7,??? pesos

shall "e impose& upon$

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

. n# private in&ivi&ual %ho shall !ommit an# of the falsifi!ations enumerate& in the ne9t

pre!e&ing arti!le in an# pu"li! or offi!ial &o!ument or letter of e9!hange or an# other *in& of

!ommer!ial &o!ument.

Commenting on the a"ove provision, Justi!e l"ert, in his %ell-*no%n %or* on the Revise& enal Co&e

; ne% e&ition, pp. 1?6-1?@=, o"serves, on the authorit# of .S. vs. /eyes, ; hil., A1=, that the

perversion of truth in the narration of fa!ts must "e ma&e %ith the %rongful intent of in>uring a thir&

person( an& on the authorit# of .S. vs. $opez ;7 hil., 77=, the same author further maintains that

even if su!h %rongful intent is proven, still the untruthful statement %ill not !onstitute the !rime of

falsifi!ation if there is no legal o"ligation on the part of the narrator to &is!lose the truth. )rongful intent


14/107

to in>ure a thir& person an& o"ligation on the part of the narrator to &is!lose the truth are thus essential to

a !onvi!tion for a !rime of falsifi!ation un&er the a"ove arti!le of the Revise& enal Co&e.

No%, as %e see it, the falsifi!ation impute& in the a!!use& in the present !ase !onsists in not &is!losing in

the arti!les of in!orporation that 3a#lon %as a mere trustee ; or &umm# as the prose!ution !hooses to !all

him= of his meri!an !o-in!orporators, thus giving the impression that 3a#lon %as the o%ner of the shares

su"s!ri"e& to "# him %hi!h, as a"ove state&, amount to 0?.??7 per !ent of the su"-s!ri"e& !apital sto!*.

This, in the opinion of the trial !ourt, is a mali!ious perversion of the truth ma&e %ith the %rongful intent

!ir!umventing se!tion @, rti!le 4IV of the Constitution, %hi!h provi&es that H no fran!hise, !ertifi!ate, oran# other form of authoriation for the operation of a pu"li! utilit# shall "e grante& e9!ept to !itiens of

the hilippines or to !orporation or other entities organie& un&er the la% of the hilippines, si9t# per

centum of the !apital of %hi!h is o%ne& "# !itiens of the hilippines . . . .H lausi"le though it ma# appear

at first glan!e, this opinion loses vali&it# on!e it is note& that it is pre&i!ate& on the erroneous assumption

that the !onstitutional provision >ust uote& %as meant to prohi"it the mere formation of a pu"li! utilit#

!orporation %ithout 0? per !ent of its !apital "eing o%ne& "# the +ilipinos, a mista*en "elief %hi!h has

in&u!e& the lo%er !ourt to that the a!!use& %as un&er o"ligation to &is!lose the %hole truth a"out the

nationalit# of the su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!* of the !orporation "# revealing that 3a#lon %as a mere trustee

or &umm# of his meri!an !o-in!orporators, an& that in not ma*ing su!h &is!losure &efen&antBs intention

%as to !ir!umvent the Constitution to the &etriment of the pu"li! interests. Contrar# to the lo%er !ourtBs

assumption, the Constitution &oes not prohi"it the mere formation of a pu"li! utilit# !orporation %ithoutthe reuire& formation of +ilipino !apital. )hat it &oes prohi"it is the granting of a fran!hise or other form

of authoriation for the operation of a pu"li! utilit# to a corporation already in e)istence "ut %ithout the

reuisite proportion of +ilipino !apital. This is o"vious from the !onte9t, for the !onstitutional provision in

uestion ualifies the terms H fran!hiseH, H!ertifi!ateH, or Han# other form of authoriationH %ith the phrase

Hfor the operation of a pu"li! utilit#,H there"# ma*ing it !lear that the fran!hise meant is not the Hprimar#

fran!hiseH that invest a "o of men %ith !orporate e9isten!e "ut the Hse!on&ar# fran!hiseH or the

privilege to operate as a pu"li! utilit# after the !orporation has alrea !ome into "eing.

If the Constitution &oes not prohi"it the mere formation of a pu"li! utilit# !orporation %ith the alien

!apital, then ho% !an the a!!use& "e !harge& %ith having %rongfull# inten&e& to !ir!umvent that

fun&amental la% "# not revealing in the arti!les of in!orporation that 3a#lon %as a mere trustee of hismeri!an !o-in!orporation an& that for that reason the su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!* of the !orporation %as

%holl# meri!an +or the mere formation of the !orporation su!h revelation %as not essential, an& the

Corporation 8a% &oes not reuire it. Defen&ant %as, therefore, un&er no o"ligation to ma*e it. In the

a"sen!e of su!h o"ligation an& of the allege %rongful intent, &efen&ant !annot "e legall# !onvi!te& of the

!rime %ith %hi!h he is !harge&.

It is urge&, ho%ever, that the formation of the !orporation %ith 0? per !ent of its su"s!ri"e& !apital sto!*

appearing in the name of 3a#lon %as an in&ispensa"le preparator# step to the su"version of the

!onstitutional prohi"ition an& the la%s implementing the poli!# e9presse& therein. This vie% is not !orre!t.

+or a !orporation to "e entitle& to operate a pu"li! utilit# it is not ne!essar# that it "e organie& %ith 0?

per !ent of its !apital o%ne& "# +ilipinos from the start. !orporation forme& %ith !apital that is entirel#

alien ma# su"seuentl# !hange the nationalit# of its !apital through transfer of shares to +ilipino !itiens.

!onversel#, a !orporation originall# forme& %ith +ilipino !apital ma# su"seuentl# !hange the national

status of sai& !apital through transfer of shares to foreigners. )hat nee& is there then for a !orporation

that inten&s to operate a pu"li! utilit# to have, at the time of its formation, 0? per !ent of its !apital

o%ne& "# +ilipinos alone That !on&ition ma# an#time "e attaine& thru the ne!essar# transfer of sto!*s.

The moment for &etermining %hether a !orporation is entitle& to operate as a pu"li! utilit# is %hen it

applies for a fran!hise, !ertifi!ate, or an# other form of authoriation for that purpose. n& that !an "e

&one after the !orporation has alrea !ome into "eing an& not %hile it is still "eing forme&. n& at that

moment, the !orporation must sho% that it has !omplie& not onl# %ith the reuirement of the Constitution

as to the nationalit# of its !apital, "ut also %ith the reuirements of the Civil viation 8a% if it is a !ommon

!arrier "# air, the Revise& &ministrative Co&e if it is a !ommon !arrier "# %ater, an& the u"li! Servi!e

8a% if it is a !ommon !arrier "# lan& or other *in& of pu"li! servi!e.

Euall# untena"le is the suggestion that &efen&ant shoul& at least "e hel& guilt# of an Himpossi"le !rimeH

un&er arti!le 7/ of the Revise& enal Co&e. It not "eing possi"le to suppose that &efen&ant ha& inten&e&

to !ommit a !rime for the simple reason that the allege& !onstitutional prohi"ition %hi!h he is !harge& for

having trie& to !ir!umvent &oes not e9ist, !onvi!tion un&er that arti!le is out of the uestion.

The foregoing !onsi&eration !an not "ut lea& to the !on!lusion that the &efen&ant !an not "e hel& guilt# of

the !rime !harge&. The ma>orit# of the !ourt, ho%ever, are also of the opinion that, even supposing that


15/107

the a!t impute& to the &efen&ant !onstitute& falsifi!ation at the time it %as perpetrate&, still %ith the

approval of the art# men&ment to the Constitution in 'ar!h, /16, %hi!h pla!e& meri!ans on the same

footing as +ilipino !itiens %ith respe!t to the right to operate pu"li! utilities in the hilippines, thus &oing

a%a# %ith the prohi"ition in se!tion @, rti!le 4IV of the Constitution in so far as meri!an !itiens are

!on!erne&, the sai& a!t has !ease& to "e an offense %ithin the meaning of the la%, so that &efen&ant !an

no longer "e hel& !riminall# lia"le therefor.

In vie% of the foregoing, the >u&gment appeale& from is reverse& an& the &efen&ant )illiam 2. uasha

a!uitte&, %ith !osts de oficio.

T/IR* *I+ISION

G.R. No. 15:= Se(e$ber :, 27

JA"OUS ERN/AR* /ULST, petitioner,vs.

!R UIL*ERS, IN"., respon&ent.

* E " I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINE, J.<

3efore the Court is a etition for Revie% on 0ertiorari un&er Rule 17 of the Revise& Rules of Court assailing

the De!ision &ate& O!to"er A?, 5??5 of the Court of ppeals ;C= in C-G.R. S No. 0?/@.

The fa!ts$

Ja!o"us 3ernhar& 2ulst ;petitioner= an& his spouse I&a Johanna 2ulst-Van I>eren ;I&a=, Dut!h nationals,

entere& into a Contra!t to Sell %ith R 3uil&ers, In!. ;respon&ent=, for the pur!hase of a 5?-s m

resi&ential unit in respon&entBs to%nhouse pro>e!t in arangay Ni#ugan, 8aurel, 3atangas.

)hen respon&ent faile& to !ompl# %ith its ver"al promise to !omplete the pro>e!t "# June //7, the

spouses 2ulst file& "efore the 2ousing an& 8an& :se Regulator# 3oar& ;28:R3= a !omplaint for res!ission

of !ontra!t %ith interest, &amages an& attorne#Bs fees, &o!*ete& as 28R3 Case No. IV0-?6/0-?0@.

On pril 55, //6, 28:R3 r"iter 'a. erpetua F. uino ;28:R3 r"iter= ren&ere& a De!ision5 in favor of

spouses 2ulst, the &ispositive portion of %hi!h rea&s$

)2ERE+ORE, premises !onsi&ere&, >u&gment is here"# ren&ere& in favor of the !omplainant,

res!in&ing the Contra!t to Sell an& or&ering respon&ent to$

= Reim"urse !omplainant the sum of A,@6,7??.??, representing the pur!hase pri!e pai& "# the

!omplainants to .R. 3uil&ers, plus interest thereon at the rate of t%elve per!ent ;5= per annum

from the time !omplaint %as file&(

5= a# !omplainant the sum of 5/6,???.?? as a!tual &amages(

A= a# !omplainant the sum of ??,???.?? "# %a# of moral &amages(

1= a# !omplainant the sum of 7?,???.?? as e9emplar# &amages(

7= 7?,???.?? as attorne#Bs fees an& for other litigation e9penses( an&

0= Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.A

'ean%hile, spouses 2ulst &ivor!e&. I&a assigne& her rights over the pur!hase& propert# to

petitioner.1 +rom then on, petitioner alone pursue& the !ase.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt1


16/107

On ugust 5, //6, the 28:R3 r"iter issue& a )rit of E9e!ution a&&resse& to the E9-Offi!io Sheriff of

the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, 3atangas &ire!ting the latter to e9e!ute its >u&gment. 7

On pril A, //@, the E9-Offi!io Sheriff pro!ee&e& to implement the )rit of E9e!ution. 2o%ever, upon

!omplaint of respon&ent %ith the C on a etition for 0ertiorari an& rohi"ition, the lev# ma&e "# the

Sheriff %as set asi&e, reuiring the Sheriff to lev# first on respon&entBs personal properties.0 Sheriff Jaime

3. Oaeta ;Sheriff= trie& to implement the %rit as &ire!te& "ut the %rit %as returne& unsatisfie&.6

On Januar# 50, ///, upon petitionerBs motion, the 28:R3 r"iter issue& an lias )rit of E9e!ution.@

On 'ar!h 5A, ///, the Sheriff levie& on respon&entBs 7 par!els of lan& !overe& "# A Transfer

Certifi!ates of Title ;TCT=/ in arangay Ni#ugan, 8aurel, 3atangas.?

In a Noti!e of Sale &ate& 'ar!h 56, 5???, the Sheriff set the pu"li! au!tion of the levie& properties on

pril 5@, 5??? at ?$?? a.m..

T%o &a#s "efore the s!he&ule& pu"li! au!tion or on pril 50, 5???, respon&ent file& an :rgent 'otion to

uash )rit of 8ev# %ith the 28:R3 on the groun& that the Sheriff ma&e an overlev# sin!e the aggregate

appraise& value of the levie& properties at 0,7??.?? per s m is @A,00,???.??, "ase& on the ppraisal

Report5 of 2enr# 2unter 3a#ne Co., In!. &ate& De!em"er , //0, %hi!h is over an& a"ove the >u&gment a%ar&.A

t ?$7 a.m. of the s!he&ule& au!tion &ate of pril 5@, 5???, respon&entBs !ounsel o">e!te& to the

!on&u!t of the pu"li! au!tion on the groun& that respon&entBs :rgent 'otion to uash )rit of 8ev# %as

pen&ing resolution. "sent an# restraining or&er from the 28:R3, the Sheriff pro!ee&e& to sell the 7

par!els of lan&. 2oll# roperties Realt# Corporation %as the %inning "i&&er for all 7 par!els of lan& for the

total amount of 7,17?,07A.AA. The sum of 7,AA,?1?.?? %as turne& over to the petitioner in satisfa!tion

of the >u&gment a%ar& after &e&u!ting the legal fees.1

t 1$7 p.m. of the same &a#, %hile the Sheriff %as at the 28:R3 offi!e to remit the legal fees relative to

the au!tion sale an& to su"mit the Certifi!ates of Sale7 for the signature of 28:R3 Dire!tor 3elen G.Cenia ;28:R3 Dire!tor=, he re!eive& the Or&er &ate& pril 5@, 5??? issue& "# the 28:R3 r"iter to

suspen& the pro!ee&ings on the matter.0

+our months later, or on ugust 5@, 5???, the 28:R3 r"iter an& 28:R3 Dire!tor issue& an Or&er setting

asi&e the sheriffBs lev# on respon&entBs real properties,6 reasoning as follo%s$

)hile %e are not ma*ing a ruling that the fair mar*et value of the levie& properties is h0,7??.??

per suare meter ;or an aggregate value of h@A,00,???.??= as in&i!ate& in the 2unter 3a#nes

ppraisal Report, %e &efinitel# !annot agree %ith the position of the Complainants an& the Sheriff

that the aggregate value of the 5,@01.??-suare meter levie& properties is onl# aroun&

h0,???,???.??. The &isparit# "et%een the t%o valuations are si! so egregious that the Sheriff

shoul& have loo*e& into the matter first "efore pro!ee&ing %ith the e9e!ution sale of the sai&

properties, espe!iall# %hen the au!tion sale pro!ee&ings %as seasona"l# o">e!te& "# Respon&entBs

!ounsel, tt#. Noel 'ingoa. 2o%ever, instea& of resolving first the o">e!tion timel# pose& "# tt#.

'ingoa, Sheriff Oaete totall# &isregar&e& the o">e!tion raise& an&, posthaste, issue& the

!orrespon&ing Certifi!ate of Sale even prior to the pa#ment of the legal fees ;pars. 6 L @, SheriffBs

Return=.

)hile %e agree %ith the Complainants that %hat is material in an e9e!ution sale pro!ee&ing is the

amount for %hi!h the properties %ere "i&&e& an& sol& &uring the pu"li! au!tion an& that, mere

ina&eua!# of the pri!e is not a suffi!ient groun& to annul the sale, the !ourt is >ustifie& to

intervene %here the ina&eua!# of the pri!e sho!*s the !ons!ien!e ;3arroo vs. 'a!araeg, @A hil.

A6@=. The &ifferen!e "et%een h@A,00,???.?? an& hp0,???,???.?? is h66,00,???.?? an& it

&efinitel# invites our attention to loo* into the pro!ee&ings ha& espe!iall# so %hen there %as onl#

one "i&&er, the 2O88F ROERTIES RE8TF CORORTION represente& "# 'a, Chan&ra Ca!ho

;par. 6, SheriffBs Return= an& the au!tion sale pro!ee&ings %as timel# o">e!te& "# Respon&entBs

!ounsel ;par. 0, SheriffBs Return= &ue to the pen&en!# of the :rgent 'otion to uash the )rit of

8ev# %hi!h %as file& prior to the e9e!ution sale.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt17


17/107

e'%#e', 6a( %' a( %''ue %' &o( (e >aue o3 (e 'ub?e( roer(%e' a' #e(er$%&e# #ur%&(e au(%o& 'ae, bu( (e #e(er$%&a(%o& o3 (e >aue o3 (e roer(%e' e>%e# uo& by (eSer%33 (a@%& %&(o o&'%#era(%o& Se(%o& 9bB o3 (e 1997 Rue' o3 "%>% !roe#ure ) ) ).

9 9 9 9

It is ver# !lear from the foregoing that, even &uring lev#, the Sheriff has to !onsi&er the fair mar*et

value of the properties levie& upon to &etermine %hether the# are suffi!ient to satisf# the

>u&gment, an& an# lev# in e9!ess of the >u&gment a%ar& is voi& ;3uan v. Court of ppeals, 5A7SCR 151=.

9 9 9 9@ ;Emphasis supplie&=.

The &ispositive portion of the Or&er rea&s$

)2ERE+ORE, the lev# on the su">e!t properties ma&e "# the E9-Offi!io Sheriff of the RTC of

Tanauan, 3atangas, is here"# SET SIDE an& the sai& Sheriff is here"# &ire!te& to lev# instea&

Respon&entBs real properties that are reasona"l# suffi!ient to enfor!e its final an& e9e!utor#

>u&gment, this time, ta*ing into !onsi&eration not onl# the value of the properties as in&i!ate& in

their respe!tive ta9 &e!larations, "ut also all the other &eterminants at arriving at a fair mar*etvalue, namel#$ the !ost of a!uisition, the !urrent value of li*e properties, its a!tual or potential

uses, an& in the parti!ular !ase of lan&s, their sie, shape or lo!ation, an& the ta9 &e!larations

thereon.

SO ORDERED./

motion for re!onsi&eration "eing a prohi"ite& plea&ing un&er Se!tion ;h=, Rule IV of the //0 28:R3

Rules an& ro!e&ure, petitioner file& a etition for 0ertiorari an& rohi"ition %ith the C on Septem"er 56,

5???.

On O!to"er A?, 5??5, the C ren&ere& herein assaile& De!ision5? &ismissing the petition. The C hel& thatpetitionerBs insisten!e that arrozo v. "acaraeg5 &oes not appl# sin!e sai& !ase state& that H%hen there is

a right to re&eem ina&eua!# of pri!e shoul& not "e materialH hol&s no %ater as %hat is o"taining in this

!ase is not Hmere ina&eua!#,H "ut an ina&eua!# that sho!*s the senses( that uan v. 0ourt of

4ppeals55 properl# applies sin!e the uestione& lev# !overe& 7 par!els of lan& posite& to have an

aggregate value of @A,00,???.?? %hi!h sho!*ingl# e9!ee&e& the >u&gment &e"t of onl#

aroun& 0,???,???.??.

)ithout filing a motion for re!onsi&eration,5A petitioner too* the present re!ourse on the sole groun& that$

T2E 2ONOR38E CO:RT O+ E8S GRVE8F ERRED IN ++IR'ING T2E R3ITERBS ORDER

SETTING SIDE T2E 8EVF 'DE 3F T2E S2ERI++ ON T2E S:3JECT ROERTIES. 51

3efore resolving the uestion %hether the C erre& in affirming the Or&er of the 28:R3 setting asi&e the

lev# ma&e "# the sheriff, it "ehooves this Court to a&&ress a matter of pu"li! an& national importan!e

%hi!h !ompletel# es!ape& the attention of the 28:R3 r"iter an& the C$ petitioner an& his %ife are

foreign nationals %ho are &isualifie& un&er the Constitution from o%ning real propert# in their names.

Se!tion 6 of rti!le 4II of the /@6 Constitution provi&es$

Se!. 6. Save in !ases of here&itar# su!!ession, &o r%>a(e a' 'a be (ra&'3erre# oro&>eye# e)e( (o %%>%#ua', !orporations, or asso!iations Cua%3%e# (o aCu%re or o#

a' o3 (e ub% #o$a%&. ;Emphasis supplie&=.

The !apa!it# to a!uire private lan& is ma&e &epen&ent upon the !apa!it# to a!uire or hol& lan&s of the

pu"li! &omain. rivate lan& ma# "e transferre& or !onve#e& onl# to in&ivi&uals or entities Hualifie& to

a!uire lan&s of the pu"li! &omain.H The /@6 Constitution reserve& the right to parti!ipate in the

&isposition, e9ploitation, &evelopment an& utiliation of lan&s of the pu"li! &omain for +ilipino !itiens57 or

!orporations at least 0? per!ent of the !apital of %hi!h is o%ne& "# +ilipinos.50 liens, %hether in&ivi&uals

or !orporations, have "een &isualifie& from a!uiring pu"li! lan&s( hen!e, the# have also "een

&isualifie& from a!uiring private lan&s.56

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_156364_2007.html#fnt27


18/107

Sin!e petitioner an& his %ife, "eing Dut!h nationals, are pros!ri"e& un&er the Constitution from a!uiring

an& o%ning real propert#, it is uneuivo!al that the Contra!t to Sell entere& into "# petitioner together

%ith his %ife an& respon&ent is voi&. :n&er rti!le 1?/ ;= an& ;6= of the Civil Co&e, all !ontra!ts %hose

!ause, o">e!t or purpose is !ontrar# to la% or pu"li! poli!# an& those e9pressl# prohi"ite& or &e!lare& voi&

"# la% are ine9istent an& voi& from the "eginning. rti!le 1? of the same Co&e provi&es that the a!tion

or &efense for the &e!laration of the ine9isten!e of a !ontra!t &oes not pres!ri"e. voi& !ontra!t is

euivalent to nothing( it pro&u!es no !ivil effe!t.5@ It &oes not !reate, mo&if# or e9tinguish a >uri&i!al

relation.5/

Generall#, parties to a voi& agreement !annot e9pe!t the ai& of the la%( the !ourts leave them as the#

are, "e!ause the# are &eeme& in pari delicto or Hin eual fault.HA? In pari &eli!to is Ha universal &o!trine

%hi!h hol&s that no a!tion arises, in euit# or at la%, from an illegal !ontra!t( no suit !an "e maintaine&

for its spe!ifi! performan!e, or to re!over the propert# agree& to "e sol& or &elivere&, or the mone#

agree& to "e pai&, or &amages for its violation( an& %here the parties are in pari &eli!to, no affirmative

relief of an# *in& %ill "e given to one against the other.HA

This rule, ho%ever, is su">e!t to e9!eptionsA5 that permit the return of that %hi!h ma# have "een given

un&er a voi& !ontra!t to$ ;a= the inno!ent part# ;rts. 1-15, Civil Co&e=(AA ;"= the &e"tor %ho pa#s

usurious interest ;rt. 1A, Civil Co&e=(A1 B (e ar(y reu#%a(%& (e >o%# o&(ra( be3ore (e

%ea uro'e %' ao$%'e# or be3ore #a$ae %' au'e# (o a (%r# er'o& a %3 ub%%&(ere'( %' 'ub'er>e# by ao6%& reo>ery Ar(. 1=1=, "%>% "o#eBDA7 ;&= the in!apa!itate& part# ifthe intere

lt cases - citizenship requirements

Documents