landti days 10-12

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/landti-days-10-12 1/41

G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978

GENEROSO MENDOZA, substitut! by "is #i$ %&! %!'i&ist(%t(i)D*EGA DE LEON +DA. DE MENDOZA,petitioner,vs.E ON. O/R O0 AEALS, DAN*EL GOLE R/Z %&!DOLORES MENDOZA, respondents.

Demetrio B. Encarnacion & Carlos J. Antiporda for petitioner.

Norberto S. Gonzalez for private respondents.

SANOS, J.:

This petition for review by certiorari

seeks the reversal of the decisionof the Court of Appeals 2 dated February 27, 197 in CA!".#. $o.%&'(1!# entitled "Generoso Mendoza applicants" applicant!appelleevs. Daniel Gole Crz et al. )ovant, which upheld the re*istration inthe na)es of herein private respondents, purchasers of thelandholdin*s sub+ect )atter of an application for re*istration,notwithstandin* that they were not parties in the ori*inal re*istrationproceedin*s.

#elevant antecedent facts follow. n -ay 1', 19&%, "eneroso-endoa, herein petitioner, 1 filed with the Court of First /nstance of0ulacan an application for the re*istration of two parcels of land, with aresidential house thereon, situated in the oblacion of ta. -aria0ulacan. A notice was issued on 3ece)ber , 19&% settin* the date ofinitial hearin* on 4une 1(, 19&'. aid notice was duly published,posted and served but nobody appeared nor filed an answer oropposition within the period allowed for that purpose. Conse5uently,the re*istration court entered on 4uly &, 19&', an order of *eneraldefault and allowed the applicant to present his evidence e#!parte.

Fro) the evidence presented by applicant "eneroso -endoa, hereinpetitioner, it was proven that he and his wife, 3ie*a de 6eon, were theowners of the parcels of land sub+ect of the application but the sa)ewere sold by the), durin* the pendency of the case, to the spouses3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores -endoa, herein private respondents,

sub+ect to the vendors usufructuary ri*hts. The instru)ent e)bodyin*such sale was presented as 8hibit 1. n the basis of such evidence,the re*istration court rendered a decision on 4uly 21, 19&', orderin*the re*istration of the two parcels of land in the na)es of the vendees,3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores -endoa, sub+ect to the usufructuaryri*hts of the vendors, "eneroso -endoa and 3ie*a de 6eon. n thesa)e day, a copy of said decision was received by "eneroso-endoa. 3

n $ove)ber ', 19&'. after the decision had beco)e final, theapplicant!vendor, "eneroso -endoa, filed a )otion for the issuanceof the decree. n -ay 1&, 19&7, 3ecree $o. 11%%'% was issuedconfir)in* the title to the land of vendees 3aniel "ole Cru and3olores -endoa, and orderin* the re*istration of the sa)e in theirna)es, sub+ect to the usufructuary ri*hts of the vendors.Conse5uently, ri*inal Certificate of Title $o. :!7(7 was issued to

spouses 3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores -endoa.4

n April 1&, 19&(, "eneroso -endoa filed an ur*ent petition forreconsideration prayin* that the decision dated 4uly 21, 19&' and thedecree issued pursuant thereto dated -ay 1&, 19&7 be set aside andthat ri*inal Certificate of Title $o. :7(7 be cancelled, on the *roundthat the vendees, the re*istered owners, had failed to pay thepurchase price of the lands.

The re*istration court considered said ur*ent petition forreconsideration as a petition for review of the decree and issued anorder dated epte)ber , 19&( settin* aside its decision, its order forthe issuance of the decree, and the decree of re*istration, on the*round that it did not have +urisdiction to order the re*istration of thelands in the na)es of the vendees, who were not parties to theapplication for re*istration. -oreover, said court ordered the

cancellation of .C.T. $o. :7(7 and directed the re*istration of thelands in the na)es of spouses, "eneroso -endoa and 3ie*a de6eon, sub+ect to the ri*hts of vendees, 3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores-endoa, stated in the deed of sale. 6

n epte)ber 17, 19&(, spouses Cru and -endoa )oved toreconsider the order, but their )otion was denied on ctober 17, 19&(.n 3ece)ber 19, 19&(, said spouses appealed fro) the order datedepte)ber , 19&(. n -arch 11, 19&9, -endoa filed a )otion todis)iss the appeal and on April 1:, 19&9, the re*istration courtdis)issed the appeal. 7

The spouses Cru and -endoa then filed with the Court of Appeals aspecial civil action for certiorari mandams and prohibition, which was

docketed as CA!".#. $o. %2':!#. The Court of Appeals on 4anuary', 197:, ordered the re*istration court to *ive due course to theappeal. The re*istration court approved the #ecord on Appeal andforwarded the sa)e to the Court of Appeals to*ether with all theevidence adduced durin* the trial.8

Actin* on said appeal which was docketed as CA!".#. $o. %&'(1! #,the Court of Appeals rendered on February 27, 197, the decision,sub+ect )atter of the present petition for review. /t set aside the orderof the land re*istration court of epte)ber , 19&( which set aside itsdecision of 4uly 21, 19&' and the decree issued pursuant thereto. /talso denied applicant -endoas petition for reconsideration dated

April 1' ;filed April 1&<, 19&(, which was considered as a petition forreview of the decree.

=ence, this etition for #eview which alle*es that the respondentCourt of Appeals erred >

1. ... /$ =63/$" T=AT T=8 A86688=/-86F CA?83 T=8 #8"/T#AT/$ FT=8 T/T68 T T=8 6A$3 /$ @?8T/$ /$ T=8$A-8 F T=8 A866A$T.

2. ... /$ =63/$" T=AT A6T=?"= T=8#8A $ F#-A6 A-8$3-8$T F T=8

A6/CAT/$ F# #8"/T#AT/$?0T/T?T/$" T=8 B8$388 F# T=8

A6/CA$T, T=8 #8"/T#AT/$ C?#TC?63 68"A66 #38# T=8 T/T68 /?83/$ T=8 $A-8 F B8$388 08CA?8 T=8

A6/CA$T =/-86F #B/383 T=8 0A/F# A34?3/CAT/$D A$3 T=AT T=8

A6/CAT/$ C?63 =AB8 088$ A-8$383T C$F#- T T=8 8B/38$C8 A6#8A3

A3BA$C83 0 ?0T/T?T/$" T=8 B8$388F# T=8 A/3 A6/CA$T.

. ... /$ =63/$" T=AT T=8 -T/$ F##8C$/38#AT/$ A $T 0A83 $F#A?3 8#8T#AT83 $ T=8 A86688 0T=8 #/BAT8 #8$38$T. 9

The fore*oin* assi*ned errors 5uestion the decision of the respondentCourt of Appeals orderin* the re*istration of the landholdin*s sub+ect)atter of the application for re*istration in the na)es of herein privaterespondents who are the purchasers of the landholdin*s,notwithstandin* that they were not parties in the ori*inal re*istrationproceedin*s before the lower court.

/n the first assi*n)ent of error, the petitioner assails the Court of Appeals holdin* that he hi)self caused the re*istration of the land in5uestion in the na)e of the vendees, the herein private respondents.0ut whether or not the petitioner did in fact cause the re*istration of theland in favor of private respondents is a 5uestion of fact which cannotproperly be raised in the present petition for review inas)uch asection 2, #ule %' of the #ules of Court epressly provides that in anappeal fro) the Court of Appeals to this Court, only 5uestions of law)y be raised. 15 Thus, the findin* of the Court of Appeals that petitioner

caused the re*istration of the land in favor of the private respondentscannot now be raised in this Appeal )uch less disturbed by this Court.

=owever, by petitioners insistence that he could not be dee)ed tohave caused the re*istration of the land in the na)es of privaterespondents as he never testified in court havin* sold the sa)e to saidrivate respondents 11he, in effect, invokes the eception to the above!stated rule of conclusiveness of the Court of Appeals findin*s of fact,na)elyE that the Court of Appeals findin* is *rounded entirely onsur)ises or con+ectures and has no basis in the evidence onrecord. 1 Conse5uently, e are tasked with the e petition of therecords of the case to deter)ine the veracity of petitioners clai) thathe never testified in court as havin* sold the property to the hereinprivate respondents. And it )ust here be e)phasied that should therecords confir) such clai) of the petitioner, the Court of Appealsholdin* that he caused the re*istration of the land in the na)es of

private respondents would have no basis in the evidence and should,thus, be reversed.

A careful study and consideration of the records of the case, however,belie petitioners clai) that he did not testify relative to theafore)entioned deed of sale. The transcript of the steno*raphic notesof the hearin* on the application for re*istration held on 4uly &, 19&' alltoo clearly show that petitioner and his wife testified before the deputedco))issioner, -r. #icardo Cru, that they sold the property sou*ht tobe re*istered to the private respondents. Thus, the records show thatpetitioner testified as followsE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Atty. BalentinE

@. ou said that you are the owners of thesetwo parcels of land sub+ect )atter of thisliti*ation, after you have caused the filin* ofthis application, was there any transactionthat took place with respect to the sa)e

A. $es sir %e ave sold tese t%o parcelsof land to Daniel Gole Crz and is %ifeDolores Mendoza.

@. So%in' to (o tis docment %ic isan ori'inal carbon cop( of a deed of sale%ritten in )a'alo' and e#ected and ratifiedon *ctober +, +-/ %old (o 0indl( telltis 1onorable Cort %ic is E#ibit 2 %ill(o tell tis 1onorable Cort if (o 0no%tis E#ibit 23 ;sic<

A. $es sir tat is te carbon cop( of tedeed of sale 2 ave 4stmentioned. 13 ;8)phasis supplied<

i)ilarly, applicant!petitioners wife, 3ie*a de 6eon, testified as followsE

ATT. BA68$T/$E

@. 3o you know the twoparcels of land sub+ect )atterof this re*istrationproceedin*s

A. es, sir.

@. 3o you know who are nowin possession of theseproperties.

A. e, /, )y husband and3aniel "ole Cru and and hiswife, 3olores -endoa are inactual possession of thesa)e.

@. 5( are Daniel Gole Crzand Dolores Mendoza co!

possessin' %it (o teset%o parcels of land3

A. Becase on *ctober +,+-/ %e sold tis propert( totem %it one of teconditions tat ntil m(sband and m(self oran(one of s die %e %ill live%it tem.14 ;8)phasissupplied<

Further)ore, applicant!petitioner even presented te privaterespondent 3aniel "ole Cru to confir) the aforesaid sale of thesub+ect property. Thus, Cru testified as followsE

ATT. BA68$T/$E

@. 3o you know the propertycovered by this re*istrationproceedin*s

A. es sir.

@. hy do you know the sa)e

A. Becase %e ave been livin' in said place since 2 'otmarried and besides on *ctober +, +-/ te said t%o

parcels of land %ere sold to s b( te erein applicant andis %ife.

@. howin* to you this 8hibit 1, would you /dentify and tellthis =onorable Court if you know the sa)e

A. es sir, 8hibit / is the carbon ori*inal of the deed of saleeecuted in our favor. 1;8)phasis supplied<.

Finally, even the re*istration court itself did not believe applicant!petitioners clai) that he did not previously cause the re*istration of thesub+ect property in the na)es of private respondents. For, while it*ranted applicant!petitioners petition for review of the decree andordered the re!re*istration of the land in his na)e, the Court,nevertheless, epressly declared in the very sa)e order thatE

"eneroso -endoa was the ori*inal applicant inthis case. At the hearin*, e imself prodcedevidence tat on *ctober +,+-/ e and is %ifesold te 6and in favor of te sposes Daniel GoleCrz and Dolores Mendoza for the a)ount of&,:::.:: payable in install)ents ;8h.1<. ... 16;8)phasis supplied<.

/n view of the fore*oin*, it is crystal clear that the respondent Court of Appeals did not incur any error when it held that applicant. etitionerhi)self caused the re*istration of the land in the na)es of privaterespondents.

etitioner, however, insists in his second assi*n)ent of error, that there*istration court could not le*ally order the re*istration of the land inthe na)es of the vendees!respondents, who were neither theapplicants nor the oppositors in the re*istration case below. etitioneroverlooks ection 29 of the 6and #e*istration Act which epresslyauthories the re*istration of the land sub+ect )atter of a re*istration

proceedin* in the na)e of the buyer or of the person to who) the landhas been conveyed by an instru)ent eecuted durin* the interval ofti)e between the filin* of the application for re*istration and theissuance of the decree of title, thus >

8C. 29. After the filin* of the application andbefore the issuance of the decree of title by theChief of the "eneral 6and #e*istration ffice, theland therein described )ay be dealt with andinstru)ents relatin* thereto shall be recorded inthe office of the re*ister of said at any ti)e beforeissuance of the decree of title, in the sa)e )anner as if no application had been )ade. The interestedarty )ay, however, present such instru)ents tothe Court of First /nstance instead of presentin*the) to the office of the re*ister of deeds, to*ether

with a )otion that the sa)e be considered inrelation with the application, and the court afternotice to the parties, shall order such landre*istered sub+ect to the ecu)brance created by asaid instru)ents, or order te decree ofre'istration issed in te name of te b(er or ofte person to %om te propert( as beenconve(ed b( said instrments. ... ;8)phasissupplied<.

/t is clear fro) the above!5uoted provision that the law epresslyallows the land sub+ect )atter of an application for re*istration to beGdealt withG, i.e., to be disposed of or encu)bered durin* the interval of ti)e between the filin* of the application and the issuance of thedecree of title, and to have the instru)ents e)bodyin* such dispositionor encu)brance presented to the re*istration court by the ,interested

partyG for the court to either Gorder such land re*istered sub+ect to theencu)brance created by said instru)ents, or order te decree ofre'istration issed in te name of te b(er or of te person to %omte propert( as been conve(ed b( said instrments. 17 The law doesnot re5uire that the application for re*istration be a)ended bysubstitutin* the GbuyerG or the person to who) the property has beenconveyedG for the applicant. $either does it re5uire that the GbuyerG orthe Gperson to who) the property has been conveyedG be a party tothe case. =e )ay thus be a total stran*er to the land re*istrationproceedin*s. The only re5uire)ents of the law areE ;1< that theinstru)ent be presented to the court by the interested party to*etherwith a )otion that the sa)e be considered in relation with theapplicationD and ;2< that prior notice be *iven to the parties to the case.

And the peculiar facts and circu)stances obtainin* in this case showthat these re5uire)ents have been co)plied with.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


As heretofore stated, the instru)ent e)bodyin* the sale of the sub+ectproperty by the petitioner to the private respondents was dulypresented to the re*istration court for consideration. That the purposewas to have the land re*istered in the na)es of private respondentssub+ect to the usufructuary ri*hts of petitioner and his wife is eplicit inthe followin* facts and circu)stances. Firstly, it was the petitionerhi)self, the applicant in the re*istration proceedin*s, who presentedthe deed of sale ;8h. /< to the court and testified before the sa)e thathe did sell the land to the private respondents. This was done by hi)despite the fact that he could easily have the land re*istered in hisna)e > as an order of *eneral default had been issued and thehearin* on the application for re*istration had been conducted 8H!

A#T8. econdly, as if to fully convince the court of the fact of sale,petitioner presented his wife, 3ie*a de 6eon, and private respondent,3aniel "ol8 Cru, to confir) the said sale of the land and thestipulated usufructuary ri*hts. Finally, the petitioner even filed the)otion for the issuance of the decree of confir)ation of title afterhavin* received the decision of the court orderin* the re*istration ofthe title to the land in the na)es of vendees!respondents, sub+ect tothe stipulated usufructuary ri*hts > thereby si*nifyin* his full assent tothe sa)e.

/t is true that no written )otion was filed seekin* the consideration ofthe deed of sale in relation with the application for re*istration. 0ut thelaw does not re5uire that the )otion acco)panyin* the presentation ofthe instru)ent be in writin*. And the above! enu)erated acts of theapplicant!petitioner and the circu)stances surroundin* the sa)eaccept of no interpretation than that the applicant!petitioner did in fact

)ove the court to order the re*istration of the title to the land in thena)es of vendees! respondents, sub+ect only to the stipulatedusufructuary ri*hts of the petitioner and his wife. There was, therefore,sufficient co)pliance with the first re5uire)ent of the law.

Anent the second re5uire)ent of prior notice to the parties, therelevant fact to be considered is that an order of *eneral default hadbeen issued prior to the presentation of the deed of sale by theapplicant!petitioner, since nobody filed an opposition to the applicationfor re*istration. Thus, the only person who should have been entitled toa notice fro) the court was the applicant!petitioner hi)self, as the onlyparty with a le*al standin* in the proceedin*s. /n view thereof, no le*alob+ection to the courts +urisdiction to order the re*istration of the landsin the na)es of vendees!respondents )ay be interposed on the*round of non!co)pliance with the re5uire)ent of prior notice to theparties.

ince there was sufficient co)pliance with the aforestatedre5uire)ents of the law, respondent Court of Appeals did not,therefore, err in holdin* that the lower court had +urisdiction to order there*istration of the lands in the na)es of vendees!respondents.

The petitioner, finally, contends > in a desperate effort to +ustify thevalidity of the appealed order of epte)ber , 19&( > that respondentCourt of Appeals erred in holdin* that he was not the victi) of fraudperpetrated by the vendees, private respondents, herein, who alle*edlyfailed to pay the purchase price of the landholdin*s. This is alsowithout )erit. ection ( of the 6and #e*istration Act provides asfollows >

8C. (. /f the court after hearin* finds that the

applicant or adverse clai)ant has title as stated inhis application or adverse clai) and proper forre*istration, a decree of confir)ation andre*istration shall be entered. ... uch decree shallnot be opened by reason of the absence, infancy,or other disability of any person affected thereby,nor by any proceedin* in any court for reversin*

+ud*)ents or decreeE sb4ect o%ever to teri't of an( person deprived of land or of an(estate or interest terein b( decree of re'istrationobtained b( frad to file in te competent Cort of7irst 2nstance a petition for revie% %itin one (earafter entr( of te decree provided no innocent

prcaser for vale as ac8ired an interest . ...;8)phasis supplied.<

/t is clear fro) the fore*oin* provision that the only *round upon whicha decree of re*istration )ay be set aside is frad in obtainin' tesame. /n the instant case, applicant!petitioner cannot co)plain of fraudin obtainin* the decree of re*istration for as heretofore stated, it wassolely upon his testi)ony and proof that the lots were orderedre*istered in the na)es of the vendees!respondents and it was alsoupon his )otion that the decree of re*istration was issued by the lower court. hat the applicant!petitioner actually invokes in this case is notfraud in obtainin* the decree of re*istration but the alle*ed failure ofthe vendees!respondents to pay the purchase price of thelandholdin*s. 0ut as correctly held by respondent Court of AppealsE

;0<reach of contract is not a *round for a petitionfor a review. And the re*istration court has no

+urisdiction to decide the contentious issue of

whether or not the deed of sale, 8h. G1G, shouldbe rescinded for the alle*ed failure of the vendeesto pay the purchase price. The issue on thebreach of contract has to be leti*ated in theordinary court. 18

/n view of all the fore*oin*, e hold that the =onorable Court of Appeals did not co))it any error in settin* aside the order of the lower court dated epte)ber 1, 19&(, and thus allowin* the re*istration ofthe lots of the na)es of the vedees, herein private respondents.

=8#8F#8, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February17, 197 is hereby affir)ed with costs a*ainst petitioner.

7ernando 9Cairman: Antonio and Gererro 2 JJ. concr.

S%(%t Oi&io&s

ARREDO, J., concurin*E

/ concur in the +ud*)ent and the )ain opinion in this case. After all, as/ view the whole controversy here, whether the title of the land in5ustion be in the na)e of the -endoa or Cru spouses is ofsecondary i)portance, since the title issued to the latter would anywaycarry the appropriate annotations protective of the ri*hts of the for)erunder the deed of sale and vice!versa. /nas)uch as the factuality ofthe sale to the Cru spouses is beyond dispute and it is evidenced by apublic instru)ent, it is un5uestionable that the title to the property,which is real property, passed to the) upon the eecution of the deedof sale and delivery thereof to the). /n fact, in reco*nition of suchtransfer of title it is epressly stipulated in the deed that the vendorswould retain possession and usufruct of the properties sold, as lon* asthe total price has not been paid. Thus, the only ri*ht that hasre)ained with the -endoas is to eact co)plieance with suchconditions of the sale.

The alle*ed failure of the vendees to pay a sin*le centavo of the pricedoes not, to )y )ind, constitute fraud in securin* the re*istration of theproperty in their na)es. orse, the Cru spouses were not evenparties to the re*istration proceedin* > they were not representedtherein by anybodyD it was the court that caused such re*istration atthe instance, accordin* to the evidence, of the petitioner hi)self. Andon this score, / a) not ready to assu)e that "eneroso -endoa didnot actually testify, even as / feel that anyway his recorded testi)ony> denied by hi) to have been actually *iven > is hardlyindispensable, considerin* it )erely confir)ed what is alle*ed in theapplication, 5ualified by the deed of sale in favor of the Cru spouses,the authenticity and due eecution of which are, as / have alreadystated, beyond dispute. The reopenin* of the decree of re*istration by4ud*e de 0or+a had no le*al basis.

As aptly held in the )ain opinion, the )ere presentation to the court ofthat deed of sale, in one way or another, +ustified the issuance of thetitle to the respondent, sub+ect to the annotated ri*hts of the petitioner,in connection with which, if it be true that the stipulated price has notbeen paid even partially, / )i*ht su**est that all that petitioner or hissuccessor or heirs should do is to file a sworn )anifestation with there*ister of deeds to such effect, so that to*ether with the provisions ofthe deed of sale, the fact of such alle*ed non!pay)ent )ay be knownto the whole world, so to speak, for his protection. That protection is as*ood as if the title were in his na)e.

/n short, / believe there is not )uch real substance in the controversybefore ?s. /t should be disposed of in the si)plest )anner possible.For )ay part, / a) )ore inclined to leave thin*s as they are, ratherthan unnecessarily reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, since

for all practical purposes, it would not )ake any difference in whosena)e the title in 5uestion is issued. The respective ri*hts of the partieswould re)ain the sa)e either way.

A/*NO, J., dissentin*E

/t is not lawful and +ust that the two lots in liti*ation should be re*isteredin the na)es of the spouses 3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores -endoa.The re*istration in their na)es is not proper because they did notintervene in the land re*istration proceedin*D they did not defray theepenses thereof, and they have not paid to "eneroso -endoa, orhis widow, 3ie*a de 6eon, the su) of &.::: as the price of the twolots. The antecedents of "eneroso -endoas appeal are as followsE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


n -ay 1', 19&% "eneroso -endoa filed with the Court of First/nstance of 0ulacan an application for the re*istration of two residentiallots, with a total area of 2'( s5uare )eters, located in the poblacion ofta. -aria, 0ulacan. =e prayed that his title thereto be confir)ed andre*istered.

n ctober 1', 19&%, or durin* the pendency of the proceedin*,"eneroso -endoa and his wife 3ie*a de 6eon, both seventy!fiveyears old, conditionall(

sold to the Cru spouses, 2' and 2& years old,the said residential lots for &,::: as followsE 1,::: upon the si*nin*of the deed and 1,::: annually until the balance of ',::: is paid.

A)on* the conditions of the sale is that as lon* as the total price hadnot been paid, the vendors, or the survivor in case one of the) died,would retain the possession and usufruct of the two lots and the housethereon. ?pon full pay)ent of the price, the vendees or either one ofthe), would take care of the vendors, or the survivor, as if the latterwere the parents of the vendees.

At the hearin*, the deed of sale was presented in evidence. 4ud*e4uan de 0or+a in a decision dated 4uly 21, 19&', ordered there*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the spouses 3aniel "oleCru and 3olores -endoa Gsub+ect to the usufructuary ri*hts of thespouses "eneroso -endoa and 3ie*a de 6eonG. 6oreno C. Balentin,who notaried the deed of sale, represented the -endoa spouses inthe land re*istration proceedin*.

n -ay 1&, 19&7, a decree of re*istration was issued. ri*inal

Certificate of Title $o. :!7(7 was issued to the Cru spouses. n April1&, 19&(, or within one year fro) the issuance of the decree,"eneroso -endoa, throu*h another lawyer, filed a )otion to set asidethe decree and title on the *round that the Cru spouses had not paida sin*le centavo of the price and, Ghence, they have dirty handsG. Acopy of that )otion was personally served upon the Cru spouses.

ithout denyin* that they had not paid the price, they opposed the)otion on the *round that the decision, which had lon* beco)e final,could no lon*er be set aside. "eneroso -endoa, in his reply, ar*uedthat the review of the decree was sou*ht on the *round of fraud andthat the deed of sale had beco)e void for non!pay)ent of the price.

At the hearin* of the said )otion on -ay 1', 19&(, the old )an,"eneroso -endoa, was placed on the witness stand. =e declaredthat durin* the hearin* of his application for re*istration he was in the

courtroo) bt tat e did not testif(; tat onl( is la%(er Att(. <alentinand te steno'raper %ere present at te earin' , and that he did not*ive his consent to the issuance of the title in the na)e of 3aniel "oleCru.

4ud*e 3e 0or+a, in his order of epte)ber , 19&(, treated the )otionas a petition for review under section ( of Act $o. %9&. #ealiin* thathe )i*ht have perpetrated an in+ustice in his decision, when heordered the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses, 4ud*e 3e 0or+a set aside that decision and the decree ofre*istration and ordered that the two lots be re*istered in the na)e of"eneroso -endoa, Gsub+ect to the ri*hts of the spouses 3aniel "oleCru and 3olores -endoaG under the afore)entioned deed of sale.

The Cru spouses filed a )otion for reconsideration wherein they

alle*ed that they had already paid ,::: out of the price of &,::: ;p,%2, #ecord on Appeal<. 4ud*e 3e 0or+a denied the )otion. The Cruspouses appealed. 4ud*e 3e 0or+a did not *ive due course to theirappeal. =e issued a writ of eecution re5uirin* the re*ister of deeds tocancel the title issued to the Cru spouses.

=owever, the Court of Appeals in the action for certiorari, prohibitionand )anda)us filed by the Cru spouses, ordered the lower court to*ive due course to their appeal ;Cru vs. 3e 0or+a, CA!". #. $o.%2':!#, 4anuary ', 197:<.

6ater, the Court of Appeals in ad+udicatin* the appeal upheld there*istration of the lots in the na)es of the Cru spouses and reversed4ud*e 3e 0or+as order for the re*istration of the lots in the na)e of"eneroso -endoa ;3e 6eon vs. "ole Cru, CA!". #. $o. %&'(1!#,February 27, 197, per Fernande, J

., Concepcion 4r. and

"ancayco, JJ ., concurrin*<. 3ie*a de 6eon, in substitution for herdeceased husband, "eneroso -endoa, appealed to this Court.

The Court of Appeals assu)ed that at the hearin* of "eneroso -iss.-endoas application on Jl( +-, , the -endoa spouses testifiedthat they sold the two lots to 3aniel "ole Cru. Accordin* to the Cruspouses, 3aniel "ole Cru supposedly testified also at the hearin*on Jl( += +-, ;pp. (!(%, #ecord on Appeal<.

=owever, as already noted, "eneroso -endoa at the hearin* on Ma( +, +-> of his )otion to set aside the decree and the title testified tat e %as never interro'ated , )eanin* that he did not take the witnessstand at the hearin* of his application for re*istration, and that only his

counsel, Atty. Balentin, and the court steno*rapher were present at thehearin*.

e have, therefore, the conflictin* versions of the parties as to whattranspired at the hearin* before the co))issioner of "eneroso-endoas application for re*istration and as to whether there hasbeen any pay)ent of the price for the sale. "eneroso -endoahi)self, by testifyin* that he never took the witness stand at thehearin* of his application, destroyed the basis for the confir)ation ofhis alle*ed title to the land or for its re*istration in the na)es of theCru spouses.

/n )y opinion the ends of +ustice would be served by settin* aside allthe proceedin*s in the lower court and holdin* a rehearin*. The Cruspouses should file a counter!petition in the trial court for there*istration of the two lots in their na)es on the basis of the deed ofsale. The trial court should ascertain whether the price of the sale hadbeen paid by the this ti)e. ;ee Bda. de Catindi* vs. #o5ue, 6!2'777,$ove)ber 2&, 197&, 7% C#A (<.

At this +uncture, it )ay be stressed that in the deed of sale ;which waseecuted after the land re*istration proceedin* had been co))enced<,it was stipulated that, since the two lots were unre*istered, the partiesa*reed that the deed would be re*istered in the re*istry forunre*istered land as provided for in Act $o. %%.

=ad the parties intended that the vendees, the Cru spouses, would be

substituted as applicants in the land re*istration proceedin*, it couldeasily have been so stipulated in the deed of sale. 0ut no suchstipulation was )ade. And no )ove was )ade by the vendees to havethe)selves substituted as applicants )aybe because the sale wasconditional and they had alle*edly not paid any part of the price.$either did the vendor, "eneroso -endoa, the applicant in the landre*istration proceedin*, a)end his application after the deed had beensi*ned, by prayin* that the two lots be re*istered in the na)es of theCru spouses. =e did not do so because, as already noted, thestipulation in the deed of sale was that the deed would be re*istered inthe re*istry for unre*istered land.

8vidently, the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses was the /dea of the notary Balentin who acted as counsel of"eneroso -endoa in the land re*istration proceedin*. =e did notbother to *et the written consent of the septua*enarian "eneroso

-endoa, to the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses.

The Cru spouses never contradicted nor refuted the declaration incourt of "eneroso -endoa at the hearin* of his )otion to set asidethe decree and the title that e never testified drin' te earin' of isapplication and tat it %as onl( Att(. <alentin %o appeared before testeno'raper drin' tat earin'.

Any practisin* lawyer who has appeared in hearin*s before aco))issioner deputed by the land re*istration court to hearuncontested applications for re*istration knows that in so)e instancesthe hearin*s are not conducted in a for)al )annerD that only theapplicants lawyer and the steno*rapher are usually presentD that thedeputy clerk of court, as co))issioner, or the hearin* officer does not

even bother to hear the applicants testi)ony, and that thesteno*rapher and the applicants lawyer )ay fabricate the testi)oniesthat appear in the transcript, which usually indicates that the applicantand his witnesses testified when in truth they did not testify at all. uchreprehensible practice should be conde)ned. Trial courts shouldeercise close supervision over the hearin*s of uncontested landre*istration cases so as not to )ake a farce or )ockery of the hearin*.

/ vote for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and thenullification of all the proceedin*s in the lower court and for the holdin*of a new hearin* on the application for re*istration of "eneroso-endoa and the counter!petition of the, Cru spouses as above!indicated.

S%(%t Oi&io&s

ARREDO, J., concurin*E

/ concur in the +ud*)ent and the )ain opinion in this case. After all, as/ view the whole controversy here, whether the title of the land in5ustion be in the na)e of the -endoa or Cru spouses is ofsecondary i)portance, since the title issued to the latter would anywaycarry the appropriate annotations protective of the ri*hts of the for)erunder the deed of sale and vice!versa. /nas)uch as the factuality ofthe sale to the Cru spouses is beyond dispute and it is evidenced by a

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


public instru)ent, it is un5uestionable that the title to the property,which is real property, passed to the) upon the eecution of the deedof sale and delivery thereof to the). /n fact, in reco*nition of suchtransfer of title it is epressly stipulated in the deed that the vendorswould retain possession and usufruct of the properties sold, as lon* asthe total price has not been paid. Thus, the only ri*ht that hasre)ained with the -endoas is to eact co)plieance with suchconditions of the sale.

The alle*ed failure of the vendees to pay a sin*le centavo of the pricedoes not, to )y )ind, constitute fraud in securin* the re*istration of theproperty in their na)es. orse, the Cru spouses were not evenparties to the re*istration proceedin* > they were not representedtherein by anybodyD it was the court that caused such re*istration atthe instance, accordin* to the evidence, of the petitioner hi)self. Andon this score, / a) not ready to assu)e that "eneroso -endoa didnot actually testify, even as / feel that anyway his recorded testi)ony> denied by hi) to have been actually *iven > is hardlyindispensable, considerin* it )erely confir)ed what is alle*ed in theapplication, 5ualified by the deed of sale in favor of the Cru spouses,the authenticity and due eecution of which are, as / have alreadystated, beyond dispute. The reopenin* of the decree of re*istration by4ud*e de 0or+a had no le*al basis.

As aptly held in the )ain opinion, the )ere presentation to the court ofthat deed of sale, in one way or another, +ustified the issuance of thetitle to the respondent, sub+ect to the annotated ri*hts of the petitioner,in connection with which, if it be true that the stipulated price has not

been paid even partially, / )i*ht su**est that all that petitioner or hissuccessor or heirs should do is to file a sworn )anifestation with there*ister of deeds to such effect, so that to*ether with the provisions ofthe deed of sale, the fact of such alle*ed non!pay)ent )ay be knownto the whole world, so to speak, for his protection. That protection is as*ood as if the title were in his na)e.

/n short, / believe there is not )uch real substance in the controversybefore ?s. /t should be disposed of in the si)plest )anner possible.For )ay part, / a) )ore inclined to leave thin*s as they are, ratherthan unnecessarily reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, sincefor all practical purposes, it would not )ake any difference in whosena)e the title in 5uestion is issued. The respective ri*hts of the partieswould re)ain the sa)e either way.

A/*NO, J., dissentin*E

/t is not lawful and +ust that the two lots in liti*ation should be re*isteredin the na)es of the spouses 3aniel "ole Cru and 3olores -endoa.The re*istration in their na)es is not proper because they did notintervene in the land re*istration proceedin*D they did not defray theepenses thereof, and they have not paid to "eneroso -endoa, orhis widow, 3ie*a de 6eon, the su) of &.::: as the price of the twolots. The antecedents of "eneroso -endoas appeal are as followsE

n -ay 1', 19&% "eneroso -endoa filed with the Court of First/nstance of 0ulacan an application for the re*istration of two residentiallots, with a total area of 2'( s5uare )eters, located in the poblacion ofta. -aria, 0ulacan. =e prayed that his title thereto be confir)ed andre*istered.

n ctober 1', 19&%, or durin* the pendency of the proceedin*,"eneroso -endoa and his wife 3ie*a de 6eon, both seventy!fiveyears old, conditionall(

sold to the Cru spouses, 2' and 2& years old,the said residential lots for &,::: as followsE 1,::: upon the si*nin*of the deed and 1,::: annually until the balance of ',::: is paid.

A)on* the conditions of the sale is that as lon* as the total price hadnot been paid, the vendors, or the survivor in case one of the) died,would retain the possession and usufruct of the two lots and the housethereon. ?pon full pay)ent of the price, the vendees or either one ofthe), would take care of the vendors, or the survivor, as if the latterwere the parents of the vendees.

At the hearin*, the deed of sale was presented in evidence. 4ud*e4uan de 0or+a in a decision dated 4uly 21, 19&', ordered there*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the spouses 3aniel "ole

Cru and 3olores -endoa Gsub+ect to the usufructuary ri*hts of thespouses "eneroso -endoa and 3ie*a de 6eonG. 6oreno C. Balentin,who notaried the deed of sale, represented the -endoa spouses inthe land re*istration proceedin*.

n -ay 1&, 19&7, a decree of re*istration was issued. ri*inalCertificate of Title $o. :!7(7 was issued to the Cru spouses. n April1&, 19&(, or within one year fro) the issuance of the decree,"eneroso -endoa, throu*h another lawyer, filed a )otion to set asidethe decree and title on the *round that the Cru spouses had not paida sin*le centavo of the price and, Ghence, they have dirty handsG. Acopy of that )otion was personally served upon the Cru spouses.

ithout denyin* that they had not paid the price, they opposed the)otion on the *round that the decision, which had lon* beco)e final,could no lon*er be set aside. "eneroso -endoa, in his reply, ar*uedthat the review of the decree was sou*ht on the *round of fraud andthat the deed of sale had beco)e void for non!pay)ent of the price.

At the hearin* of the said )otion on -ay 1', 19&(, the old )an,"eneroso -endoa, was placed on the witness stand. =e declaredthat durin* the hearin* of his application for re*istration he was in thecourtroo) bt tat e did not testif(; tat onl( is la%(er Att(. <alentinand te steno'raper %ere present at te earin' , and that he did not*ive his consent to the issuance of the title in the na)e of 3aniel "oleCru.

4ud*e 3e 0or+a, in his order of epte)ber , 19&(, treated the )otionas a petition for review under section ( of Act $o. %9&. #ealiin* thathe )i*ht have perpetrated an in+ustice in his decision, when heordered the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses, 4ud*e 3e 0or+a set aside that decision and the decree ofre*istration and ordered that the two lots be re*istered in the na)e of"eneroso -endoa, Gsub+ect to the ri*hts of the spouses 3aniel "oleCru and 3olores -endoaG under the afore)entioned deed of sale.

The Cru spouses filed a )otion for reconsideration wherein theyalle*ed that they had already paid ,::: out of the price of &,::: ;p,%2, #ecord on Appeal<. 4ud*e 3e 0or+a denied the )otion. The Cruspouses appealed. 4ud*e 3e 0or+a did not *ive due course to their

appeal. =e issued a writ of eecution re5uirin* the re*ister of deeds tocancel the title issued to the Cru spouses.

=owever, the Court of Appeals in the action for certiorari, prohibitionand )anda)us filed by the Cru spouses, ordered the lower court to*ive due course to their appeal ;Cru vs. 3e 0or+a, CA!". #. $o.%2':!#, 4anuary ', 197:<.

6ater, the Court of Appeals in ad+udicatin* the appeal upheld there*istration of the lots in the na)es of the Cru spouses and reversed4ud*e 3e 0or+as order for the re*istration of the lots in the na)e of"eneroso -endoa ;3e 6eon vs. "ole Cru, CA!". #. $o. %&'(1!#,February 27, 197, per Fernande, J ., Concepcion 4r. and"ancayco, JJ

., concurrin*<. 3ie*a de 6eon, in substitution for herdeceased husband, "eneroso -endoa, appealed to this Court.

The Court of Appeals assu)ed that at the hearin* of "eneroso -iss.-endoas application on Jl( +-, , the -endoa spouses testifiedthat they sold the two lots to 3aniel "ole Cru. Accordin* to the Cruspouses, 3aniel "ole Cru supposedly testified also at the hearin*on Jl( += +-, ;pp. (!(%, #ecord on Appeal<.

=owever, as already noted, "eneroso -endoa at the hearin* on Ma( +, +-> of his )otion to set aside the decree and the title testified tat e %as never interro'ated

, )eanin* that he did not take the witnessstand at the hearin* of his application for re*istration, and that only hiscounsel, Atty. Balentin, and the court steno*rapher were present at thehearin*.

e have, therefore, the conflictin* versions of the parties as to whattranspired at the hearin* before the co))issioner of "eneroso

-endoas application for re*istration and as to whether there hasbeen any pay)ent of the price for the sale. "eneroso -endoahi)self, by testifyin* that he never took the witness stand at thehearin* of his application, destroyed the basis for the confir)ation ofhis alle*ed title to the land or for its re*istration in the na)es of theCru spouses.

/n )y opinion the ends of +ustice would be served by settin* aside allthe proceedin*s in the lower court and holdin* a rehearin*. The Cruspouses should file a counter!petition in the trial court for there*istration of the two lots in their na)es on the basis of the deed ofsale. The trial court should ascertain whether the price of the sale hadbeen paid by the this ti)e. ;ee Bda. de Catindi* vs. #o5ue, 6!2'777,$ove)ber 2&, 197&, 7% C#A (<.

At this +uncture, it )ay be stressed that in the deed of sale ;which waseecuted after the land re*istration proceedin* had been co))enced<,it was stipulated that, since the two lots were unre*istered, the partiesa*reed that the deed would be re*istered in the re*istry forunre*istered land as provided for in Act $o. %%.

=ad the parties intended that the vendees, the Cru spouses, would besubstituted as applicants in the land re*istration proceedin*, it couldeasily have been so stipulated in the deed of sale. 0ut no suchstipulation was )ade. And no )ove was )ade by the vendees to havethe)selves substituted as applicants )aybe because the sale wasconditional and they had alle*edly not paid any part of the price.$either did the vendor, "eneroso -endoa, the applicant in the landre*istration proceedin*, a)end his application after the deed had beensi*ned, by prayin* that the two lots be re*istered in the na)es of the

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Cru spouses. =e did not do so because, as already noted, thestipulation in the deed of sale was that the deed would be re*istered inthe re*istry for unre*istered land.

8vidently, the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses was the /dea of the notary Balentin who acted as counsel of"eneroso -endoa in the land re*istration proceedin*. =e did notbother to *et the written consent of the septua*enarian "eneroso-endoa, to the re*istration of the two lots in the na)es of the Cruspouses.

The Cru spouses never contradicted nor refuted the declaration incourt of "eneroso -endoa at the hearin* of his )otion to set asidethe decree and the title that e never testified drin' te earin' of isapplication and tat it %as onl( Att(. <alentin %o appeared before testeno'raper drin' tat earin'.

Any practisin* lawyer who has appeared in hearin*s before aco))issioner deputed by the land re*istration court to hearuncontested applications for re*istration knows that in so)e instancesthe hearin*s are not conducted in a for)al )annerD that only theapplicants lawyer and the steno*rapher are usually presentD that thedeputy clerk of court, as co))issioner, or the hearin* officer does noteven bother to hear the applicants testi)ony, and that thesteno*rapher and the applicants lawyer )ay fabricate the testi)oniesthat appear in the transcript, which usually indicates that the applicantand his witnesses testified when in truth they did not testify at all. uch

reprehensible practice should be conde)ned. Trial courts shouldeercise close supervision over the hearin*s of uncontested landre*istration cases so as not to )ake a farce or )ockery of the hearin*.

/ vote for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and thenullification of all the proceedin*s in the lower court and for the holdin*of a new hearin* on the application for re*istration of "eneroso-endoa and the counter!petition of the, Cru spouses as above!indicated.

G.R. No. 1588. July 8, 1997:

E D*REOR O0 LANDS, petitioner , vs. O/R O0 AEALS%&! EODORO A*SADO, substitut! by MARGAR*A,MAR*SSA, MAR*EL, ARNOLD %&! MAR; ANN, %llsu(&%'! A*SADO, respondents.

D E * S * O N

ANGAN*AN, J .<

/s newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearin* in anori*inal land re*istration case )andatory or directory

St%t'&t o$ t" %s

The Court of Appeals ruled that it was )erely procedural andthat the failure to cause such publication did not deprive the trial courtof its authority to *rant the application. 0ut the olicitor "eneraldisa*reed and thus filed this petition to set aside the3ecisionI1J pro)ul*ated on 4uly , 1991 and the subse5uent#esolutionI2J pro)ul*ated on $ove)ber 19, 1991 by #espondent Courtof AppealsIJ in CA!".#. CB $o. 2719. The dispositive portion of thechallen*ed 3ecision readsEI%J

G=8#8F#8, pre)ises considered, the +ud*)ent of dis)issalappealed fro) is hereby set aside, and a new one entered confir)in*the re*istration and title of applicant, Teodoro Abistado, Filipino, aresident of 0aran*ay 7, oblacion -a)burao, ccidental -indoro,

now deceased and substituted by -ar*arita, -arissa, -aribel, Arnoldand -ary Ann, all surna)ed Abistado, represented by their aunt, -iss4osefa Abistado, Filipinos, residents of oblacion -a)burao,ccidental -indoro, to the parcel of land covered under -/ ;/B!A!(<1'!3 located in oblacion -a)burao, ccidental -indoro.

The oppositions filed by the #epublic of the hilippines and privateoppositor are hereby dis)issed for want of evidence.

?pon the finality of this decision and pay)ent of the correspondin*taes due on this land, let an order for the issuance of a decree beissued.G

" 0%=ts

n 3ece)ber (, 19(&, rivate #espondent Teodoro Abistadofiled a petition for ori*inal re*istration of his title over &%( s5uare)eters of land under residential 3ecree ;3< $o. 1'29. I'J Theapplication was docketed as 6and #e*istration Case ;6#C< $o. (& andassi*ned to 0ranch %% of the #e*ional Trial Court of -a)burao,ccidental -indoro.I&J =owever, durin* the pendency of his petition,applicant died. =ence, his heirs !! -ar*arita, -arissa, -aribel, Arnoldand -ary Ann, all surna)ed Abistado !! represented by their aunt4osefa Abistado, who was appointed their *uardian ad litem, were

substituted as applicants.

The land re*istration court in its decision dated 4une 1, 19(9dis)issed the petition for want of +urisdiction. =owever, it found that theapplicants throu*h their predecessors!in!interest had been in open,continuous, eclusive and peaceful possession of the sub+ect landsince 19(.

/n dis)issin* the petition, the trial court reasonedE I7J

G . =owever, the Court noted that applicants failed to co)ply withthe provisions of ection 2 ;1< of 3 1'29, re5uirin* the Applicants topublish the notice of /nitial =earin* ;8h. K8< in a newspaper of *eneralcirculation in the hilippines. 8hibit K8 was only published in thefficial "aette ;8hibits KF and K"<. Conse5uently, the Court is of thewell considered view that it has not le*ally ac5uired +urisdiction over

the instant application for want of co)pliance with the )andatoryprovision re5uirin* publication of the notice of initial hearin* in anewspaper of *eneral circulation.G

The trial court also cited -inistry of 4ustice pinion $o. %(,eries of 19(2, which in its pertinent portion providesEI(J

/t bears e)phasis that the publication re5uire)ent under ection 2 Iof 3 1'29J has a two!fold purposeD the first, which is )entioned in theprovision of the afore5uoted provision refers to publication in thefficial "aette, and is +urisdictionalD while the second, which is)entioned in the openin* clause of the sa)e para*raph, refers topublication not only in the fficial "aette but also in a newspaper of*eneral circulation, and is procedural. $either one nor the other isdispensable. As to the first, publication in the fficial "aette isindispensably necessary because without it, the court would be

powerless to assu)e +urisdiction over a particular land re*istrationcase. As to the second, publication of the notice of initial hearin* alsoin a newspaper of *eneral circulation is indispensably necessary as are5uire)ent of procedural due processD otherwise, any decision thatthe court )ay pro)ul*ate in the case would be le*ally infir).

?nsatisfied, private respondents appealed to #espondent Courtof Appeals which, as earlier eplained, set aside the decision of thetrial court and ordered the re*istration of the title in the na)e ofTeodoro Abistado.

The subse5uent )otion for reconsideration was denied in thechallen*ed CA #esolution dated $ove)ber 19, 1991.

The 3irector of 6ands represented by the olicitor "eneral thuselevated this recourse to us. This Court notes that the petitioners

counsel anchored his petition on #ule &'. This is an error. =is re)edyshould be based on #ule %' because he is appealin* a final dispositionof the Court of Appeals. =ence, we shall treat his petition as one forreview under #ule %', and not for certiorari under #ule &'.I9J

" *ssu

etitioner alle*es that #espondent Court of Appeals co))itted*rave abuse of discretionI1:J in holdin*

that publication of the petition for re*istration of title in 6#C Case$o. (& need not be published in a newspaper of *eneral circulation,and in not dis)issin* 6#C Case $o. (& for want of such publication.

etitioner points out that under ection 2 of 3 1'29, thenotice of initial hearin* shall be published bot in the fficial"aette and in a newspaper of *eneral circulation. Accordin* topetitioner, publication in the fficial "aette is necessary to confer

+urisdiction upon the trial court, and in a newspaper of *eneralcirculation to co)ply with the notice re5uire)ent of due process.I11J

rivate respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure toco)ply with the re5uire)ent of publication in a newspaper of *eneralcirculation is a )ere procedural defect. They add that publication in thefficial "aette is sufficient to confer +urisdiction.I12J

/n reversin* the decision of the trial court, #espondent Court of Appeals ruledEI1J

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn1

































7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


althou*h the re5uire)ent of publication in the fficial"aette and in a newspaper of *eneral circulation is couched in)andatory ter)s, it cannot be *ainsaid that the law also )andates withe5ual force that publication in the fficial "aette shall be sufficient toconfer +urisdiction upon the court.

Further, #espondent Court found that the oppositors wereafforded the opportunity to eplain )atters fully and present theirside. Thus, it +ustified its disposition in this wiseEI1%J

e do not see how the lack of co)pliance with the re5uired

procedure pre+udiced the) in any way. -oreover, the otherre5uire)ents ofE publication in the fficial "aette, personal notice by)ailin*, and postin* at the site and other conspicuous places, wereco)plied with and these are sufficient to notify any party who is)inded to )ake any ob+ection of the application for re*istration.

" ou(ts Ruli&>

e find for petitioner.

Newspaper Publication Mandatory

The pertinent part of ection 2 of residential 3ecree $o. 1'29re5uirin* publication of the notice of initial hearin* reads as followsE

ec. 2. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. !! The court shall,within five days fro) filin* of the application, issue an order settin* thedate and hour of the initial hearin* which shall not be earlier than forty!five days nor later than ninety days fro) the date of the order.

The public shall be *iven notice of initial hearin* of the application forland re*istration by )eans of ;1< publicationD ;2< )ailin*D and ;<postin*.

1. By publication. !!

?pon receipt of the order of the court settin* the ti)e for initial hearin*,the Co))issioner of 6and #e*istration shall cause a notice of initialhearin* to be published once in the fficial "aette and once in anewspaper of *eneral circulation in the hilippinesE rovided, however,that the publication in the fficial "aette shall be sufficient to confer

+urisdiction upon the court. aid notice shall be addressed to allpersons appearin* to have an interest in the land involved includin*the ad+oinin* owners so far as known, and Kto all who) it )ayconcern. aid notice shall also re5uire all persons concerned toappear in court at a certain date and ti)e to show cause why theprayer of said application shall not be *ranted.

Ad)ittedly, the above provision provides in clear and cate*oricalter)s that publication in the fficial "aette suffices to confer

+urisdiction upon the land re*istration court. =owever, the 5uestionboils down to whether, absent any publication in a newspaper of*eneral circulation, the land re*istration court can validly confir) andre*ister the title of private respondents.

e answer this 5uery in the ne*ative. This answer is i)pelled bythe de)ands of statutory construction and the due process rationalebehind the publication re5uire)ent.

The law used the ter) shall in prescribin* the work to be doneby the Co))issioner of 6and #e*istration upon the latters receipt ofthe court order settin* the ti)e for initial hearin*.The said worddenotes an i)perative and thus indicates the )andatory character of astatute.I1'J hile concededly such literal )andate is not an absoluterule in statutory construction, as its i)port ulti)ately depends upon its

contet in the entire provision, we hold that in the present case theter) )ust be understood in its nor)al )andatory)eanin*. /n ?epblic vs. Marasi'anI1&J the Court throu*h -r. 4ustice=ilario ". 3avide, 4r. held that ection 2 of 3 1'29 re5uires noticeof the initial hearin* by )eans of ;1< publication, ;2< )ailin* and ;<postin*, all of which )ust be co)plied with. /f the intention of the lawwere otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail there5uire)ents of )ailin* of notices to all persons na)ed in the petitionwho, per ection 1' of the 3ecree, include owners of ad+oinin*properties, and occupants of the land. /ndeed, if )ailin* of notices isessential, then by parity of reasonin*, publication in a newspaper of*eneral circulation is likewise i)perative since the law included suchre5uire)ent in its detailed provision.

/t should be noted further that land re*istration is a proceedin* inrem.I17J 0ein* in rem, such proceedin* re5uires constructive seiure ofthe land as a*ainst all persons, includin* the state, who have ri*hts toor interests in the property. An in rem proceedin* is validatedessentially throu*h publication. This bein* so, the process )ust strictlybe co)plied with. therwise, persons who )ay be interested or whoseri*hts )ay be adversely affected would be barred fro) contestin* anapplication which they had no knowled*e of. As has been ruled, aparty as an owner seekin* the inscription of realty in the landre*istration court )ust prove by satisfactory and conclusive evidencenot only his ownership thereof but the identity of the sa)e, for he is inthe sa)e situation as one who institutes an action for recovery of

realty.I1(J

=e )ust prove his title a*ainst the whole world. This task,which rests upon the applicant, can best be achieved when all personsconcerned !! nay, the whole world !! who have ri*hts to or interests inthe sub+ect property are notified and effectively invited to co)e to courtand show cause why the application should not be *ranted. Theele)entary nor)s of due process re5uire that before the clai)edproperty is taken fro) concerned parties and re*istered in the na)e ofthe applicant, said parties )ust be *iven notice and opportunity tooppose.

/t )ay be asked why publication in a newspaper of *eneralcirculation should be dee)ed )andatory when the law alreadyre5uires notice by publication in the fficial "aette as well as by)ailin* and postin*, all of which have already been co)plied with inthe case at hand. The reason is due process and the reality that thefficial "aette is not as widely read and circulated as newspapersand is oftenti)es delayed in i ts circulation, such that the notices

published therein )ay not reach the interested parties on ti)e, if atall. Additionally, such parties )ay not be owners of nei*hborin*properties, and )ay in fact not own any other real estate. /n su), theall!enco)passin* in rem nature of land re*istration cases, theconse5uences of default orders issued a*ainst the whole world and theob+ective of disse)inatin* the notice in as wide a )anner as possiblede)and a )andatory construction of the re5uire)ents for publication,)ailin* and postin*.

Ad)ittedly, there was failure to co)ply with the eplicitpublication re5uire)ent of the law. rivate respondents did not profferany ecuseD even if they had, it would not have )attered because thestatute itself allows no ecuses. /neludibly, this Court has no authorityto dispense with such )andatory re5uire)ent. The law isuna)bi*uous and its rationale clear. Ti)e and a*ain, this Court hasdeclared that where the law speaks in clear and cate*orical lan*ua*e,there is no roo) for interpretation, vacillation or e5uivocationD there is

roo) only for application.I19J There is no alternative. Thus, theapplication for land re*istration filed by private respondents )ust bedis)issed without pre+udice to reapplication in the future, after all thele*al re5uisites shall have been duly co)plied with.

?ERE0ORE, the petition is G?AN)ED and the assailed3ecision and #esolution are ?E<E?SED and SE) AS2DE . Theapplication of private respondent for land re*istrationisD2SM2SSED without pre+udice. $o costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide Jr. Melo and 7rancisco JJ. concur .Narvasa C.J., 9Cairman:, on leave.

G.R. No. L-1 Au>ust 19, 1986

0LORDEL*ZA L. +AL*SNO %&! ONOR*O D. +AL*SNO, petitioners,vs.ON. J/DGE ANDRES . LAN, (si!i&> Ju!> o$ t" ou(t o$0i(st *&st%&= o$ *s%bl%, S=o&! (%&=", %&! +*EN*OA;AA, respondents.

7rancisco A. 6ava Jr. for petitioners.

Diosdado B. ?amirez for private respondent.

0ERNAN, J.:

Challen*ed in this petition for certiorari with prayer for a te)poraryrestrainin* order are two I2J orders issued by respondent +ud*e in 6and#e*istration Case $o. 0ranch 11!$!2:% of the then Court of First/nstance of /sabela, econd 0ranch, entitled, "Application for?e'istration of )itle <icencio @. Ca(aba Applicant vs. 7lordeliza<alisno and 1onorio D. <alisno *ppositors" the order dated 4uly 2,19(:, dis)issin* the opposition filed by petitioners on the *roundof

res 4dicata, and the order dated epte)ber 19, 19(:, denyin*petitioners )otion for reconsideration.





















7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


The antecedents are as followsE

n Au*ust 21, 19&%, petitioners!spouses Flordelia and =onorioBalisno purchased fro) the le*al heirs of A*apita B. 0lanco, na)ely,"uiller)o, "uiller)o, 4r., -anuel and #osario, all surna)ed 0lanco,two parcels of land, particularly described as followsE

IaJ a tract of land situated at itio isi) 0aran*ayCabaruan, -unicipality of Cauayan, rovince of/sabela, havin* an area of Five Thousand ;',:::<s5uare )eters or fifty ;':< )eters facin* the

rovincial #oad by one hundred ;1::< )eterslon*D bounded on the $orth by edro del #osario,on the outh by Alberto Tun*an*ui, on the 8ast bythe rovincial #oadD and on the est, by Terrenodel 8stado, now -atias del #osarioD

and,

IcJ a parcel of land situated in the -unicipality ofCauayan, rovince of /sabela, havin* an area ofi Thousand Two =undred Fifty ;&,2':< s5uare)eters or fifty ;':< )eters at the east side by onehundred twenty!five ;12'< )eters at the $orth andouthD bounded on the north by -atias del#osario, on the south by Alberto Tun*an*ui, onthe east by A*apita 0lanco and on the west by

Cauayan 3iversion #oad and -atias del #osario.IAnne G0G, etition, pp. %1!%2, #ollo.J

Thereafter, petitioners declared the above!described parcels of land intheir na)e for taation purposes and eercised eclusive possessionthereof in the concept of owners by installin* as caretaker one Fer)in6oano, who had his house built thereon.

n Au*ust 12, 19&(, private respondent Bicencio @. Cayaba, clai)in*to be the owner of the land in 5uestion by virtue of a deed of saleeecuted in his and one 0ienvenido ". $orie*as favor on 4une :,19&7 by the heirs of 3r. 8pifanio @. Berano, ousted Fer)in 6oanofro) possession of the land. =e subse5uently erected a si!doorapart)ent on said land.

n 4anuary 22, 197:, petitioners instituted before the then Court ofFirst /nstance of /sabela a co)plaint a*ainst private respondent forrecovery of possession of said parcels of land. The case, docketed asCivil Case $o. 0ranch //!(9', was in due ti)e resolved in favor ofpetitioners who were declared owners thereof. n appeal, however, byprivate respondent to the then Court of Appeals, the appeal bein*docketed as CA!".#. $o. &:1%2!#, the appellate court in a decisionpro)ul*ated on 4anuary 19, 197(, reversed the decision of the lowercourt and dis)issed the co)plaint of petitioners on a findin* thatE

Firstly, the land in 5uestion described in theco)plaint and sketched in 8hibit C ... by 3r."uiller)o 0lanco, is co)pletely different fro) theland appearin* in the ubdivision lan of theappelles appellant, their respective area andboundaries bein* co)pletely dissi)ilar.

Clearly, we fail to see anythin* in the evidence ofthe appellees showin* that their propertyencroaches, )uch less covers that of the propertypresently occupied by the appellant, ecept theself!servin* sketch prepared by the appellees ownwitness, 3r. 0lanco. e refuse to *ive any wei*htto this piece of evidence because it was preparedby so)eone who has an incentive to ea**erateor *ive false color to his state)ent or to suppressor prevent the truth or to state what is false.I3eerin* v. isona =arvester orkers, 1'' ?..up. Ct. #ep. 2(J

Therefore, as the land occupied by the appellant

has not been successfully /dentified with thatdescribed in the co)plaint, the instant actionshould have been dis)issed outri*ht, in view ofthe provision of Article %% of the $ew Civil Codewhich reads.

Art. %%. /n an action to recover, the property )ustbe /dentified, and the plaintiff )ust rely on thestren*th of his title and not on the weakness of thedefendants clai) as well as the doctrineenunciated in a lon* line of decision IsicJ startin*fro) 6im vs. Director of 6ands, &% hil. %.

econdly, it is undisputed that the appellant is thepresent occupant of the land since he purchasedthe sa)e fro) To)asita F. Berano on 4une :,19&7, havin* constructed a si!door apart)ent inthe pre)ises which he lets to both transients andresidents of the locality. 0ein* the actualpossessor of the property, he, therefore,possesses it with a +ust title and he need not showor prove why he is possessin* the sa)e. IArts.% and '%1 of the $ew Civil CodeJ.

Finally, between the evidence of the appellees andthat of the appellant, e unhesitatin*ly choose thelatter in the )atter of /dentifyin* the property in5uestion because it is a vicinity plan I8hibit G(GJshowin* the position of the land in relation not onlyto the properties ad+oinin* the sa)e but also withknown boundaries and land)arks in the area. nthe other hand, the appellees evidence,particularly the description in Ta 3eclaration $o.17::9, is unreliable, since the area andboundaries of the property are )ere esti)ations,reached thru pure *uess!work. I)ith 0ell L Co.vs. 3irector of 6ands, ': hil. (791J. 8pressin*the sa)e senti)ent, one noted authority statesE

The proposition that in /dentifyin* a particularpiece of land its boundaries and not the area are

the )ain factors to be considered holds true onlywhen the boundaries *iven are sufficiently certainand the /dentity of the land proved by theboundaries clearly indicates that an erroneousstate)ent concernin* the area can bedisre*arded. I0ilo*, 8ffective 4udicial/)ple)entation of 6and and Forestry 6aws, Fourth

Advanced Course for -unicipal Courts ;1971<, cit.aterno v. alud, 6!1'&2:, epte)ber :, 19&1.;Anne GC!l,G etition, pp. ''', #ollo.J

A petition for review on certiorari of said decision filed by petitionersbefore this Court was denied due course.

ubse5uently, on epte)ber 2', 1979, private respondent filed before

the Court of First /nstance of /sabela an application for re*istration inhis na)e of the title of the lands in 5uestion, basin* his entitle)entthereto on the afore)entioned deed of sale as well as the decision ofthe appellate court in CA!".#. $o. &:1%2!#, IAnne GAG, etition, pp.2!%:, #ollo<.

n April 2&, 19(:, petitioners filed an opposition to the application.IAnne G0G, etition, p. %1, #olloJ rivate respondent, however, )ovedfor the dis)issal of said opposition on the *round that the sa)e isbarred by a prior +ud*)ent, i.e., the appellate courts decision in CA!".#. $o. &:1%2!#. 3espite the opposition of petitioners to said )otionto dis)iss, the lower court issued the first of the assailed ordersdis)issin* the petitioners opposition on the *round of

res 4dicata.IAnne G8G, etition, p. (, #olloJ hen their )otion forreconsideration was denied, petitioners filed the instant petition, raisin*as *rounds therefor the followin*E

#8$38$T 4?3"8 8##83 "#AB86 /$3/-//$" 8T/T/$8# /T/$ T#8$38$T A6/CAT/$ F##8"/T#AT/$ F T/T68, =/C= / =/"=6/##8"?6A# /$ 6A$3 #8"/T#AT/$#C883/$".

#8$38$T 4?3"8 8##83 "#AB86 /$3/#8"A#3/$" T=8 #8C838$TF ABE66E?A <S. 7A?*6 T=AT ?ESJD2CA)A CA$$T 08 8T ? /$ A 6A$3#8"/T#AT/$ CA8.

#8$38$T 4?3"8 8##83 "#AB86 /$

=63/$" T=AT T=8 #8@?//T8 F# ?ESJD2CA)A 8H/T /$ T=8 CA8 AT 0A#, A?-/$" A?GEND* T=AT A -T/$ T3/-/ /T/$ / #8# /$ A 6A$3#8"/T#AT/$ CA8, A$3 T=AT ?ESJD2CA)A -A08 #A/83 /$ A/3 -T/$ T3/-/.

#8$38$T 4?3"8 8##83 "#AB86 /$38#/B/$" 8T/T/$8# =8#8/$ F T=8/#3A /$ C?#T, 8C/A66 /$ T=8 FAC8 FT#$" /$3/CAT/$, A6#8A3 /$ T=8#8C#3, T=AT #8$38$T CAA0A /

ACT?A66 T#/$" T 8C?#8 T/T68 T

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


=AT #8A66 /$ T=8 6A$3 F T=88T/T/$8#.

#8$38$T 4?3"8 8##83 "#AB86, /T="#AB8 A0?8 F 3/C#8T/$ A$3 /$8HC8 F 4?#/3/CT/$ /$ /?/$" =/#38# F 4?6 2,19(: IA$$8H G8GJ A$38T8-08# 19, 19(: IA$$8H G=GJ. ;pp. 1(!19,#ollo<

n April 1, 19(1, this Court *ave due course to the petition and

re5uired the parties to file their briefs. etitioners did so on Au*ust 2&,19(1. rivate respondent, on the other hand, failed to file his briefwithin the *iven period which epired on ctober 9, 19(1. Thus, thecase was consider sub)itted for decision without the brief of privaterespondent.

n 4uly (, 19(', this Court received a copy of the )otion to a)endapplication filed by 0ienvenido ". $orie*a, r., thru counsel, in 6#CCase $o. 0r. //!$!2:%, prayin* that he be included as co!applicant tothe land sou*ht to be re*istered.

/n the course of our study of pertinent +urisprudence, e observe thatthe situation obtainin* in the case at bar, i.e., a )otion to dis)iss theopposition havin* been filed and )ore i)portantly, *ranted, is indeeduni5ue and peculiar. 0ut while this )ay be so, it is not hi*hly irre*ularas petitioners would characterie it.

Berily, the 6and #e*istration Act IAct %9&J does not provide for apleadin* si)ilar or correspondin* to a )otion to dis)iss. #ule 12 ofthe #ules of Court, however, allows the application of the rulescontained therein in land re*istration proceedin*s in a suppletorycharacter or whenever practicable and convenient. Thus, for theepeditious ter)ination of the land re*istration case, this Courtin Dran v. *liva, C#A 1'%, sustained the dis)issal of theapplication for re*istration of therein appellants upon a )otion todis)iss filed by five I'J oppositors, it havin* been indubitably shownthat the court a 5uo did not have +urisdiction over the res as the landssou*ht to be re*istered in appellants na)e had previously beenre*istered in the na)es of the oppositors. To have allowed there*istration proceedin* to run its usual course would have been a )ereeercise in futility. The sa)e consideration applies to the case at bar.

/t )ust be noted that the opposition partakes of the nature of ananswer with a counterclai). /n ordinary civil cases, the counterclai)would be considered a co)plaint, this ti)e with the ori*inal defendantbeco)in* the plaintiff. The ori*inal plaintiff, who beco)es defendant inthe counterclai) )ay either then answer the counterclai) or bedeclared in default, or )ay file a )otion to dis)iss the sa)e. The latter choice was what respondent Cayaba opted for. Althou*h as e haveearlier said, such situation rarely, if ever, happens in land re*istrationcases, the irre*ularity that petitioners co)plain of ste)s basically fro)the infre5uent use of a )otion to dis)iss in land re*istration cases,and not fro) it bein* unauthorie.

The case of Abellera vs. 7arol

7% hil. 2(%, heavily relied upon bypetitioners needs re!evaluation. /n said case, -r. 4ustice 0ocobo,speakin* for the Court, ruled that Gwhile in a cadastral case, res

4dicata is available to a clai)ant in order to defeat the alle*ed ri*hts of another clai)ant, nevertheless, prior +ud*)ent can not be set up in a)otion to dis)iss. G Concurrin* in said opinion were then Chief 4usticeulo and Associate 4ustices -oran and aeta. -r. 4ustice arasdissented, sayin* Gin )y opinion, #ule 12 in connection with #ule ( of the #ules of Court, instead of prohibitin* epressly authories thelower court in land re*istration or cadastral proceedin*s to entertain a)otion for dis)issal on the *round of res 4dicata or prescription. fcourse, the dis)issal of petitioners clai) will not necessarily orauto)atically )ean ad+udication of title to the individual respondentsbut it will certainly facilitate the consideration of their clai)s whichcease to be contested. ro)pt disposal of cases or such clai)s is the)ain purpose of said rules. 6et there be no retro*ression in theapplication of sound rules and doctrines.G I2bid

, pp. 2(&!2(7< /n supportof his opinion, 4ustice aras cited the cases of Menor v. @intana, '&hil. &'7, <ersoza v. Nicolas, 29 hil. %2' and Santia'o v. Santos, '%hil. &19, wherein the Court invariably ruled that a Gfinal +ud*)ent in an

ordinary civil case deter)inin* the ownership of certain land is res 4dicata in a re*istration case when the parties and the property arethe sa)e as in the for)er case. G I-enor v. @uintana,spra.J

There is no doubt that the principle of res 4dicata operates in the caseat bar. For said principle to applyE IaJ the for)er +ud*)ent )ust befinal, IbJ it )ust have been rendered by a court havin* +urisdiction ofthe sub+ect )atter and of the parties, IcJ it )ust be a +ud*)ent on the)erits and IdJ there )ust be between the first and second actionsidentity of parties, of sub+ect )atter and of cause of action. ICarandan*v. Benturana, 1 C#A %%J The decision in CA!". #. $o. &:1%2!#is a final +ud*)ent on the )erits rendered by a court which had

+urisdiction over the sub+ect )atter and the parties. There is, betweenthe re*istration case under consideration and the previous civil action

for recovery of property, identity of parties, sub+ect )atter and cause of action. The inclusion of private respondent Cayabas co!owner,0ienvenido $orie*a, r., in the application for re*istration does notresult in a difference in parties between the two cases. ne ri*ht of aco!owner is to defend in court the interests of the co!ownership.Iaras, Civil Code of the hilippines, Annotated, Bol. //, 7th 8dition, p.2'(J Thus, when private respondent Cayaba defended his ownershipover the land in 5uestion, he was doin* so in behalf of the co!ownership. This is evident fro) the fact that one of the evidence hepresented to prove ownership was the deed of sale eecuted by theheirs of 3r. 8pifanio @. Berano is his and 0ienvenido $orie*as favor.

ith respect to the sub+ect )atter, there can be no 5uestion that theland sou*ht to be recovered by petitioners are the very sa)e parcelsof land bein* sou*ht to be re*istered in Cayabas and $orie*asna)es.

hile the co)plaint in the first action is captioned for recovery ofpossession, the alle*ations and the prayer for relief therein raise theissue of ownership. /n effect, it is in the nature of an accionreinvidicatoria. The second case is for re*istration of title.Conse5uently, between the two cases there is identity of causes ofaction because in accion reinvidicatoria, possession is sou*ht on thebasis of ownership and the sa)e is true in re*istration cases.#e*istration of title in ones na)e is based on ownership. /n bothcases, the plaintiff and the applicant seek to eclude other personsfro) ownership of the land in 5uestion. The only difference is that inthe for)er case, the eclusion is directed a*ainst particular persons,

while in the latter proceedin*s, the eclusion is directed a*ainst thewhole world. $onetheless, the cause of action re)ains the sa)e. /nfact, this Court held in Dais v. Cort of 7irst 2nstance of Capiz I'1 hil.(9&J that the answers in a cadastral proceedin*s partake of an actionto recover title, as real ri*hts are involved therein. /t is only the for) ofaction which is different. G0ut the e)ploy)ent of two different for)s ofaction, does not enable one to escape the operation of the principlethat one and the sa)e cause of action shall not be twice liti*ated.GIusin*co v. n* =in* 6ian, %2 C#A '9: and the cases cited therein,"onales v. "onales, 2& C#A 7&D A*uilar v. Tuason Co., 22 C#A&9:D Albano v. Colo)a, 21 C#A %11D u)arari v. 3evelop)ent 0ankof the hil., 21 C#A 17(D Abes, et al. v. #odil, et al., 17 C#A (2%DCayco, et al. v. Cru et al., 1:& hil. &(D -a. "arcia de 6i) Toco v. "oay, (1 hil. 2'(D an 3ie*o v. Cardona, et al., 7: hil. 2(1J.

/t does not )atter that the first case was decided by a court of *eneral

+urisdiction, while the second case is bein* heard by one of a li)ited +urisdiction, such as a re*istration court. /t is enou*h that the courtwhich decided the first case on the )erits had validly ac5uired

+urisdiction over the sub+ect )atter and the parties. That both courtsshould have e5ual +urisdiction is not a re5uisite of res 4dicata.

/f, as the Abellera case, spra, held that res 4dicata can be set up by aclai)ant to defeat the alle*ed ri*ht of another clai)ant, what usefulpurpose would be served by allowin* a party to present evidence ofownership over the land sou*ht to be re*istered when the final resultwould necessarily be in favor of the clai)ant who had set up thedefense of res 4dicata And supposin* the land re*istration court findsthat the party a*ainst who) the principle of

res 4dicata operates doeshave a better ri*ht or title to the land, what happens to the principleof

res 4dicata Can a court sittin* as a land re*istration court in effect,annul a final +ud*)ent of another court of *eneral +urisdiction

To our )ind, therefore, the better policy, both for practicality andconvenience, is to *rant the dis)issal of either the application forre*istration or the opposition thereto, once it has been indubitablyshown, as in the case at bar, that one or the other is barred by a prior

+ud*)ent. The rulin* in the Abellera case, should therefore be, as it is,hereby abandoned.

etitioners co)plain that by dis)issin* their opposition, respondentcourt had denied the) their day in court. /t is well to re)ind petitionersthat they had their day in court in Civil Case $o. 0ranch //!(9' as wellas CA!".#. $o. &:1%2!#, where their clai) over the land in 5uestionwas fully aired and ventilated.

The conflictin* clai)s of petitioners and respondent Cayaba Iin behalf

of the co!ownershipJ with respect to the land under consideration hadbeen put to rest in CA!".#. $o. &:1%2!#. aid decision havin*attained finality, the sa)e re)ains the law of the case between theparties.

Findin* no error to have been co))itted by respondent +ud*e indis)issin* petitioners opposition, such dis)issal )ust be affir)ed.

=8#8F#8, the instant petition is hereby dis)issed. Cost a*ainstpetitioners.

#38#83.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


DA !"

G.R. No. L-635 No@'b( 1, 1947

ALEANDER A. BR*+ENBO, petitioner!appellant,vs.E REG*SER O0 DEEDS, *; O0 MAN*LA, respondent andappellee.

Gibbs Gibbs Cidian and @asa of petitioner!appellant.7irst Assistant Solicitor General ?e(es and Solicitor Carreon forrespondent!appellee.Marcelino 6onto0 appeared as amics cries.

MORAN, #.J.:

Alenander A. Mriventor alien, bou*ht a residential lot fro) the-a*dalena 8state, /nc., in 3ece)ber of 19%1, the re*istration of whichwas interrupted by the war. /n -ay, 19%', he sou*ht to acco)plish saidre*istration but was denied by the re*ister of deeds of -anila on the*round that, bein* an alien, he cannot ac5uire land in this +urisdiction.Mrivenko then brou*ht the case to the fourth branch of the Court ofFirst /nstance of -anila by )eans of a conslta and that courtrendered +ud*)ent sustainin* the refusal of the re*ister of deeds, fro)

which Mrivenko appealed to this Court.

There is no dispute as to these facts. The real point in issue is whether or not an alien under our Constitution )ay ac5uire residential land.

/t is said that the decision of the case on the )erits is unnecessary,there bein* a )otion to withdraw the appeal which should have been*ranted outri*ht, and reference is )ade to the rulin* laid down by thisCourt in another case to the effect that a court should not pass upon aconstitutional 5uestion if its +ud*)ent )ay be )ade to rest upon other*rounds. There is, we believe, a confusion of ideas in this reasonin*. /tcannot be denied that the constitutional 5uestion is unavoidable if wechoose to decide this case upon the )erits. ur +ud*)ent cannot to be)ade to rest upon other *rounds if we have to render any +ud*)ent atall. And we cannot avoid our +ud*)ent si)ply because we have toavoid a constitutional 5uestion. e cannot, for instance, *rant the)otion withdrawin* the appeal only because we wish to evade theconstitutionalD issue. hether the )otion should be, or should not be,*ranted, is a 5uestion involvin* different considerations now to bestated.

Accordin* to #ule '2, section %, of the #ules of Court, it isdiscretionary upon this Court to *rant a withdrawal of appeal after thebriefs have been presented. At the ti)e the )otion for withdrawal wasfiled in this case, not only had the briefs been prensented, but the casehad already been voted and the )a+ority decision was bein* prepared.The )otion for withdrawal stated no reason whatsoever, and theolicitor "eneral was a*reeable to it. hile the )otion was pendin* inthis Court, ca)e the new circular of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice,instructin* all re*ister of deeds to accept for re*istration all transfers ofresidential lots to aliens. The herein respondent!appellee was naturallyone of the re*isters of deeds to obey the new circular, as a*ainst his

own stand in this case which had been )aintained by the trial courtand fir)ly defended in this Court by the olicitor "eneral. /f we *rantthe withdrawal, the the result would be that petitioner!appellant

Aleander A. Mrivenko wins his case, not by a decision of this Court,but by the decision or circular of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice, issuedwhile this case was pendin* before this Court. hether or not this isthe reason why appellant seeks the withdrawal of his appeal and whythe olicitor "eneral readily a*rees to that withdrawal, is nowi))aterial. hat is )aterial and indeed very i)portant, is whether ornot we should allow interference with the re*ular and co)pleteeercise by this Court of its constitutional functions, and whether or notafter havin* held lon* deliberations and after havin* reached a clearand positive conviction as to what the constitutional )andate is, we)ay still allow our conviction to be silenced, and the constitutional)andate to be i*nored or )isconceived, with all the har)fulconse5uences that )i*ht be brou*ht upon the national patro)ony. For

it is but natural that the new circular be taken full advanta*e of by)any, with the circu)stance that perhaps the constitutional 5uestion)ay never co)e up a*ain before this court, because both vendors andvendees will have no interest but to uphold the validity of theirtransactions, and very unlikely will the re*ister of deeds venture todisobey the orders of their superior. Thus, the possibility for this courtto voice its conviction in a future case )ay be re)ote, with the resultthat our indifference of today )i*ht si*nify a per)anent offense to theConstitution.

All thse circu)stances were thorou*hly considered and wei*hted bythis Court for a nu)ber of days and the le*al result of the last vote wasa denial of the )otion withdrawin* the appeal. e are thus confronted,at this sta*e of the proceedin*s, with our duty, the constitutional

5uestion beco)es unavoidable. e shall then proceed to decide that5uestion.

Article H///, section 1, of the Constitutional is as followsE

Article 222 . > Conservation and tilization of natralresorces.

8CT/$ 1. All a*ricultural, ti)ber, and )ineral lands of thepublic do)ain, water, )inerals, coal, petroleu), and other)ineral oils, all forces of potential ener*y, and other naturalresources of the hilippines belon* to the tate, and theirdisposition, eploitation, develop)ent, or utiliation shall beli)ited to citiens of the hilippines, or to corporations orassociations at least sity per centm of the capital of whichis owned by such citiens, sub+ect to any eistin* ri*ht,*rant, lease, or concession at the ti)e of the ina*uration ofthe "overn)ent established uunder this Constitution.$atural resources, with the eception of public a*riculturalland, shall not be alienated, and no licence, concession, orlease for the eploitation, develop)ent, or utiliation of anyof the natural resources shall be *ranted for a periodeceedin* twenty!five years, renewable for another twenty!five years, ecept as to water ri*hts for irri*ation, watersupply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than thedevelop)ent of water GpowerG in which cases beneficial use)ay be the )easure and the li)it of the *rant.

The scope of this constitutional provision, accordin* to its headin* andits lan*ua*e, e)braces all lands of any kind of the public do)ain, itspurpose bein* to establish a per)anent and funda)ental policy for theconservation and utiliation of all natural resources of the $ation.hen, therefore, this provision, with reference to lands of the publicdo)ain, )akes )ention of only a*ricultural, ti)ber and )ineral lands,it )eans that all lands of the public do)ain are classified into saidthree *roups, na)ely, a*ricultural, ti)ber and )ineral. And thisclassification finds corroboration in the circu)stance that at the ti)e ofthe adoption of the Constitution, that was the basic classificationeistin* in the public laws and +udicial decisions in the hilippines, andthe ter) Gpublic a*ricultural landsG under said classification had thenac5uired a technical )eanin* that was well!known to the )e)bers ofthe Constitutional Convention who were )ostly )e)bers of the le*alprofession.

As early as 19:(, in the case of Mapa vs. 2nslar Government ;1:hil., 17', 1(2<, this Court said that the phrase Ga*ricultural publiclandsG as defined in the Act of Con*ress of 4uly 1, 19:2, which phraseis also to be found in several sections of the ublic 6and Act ;$o. 92&<,)eans Gthose public lands ac5uired fro) pain which are neither)ineral for ti)ber lands.G This definition has been followed in lon* lineof decisions of this Court. ;See-ontano vs. /nsular "overn)ent, 12hil., '9D /baNe de Aldecoa vs. /nsular "overn)ent, 1 hil., 1'9D#a)osvs. 3irector of 6ands, 9 hil., 17'D 4ocson vs. 3irector ofForestry, 9 hil., '&:D Ankron vs. "overn)ent of the hilippines, %:hil., 1:.< And with respect to residential lands, it has been held thatsince they are neither )ineral nor ti)ber lands, of necessity they )ustbe classified as a*ricultural. /n /baNe de Aldecoa vs. /nsular"overn)ent ;1 hil., 1'9, 1&<, this Court saidE

=ence, any parcel of land or buildin* lot is susceptible ofcultivation, and )ay be converted into a field, and plantedwith all kinds of ve*etationD for this reason, where land is not)inin* or forestal in its nature, it )ust necessarily beincluded within the classification of a*ricultural land, notbecause it is actually used for the purposes of a*riculture,but because it was ori*inally a*ricultural and )ay a*ainbeco)e so under other circu)stancesD besides, the Act ofCon*ress contains only three classification, and )akes nospecial provision with respect to buildin* lots or urban landsthat have ceased to be a*ricultural land.

/n other words, the Court ruled that in deter)inin* whether a parcel ofland is a*ricultural, the test is not only whether it is actually a*ricultural,but also its susceptibility to cultivation for a*ricultural purposes. 0utwhatever the test )i*ht be, the fact re)ains that at the ti)e the

Constitution was adopted, lands of the public do)ain were classified inour laws and +urisprudence into a*ricultural, )ineral, and ti)ber, andthat the ter) Gpublic a*ricultural landsG was construed as referrin* tothose lands that were not ti)ber or )ineral, and as includin*residential lands. /t )ay safely be presu)ed, therefore, that what the)e)bers of the Constitutional Convention had in )ind when theydrafted the Constitution was this well!known classification and itstechnical )eanin* then prevailin*.

Certain epressions which appear in Constitutions, . . . areobviously technicalD and where such words have been in useprior to the adoption of a Constitution, it is presu)ed that itsfra)ers and the people who ratified it have used suchepressions in accordance with their technical )eanin*. ;11

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


A). 4ur., sec. &&, p. &(.< Also Calder vs. 0ull, 3all. I?..J,(&D 1 6aw. ed., &%(D 0ronson vs. yverson, (( ash., 2&%D1'2 ., 1:9.<

/t is a funda)ental rule that, in construin* constitutions,ter)s e)ployed therein shall be *iven the )eanin* whichhad been put upon the), and which they possessed, at theti)e of the fra)in* and adoption of the instru)ent. /f a wordhas ac5uired a fied, technical )eanin* in le*al andconstitutional history, it will be presu)ed to have beene)ployed in that sense in a written Constitution.;-cMinney vs. 0arker, 1(: My., '2&D 2: .., :D 6.#.A.,191( 8, '(1.<

here words have been lon* used in a technical sense andhave been +udicially construed to have a certain )eanin*,and have been adopted by the le*islature as havin* acertain )eanin* prior to a particular statute in which they areused, the rule of construction re5uires that the words used insuch statute should be construed accordin* to the sense inwhich they have been so previously used, althou*h thesense )ay vary fro) strict literal )eanin* of the words. ;//utherland, tatutory Construction, p. 7'(.<

Therefore, the phrase Gpublic a*ricultural landsG appearin* in section 1of Article H/// of the Constitution )ust be construed as includin*residential lands, and this is in confor)ity with a le*islative

interpretation *iven after the adoption of the Constitution. ell knownis the rule that Gwhere the 6e*islature has revised a statute after aConstitution has been adopted, such a revision is to be re*arded as ale*islative construction that the statute so revised confor)s to theConstitution.G ;'9 C.4., 11:2.< oon after the Constitution was adopted,the $ational Asse)bly revised the ublic 6and 6aw and passedCo))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, and sections '(, '9 and &: thereof per)itthe sale of residential lots to Filipino citiens or to associations orcorporations controlled by such citiens, which is e5uivalent to asole)n declaration that residential lots are considered as a*riculturallands, for, under the Constitution, only a*ricultural lands )ay bealienated.

/t is true that in section 9 of said Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1,Galienable or disposable public landsG which are the sa)e Gpublica*riculture landsG under the Constitution, are classified into a*ricultural,

residential, co))ercial, industrial and for other puposes. This si)ply)eans that the ter) Gpublic a*ricultural landsG has both a broad and aparticular )eanin*. ?nder its broad or *eneral )eanin*, as used in theConstitution, it e)braces all lands that are neither ti)ber nor )ineral.This broad )eanin* is particularied in section 9 of Co))onwealth Act$o. 1%1 which classifies Gpublic a*ricultural landsG for purposes ofalienation or disposition, into lands that are stricly a*ricultural oractually devoted to cultivation for a*ricultural puposesD lands that areresidentialD co))ercialD industrialD or lands for other purposes. The factthat these lands are )ade alienable or disposable underCo))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, in favor of Filipino citiens, is a conclusiveindication of their character as public a*ricultural lands under saidstatute and under the Constitution.

/t )ust be observed, in this connection that prior to the Constitution,under section 2% of ublic 6and Act $o. 2(7%, aliens could ac5uire

public a*ricultural lands used for industrial or residential puposes, butafter the Constitution and under section 2 of Co))onwealth Act $o.1%1, the ri*ht of aliens to ac5uire such kind of lands is co)pletelystricken out, undoubtedly in pursuance of the constitutional li)itation.

And, a*ain, prior to the Constitution, under section '7 of ublic 6and Act $o. 2(7%, land of the public do)ain suitable for residence orindustrial purposes could be sold or leased to aliens, but after theConstitution and under section &: of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, suchland )ay only be leased, but not sold, to aliens, and the lease *rantedshall only be valid while the land is used for the purposes referred to.The eclusion of sale in the new Act is undoubtedly in pursuance of theconstitutional li)itation, and this a*ain is another le*islativeconstruction that the ter) Gpublic a*ricultural landG includes land forresidence purposes.

uch le*islative interpretation is also in har)ony with the interpretation*iven by the 8ecutive 3epart)ent of the "overn)ent. ay back in199, ecretary of 4ustice 4ose Abad antos, in answer to a 5uery asto Gwhether or not the phrase public a*ricultural lands in section 1 of

Article H// ;now H///< of the Constitution )ay be interpreted to includeresidential, co))ercial, and industrial lands for purposes of theirdisposition,G rendered the followin* short, sharp and crystal!clearopinionE

ection 1, Article H// ;now H///< of the Constitution classifieslands of the public do)ain in the hilippines into a*ricultural,ti)ber and )ineral. This is the basic classification adoptedsince the enact)ent of the Act of Con*ress of 4uly 1, 19:2,known as the hilippine 0ill. At the ti)e of the adoption ofthe Constitution of the hilippines, the ter) a*riculturalpublic lands and, therefore, ac5uired a technical )eanin* in

our public laws. The upre)e Court of the hilippines in theleadin* case of Mapa vs. 2nslar Government 1: hil., 17',held that the phrase a*ricultural public lands )eans thosepublic lands ac5uired fro) pain %ic are neiter timbernor mineral lands. This definition has been followed by ourupre)e Court in )any subse5uent case. . . .

#esidential co))ercial, or industrial lots for)in* part of thepublic do)ain )ust have to be included in one or )ore ofthese classes. Clearly, they are neither ti)ber nor )ineral, of necessity, therefore, they )ust be classified as a*ricultural.

Biewed fro) another an*le, it has been held that indeter)inin* whether lands are a*ricultural or not, thecharacter of the land is the test ;dell vs. 3urant, &2 $..,'2%D 6orch vs. -issoula 0rick and Tile Co., 12 p.2'<. /nother words, it is the susceptibility of the land to cultivationfor a*ricultural purposes by ordinary far)in* )ethods whichdeter)ines whether it is a*ricultural or not;tate vs. tewart, 19: p. 129<.

Further)ore, as said by the 3irector of 6ands, no reason isseen why a piece of land, which )ay be sold to a person ifhe is to devote it to a*ricultural, cannot be sold to hi) if heintends to use it as a site for his ho)e.

This opinion is i)portant not alone because it co)es fro) a ecratary

of 4ustice who later beca)e the Chief 4ustice of this Court, but alsobecause it was rendered by a )e)ber of the cabinet of the lateresident @ueon who actively participated in the draftin* of theconstitutional provision under consideration. ;2 Arue*o, Fra)in* of thehilippine Constitution, p. '9(.< And the opinion of the @ueonad)inistration was reiterated by the ecretary of 4ustice under thes)eNa ad)inistration, and it was fir)ly )aintained in this Court bythe olicitor "eneral of both ad)inistrations.

/t is thus clear that the three *reat depart)ents of the "overn)ent > +udicial, le*islative and eecutive > have always )aintained that landsof the public do)ain are classified into a*ricultural, )ineral and ti)ber,and that a*ricultural lands include residential lots.

?nder section 1 of Article H/// of the Constitution, Gnatural resources,

with the eception of public a*ricultural land, shall not be aliented,G andwith respect to public a*ricultural lands, their alienation is li)ited toFilipino citiens. 0ut this constitutional purpose conservin* a*riculturalresources in the hands of Filipino citiens )ay easily be defeated bythe Filipino citiens the)selves who )ay alienate their a*riculturallands in favor of aliens. /t is partly to prevent this result that section ' isincluded in Article H///, and it reads as followsE

ec. '. ave in cases of hereditary succession, no privatea*ricultural land will be transferred or assi*ned ecept toindividuals, corporations, or associations 5ualified to ac5uireor hold lands of the public do)ain in the hilippines.

This constitutional provision closes the only re)ainin* avenue throu*hwhich a*ricultural resources )ay leak into aliens hands. /t wouldcertainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public a*ricultural lands to

aliens if, after all, they )ay be freely so alienated upon their beco)in*private a*ricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citiens. ?ndoubtedly,as above indicated, section ' is intended to insure the policy ofnationaliation contained in section 1. 0oth sections )ust, therefore,be read to*ether for they have the sa)e purpose and the sa)e sub+ect)atter. /t )ust be noticed that the persons a*ainst who) theprohibition is directed in section ' are the very sa)e persons whounder section 1 are dis5ualified Gto ac5uire or hold lands of the publicdo)ain in the hilippines.G And the sub+ect )atter of both sections isthe sa)e, na)ely, the non!transferability of Ga*ricultural landG to aliens.ince Ga*ricultural landG under section 1 includes residential lots, thesa)e technical )eanin* should be attached to Ga*ricultural land undersection '. /t is a rule of statutory construction that Ga word or phraserepeated in a statute will bear the sa)e )eanin* throu*hout thestatute, unless a different intention appears.G ;// utherland, tatutoryConstruction, p. 7'(.< The only difference between Ga*ricultural landG

under section ', is that the for)er is public and the latter private. 0utsuch difference refers to ownership and not to the class of land. Thelands are the sa)e in both sections, and, for the conservation of thenational patri)ony, what is i)portant is the nature or class of theproperty re*ardless of whether it is owned by the tate or by itscitiens.

#eference is )ade to an opinion rendered on epte)ber 19, 19%1, bythe =on. Teofilo ison, then ecretary of 4ustice, to the effect thatresidential lands of the public do)ain )ay be considered asa*ricultural lands, whereas residential lands of private ownershipcannot be so considered. $o reason whatsoever is *iven in the opinionfor such a distinction, and no valid reason can be adduced for such adiscri)inatory view, particularly havin* in )ind that the purpose of theconstitutional provision is the conservation of the national patri)ony,

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


and private residential lands are as )uch an inte*ral part of thenational patri)ony as the residential lands of the public do)ain.pecially is this so where, as indicated above, the prohibition as to thealienable of public residential lots would beco)e superflous if the sa)eprohibition is not e5ually applied to private residential lots. /ndeed, theprohibition as to private residential lands will eventually beco)e )orei)portant, for ti)e will co)e when, in view of the constant dispositionof public lands in favor of private individuals, al)ost all, if not all, theresidential lands of the public do)ain shall have beco)e privateresidential lands.

/t is )aintained that in the first draft of section ', the words Gno land ofprivate ownershipG were used and later chan*ed into Gno a*riculturalland of private ownership,G and lastly into Gno private a*ricultural landGand fro) these chan*es it is ar*ued that the word Ga*riculturalGintroduced in the second and final drafts was intended to li)it the)eanin* of the word GlandG to land actually used for a*riculturalpurposes. The i)plication is not accurate. The wordin* of the first draftwas a)ended for no other purpose than to clarify concepts and avoiduncertainties. The words Gno landG of the first draft, un5ualified by theword Ga*ricultural,G )ay be )istaken to include ti)ber and )inerallands, and since under section 1, this kind of lands can never beprivate, the prohibition to transfer the sa)e would be superfluous.?pon the other hand, section ' had to be drafted in har)ony withsection 1 to which it is supple)entary, as above indicated. /nas)uchas under section 1, ti)ber and )ineral lands can never be private, andthe only lands that )ay beco)e private are a*ricultural lands, thewords Gno land of private ownershipG of the first draft can have no other

)eanin* than Gprivate a*ricultural land.G And thus the chan*e in thefinal draft is )erely one of words in order to )ake its sub+ect )atter)ore specific with a view to avoidin* the possible confusion of ideasthat could have arisen fro) the first draft.

/f the ter) Gprivate a*ricultural landsG is to be construed as notincludin* residential lots or lands not strictly a*ricultural, the resultwould be that Galiens )ay freely ac5uire and possess not onlyresidential lots and houses for the)selves but entire subdivisions, andwhole towns and cities,G and that Gthey )ay validly buy and hold intheir na)es lands of any area for buildin* ho)es, factories, industrialplants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts,)arkets, *olf courses, play*rounds, airfields, and a host of other usesand purposes that are not, in appellants words, strictly a*ricultural.G;olicitor "enerals 0rief, p. &.< That this is obnoious to theconservative spirit of the Constitution is beyond 5uestion.

ne of the funda)ental principles underlyin* the provision of ArticleH/// of the Constitution and which was e)bodied in the report of theCo))ittee on $ationaliation and reservation of 6ands and other$atural #esources of the Constitutional Convention, is "tat lands,)inerals, forests, and other natural resources constitute the eclusiveherita*e of the Filipino nation. They should, therefore, be preserved for those under the soverei*n authority of that nation and for theirposterity.G ;2 Arue*o, Fra)in* of the Filipino Constitution, p. '9'.<3ele*ate 6edes)a, Chair)an of the Co))ittee on A*ricultural3evelop)ent of the Constitutional Convention, in a speech delivered inconnection with the national policy on a*ricultural lands, saidE GTheeclusion of aliens fro) the privile*e of ac5uirin* pblic a'ricltrallands and of o%nin' real estate is a necessar( part of the ublic 6and6aws of the hilippines to keep pace with the idea of preservin* thehilippines for the Filipinos.G ;8)phasis ours.< And, of the sa)e tenor

was the speech of 3ele*ate -ontilla who saidE "5it te completenationalization of or lands and natral resorces it is to be understoodthat our "od!*iven birthri*ht should be one hundred per cent in Filipinohands . . .. 6ands and natural resources are i))ovables and as suchcan be co)pared to the vital or*ans of a persons body, the lack ofpossession of which )ay cause instant death or the shortenin* of life./f we do not co)pletely antionalie these two of our )ost i)portantbelon*in*s, / a) afraid that the ti)e will co)e when we shall be sorryfor the ti)e we were born. ur independence will be +ust a )ockery,for what kind of independence are we *oin* to have if a part of ourcountry is not in our hands but in those of forei*nersG ;8)phasisours.< rofessor Arue*o says that since the openin* days of theConstitutional Convention one of its fied and do)inatin* ob+ectiveswas the conservation and nationaliation of the natural resources ofthe country. ;2 Arue*o, Fra)in* of the hilippine Constitution, p '92.<This is ratified by the )e)bers of the Constitutional Convention whoare now )e)bers of this Court, na)ely, -r. 4ustice erfecto, -r.

4ustice 0riones, and -r. 4ustice =ontiveros. And, indeed, if under Article H/B, section (, of the Constitution, an alien )ay not evenoperate a s)all +itney for hire, it is certainly not hard to understand thatneither is he allowed to own a pieace of land.

This constitutional intent is )ade )ore patent and is stron*lyi)ple)ented by an act of the $ational Asse)bly passed soon after theConstitution was approved. e are referrin* a*ain to Co))onwealth

Act $o. 1%1. rior to the Constitution, there were in the ublic 6and Act$o. 2(7% sections 12: and 121 which *ranted aliens the ri*ht toac5uire private only by way of reciprocity. aid section reads asfollowsE

8C. 12:. $o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner underthe provisions of this Act, nor any per)anent i)prove)enton such land, shall be encu)bered, alienated, or transferred,ecept to persons, corporations, associations, orpartnerships who )ay ac5uire lands of the public do)ainunder this ActD to corporations or*anied in the hilippine/slands authoried therefor by their charters, and, uponepress authoriation by the hilippine 6e*islature, tocitiens of countries the laws of which *rant to citiens of thehilippine /slands the sa)e ri*ht to ac5uire, hold, lease,encu)ber, dispose of, or alienate land, or per)anenti)prove)ents thereon, or any interest therein, as to their

own citiens, only in the )anner and to the etent specifiedin such laws, and while the sa)e are in force but notthereafter.

8C. 121. $o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner underthe provisions of the for)er ublic 6and Act or of any other

Act, ordinance, royal order, royal decree, or any otherprovision of law for)erly in force in the hilippine /slandswith re*ard to public lands, terrenos baldios ( realen'os, orlands of any other deno)ination that were actually orpresu)ptively of the public do)ain or by royal *rant or inany other for), nor any per)anent i)prove)ent on suchland, shall be encu)bered, alienated, or conveyed, ecept topersons, corporations, or associations who )ay ac5uire landof the public do)ain under this ActD to corporate bodiesor*anied in the hilippine /slands whose charters )ay

authorie the) to do so, and, upon epress authoriation bythe hilippine 6e*islature, to citiens of the countries thelaws of which *rant to citiens of the hilippine /slands thesa)e ri*ht to ac5uire, hold, lease, encu)ber, dispose of, oralienate land or pe)anent i)prove)ents thereon or anyinterest therein, as to their own citiens, and only in the)anner and to the etent specified in such laws, and whilethe sa)e are in force, but not thereafterErovided o%ever ,That this prohibition shall not be applicable to theconveyance or ac5uisition by reason of hereditarysuccession duly acknowled*ed and le*alied by co)petentcourts, nor to lands and i)prove)ents ac5uired or held forindustrial or residence purposes, while used for suchpurposesErovided frter That in the event of theownership of the lands and i)prove)ents )entioned in thissection and in the last precedin* section bein* transferred by

+udicial decree to persons,corporations or associations not

le*ally capacitated to ac5uire the sa)e under the provisionsof this Act, such persons, corporations, or associations shallbe obli*ed to alienate said lands or i)prove)ents to othersso capacitated within the precise period of five years, underthe penalty of such property revertin* to the "overn)ent inthe contrary case.G ;ublic 6and Act, $o. 2(7%.<

/t is to be observed that the pharase Gno landG used in these sectionrefers to all private lands, whether strictly a*ricultural, residential orotherwise, there bein* practically no private land which had not beenac5uired by any of the )eans provided in said two sections. Therefore,the prohibition contained in these two provisions was, in effect, that noprivate land could be transferred to aliens ecept Gupon epressauthoriation by the hilippine 6e*islature, to citiens of hilippine/slands the sa)e ri*ht to ac5uire, hold, lease, encu)ber, dispose of, or alienate land.G /n other words, aliens were *ranted the ri*ht to ac5uire

private land )erely by way of reciprocity. Then ca)e the Constitutionand Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1 was passed, sections 122 and 12 ofwhich read as followsE

8C. 122. $o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner underthe provisions of this Act, nor any per)anent i)prove)enton such land, shall be encu)bered, alienated, or transferred,ecept to persons, corporations, associations, orpartnerships who )ay ac5uire lands of the public do)ainunder this Act or to corporations or*anied in the hilippinesauthoried thereof by their charters.

8C. 12. $o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner underthe provisions of any previous Act, ordinance, royal order,royal decree, or any other provision of law for)erly in forcein the hilippines with re*ard to public lands terrenos baldios( realen'os or lands of any other deno)ination that wereactually or presu)ptively of the public do)ain, or by royal*rant or in any other for), nor any per)anent i)prove)enton such land, shall be encu)bered, alienated, or conveyed,ecept to persons, corporations or associations who )ayac5uire land of the public do)ain under this Act or tocorporate bodies or*anied in the hilippines whosecharters authorie the) to do soE rovided o%ever Thatthis prohibition shall not be applicable to the conveyance orac5uisition by reason of hereditary succession dulyacknowled*ed and le*alied by co)petent courtsE rovidedfrter That in the event of the ownership of the lands andi)prove)ents )entioned in this section and in the lastprecedin* section bein* transferred by +udicial decree to

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


persons, corporations or associations not le*ally capacitatedto ac5uire the sa)e under the provisions of this Act, suchpersons, corporations, or associations shall be obli*ed toalienate said lands or i)prove)ents to others so capacitatedwithin the precise period of five yearsD otherwise, suchproperty shall revert to the "overn)ent.

These two sections are al)ost literally the sa)e as sections 12: and121 of Act $o. 2(7%, the only difference bein* that in the newprovisions, the ri*ht to reciprocity *ranted to aliens is co)pletelystricken out. This, undoubtedly, is to confor) to the absolute policycontained in section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution which, inprohibitin* the alienation of private a*ricultural lands to aliens, *rantsthe) no ri*ht of reciprocity. This le*islative construction carrieseceptional wei*ht, for pro)inent )e)bers of the $ational Asse)blywho approved the new Act had been )e)bers of the ConstitutionalConvention.

/t is said that the lot 5uestion does not co)e within the purview ofsections 122 and 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, there bein* noproof that the sa)e had been ac5uired by one of the )eans providedin said provisions. e are not, however, dicidin* the instant case under the provisions of the ublic 6and Act, which have to refer to land thathad been for)erly of the public do)ain, otherwise their constitutionality)ay be doubtful. e are decidin* the instant case under section ' of

Article H/// of the Constitution which is )ore co)prehensive and )oreabsolute in the sense that it prohibits the transfer to alien of any privatea*ricultural land includin* residential land whatever its ori*in )i*ht

have been.

And, finally, on 4une 1%, 19%7, the Con*ress approved #epublic Act$o. 1 which allows )ort*a*e of Gprivate real propertyG of any kind infavor of aliens but with a 5ualification consistin* of epresslyprohibitin* aliens to bid or take part in any sale of such real property asa conse5uence of the )ort*a*e. This prohibition )akes no distinctionbetween private lands that are strictly a*ricultural and private landsthat are residental or co))ercial. The prohibition e)braces the sale of private lands of any kind in favor of aliens, which is a*ain a cleari)ple)entation and a le*islative interpretation of the constitutionalprohibition. =ad the Con*ress been of opinion that private residentiallands )ay be sold to aliens under the Constitution, no le*islative)easure would have been found necessary to authorie )ort*a*ewhich would have been dee)ed also per)issible under theConstitution. 0ut clearly it was the opinion of the Con*ress that such

sale is forbidden by the Constitution and it was such opinion thatpro)pted the le*islative )easure intended to clarify that )ort*a*e isnot within the constitutional prohibition.

/t is well to note at this +uncture that in the present case we have nochoice. e are construin* the Constitution as it is and not as we )aydesire it to be. erhaps the effect of our construction is to precludealiens, ad)itted freely into the hilippines fro) ownin* sites wherethey )ay build their ho)es. 0ut if this is the sole)n )andate of theConstitution, we will not atte)pt to co)pro)ise it even in the na)e ofa)ity or e5uity. e are satisfied, however, that aliens are notco)pletely ecluded by the Constitution fro) the use of lands forresidential purposes. ince their residence in the hilippines iste)porary, they )ay be *ranted te)porary ri*hts such as a leasecontract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. hould they desireto re)ain here forever and share our fortunes and )isfortunes, Filipino

citienship is not i)possible to ac5uire.

For all the fore*oin*, we hold that under the Constitution aliens )aynot ac5uire private or public a*ricultural lands, includin* residentiallands, and, accordin*ly, +ud*)ent is affir)ed, without costs.

7eria ablo erfecto 1ilado and Briones JJ. concur.

S%(%t Oi&io&

ER0EO, J., concurrin*E

Today, which is the day set for the pro)ul*ation of this Courts decision)i*ht be re)e)bered by future *enerations always with +oy, with*ratitude, with pride. The failure of the hi*hest tribunal of the land to doits duty in this case would have a)ounted to a national disaster. ewould have refused to share the responsibility of causin* it by, wittin*lyor unwittin*ly, allowin* ourselves to act as tools in a conspiracy tosabota*e the )ost i)portant safe*uard of the a*e!lon* patri)ony ofour people, the land which destiny of rovidence has set aside to bethe per)anent abode of our race for unendin* *enerations. e whohave children and *randchildren, and who epect to leave lon* andra)ifyin* dendrifor) lines of descendants, could not bear the thou*htof the curse they )ay flin* at us should the day arrive when our peoplewill be forei*ners in their fatherland, because in the crucial )o)ent of

our history , when the vision of +udicial state)anship de)anded on usthe resolution and boldness to affir) and withhold the letter and spiritof the Constitution, we faltered. e would have prefered heroic defeatto in*lorious desertion. #ather than abandon the sacred folds of thebanner of our convictions for truth, for +ustice, for racial survival. eare happy to record that this upre)e Court turned an i)pendin*failure to a *lorious success, savin* our people fro) a loo)in*catastrophe.

n 4uly , 19%&, the case of * Co vs. Director of 6ands ;% ff."a., (&&<, was sub)itted for our decision. The case was initiated inthe Court of First /nstance of Tayabas on 4anuary 17, 19%:, when analien, h Cho, a citien of China, applied for title and re*istration of aparcel of land located in the residential district of "uinayan*an,Tayabas, with a house thereon. The 3irector of 6ands opposed theapplication, one of the )ain *rounds bein* that Gthe applicant, bein* aChinese, is not 5ualified to ac5uire public or private a*ricultural landsunder the provisions of the Constitution.G

n Au*ust 1', 19%:, 4ud*e . -a*salin rendered decision *rantin* theapplication. The 3irector of 6ands appealed. /n the brief filed byolicitor "eneral #o)an aeta, afterwards Associate 4ustice of theupre)e Court and now ecretary of 4ustice, and Assistant olicitor"eneral #afael A)paro, appellant )ade only two assi*n)ents of error,althou*h both raised but one 5uestion, the le*al one stated in the firstassi*n)ent of error as followsE

The lower court erred in declarin* the re*istration of the landin 5uestion in favor of the applicant who, accordin* to hisown voluntary ad)ission is a citien of the Chinese#epublic.

The brief was acco)panied, as Appendi A, by the opinion ofecretary of 4ustice 4ose A. antos > who, while Chief 4ustice of theupre)e Court, suffered heroic )artyrdo) at the hands of the4apanese > addressed to the ecretary of A*riculture and Co))erceon 4uly 1', 199, supportin* the sa)e theory as the one advanced bythe 3irector of 6ands. The sa)e le*al 5uestion raised by appellant isdiscussed, not only in the brief for the appellee, but also in the briefs of the several amici criae allowed by the upre)e Court to appear in thecase.

As a )atter of fact, the case has been sub)itted for final decision of

the upre)e Court since 4uly of 19%1, that is, si years a*o. /tre)ained undecided when the acific ar broke out in 3ece)ber,19%1. After the upre)e Court was reco*nied in the )iddle of 19%', itwas found that the case was a)on* those which were destroyed inFebruary, 19%', durin* the battle for the liberation of -anila. The casehad to be reconstituted upon )otion of the office of the olicitor"eneral, filed with this Court on 4anuary 1%, 19%&, in which it was alsoprayed that, after bein* reconstituted, the case be sub)itted for finalad+udication. The case was for the second ti)e sub)itted for decisionon 4uly , 19%&.

After the last sub)ission, it took the upre)e Court )any days todeliberate on the case, especially on the le*al 5uestion as to whetheran alien )ay, under the Constitution, ac5uire private urban lands. Anoverwhel)in* )a+ority answered no. 0ut when the decision waspro)ul*ated on Au*ust 1, 19%&, a )a+ority resolved to i*nore the

5uestion, notwithstandin* our efforts to have the 5uestion, which isvital, pressin* and far!reachin*, decided once and for all, to dispeldefinitely the uncertainty *nawin* the conscience of the people. /t hasbeen out lot to be alone in epressin* in un)istakable ter)s ouropinion and decision on the )ain le*al 5uestion raised by theappellant. The constitutional 5uestion was by!passed by the )a+oritybecause they were of opinion that it was not necessary to be decided,notwithstandin* the fact that it was the )ain and only le*al 5uestionupon which appellant 3irector of 6ands relied in his appeal, and the5uestion has been al)ost ehaustively ar*ued in four printed briefsfiled by the parties and the amici criae. Assurance was, nevertheless,*iven that in the net case in which the sa)e constitutional 5uestion israised, the )a+ority shall )ake known their stand on the 5uestion.

The net case ca)e when the present one sub)itted to us for decisionon February , 19%7. A*ain, we deliberated on the constitutional

5uestion for several days.

n February 2%, 19%7, the case was sub)itted for final vote, and theresult was that the constitutional 5uestion was decided a*ainstpetitioner. The )a+ority was also overwhel)in*. There were ei*ht of us,)ore than two!thirds of the upre)e Court. nly three 4usticesdissented.

hile the decision was bein* drafted, so)ehow, the way the )a+orityhad voted )ust have leaked out. n 4uly 1:, 19%7, appellant Mrivenkofiled a )otion for withdrawal of his appeal, for the evident purpose ofpreventin* the renderin* of the )a+ority decision, which would settleonce and for all the all!i)portant constitutional 5uestion as to whetheraliens )ay ac5uire urban lots in the hilippines.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Appellant chose to keep silent as to his reason for filin* the )otion.The olicitor "enerals office *ave its confor)ity to the withdrawal ofthe appeal. This surprisin* assent was *iven without epressin* any*round at all. ould the upre)e Court per)it itself to be cheated ofits decision voted since February 2%, 19%7

3iscussion i))ediately ensued as to whether the )otion should be*ranted or denied, that is, whether this Court should abstain fro)pro)ul*atin* the decision in accordance with the result of the votetaken on February 2%, 19%7, as if, after )ore than si years durin*which the 5uestion has been sub)itted for the decision of the hi*hesttribunal of the land, the sa)e has failed to for) a definite opinion.

After a two!day deliberation, the Chief 4ustice, -r. 4ustice aras, -r.4ustice =ontiveros, -r. 4ustice adilla and and -r. 4ustice Tuasonvoted to *rant the )otion for withdrawal. Those who voted to deny the)otion were -r. 4ustice Feria, -r. 4ustice ablo, ourselves, -r. 4ustice=ilado and -r. 4ustice 0en*on. The vote thus resulted in a tie, '!'.The deadlock resultin* fro) the tie should have the effect of denyin*the )otion, as provided by section 2 of #ule '& to the effect thatGwhere the Court in banc is e5ually divided in opinion . . . on allincidental )atters, the petition or )otion shall be denied.G And weproposed that the rule be co)plied with, and the denial bepro)ul*ated.

$otwithstandin* this, as -r. 4ustice 0riones was then absent, ourbrethren resolved to *ive hi) the opportunity of castin* his vote on the

5uestion, althou*h we insisted that it was unnecessary. 3ays later,when all the )e)bers of the Court were already present, a new votewas taken. -r. 4ustice 0riones voted for the denial of the )otion, andhis vote would have resulted, as )ust be epected, in & votes for thedenial a*ainst ' for *rantin*. 0ut the final result was different. evenvotes were cast for *rantin* the )otion and only four were cast for itsdenial.

0ut then, by providential desi*n or si)ply by a happy stroke of luck orfate, on the occasion of the re*istration by the re*ister of deeds of-anila of land purchases of two aliens, a heated public pole)ic flaredup in one section of the press, followed by controversial speeches,broadcast by radio, and cul)inatin* in the issuance on Au*ust 12,19%7, of Circular $o. 12( of the ecretary of 4ustice which reads asfollowsE

T A66 #8"/T8# F 3883E

ara*raph ' of Circular $o. 1%, dated Au*ust 2', 19%', is herebya)ended so as to read as followsE

'G;a<. /nstru)ents by which private real property is)ort*a*ed in favor of any individual, corporation, orassociation for a period not eceedin* five years, renewablefor another five years, )ay be accepted for re*istration.;ection 1, #epublic Act $o. 1(.<

G;b<. 3eeds or docu)ents by which private residential,co))ercial, industrial or other classes of urban lands, or anyri*ht, title or interest therein is transferred, assi*ned orencu)bered to an alien, who is not an ene)y national, )ay

be re*istered. uch classes of land are not dee)ed includedwithin the purview of the prohibition contained in section ',

Article H/// of the Constitution a*ainst the ac5uisition orholdin* of "private a'ricltral land" by those who are not5ualified to hold or ac5uire lands of the public do)ain. Thisis in confor)ity with pinion $o. 2(%, series of 19%1, of theecretary of 4ustice and with the practice consistentlyfollowed for nearly ten years since the Constitution tookeffect on $ove)ber 1', 19'.

G;c<. 3urin* the effectivity of the 8ecutive A*ree)ententered into between the #epublic of the hilippines and the"overn)ent of the ?nited tates on 4uly %, 19%&, inpursuance of the so!called arity A)end)ent to theConstitution, citiens of the ?nited tates and corporationsor associations owned or controlled by such citiens are

dee)ed to have the sa)e ri*hts as citiens of thehilippines and corporations or associations owned orcontrolled by such are dee)ed to have the sa)e ri*hts ascitiens of the hilippines and corporations or associationsowned or controlled by citiens of the hilippines in theac5uisition of all classes of lands in the hilippines, whetherof private ownership or pertainin* to the public do)ain.G

#-A$ OA8TASecretar( of Jstice

ara*raph ' of Circular $o. 1% dated Au*ust 2', 19%', a)ended bythe above is as followsE

3eeds or other docu)ents by which a real property, or ari*ht, or title thereto, or an interest therein, is transferred,assi*ned or encu)bered to an alien, who is not ene)ynational, )ay be entered in the pri)ary entry bookD but, there*istration of said deeds or other docu)ents shall bedenied > unless andPor until otherwise specifically directedby a final decision or order of a co)petent court > and theparty in interest shall be advised of such denial, so that hecould avail hi)self of the ri*ht to appeal therefro), under theprovisions of section 2:: of the #evised Ad)inistrativeCode. The denial of re*istration of shall be predicated uponthe prohibition contained in section ', Article H/// ;for)erly

Article H//< of the Constitution of the hilippines, andsections 122 and 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, thefor)er as a)ended by the Co))onwealth Act $o. &1'.

The pole)ic found echo even in the ly)pic serenity of a cloisteredupre)e Court and the final result of lon* and tense deliberation whichensued is concisely recorded in the followin* resolution adopted on

Au*ust 29, 19%7E

/n Mrivenko vs. #e*ister of 3eeds, City of -anila, 6!&:, acase already sub)itted for decision, the appellant filed a)otion to withdraw his appeal with the confor)ity of theadverse party. After full discussion of the )atter specially inrelation to the Courts discretion ;#ule '2, section %, and#ule '(<, -r. 4ustice aras, -r. 4ustice =ilado, -r. 4ustice0en*on, -r. 4ustice adilla and -r. 4ustice Tuaon voted to

*rant, while the Chief 4ustice, -r. 4ustice Feria, -r,. 4usticeablo, -r. 4ustice erfecto and -r. 4ustice 0riones voted todeny it. A redeliberation was conse5uently had, with thesa)e result. Thereupon -r. 4ustice aras proposed that -r.4ustice =ontiveros be asked to sit and break the tieD but inview of the latters absence due to illness and petition forretire)ent, the Court by a vote of seven to three did notapprove the proposition. Therefore, under #ule '&, section2, the )otion to withdraw is considered denied.

-r. 4ustice adilla states that in his opinion the tie could nothave the effect of overrulin* the previous vote of sevena*ainst four in favor of the )otion to withdraw.

-r. 4ustice aras statesE 4ustice =ontiveros is aware of and

conversant with the controversy. =e has voted once on the)otion to withdraw the appeal. =e is still a )e)ber of theCourt and, on a )o)ents notice, can be present at anysession of the Court. 6ast )onth, when all the )e)berswere present, the votes on the )otion stood 7 to %. $ow, inthe absence of one )e)ber, on reconsideration, anotherchan*ed his vote resultin* in a tie. ection 2 of #ule '&re5uires that all efforts be eerted to break a deadlock in thevotes. / deplore the inability of the )a+ority to a*ree to )yproposition that -r. 4ustice =ontiveros be asked toparticipate in the resolution of the )otion for withdrawal. /hold it to be funda)ental and necessary that the votes of allthe )e)bers be taken in cases like this.

-r. 4ustice erfecto stated, for purposes of co)pleteness ofthe narration of facts, that when the petition to withdraw the

appeal was sub)itted for resolution of this Court two daysafter this petition was filed, five +ustices voted to *rant andfive others voted to deny, and epressed the opinion thatsince then, accordin* to the rules, the petition should havebeen considered denied. aid first vote took place )anydays before the one alluded to by -r. 4ustice adilla.

-r. 4ustice Tuason statesE The )otion to withdraw theappeal was first voted upon with the result that ' were*rantin* and ' for denial. -r. 4ustice 0riones was absentand it was decided to wait for hi). o)e ti)e later, the sa)esub+ect was deliberated upon and a new votin* was had, onwhich occasion all the 11 +ustices were present. The votin*stood 7 for allowin* the dis)issal of the appeal and %a*ainst. -r. 4ustice erfecto and -r. 4ustice 0rionesepressed the intention to put in writin* their dissents.0efore these dissents were filed, about one )onthafterwards, without any previous notice the )atter wasbrou*ht up a*ain and re!voted uponD the result was ' to '.-r. 4ustice =ontiveros, who was ill but )i*ht have been ableto attend if advised of the necessity of his presence, wasabsent. As the votin* thus stood, -r. 4ustice =ontiveros votewould have chan*ed its result unless he chan*ed his )ind, afact of which no one is aware. -y opinion is that since therewas no for)al )otion for reconsideration nor a previousnotice that this )atter would be taken up once )ore, andsince -r. 4ustice =ontiveros had every reason to believe thatthe )atter was over as far as he was concerned, this4ustices vote in the penulti)ate votin* should, if he was notto be *iven an opportunity to recast his vote, be counted infavor of the vote for the allowance of the )otion to withdraw.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Above all, that opportunity should not have been denied on*rounds of pure technicality never invoked before. / countedthat the proceedin* was arbitrary and ille*al.

The resolution does not recite all the reasons why -r. 4ustice=ontiveros did not participate in that last two votin*s and why itbeca)e unnecessary to wait for hi) any further to attend the sessionsof the Court and to cast his vote on the 5uestion.

Appellant Mrivenko )oved for the reconsideration of the denial of hiswithdrawal of appeal, alle*in* that it beca)e )oot in view of the rulin*

)ade by the ecretary of 4ustice in circular $o. 12(, thus *ivin* us ahint that the latter, wittin*ly or unwittin*ly, had the effect of tryin* totake away fro) the upre)e Court the decision of an i)portantconstitutional 5uestion, sub)itted to us in a pendin* liti*ation. edenied the )otion for reconsideration. e did not want to entertain anyobstruction to the pro)ul*ation of our decision.

/f the processes had in this case had been *iven the publicitysu**ested by us for all the official actuations of this upre)e Court, itshould have been known by the whole world that since 4uly, 19%&, thatis, )ore than a year a*o, the opinion of the )e)bers of this Court hadalready been crystallied to the effect that under the Constitution,aliens are forbidded fro) ac5uirin* urban lands in the hilippines, andit )ust have known that in this case a *reat )a+ority had voted in thatsense on February 2%, 19%7.

The constitutional 5uestion involved in this case cannot be leftundecided without +eopardiin* public interest. The uncertainty in thepublic )ind should be dispelled without further delay. hile the doubta)on* the people as to what is the correct answer to the 5uestionre)ains to be dissipated, there will be uneasiness, under)inin* public)orale and leadin* to evils of unpredictable etent. This upre)eTribunal, by overwhel)in* )a+ority, already knows what the correctanswer is, and should not withhold and keep it for itself with the sa)eealousness with which the ancient fa)ilies of the 8u)olpides andMeryces were keepin* the 8leusinian )ysteries. The oracle of 3elphus)ust speak so that the people )ay know for their *uidance whatdestiny has in store for the).

The *reat 5uestion as to whether the land be5ueathed to us by ourforefathers should re)ain as one of the )ost cherished treasures ofour people and trans)itted by inheritance to unendin* *enerations of

our race, is not a new one. The lon* chain of land!*rabbin* invasions,con5uests, depredations, and colonial i)perialis) recorded in thedarkest and bloodiest pa*es of history fro) the bellicose enterprises of the =ittites in the plains of old Assyria, irri*ated by the waters of theTi*ris and 8uphrates, and the invasion of 8*ypt by the =yksos, up tothe con5uests of =ernan Cortes and iarro, the achieve)ents ofCecil #hodes, and the for)ation of the panish, ortu*uese, 3utch,French and "er)an colonial e)pires, had )any of its iron links for*edin our soil since -a*ellan, the *reatest navi*ator of all history, had setfoot at 6i)asawa and paid, for his darin* enterprises, with his life at thehands of 6apulapus )en in the battle of -actan.

ince then, al)ost four centuries a*o, our people have continuouslybeen en*a*ed in an unrelentless stru**le to defend the nationalpatri)ony a*ainst the a**ressive onslau*hts of forei*ners bent on*rabbin* our lands. First ca)e the panish encomenderos and other

*ratuitous concessioners who were *ranted by the panish crowni))ense areas of land. /))ediately ca)e the friars and other reli*iouscorporations who, notwithstandin* their sacred vow of poverty, felt their *reed whetted by the bountiful opportunities for easy and unscrupulousenrich)ent. Takin* advanta*e of the uncontrollable reli*iousleadership, on one side, and of the Christian virtues of obedience,resi*nation, hu)ility, and credulity of a people who, after conversion toCatholicis), e)braced with tacit faith all its tenets and practiced the)with the loyalty and fidelity of persons still i))une fro) thedisappoint)ents and bitterness caused by the vices of )odernciviliation, the forei*n reli*ious orders set aside all co)punction toac5uire by foul )eans )any lar*e estates. Throu*h the practice ofconfession and other )eans of )oral inti)idation, )ostly based on theeternal tortures of hell, they were able to obtain by donation or by willthe lands of )any si)ple and credulous Catholics who, in order tocon5uer the eternal bliss of heaven, renounced all their property infavor of reli*ious orders and priests, )any under the *uise ofchaplaincies or other apparently reli*ious purposes, leavin* in destitutetheir decendants and relatives. Thus bi* reli*ious landed estates werefor)ed, and under the syste) unbearable ini5uities were co))itted.The case of the fa)ily of #ial is +ust an inde of the situation, which,under the )oral leadership of the hero, finally drove our people into anational revolution not only a*ainst the panish soverei*nty underwhich the social cancer had *rown to unli)ited proportions.

rofitin* fro) the lessons of history, the 3ele*ates to our ConstitutionalConvention felt it their duty to insert in the funda)ental law effective*uarantees for conservin* the national patri)ony, the wisdo) of whichcannot be disputed in a world divided into nations and nationalities. /nthe sa)e way that scientists and technicians resorted to radar, sonars,ther)istors and other lon* ran*e detection devices to stave off far!

away ene)y attacks in war, said 3ele*ates set the *uarantees to wardoff open inroads or devious incursions into the national patri)ony as a)eans of insurin* racial safety and survival.

hen the ideal of one world should have been translated into reality,those *uarantees )i*ht not be needed and our people )ay eli)inatethe). 0ut in the )eanti)e, it is our inescapable devoir, as the ulti)ate*uardians of the Constitution, never to ne*lect the enforce)ent of itsprovisions whenever our action is called upon in a case, like the onenow before us.

ne of the funda)ental purposes of the *overn)ent established byour Constitution is, in its very words, that it Gshall conserve and developthe patri)ony of the nation.G That )andate is addressed to alldepart)ents and branches of our *overn)ent, without ecludin* thisupre)e Court. To )ake )ore specific the )andate, Article H/// hasbeen inserted so as to avoid all doubt that all the natural resources ofthe country are reserved to Filipino citiens. ur land is the )osti)portant of our natural resources. That land should be kept in thehands of our people until, by constitutional a)end)ent, they shoulddecide to renounce that a*e!lon* patri)ony. ave by hereditarysuccession > the only eception allowed by the Constitution > noforei*ner )ay by any )eans ac5uire any land, any kind of land, in thehilippines. That was the overwhel)in* senti)ent prevailin* in theConstitutional Convention, that was the overpowerin* desire of the*reat )a+ority of the 3ele*ates, that was the do)inatin* thou*ht thatwas intended to be epressed in the *reat docu)ent, that was whatthe Co))ittee on tyle > the drafter of the final tet > has written in

the Constitution, and that was what was sole)nly ratified in theplebiscite by our people, who then were ranklin* by the sore spot ofille*ally 4apanied 3avao.

The ur*ency of settlin* once and forever the constitutional5uestion raised in this case cannot be overe)phasied. /fwe should decide this 5uestion after )any urban lots havebeen transferred to and re*istered in the na)e of alienpurchasers, a situation )ay be created in which it will behard to nullify the transfers and the nullification )ay createco)plications and proble)s hi*hly distasteful to solve. The"eor*ia case is an ob+ective lesson upon which we can)irror ourselves. Fro) pa*es 22 and 2 of the book ofCharless . Curtiss, 4r. entitled G6ions ?nder the Throne,G we5uote the followin*E

/t is of interest that it see)s to have happened chiefly ini)portant cases. Fletcher vs. eck, in 1(1:, is the stockea)ple. That was the first case in which the Court held astate statute void. /t involved a national scandal. The 179'le*islature of "eor*ia sold its western lands, )ost of

Alaba)a and -ississippi, to speculators. erhaps it was the*reatest real estate steal in our history. The purchase pricewas only half a )illion dollars. The net le*islature repealedthe statute for fraud, the bribery of le*islator, but not beforethe land co)panies had co)pleted the deal and unloaded.0y that ti)e, and increasin*ly soon afterwards, )ore and)ore people had bou*ht, and their title was in issue. 8leven)illion of the acres had been bou*ht for eleven cents anacre by leadin* citiens of 0oston. =ow could they clear their title Aleander =a)ilton *ave an opinion, that the repeal ofthe *rant was void under the Constitution as an i)pair)ent

of the obli*ation of a contract.

0ut could they not *et a decision fro) the upre)e Court#obert Fletcher of Anhirst, $ew =a)pshire, had bou*htfifteen thousand acres fro) 4ohn eck of 0oston. =e suedeck, and he won. Fletcher appealed. lainly it was afriendly suit. -arshall was nobodys fool. =e told Cranch thatthe Court was reluctant to decide the case Gas it appeared)anifestly )ade up for the purpose of *ettin* the Courts

+ud*)ent.G 4ohn @uincy Ada)s so reports in his diary. et-arshall decided it, and he held the repeal void, +ust as=a)ilton said it was. GThe fact that -arshall rendered anopinion, under the circu)stances,G says 0everid*e, Gis oneof the finest proofs of his *reatness. A weaker )an than4ohn -arshall, and one less wise and coura*eous, wouldhave dis)issed the appeal.G That )ay be, but it was the act

of a state)an, not of a +ud*e. The Court has always beenable to overco)e its +udicial diffidence on state occasions.

e see fro) the above how )illions of acres of land were stolen fro)the people of "eor*ia and due to le*al technicalities the people wereunable to recover the stolen property. 0ut in the case of "eor*ia, thelands had fallen into A)erican hands and althou*h the scandal was of*i*antic proportions, no national disaster ensued. /n our case if ourlands should fall into forei*n hands, althou*h there )ay not be anyscandal at all, the catastrophe sou*ht to be avoided by the 3ele*atesto our Constitutional Convention will surely be in no re)ote offin*.

e conclude that, under the provisions of the Constitution, aliens arenot allowed to ac5uire the ownership of urban or residential lands in

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


the hilippines and, as conse5uence, all ac5uisitions )ade incontravention of the prohibitions since the funda)ental law beca)eeffective are null and void per se and ab initio. As all public officialshave sworn, and are duty bound, to obey and defend the Constitution,all those who, by their functions, are in char*e of enforcin* theprohibition as laid down and interpreted in the decision in this case,should spare no efforts so that any and all violations which )ay havetaken place should be corrected.

e decide, therefore, that, upon the above pre)ises, appellant Aleander A. Mrivenko, not bein* a Filipino citien, could not ac5uire bypurchase the urban or residential lot here in 5uestion, the sale )ade inhis favor by the -a*dalena 8state, /nc. bein* null and void ab initio,and that the lower court acted correctly in renderin* the appealeddecision, which we affir).

*LADO, J., concurrin*E

?pon appellants )otion to withdraw his appeal herein with theconfor)ity of the olicitor "eneral in behalf of appellee, indul*in*, atthat ti)e, all possible intend)ents in favor of another depart)ent, /ulti)ately voted to *rant the )otion after the )atter was finallydeliberated and voted upon. 0ut the votes of the ten 4usticesparticipatin* were evenly divided, and under #ule '2, section %, inrelation, with #ule '&, section 2, the )otion was denied. The resolutionto deny was adopted in the eercise of the courts discretion under#ule '2, section %, by virtue of which it has discretion to deny the

withdrawal of the appeal even thou*h both appellant and appelleea*ree upon the withdrawal, when appellees brief has been filed. ?nder the principle that where the necessary nu)ber have concurred in anopinion or resolution, the decision or deter)ination rendered is thedecision or deter)ination of the court ;2 C.4.., 29&<, the resolutiondenyin* the )otion to withdraw the appeal was the resolution of thecourt. ursuant to #ule '&, section 2, where the court in banc ise5ually divided in opinion, such a )otion Gshall be denied.G As anecessary conse5uence, the court as to decide the case upon the)erits.

After all, a consistent advocate and defender of the principle ofseparation of powers in a *overn)ent like ours that / have alwaysbeen, / think that under the circu)stances it is well for all concernedthat the Court should *o ahead and decide the constitutional 5uestionpresented. The very doctrine that the three coordinate, co!e5ual and

independent depart)ents should be )aintained supre)e in theirrespective le*iti)ate spheres, )akes it at once the ri*ht and duty ofeach to defend and uphold its own peculiar powers and authority.ublic respect for and confidence in each depart)ent )ust be strivenfor and kept, for any lowerin* of the respect and di)inution of thatconfidence will in the sa)e )easure take away fro) the veryusefulness of the respective depart)ent to the people. For this reason,/ believe that we should avert and avoid any tendency in this directionwith respect to this Court.

/ a) one of those who presu)e that Circular $o. 12(, dated Au*ust12, 19%7, of the ecretary of 4ustice, was issued in *ood faith. 0ut atthe sa)e ti)e, that declaration in sub!para*raph ;b< of para*raph ' ofCircular $o. 1%, which was already a)ended, to the effect that privateresidential, co))ercial, industrial or other classes of urban lands Garenot dee)ed included within the purview of the prohibition contained in

section ', Article H///, of the ConstitutionG, )ade at a ti)e when theself!sa)e 5uestion was pendin* decision of this Court, *ives rise to theserious dan*er that should this Court refrain fro) decidin* said5uestion and *ivin* its own interpretation of the constitutional )andate,the people )ay see in such an attitude an abandon)ent by this Courtof a bounden duty, peculiarly its own, to decide a 5uestion of such a)o)entous transcedence, in view of an opinion, *iven in advance ofits own decision, by an officer of another depart)ent. This will naturallydetract in no s)all de*ree fro) public respect and confidence towardsthe hi*hest Court of land. f course, none of us > the other*overn)ental depart)ents included > would desire such a situation toensue.

/ have distinctively noticed that the decision of the )a+ority is confinedto the constitutional 5uestion here presented, na)ely, Gwhether or notan alien under our Constitution )ay ac5uire residential land.G ;pinion,p. 2< 6eases of residential lands, or ac5uisition, ownership or lease of ahouse or buildin* thereon, for ea)ple, are not covered by thedecision.

ith these preli)inary re)arks and the state)ent of )y concurrencein the opinion ably written by the Chief 4ustice, / have si*ned saiddecision.

R*ONES, M., confor)eE

8stoy confor)e en un todo con la ponencia, a la cual no e puedeaNadir ni 5uitar nada, tal es su acabada y co)pacta elaboracion.8scribo, sin e)bar*o, esta opinion separada nada )as 5ue para unas

observaciones, particular)ente sobre ciertas fases etraordinarias deeste asunto harto sin*ular y etraordinario.

/. Confor)e se relata en la concurrencia del -a*istrado r. erfecto,despues de laboriosas deliberaciones este asunto se puso final)entea votacion el 2% de Febrero de este aNo, confir)andose la sentenciaapelada por una buena )ayoria. 8n al*unos co)entarios adelantadospor cierta parte de la prensa > i)paciencia 5ue solo puede hallareplicacion en un nervioso y ecesivo celo en la vi*ilancia de losintereses publicos, )ai)e tratandose, co)o se trata, de laconservacion del patri)onio nacional > se ha hecho la pre*unta depor 5ue se ha de)orado la pro)ul*acion de la sentencia, habiendosevotado el asunto todavia desde case co)ienos del aNo.

A si)ple vista, la pre*unta tiene +ustificacionD pero bien consideradoslos hechos se vera 5ue no ha habido de)ora en el presente caso,)ucho )enos una de)ora desusada, alar)ante, 5ue autorice y

+ustifi5ue una critica contra los )etodos de traba+o de esta corte. 8lcurso se*uido por el asunto ha sido nor)al, ba+o las circunstancias.8n realidad, no yan en esta Corte ahora, sino aun en el pasado, antesde la *uerra, hubo )as lentitud en casos no tan dificiles ni tanco)plicados co)o el 5ue nos ocupa, en 5ue las cuestionesplanteadas y discutidas no tenian la densidad constitucional y +uridicade las 5ue se discuten en el presente caso. =ay 5ue tener en cuenta5ue desde el 2% de Febrero en 5ue se voto final)ente el asunto hastael 1.: de Abril en 5ue co)enaron las vacaciones +udiciales, no habiantranscurrido )as 5ue % diasD y cuando se reanudaron for)al)entelas sesiones de esta Corte en 4ulio se suscito un incidente de lo )as

etraordinario > incidente 5ue practica)ente vino a i)pedir, aparaliar la pronta pro)ul*acion de la sentencia. -e refiero a la)ocion 5ue el 1: de 4ulio persentaron los abo*ados del apelantepidiendo per)iso para retirar su apelacion. 6o sorpredente de esta)ocion es 5ue viene redactada escueta)ente, sin eplicar el por 5uede la retirada, ni epresar nin*un funda)ento. ero lo )assorpredente todavia es la confor)idad dada por el rocurador"eneral, ta)bien escueta e incere)oniosa)ente.

3i*o 5ue es sorprendente la retirada de la apelacion por5ue pocoscasos he visto 5ue hayan sido ar*uidos con tanta ener*iaa, tantointeres y tanto celo por la parte apelante co)o este 5ue nos ocupa.6os abo*ados del apelante no solo presentaron un ale*atoconcienudo de % pa*inas, sino 5ue cuando se lla)o a vista elasunto infor)aron verbal)ente ante esta Corte ar*u)entandovi*orosa y etensa)ente sobre el caso. 8l rocurador "eneral, por su

parte, ha presentado un ale*ato i*ual)ente denso, de 1 pa*inas, en5ue se discuten acabada)ente, hasta el punto )ai)o de saturaciony a*ota)iento, todos los an*ulos de la for)idable cuestionconstitutional ob+eto de este asunto. Ta)bien infor)o el rocurador"eneral verbal)ente ante esta Corte, entablando fuerte lid con losabo*ados del apelante.

Con la )ocion de retirada de la apelacion se hubo de retardarnecesaria)ente la pro)ul*acion de la sentencia, pues traba+osasdeliberaciones fueron necesarias para resolver la cuestion,dividiendose casi por i*ual los )ie)bros de la Corte sobre si debia ono per)itirse la retirada. =abia unani)idad en 5ue ba+o la re*la '2,seccion %, del #e*la)ento de los Tribunales tenia)os absolutadiscrecion para conceder o dene*ar la )ocion, toda ve 5ue losale*atos estaban so)etidos desde hacia tie)po, el asunto estabavotado y no faltaba )as 5ue la fir)a y pro)ul*acion de la decision

+unta)ente con las disidencias. in e)bar*o, al*unos -a*istradosopinaban 5ue la discrecion debia e+ercitarse en favor de la retirada envirtud de la practica de evitar la aplicacion de la Constitucion a lasolucion de un liti*io sie)pre 5ue se puede sentenciarlo de otra)anera. ;8ntre los -a*istrados 5ue pensaban de esta )anera seincluian al*unos 5ue en el fundo del asunto estaban a favor de laconfir)acion de la sentencia apelada, es decir, creian 5ue laConstitucion prohibe a los etran+eros la ad5uisicion a titulo do)inicalde todo *enero de propiedad in)ueble, sin ecluir los solaresresidenciales, co)erciales e industriales.< ero otros -a*istradosopinaban 5ue en el estado tan avanado en 5ue se hallaba el asuntolos dictados del interes publico y de la sana discrecion re5ueriani)periosa)ente 5ue la cuestion se atacase y decidiese frontal)enteD5ue si una )ayoria de esta Corte estaba convencida, co)o al parecerlo estaba, de 5ue eistia esa interdiccion constitucional contra lafacultad ad5uisitiva de los etran+eros, nuestro claro deber eraapresurarnos a dar pleno y positivo cu)pli)iento a la Constitucion alpresentarse la pri)era oportunidadD 5ue el )eollo del asunto, lalis mota era eso > la interdiccion constitucional > D por tanto, nohabia otra )anera de decidirlo )as 5ue aplicando la ConstitucionDobrar de otra )anera seria desercion, abandono de un deber +urado.

Asi estaban las deliberaciones cuando ocurre otro incidente )ucho)as etraordinario y sorprendente todavia 5ue la retirada no eplicadade la apelacion con la insolita confor)idad del rocurador "eneralDal*o asi co)o si de un cielo sereno, sin nubes, cayera de pronto unbolido en )edio de nosotros, en )edio de la CorteE )e refiero a lacircular nu). 12( del ecretario de 4usticia epedida el 12 de A*ostoproi)o pasado, esto es, 2 dias despues de presentada la )ocion deretirada de la apelacion. 8sa circular se cita co)prensiva)ente en laponencia y su teto se copia inte*ra)ente en la concurrencia del

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


-a*istrado r. erfectoD asi 5ue )e creo ecusado de transcibirla intoto. 8n breves ter)inos, la circular refor)a el parrafo ' de la circularnu). 1% del )is)o 3eparta)ento de 4usticia de fecha 2' de A*osto,19%', y levanta la prohibicion o interdiccion sobre el re*istro einscripcion en el re*istro de la propiedad de las Gescrituras odocu)entos en virtud de los cuales terrenos privados residencias,co)erciales, industriales u otras clases de terrenos urbanos, ocual5uier derecho, titulo o interes en ellos, se transfieren, ceden o*ravan a un etran+ero 5ue no es nacional ene)i*o.G 8n otraspalabras, el ecretario de 4usticia, por )edio de esta circular de+abasin efecto la prohibicion contenida en lacircular nu). 1% del )is)o3eparta)ento > la prohibicion 5ue precisa)ente ataca el apelante

Mrivenko en el asunto 5ue tene)os ante $os > y authoriaba yordenaba a todoslos #e*istradores de Titulos en Filipinas para 5ueinscribiesen las escrituras o docu)entos de venta, hipoteca ocual5uier otro *rava)en a favor de etran+eros, sie)pre 5ue no setratase de terrenos publicos o de Gterrenos privados a*ricolas,G esdecir, sie)pre 5ue los terrenos ob+eto de la escritura fuesenGresidenciales, co)erciales e industriales.G

6a co)paracion de esa circular con un bolido caido subita)enteen)edio de la Corte no es un si)ple tropo, no esuna )era i)a*enretoricaD refle+a una verdadera realidad.8sa circular, al dero*ar laprohibicion decretada en elparrafo ' de la circular nu). 1% >prohibicion 5ue, co)o5ueda dicho, es precisa)ente el ob+eto delpresente asunto > venia practica)ente a esca)otear la cuestiondiscutida, lacuestion sb 4dice sustrayendola de la +urisdiccion delostribunales. 3icho cruda)ente, el 3eparta)ento de 4usticiavenia a

arrebatar el asunto de nuestras )anos, delas )anos de esta Corte,anticipandose a resolverlo por si)is)o y dando efectividad y vi*orin)ediatos a su resolucion)ediante la correspondiente autoriacion alos #e*istradoresde Titulos.

A la lu de esa circular 5ueda perfecta)ente eplicadala )ocion deretirada de la apelacion consentida insolita)entepor el rocurador"eneral. Q ara 5ue esperar ladecision de la Corte upre)a 5ueacaso podria ser adversa Q $o estaba ya esa circular ba+o la cualpodian re*istrarseahora la ventas de terrenos residenciales,co)erciales oindustriales a etran+eros or eso no es etraNo 5uelosabo*ados del apelante Mrivenko, en su )ocion de 1.: de eptie)bre,19%7, pidiendo la reconsideracion de nuestroauto dene*ando laretirada de la apelacion, di+eran porpri)era ve co)o funda)ento 5uela cuestion ya era si)ple)ente acade)ica ;"8estion is no% moot" < envista deesa circular y de la confor)idad del rocurador "eneralcon la

retirada de la apelacion. =e a5ui las propias palabras de la )ocion delapelante MrivenkoE

/n view of Circular $o. 12( of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice,dated Au*ust 12, 19%7, which a)ends Circular $o. 1% byepressly authoriin* the re*istration of the sale of urbanlands to aliens, and in view of the fact that the olicitor"eneral has +oined in the )otion for withdrawal of theappeal, there is no lon*er a controversy between the partiesand the 5uestion is now )oot. For this reason the court nolon*er has +urisdiction to act on the case.1

6o )enos 5ue se puede decir de esa accion del 3eparta)entode4usticia atravesandose en el ca)ino de los tribunales)ientras unasunto esta sb 4dice, es 5ue ello no tieneprecedentes, 5ue yo sepa,en los anales de la ad)inistracionde +usticia en Filipinas en cerca de

)edio si*lo 5ue lleva)osde eistencia ba+o un *obierno constitucionaly sustancial)ente republicano. $i aun en los lla)ados dias del/)perio, cuando la soberania a)ericana era )as propensa a )ane+arel baston 'reso y afir)ar vi*orosa)ente losfueros de su poder yautoridad, se vio +a)as a un departa)ento de 4usticia o a al*una desus dependencias entro)eterseen el e+ercicio ordenado por lostribunales de su+urisdiccion y co)petencia. 8ra una tradicionfir)a)enteestablecida en las esfersas del oder 8+ecutivo >tradicioninviolada e inviolable > )ai)e en el 3eparta)ento de4usticia y en la Fiscalia "eneral, el inhibirse de epresar al*unaopinionsobre un asunto ya so)etido a los tribunales, ecepto cuando venianlla)ados a hacerlo, en representaciondel *obierno, en los tra)ites deun liti*io, civil o cri)inal,propia)ente planteado ante dichos tribunales.Fuera deestos casos, la inhibicion era tradicional)enteabsoluta,observada con la devocion y la escrupulosidad de un rito. laraon era )uy sencillaE ha)as se 5ueria estorbar nientorpecer lafuncion de los tribunales de +usticia, loscuales, ba+o la carta or*anica ylas leyes, tenian absolutoderecho a actuar con )ai)o dese)barao,libres de todain*erencia etraNa. 8sto se hio ba+o la 6ey CooperDestose hio ba+o la 6ey 4onesD y esto se hio ba+o la 6ey Tydin*s!-c3uffie, la ley or*anica del Co))onwealth. Creo 5ue el pueblofilipino tiene derecho a 5ue eso )is)o se ha*a ba+o el *obierno de la#epublica, 5ue es suyo, 5ue es de su propia hechura. R $o faltaba)as 5ue los ho)bres de su propia raa le nie*uen lo 5ue no lene*aron *obernantesde otra raaS

$o se nie*a la facultad de supervision 5ue tiene el 3eparta)ento de4usticia sobre las oficinas y dependencias5ue caen ba+o su

+urisdiccion, entre ellas las varias oficinasde re*istro de la propiedaden -anila y en las provincias.Ta)poco se nie*a la facultad 5ue tienedicho 3eparta)entopara epedir circulares, ya de caracter pura)ente

ad)inistrativo,ya de caracter se)i+udicial, dando instrucciones,v*r., alos re*istradores acerca de co)o deben dese)penarsus funciones.3e hecho la circular nu). 1% de 2' deA*osto, 19%', es de esta ulti)anaturaleaE en ella seinstruye y ordena a los re*istradores de titulos5ue nore*istren ni inscriban ventas de propiedad in)uebleaetran+eros, asi sean terrenos residenciales, co)ercialesoindustriales. ero la facultad lle*a solo hasta alliD fuerade esasfronteras el ca)po ya es pura y eclusiva)ente+udicial. Cuando unadeter)inada circular del 3eparta)entoa los re*istradores esco)batida o puesta en telade +uicio ante los tribunales, ora porfunda)entosconstitucionales, ora por raones )era)ente le*ales, yano esel 3eparta)ento el 5ue tiene 5ue deter)inar o resolverla

disputa, sino 5ue eso co)pete en absoluto a los tribunalesde +usticia. Asi lo dispone ter)inante)ente el articulo2:: del Codi*o Ad)inistrativo. e*un este articulo, elasunto o disputa debe elevarseen for)a de consulta a la ala Cuarta del 4u*ado de ri)era/nstancia de -anila.6a ley no confiere nin*una facultad al3eparta)ento de4usticia para en+uiciar y decidir el caso. cuandounaparte no estuviere confor)e con la decision de la alaCuarta, ellapuede alarse de la sentencia para ante laCorte upre)a. =e a5ui elteto inte*ro del articulo 2:: del Codi*o Ad)inistrativoE

8C. 2::. ?eference of dobtfl matter to 4d'e of fortbranc of Cort of 7irst 2nstance at Manila. > hen there*ister of deeds is in doubt with re*ard to the proper step tobe taken or )e)orandu) to be )ade in pursuance of anydeed, )ort*a*e, or other instru)ent presented forre*istration or where any party in interest does not a*ree

with the re*ister of deeds with reference to any such )atter,the 5uestion shall be referred to the +ud*e of the fourthbranch of the Court of First /nstance of the $inth 4udicial3istrict either on the certificate of the re*ister of deedsstatin* the 5uestion upon which he is in doubt or upon thesu**estion in writin* of the party in interestD and thereuponsaid +ud*e, upon consideration of the )atter as shown by therecord certified to hi), and in case of re*istered lands, afternotice to the parties and hearin*, shall enter an orderprescribin* the step to be taken or )e)orandu) to be)ade.

Tal es lo 5ue ha ocurrido en el presente caso. Mrivenkopresento suescritura de co)praventa al #e*istrador de laropiedad de -anila.8ste dene*o la inscripcion solicitadaen virtud de la prohibicioncontenida en la circular nu).1%. Q @ue hio Mrivenko entonces 8levo

acaso el asuntoal 3eparta)ento de 4usticia $o. 6o 5ue hicieronsusabo*ados entonces fue presentar una de)anda el 2 de$ovie)bre, 19%', contra el #e*istrador de Titulos ante laala Cuartadel 4u*ado de ri)era /nstancia de -anila,nu)erandose dichade)anda co)o consulta nu). 12(9D ycuando esta ala decidio elasunto confir)ando la acciondel #e*istrador, Mrivenko tra+o a estaCorte la apelacion5ue esta)os considerando. Tan ele)ental es esto5ue enla )is)a circular nu). 1% se dice 5ue la prohibicion5uedadecretada hasta 5ue los tribunales resuelvan lo contrario. =ea5ui la fraseolo*ia pertinente de dicha circularnu). 1%E

. . . the re*istration of said deeds or other docu)ents shallbe denied, > unless and Por until otherwise specificallydirected by a final decision or order of a co)petent court >and the party in interest shall be advised of such denial, sothat he could avail h i)self of the ri*ht to appeal therefro),

under the provisions of section 2:: of the #evised Ad)inistrative Code.

6a posicion de la Corte upre)a ante este caso claro ypositivo deintro)ision ;interference< en sus funciones esde lo )as peculiar.Tene)os en el #e*la)ento de losTribunales al*unas disposiciones5ue proveen sancion pordesacato para ciertos actos de intro)ision enel e+ercicio de lasfunciones +udiciales. ero se pre*untaranatural)enteDson aplicables estas disposiciones cuando laintro)isionprocede de un ra)o del poder e+ecutivo, el cual, co)osesabe, en la )ecanica de los poderes del 8stado, es > usandounan*licis)o!coi'al y coordinado con el poder +udicial,)ai)e si esaintro)ision se ha realiado so capa de unacto oficial Cual5uiera,pues, puede i)a*inarse la situaciontre)enda)ente e)baraosa,inclusive an*ustiosa en5ue esta Corte ha 5uedado colocada con)otivo de esa intro)ision departa)ental, eponiendose a chocar conotropoder del 8stado. 8n casos recientes en 5ue estaban envueltosotros poderes, esta Corte, esti)ando dudosa suposicionconstitucional, prefirio adoptar una actitud deele*ante inhibicion, deG)anos fueraG ;ands!off <, si bienhay 5ue hacer constar 5ue con lafuerte disidencia deal*unos -a*istrados, entre ellos elopinante.3 Tene)os, portanto, un caso de verdadera intro)ision en5ue siendo, porlo )enos, dudosa la facultad de esta Corte parai)poneruna sancion por desacato de acuerdo con el #e*la)entodelos Tribunales, le 5ueda el unico recurso decente,ordenadoEre*istrar su ecepcion sin a)ba*es ni eufe)is)os contralaintro)ision, y reafir)ar con todo vi*or, con toda fir)easuindependencia.

e ar*uye con tena persitencia 5ue debia)os de haberconcedido la)ocion de retirada de la apelacion, por dosraonesE ;a< por5ue el

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


rocurador "eneral estaba confor)econ dicha retiradaD ;b< para evitar la resolucion delpunto constitucional envuelto, en virtud de lapractica,se*un se dice, de soslayar toda cuestionconstitucionalsie)pre 5ue se pueda. #especto de la pri)era raonserasuficiente decir 5ue el rocurador "eneral es libre de entrarencual5uiera transaccion sobre un asunto en 5ue interviene,pero esevidente 5ue su accion no ata no obli*a aesta Corte en el e+ercicio dela discrecion 5ue le confierela re*la, '2, seccion %, del #e*la)ento delos Tribunales,5ue rea co)o si*ueE

#ule '2, 8C. % > An appeal )ay be withdrawn as of ri*htat any ti)e before the filin* of appelles brief. After tat briefis filed te %itdra%al ma( be allo%ed b( te cort in itsdiscretion. . . . ;6as cursivas son nuestras.<

Co)o se ve, nuestra discrecion es absolutaEno estacondicionada porla confor)idad o disconfor)idad de una delas partes. laincondicionalidad de esa discrecion es )asabsoluta e i)perativa allidonde el liti*io versa sobre una)ateria 5ueno afecta solo a un interesprivado, sino 5uees de interes publico, co)o el caso presente en 5ueel rocurador "eneral ha transi*ido no sobre un asunto suyopersonalo de un cliente particular, sino de un cliente de)ucha )ayor )onta ysi*nificacion > el pueblo filipino > ysiendo )ateria del liti*io lapropiedad del suelo, parte, vitalisi)a del patri)onio nacional 5uenuestro pueblo hacolocado ba+o la salva*uardia de la Constitucion.

#especto del se*undo funda)ento, o se 5ue debia)osper)itir la

retirada dela apelacion para no tener 5ueresolver la cuestionconstitucional disputada, bastara decir5ue la practica, prinsipio odoctrina 5ue se invoca, llevaconsi*o una salvedad o cualificacion y es5ue el liti'io se peda resolver de otra maera. Q ode)os soslayarelpunto constitucional discutido en el pleito 5ue nos ocupaQ ode)os decidirlo ba+o otra ratio decidendi esto es, 5ueno sea laconstitucionalidad o inconstitucionalidad de laventa del in)ueble alapelante Mrivenko, en virtud desucondicion de etran+ero/ndudable)ente 5ue noE la lis mota, la unica, es la )is)aconstitucionalidad de la co)praventa de 5ue se trata. ara decidir si alrecurrido apelado, #e*istrador de Titulos de la Ciudad de -anila,leasiste o no raon para dene*ar la inscripcion solicitada por elrecurrente y apelante, Mrivenko, la unica disposicionle*al 5ue sepuede aplicar es el articulo H///, seccion ', dela Constitucion deFilipinas, invocado por el #e*istrador co)o defensa e inserto en elparrafo ' de la circular nu).1% co)o funda)ento de la prohibicion ointerdiccion contrael re*istro de las ventas de terreno a etran+eros.

$ohay otra ley para el caso.

8l caso de h Cho contra el 3irector de Terrenos% "ac. f., $o. pa*. (&&<, 5ue se cita en unade las disidencias, es co)pleta)entediferente. 8s verdad5ue alli se planteo ta)bien la cuestionconstitucional de 5uese trata, por cierto 5ue el 5ue lo planteaba enno)bre del"obierno era el actual ecretario de 4usticia 5ueentoncesera rocurador "eneral, y lo pleantaba en un sentidoabsolu)ente concorde con la circular nu). 1%. ero esta Corte, con ladisidencia de al*unos -a*istrados, opto porsoslayar el punotconstitucional dene*ando el re*istro solicitadopor h Cho, porfunda)ento de 5ue ba+o la 6ey$o. 2(7% sobre terrenos de do)iniopublico los etran+erosestan ecluidos de dichos terrenosD es decir,5ue el terrenosolicitado se considero co)o terreno publico.Q ode)os hacer la )is)a evasion en el presente caso,aco*iendonosa la ley $o. 2(7% o a cual5uier otra ley /ndudable)ente

5ue no por5ue nin*un -a*istrado de esta Corte, )ucho)enos losdisidentes, consideran el terreno recla)ado por Mrivenko co)o terrenopublico. 6ue*o todos los ca)inosestan blo5ueados para nosotros,)enos el ca)ino constitucional.6ue*o el se*undo funda)entoale*ado paracubrir la evasiva ta)bien debe descartarse total)ente.

e insinua 5ue no debia)os darnos prisa enresolver constitcionalmente el presente asunto, puesto 5uepuedenpresentarse otros de i*ual naturalea en tie)po no re)oto,y enefecto se cita el caso de #ellosa contra"aw Chee =un;%9 ff. "a.,%%'<, en 5ue los ale*atos de a)bas partesya estan so)etidos y sehalla ahora pendiente de decision.8s evidente 5ue esto ta)pocoar*uye en favor de la evasiva,en pri)er lu*ar, por5ue cuando se leso)ete el deber de iraveri*uando en su 8scribania si hay casos dei*ual naturalea, sino 5ue los casos se so)eten por orden deprelaciony prioridad de tie)po a )edida 5ue esten preparados

paracaso debe decidirse por sus propios meritos y confor)e ala leypertinente. 6a salvedad o cualificacion de la doctrinao practica 5ue seinvoca no diceE Ghay 5oe soslayar la cuestionconstitucional sie)pre5ue se pueda resolver deotra )anera, reservando dicha cuestionconstitucional para otro casoD la salvedad es dentro del )is)o caso.3e otro )odono seria un si)ple sosla(o le*al, sino 5ue seriaunsub terf'io i)propio, indebido, ile*al. 8n el presente caso no hahabido nin*una prisa, ecesivo celo, co)o se insinuaDdesde lue*o no)ayor prisa 5ue en otros asuntos. 8lcurso, el rit)o de los tra)ites hasido nor)alD en realidad,si ha habido al*o, ha sido un poco deparsi)onia, lentitud.

Q =abia +ustificacion para de)orar el pronto, rapido pronuncia)entode nuestro veredicto sobre la for)idablecuestion constitucional

debatida, por lo )enos, tan pronto co)o fuese posible Q =abiaal*una raon de interespublico para +ustificar una evasiva

Absoluta)entenin*una. or el contrario, nuestro deber ineludible,i)perioso,era for)ular y pro)ul*ar in)ediata)ente ese veredicto. 6odebia)os a nuestras concienciasD lo debia)os, sobretodo, al pais parala tran5uilidad y conveniencia de todos > del pueblo filipino y de losetran+eros residentes o 5uetuvieren voluntad de residir o ne*ociar enestas /slas. Asicada cual podria hacer su co)posicion de lu*ar,podriaorientarse sin oobras ni )iedo a la incertidu)bre.Tantonacionales co)o etran+eros sabrian donde invertir sudinero.Todo lo 5ue necesitaba)os era tener dentro de esta Corte una proveela interdiccion de 5ue se trata. Tuvi)osesa )ayoria cunado se voto

por pri)era ve este asuntoen Febrero de este aNo ;( contra <D latuvi)os cuandodespues de laboriosas deliberaciones 5uedodene*ada la)ocion de retirada de la )ayoria haya ca)biado deopinionsobre el fondo de la cuestionD la tene)os ahoranatural)ente.or tanto, nada hace falta ya para 5ue se de lasenal deGlu verdeG a la pro)ul*acion de la sentencia.Toda evasiva seirane*li*necia, desidia. 8s )asE seriaabandono de un deber +urado,co)o di*o en otra parte deesta concurrenciaD y la Corte upre)anatural)ente npha de per)itir 5ue se la pueda proferir el car*o de5ueha abandonado su puesto privile*iado de vi*ia, de centinelaavanado de la Constitucion.

$o es 5ue la Corte upre)a, con esto, pretenda tenerGun )onopoliode la virtud de sostener y poner en vi*or,o de suplir una deficiencia enla Constitucion,G o 5ue se*obierno, co)o se insinua en una de lasdisidencias. $ohay tal cosa. 8l principio de la supre)acia +udicial no

esuna pretension ni )ucho )enos un ade)an de in)odestiaoarro*ancia, sino 5ue es una parte vital de nuestrasinstutuciones, unacondicion peculiarisi)a de nuestro siste)a de *obierno en 5ue la

+udicatura, co)o uno de lostres poderes del 8stado, corresponde lafacultad eclusivade disponer de los asuntos +udiciales. Con respectoa losasuntos de re*istro particular)ente esa facultad eclusivano solose infiere del principio de la supre)acia +udicial, sino 5ue, co)o ya seha dicho en otra parte de esta concurrencia,se halla especifica)enteestutuida en el articulo 2::del Codi*o Ad)inistrativo transcrito arriba.8ste articuloconfiere +urisdiccion eclusiva a los tribunales de

+usticiapara decidir las cuestiones sobre re*istro, y esto lo hareconocido el )is)o 3eparta)ento de 4usticia en su circularnu). 1%al referir tales cuestiones a la deter)inacion oarbitrio +udicial en casosde duda o liti*io.

8s in+ustificada la insinuacion de 5ue, al parecer, la )ayoria dene*o la

retirada de la apelacion no tanto para resolver el asunto en su fondo opor sus )eritos, co)o paraenrvar los efectos de la circular nu). S2(del 3eparta)entode 4usticia, pues Mrivenko, el apelante,habria*anado entonces su pleito no en virtud de una sentencia+udicial,sino pasando por la perta trasera abierta por esacircular. Ta)pocohay tal cosa. a repetidas veces seha dicho 5ue el presente asunto sehabia votado )uchoantes de 5ue se epidiese esa circular. 6o 5ue)ascorrecta)ente podria decirse es 5ue antes de la epedicion deesadesafortunada circular poderosas raones de interespublicoaconse+aban 5ue se dene*ase la retirada de la apelacion y se diese final asunto )ediante una sentencia enel fondo, despues de la epidicionesas raones 5uedaroncentuplicadas. 6a eplicacion es sencillaEnuestra a5uiescenciaa la reirada hubiera podico interpretarseentoncesco)o 5ue nuestra +urisdiccion. 8s )asE hubierapodidointerpretarse co)o una abyecta rendicion en la pu*naporsostener los fueros de cada ra)o coi'al y coordinado del*obierno.

8s todavia )as in+ustificada la insinuacion de 5ue ladene*acion de laretirada de la apelacion e5uivale Ga asu)ir 5ueel solicitante!apelante yel rocurador "eneral sehan confabulado con el 3eparta)ento de4usticia no solopara in*erirse en las funciones de esta Corte, sinoparaena+enar el patri)onio nacional a los etran+eros.G 8stoesinconcebible. 6a corte presu)e 5ue todos han obradode buena fe, deacuerdo con los dictados de su conciencia.e ha dene*ado la retiradade la apelacion por raonespura)ente +uridicas y ob+ectivas, sinconsideracion a los)otivos de nadie.

or ulti)o, esti)o 5ue debe rectificarse la asercion de 5ueel-a*istrado =ontiveros fue ecluido de la votacion 5uecul)ino en une))pate y 5ue deter)ino el rechaa)ientode la retirada de laapelacion, a tenor de la re*la '&, seccion2, #e*la)ento de losTribunales. 8l -a*istrado =ontiverosno estaba presente en la sesionpor estar enfer)oDpero estaban presentes 1: -a*istrados, es decir,)as 5ueel nu)ero necesario para for)ar 8orm y para despacharlosasuntos. 6a rueda de la +usticia en la Corte upre)a+a)as ha de+adode rodar por la ausencia de uno o dos)ie)bros, sie)pre 5uehubiese 8orm. A la votacionprecedieron )uy laboriosas y vivasdeliberaciones. $in*un -a*istrado /la)o la atencion de la Corte haciala ausencia del r. =ontiveros. $in*un -a*istrado pidio 5ue seleesperase o lla)ase al r. =ontiveros. Todos se confor)aroncon 5uese efectuase la votacion, no obstante la ausencia del r. =ontiveros.8n efecto, se hace la votaciony resulta un e)pate, es decir, ' contra '.3e acuerdo conla re*la '&, 5uedaba natural)ente dene*rada la)ocion deretirada. Q3onde esta, pues, la Gile*alidadG, dondelaGarbitrariedadG

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Al*unos dias despues se presento una )ocion de reconsideracion,la)is)a en 5ue ya se ale*aba co)o nda)entoel hecho de 5ue lacuestion era si)ple)ente acade)ica ;moot 8estion< por laconfor)idad del rocurador "eneralcon la retirada y por la circularnu). S2( del 3eparta)ento de 4usticia. Ta)poco estaba presente elr. =ontiverosal so)eterse la )ocion, la cual fue de nuevodene*ada.re*unto otra veE Qdonde esta la GarbitrariedadG@ueculpa tenia la Corte de 5ue el r. =ontiveros no pudieraestarpresente por estar enfer)o Q/ba a detenerse larueda de la +usticiapor eso Conviene, sin e)bar*o, hacerconstar 5ue sobre el fondo dela cuestion el r. =ontiverosera uno de los ( 5ue habian votado enfavor de la confir)acion de la sentencia apelada, es decir, en favor

delveredicto de 5ue la Contitucion ecluye a los etra+erosde lapropiedad de bienes raices en Filipinas.

//. $o 5ueda casi nada decir sobre el fondo de lacuestion. Todos losan*ulos y fases de la )is)a estanacabada)ente tratados y discutidosen la ponencia. -eli)itare, por tanto, a hacer unas cuantasobservaciones,unas sobre her)eneutica le*al, y otra sobre historianacionalconte)poranea, aprovachando en este ulti)o respecto)isre)iniscencias y )i eperiencia co)o hu)ilde )ie)bro5ue fui de la

Asa)blea Constituyente 5ue redacto y arobola Constitucion deFilipinas.

Toda la cuestion, a )i +uicio, se reduce a deter)inar einterpretar lapalabra Ga*ricolaG ;a'ricltral < usada enel articulo H///, seccion ', dela Constitucion. =e a5ui elteto co)pleto de la seccionE

8C. '. > ave in cases of hereditary succession, noprivate a*ricultural land shall be transferred or assi*nedecept to individuals, corporations, or associations 5ualifiedto ac5uire or hold lands of the public do)ain in thehilippines.

Q/ncluye la palabra Ga*riculturalG a5ui e)pleada losterrenosresidenciales, co)erciales e industriales Tal es lacuestionE la)ayoria de esta Corte 5ue siD los disidentesdicen 5ue no.

8s indudable 5ue por raones sanas de her)enuetica le*alel articuloH/// de 5ue se trata debe interpretarse co)o untodo ho)o*eneo,si)etrico. 8n otras palabras, los cocablosalli e)pleados debeninterpretarse en el sentido de 5uetienen un )is)o si*nificado. 8sabsurdo pensar o suponer5ue en el teto de una ley, sobre todo dentro

del estrecho)arco de un articulo, un vocablo ten*a dos o )assi*nificadosdistintos, a )enos 5ue la )is)a ley asi to di*aepresa)ente. 6apresuncion es 5ue el le*islador si*ue y seatiene alas re*las literarias ele)entales.

Ahora bienE el articulo H/// consta de dos partes > lapri)era, 5ue tratade los terrenos a*ricolas de do)iniopublico, y la se*unda, 5ue se a losterrenos a*ricolaprivados o partuculares.

6a pri)era parte se co)pone de las secciones 1 y 25ue vinculanlapropiedad de los terrenos publicos enel 8stado y disponen 5ue solo sepueden ena+enar a favorde ciudadanos filipinos, o de corporaciones oasociacionesen 5ue el &: por ciento del cacital, por lo )enos,pertenecea tales ciudadanos. 8n secciones se e)plea literal)entelafrase Gpublic a*ricultural land.G

6a se*unda parte la co)ponen las secciones y 'E laseccion perceptua 5ue Gthe Con*ress )ay deter)ine bylaw the sie of privatea*ricultural land which individuals,coporations, or associations )ayac5uire and hold, sub+ectto ri*hts eistin* prior to the enact)ent ofsuch lawG4 Dy la seccion ' es la 5ue 5ueda transcrita )as arriba yesob+eto del presente liti*io. 8n a)bas secciones see)plealiteral)ente la frase Gprivate a*ricultural land.G

$o hay nin*una cuestion de 5ue la frase Gpublic a*riculturallandGe)pleada en la pri)era parte co)prende terrenosresidenciales,co)erciales e industrialesD lo ad)itenlos )is)os abo*ados delapelante y los res. -a*istradosdisidentes. Qpor 5ue lo ad)itenera por5ue en laConstitucion se define la palabra Ga*riculturalGaplicadaa terrenos publicos, en el sentido de incluirsolaresresidenciales, co)erciales e industriales /ndudable)ente5ue

no, por5ue en nin*una parte de la Constitucion se datal definicion. 6oad)iten por5ue en esta +urisdicciontene)os una serie consistente desentencias de esta Corteupre)a en 5ue es +urisprudenciafir)a)ente establecidala doctrina de 5ue la palabra Ga*riculturalGusada en la6ey del Con*reso de los 8stados ?nidos de 19:2;6eyCooper< y en nuestras leyes de terrenos publicos co)prendeyabarca solares residenciales, co)erciales, industriales y5ual5uier otraclase de terrenos, ecepto forestales y)inerales. 8s decir, 5ue seaplica a la actual Constitucion deFilipinas una interpretacion clasica,tradicional, e)bebidaen nuestra +urisprudencia de cerca de )ediosi*lo.

Ahora bien, pre*untoE si la palabra Ga*riculturalG e)pleadaen lapri)era parte del articulo H/// tiene talsi*nificado > y lo tiene por5ue la

Constitucion no da otrodiferente > Qpor 5ue esa )is)a palabrae)pleada en lase*unda parte, unas cuantas lineas )as adelante, nohade tener el )is)o si*nificado Q3a acaso la Constitucionunadefinicion de la palabra Ga*riculturalG cuandose refiere a terrenoprivado Q3onde esta esa definicion Q es 5ue se pretende 5ue ladiferenciacion opera no envirtud de la palabra Ga*riculturalG, sino envirtud delvocablo GpublicG o GprivateG, se*un 5ue se trate deterrenopublico o privado

i la intencion de la Ase)blea Constituyente fuera eldar a la palabraGa*riculturalG aplicada a terreno privadoun si*nificado distinto decuando se refiere a terreno publico, lo hubiese hecho constar asiepresa)ente en el)is)o teto de la Constitucion i, co)o se ad)ite,laAse)blea opto por no definir la palabra Ga*riculturalGaplicada aterreno poblico por5ue contaba para ello con ladefinicion clasicaestablecida en la +urisprudencia, cuandola )is)a Ase)blea ta)pocodefinio la palabra con relaciona terreno privado, es lo*ico inferir 5uetuvo la )is)aintencion, esto es, aplicar la definicion de la

+urisprudenciaa a)bos tipos de terreno > el publico y el privado.ensarde otra )anera podria ser ofensivo, insultanteD podriae5uivalera decir 5ue a5uella Ase)blea estaba co)puestade )ie)brosi*norantes, desconocederos de las re*las ele)entalesen la tecnica deredaccion le*islativa.

Tuve el honor de partenecer a a5uella Ase)blea co)ouno de los3ele*ados por Cebu. Ta)bien )e cupo elhonor de partenecer allla)ado Co)ite de iete > elco)ite encar*ado final)ente de redactar la ponencia dela Constitucion. $o di*o 5ue a5uella Ase)blea

estabaco)puesta de sabios, pero indudable)ente no era inferioranin*una otra de su tipo en cual5uiera otra partedel )undo. Alli habiaun plantel de buenos abo*ados,al*unos versados y especialistas enderecho constitucional.Alli estaba el residente de la ?niversidad deFilipinas3r. #afael al)aD alli estaba el propio residentede la

Ase)blea Constituyente =on. Claro -. #ecto, conlos presti*ios de sureconocida cultura +uridica y hu)anistaD alli estaba ta)bien el 3r. 4ose. 6aurel, considerado co)ouna de las pri)eras autoridades enderecho constitucionaly politico en nuestro pais. 8n el Co)ite de ieteo deonencia fi*uraban el actual residente de Filipinas =on.-anuel#oasD el e!enador de Cebu =on. File)on ottoDel =on. Bicentein*son 8ncarnacion, lider de la )inoria en la pri)era Ase)bleaFilipina, e!)ie)bro de la Co)isionde F/lipinas, e!enador y e!ecretario de "abineteDel e!-a*istrado de la Corte upre)a =on.$orberto#o)ualdeD el actual ecretario de =acienda =on.-i*uelCuadernoD y el e!3ecano del Cole*io de Artes 6iberalesde la

?niversidad de Filipinas, =on. Conrado 0enite.

$o se puede concebir co)o ba+o la inspiracion y *uiade estaspersonas pudiera redactarse el teto de un articuloen5ue un vocablo> el vocablo Ga*riculturalG > tuviera dosacepciones diferentesE una,aplicada a terrenos publicosDy otra, aplicada a terrenos privados.-enos se concibe5ue, si fuese esta la intencion, se incurriese en unaco)isioni)perdonableE la o)ision de una definicion especifica,diferenciadora, 5ue evitase caos y confusion en la )ente delosabo*ados y del publico. Teniendo en cuenta la inne*ableco)petenciade los 3ele*ados a la Ase)blea Constituyentey de sus liders, lo )aslo*ico pensar es 5ue alno definir la palabra Ga*riculturalG y al nodiferenciarsu aplicacion entre terrenos publicos y privados, lohicierondelibera)ente, esto es, conla )anifiesta intencion dede+arentera)ente la interpretacion de la palabra a la lude una sola co)undefinicin > la establecida en la +urisprudenciadel asunto tipico de

-apa contra "obierno /nsular y otrossi)ilares ;spra<D es decir, 5ue lapalabra Ga*riculturalG,aplicada a terrenos privados, incluye ta)biensolaresresidenciales, co)erciales, e industriales.

A word or phrase repeated in a statute will bear the sa)e)eanin* throu*hout the statute, unless a different intentionappears. . . . here words have been lon* used in atechnical sense and have been +udicially construed to have acertain )eanin*, and have been adopted by the le*islatureas havin* a certain )eanin* prior to a particular statute inwhich they are used, the rule of construction re5uires thatthe words used in such statute should be construedaccordin* to the sense in which they have been sopreviously used, althou*h that sense )ay vary fro) the strictliteral )eanin* of the words.G ;// utherland, tat.Construction, p. 7'(.<

ero acaso se di*a 5ue la Ase)blea Constituyente hade+ado sindefinir la palabra Ga*riculturalG referente aterreno particular, dando aentendar con su silencio 5ueendosaba la definicion al diccionario o ala usana popular.6a suposicion es i*ual)ente insostenible. or5ueen un caso se entre*a la definicion a la +urisprudencia,y por 5ue enotro al diccionario, o al habla popularAparte de 5ue los )ie)bros ydiri*entes de la Ase)bleaConstituyente sabian )uy bien 5ue estocausaria unatre)enda confusion. $i los diccionarios, ni )ucho)enosel len*ua+e popular, ofrecen apoyo se*uro para una fielyautoriada interpretacion. i el teto )is)o de la ley,con definicionesespecificas y casuisticas, todavia ofrecedudas a veces Qco)o no elleico vul*ar, con su infinitavariedad de )atices e idiotis)os

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Ahora )is)o Qno esta)os presenciando una confusionn,unaperple+idad Q=ay acaso unifor)idad en la definicionde lo 5ue es unterreno privado a*ricola $oD cadacual lo define a su )anera. ?no delos disidentesel -a*istrado r. Tuason to)a su definicion de lapalabra Ga*ricultural G del 3iccionario /nternacional de ebster 5uedice . . . Gof or pertainin* to a*ricultural connected with, or en*a*ed in,tilla*eD as the a*ricultural classD a*ricultural i)ple)ents, wa*es etc.GTa)bien hacereferncia el )is)o -a*istrado al concepto popular.trodisidente el -a*istrado r. adilla dice 5ue Gthe ter)privatea*ricultural land )eans lands privately owneddevoted to cultivation, tothe raisin* of a*riculturalproducts.G 8l -a*istrado r aras no danin*una definicionDda por definida la palabra Ga*riculturalG, al parecer,

se*unel concepto popular.

ero, sobre todo, los abo*ados del apelante definen elvocablo de una)anera distinta. e*un ellos, Gland spoken of as Ka*ricultural naturallyrefers to land not only susceptible of a*ricultural or cultivation but )orevaluable for such than for another purpose, say residential,co))ercialor educational. . . . The criterion is not)ere susceptibility of conversioninto a far) but its *reater vale when devoted to one or the otherpurpose.G 3e)ode 5ue, se*un esta definicion, lo 5ue deter)ina lacalidaddel terreno es s valor relativo, se*un 5ue se dedi5ue alcultivo,o a residencia, o al co)ercio, o a la industria.6os autores de estadefinicion indudable)ente tienen encuenta el hecho de 5ue en lasafueras de las ciudades eistenterrenos i))ensos 5ue desde tie)poin)e)orial se handedicado a la a*ricultura, pero 5ue se hanconvertido ensubdivisiones )ultiplicandose su valor en )il por cientosino )as. 3e hecho esos terrenos son a*ricolasD co)o5ue todavia se

ven alli los pilapiles y ciertas partes estancultivadasD pero en virtud desu ma(or valor para residencia,co)ercio e industria se les a5uierecolocar fuera dela prohibicion constitucional. 8n verdad, el criterionopuede ser )as elastico y convencional, y denota cuanincierta ycuan confusa es la situacion a 5ue da lu*ar latesis del apelante y delos 5ue le sostienen.

i hubiera)os de hacer depender la definicion de lo5ue es un terrenoa*ricola del concepto popular y de losdiccionarios, asi sean los)e+ores y )as cientifica)ente elaborados Q5ue nor)as claras,concretas y definitivasde diferenciacion podrian establecerseQodrian traarsefronteras inconfundibles entre lo 5ue es a*ricola y lo5uees residencial, co)ercial e industrial Qodria hacerseunaclasificacion 5ue no fuese arbitraria /ndudable)ente5ue no. 8l patron)as usual de diferenciacion es lanaturalea urbana o rural del terrenoDse considera co)oresidencial, co)ercial e industrial todo lo 5ue esta

dentrode una urbe, ciudad o poblacion. ero Qresolveria esto ladificultad roporcionaria un patron eacto, cientifico,no arbitrarioTa)poco. or 5ue dentro de una ciudado poblacio puede haber y hayterrenos a*ricolas. Co)odi+o )uy bien el -a*istrado r. illard en elasunto clasico de -apa contra "obierno /nsular, Guno de losinconvenientes de la adopcion de este criterio es 5ue es tanva*o eindeter)inado, 5ue seria )uy dificil aplicarlo enla practica. Q@ueterrenos son a*ricolas por naturalea l )is)o Fiscal "eneral, en suale*ato presentado en este asunto, diceE 6a )ontaNa )as pedre*osay el suelo )as pobre son susceptible de cultivo )ediante la )ano delho)breG ;-apa contra /nsular, 1: 4ur. Fil.,1(<. 6ue*o el r. illardaNade las si*uietes observacionessu)a)ente petinentes e ilustrativespara una correctare solucion del asunto 5ue nos ocupa, a saberE

. . . Tales terrenos ;a*ricolas, 5uiere decir< se puedenencontrar dentro de los li)ites de cual5uier ciudad. =ay

dentrode la ciudad de -anila, y en la parte densa)entepoblada de la)is)a, una *ran+a eperi)ental. 8sta es porsu naturalea a*ricola. Conti*ua a la 6uneta, en la )is)aciudad, hay una *ran etension de terreno deno)inadoCa)p allace, destinada a sports. 8l terreno 5ue circudalos )uros de la ciudad de -anila, situado entre estos y elpaseo del -alecon por el ur y 8ste contiene )uchashectareas de etension y es de naturalea a*ricola. 6a6neta misma podria en cal8ier tiempo destinarse alcltivo.

6a dificultad es )ayor tratanndose de diferenciar unterreno a*ricola deun terreno industrial. 8n este respectoes preciso tener en cuenta 5ueun terreno industiralno tienee 5ue ser necesaria)ente urbanoD enrealidad,la tendencia )oderna es a situar las industrias fuera deasciudades en vastas onas rurales. Berbi*raciaD anpredor de la fa)osacascada de -aria Cristina en 6anao eisten *randes etensiones deterreno a*ricola, al*unasde propiedad particular. Cuando, seindustrialice a5uellafor)idable fuera hidraulica ba+o el lla)ado lan0eyster Q5ue nor)as se*furas se podrian establecer para ponerenvi*or la prohibicion constitucional fuese burlada ena+enandosetierrasa*ricolas de propiedad privada a favorde etran+eros, ya seanindividuos, ya sean corporacioneso asociaciones, so preteto de serindustriales

#esulta evidence de lo epueto 5ue los redactores denuetraConstitucion no pudienron haber tenido la idea de5ue el articulo H///fuera interpretado a la lu de ese criterio va'o e indeterminado 5uella)a el r. illard. 8s )as lo*ico pensar 5ue el criterio 5ue ellostenian enla )ente era el criterio establicido en la +urisprudenciasentada en el asunto clasico de -apa contra "obierno y otros asuntos

conco)itantes citados > criterio )as fri)e, )as se*uro, )enosepuesto a confusion y arbitrariedad, y sobre todo, G5ue ofrece )enosinconvenientesG, parafraseando otra ve al -a*istrado r. illard,;spra, p. 1('<.

tro serio inconveniente, 6a seccion , articulo H///deDla Constitucion,dispone 5ue Gel Con*reso puedo deter)inarpor ley lDa eetensionsuperficial del terrenoprivado a*ricola 5ue los individous,corporaciones o asociaciones pueden ad5uirir y poseer, su+eto a losderechos eistentes antes de la aprobacion de dicha ley.G iseinterpretase 5ue la frase Gprivate a*ricultural landG noincluyeterrenos residenciales, co)erciales e industriales,entonces estasulti)as clases de yterreno 5uedarian ecluidas de la facultadre*uladora concedida por la Constitucion al Con*reso )ediante dichaseccion . 8ntoncesun individuo o una corporacion podrian ser dueNosde todoslos terrenos de una ciudadD no habria li)ite a lasad5uisicionesy posesiones en lo tocante a terrenosresidenciales,co)erciales e industriles. 8sto parece absurdo,peroseria obli*ada consecuencia de la tesis sustentada por elapelante.

e hace hincapie en el ar*u)ento de 5ue el el procesode ta)iaciondel articulo H/// durante las deliberacionesde la Asa)bleaConstituyente y de los Co)ites de onnnnenciay de estilo al principiono fi*uraba el ad+etivo Ga*ricolaGen la seccion ', diciendose soloGterreno privadoG y 5uesolo )as trade se aNadio la palabra calificativaa*ricola>G private a'ricltral land G 3e este se 5uiere inferir 5uelaadicion de la palabra Ga*riculturalG debio de ser poral*un )otivo y esteno podia ser )as 5ue el de 5ue se5uiso ecluir los terrenos

residenciales co)erciales e industriales, li)itandose el precepto a lospropia o estricta)entea*ricolas.

6a deduccion es incorrecta y sin funda)ento. $o cabedecir 5ue laadicion de la plabra Ga*riculturalG en estecaso e5uivale a ecuir losterrenos residenciales, co)ercialese industriales, por la sencilla raonde 5ue la Constitucion no solo no define lo 5ue es residencialcomercial e indstrial , co)ercial e industrial. 8n ca)bio ya he)osvisto5ue la palabra Ga*ricultralG tiene una si*nificaciontradicional)ente bienestablecida en nuestra +urisprudenciay en nuestro vocabulario +uridicoEincluye no solo terrenoscultivados o susceptibles fe cultivo, sinota)bien residencialesco)erciales e industriales. e ad)ite por todoel)undo 5ue la palabra tiene tal si*nificacion en el articuloH///, seccion', de la Constitucion, en cuanto se refierea terreno publico. AhorabienD Q5ue diferencia hay, despuesde todo, entire un terreno publicoa*ricolo y uno sea a la calidad de a*ricola, absoluta)ente

nin*una.?no no es )as )enois a*ricola 5ue el otro. 6aunicadiferencia se refiere a la propiedad, al titulo do)inical > en 5ueel uno es del 8stado y el otro es de un particular.

8n realidad, creo 5ue la diferencia es )as bien psicolo*ica,sub+etiva> en 5ue vul*ar)ente hablando parece5ue los conceptos deGa*ricolaG y GresidencialG se repelen.$o se debe )enospreciar lainfluencia del vul*o en al*unascosasD en la )is)a literatura el vul*o

+ue*a su papelD di*asi no la for)acion popular del ro)ancero. ero esindudable 5ue cietas cosas estan por enci)a del conceptovul*ar >una de estae la interpretacion de la leyes, laher)eneutica le*al. 8stono es ea*erar la i)portancia de la tecnica sino 5ue es si)ple)entecolocar las cosasensu verdadero lu*ar. 6a interpretacion de la ley esunafuncion de )inoria > los abo*ados. i no fuera asi para5ue losabo*ados Q para 5ue las escuelas de dercho,y para 5ue lose)enes, cada ve )as ri*idos, para de purar el alma de la to*a, 5ue

di+o un *ran abo*ado espaNol6 Asi 5ue cuando deci)os 5ue elprecepto constitucional en cuestion debe interpretatarse tecnica)ente,a la lu de la +urisprudencia, por ser ello el )etodo )as se*uro parahallar la verdad 4dicial no i)porta 5ue ello repu*ne al conceptovul*ar a si)ple vista, no pone)os,en realidad, nion*una pica enFlandes, sino 5ue propu*na)os una cosa harto ele)e)ntal por losabida.

or tanto no es necesario especular o devanarse lossesos tratando dein5uirir por 5ue en la ta)iacion delprecepto se aNadio el ad+etivoa*riculturalG a las palabrasGprivate landG en ve de de+arlas solas sincualificacion.Al*unos diran 5ue fue por raon de si)entria parahacerGpendant diran 5ue fue por raon de si)etria parahacerGpendantG con la frase Gpublic a*ricultural landG puesta)asarriba. ero esto np tiene nin*una i)portancia. 6oi)portante es saber5ue la aNadidura, tal co)o esta +urisdiccion, de la palbra Ga*riculturalG

e)pleada en dicho teto. 8so es todoD lo de)as creo 5ue es purobiantinis )o.

///. Cero 5ue una ea)en de los docu)entos y debatesde la Asa)bleaConstituyente para ver de in5uirir la )otivacion y finalidad del preceptoconstitucional 5ue nos ocupapuede ayudar *rande)ente y arro+ar nopoca lu en lainterpretacion de la letra y espiritu de dichoprecepto.8ste *enero de in5uisicion es perfecta)ente propio yper)isible en her)eneutica constitucional, y se ha hechosie)pre,se*un las )a+ores autoridades sobre la )ateria. Cooley, en suauthoriado tratado sobre 6i)itaciones Constitucionales;Constittional 6imitations< dice a este efectolo si*iuenteE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


hen the in5uiry is directedto ascertainin*the miscief desi*ned to be re)edied, or the prpose sou*htto be acco)plished by a particular provision, it )ay beproper to ea)ine the proceedin*s of the convention whichfra)ed the instru)ent. here the proceedin*s clearly pointout the purpose of the provision, the aid will be valuable andsatisfactoryD but where the 5uestion is one of abstract)eanin*, it will be difficult to derive fro) this source )uchreliable assistance in interpretation. ;1 Cooley onConstitutional 6i)itations I(th ed.J, p. 1%2.<

Q@ue at)osfera prevalecia en la Asa)blea sobre elproble)a de latierra en *eneral sobre el proble)a capitalis)o de los terrenosnaturales QCual era la tendenciapredo)inante entre los 3ele*ados Qco)o era ta)bienel *iro de la opinion, del senti)iento publico esdecir co)oera el pulso del pueblo )is)o del cual la Asa)bleadespuesde todo no era )as 5ue or*ano e interprete

Barios discursos sobre el particular se pronounciaronen la Asa)bleaConstituyente. 8l tono predo)ionante entodos ellos era un fuerte,profundo nacionalis)o. Tanto dentro co)o fuera de la Asa)bleaConstituyente era evidente, acusado, el afan unani)e y decidido deconservar el patri)onio nacional no solo para las presentes*eneraciones filipinas, sino ta)bien para la posteridad. patrimonionacional tenia, en la )ente de todos un si*nificadocate*orio eindubitableD si*nificion de si es dedo)inio publico o privado. -uestrastipicas y representativas de este tono pecular y do)inantes de laideolo*iaconstituyente son ciertas ),anifestaciones 5ue constanen el

diario de serines has en el curso de los debateso en el proceso de laredaccion del proyecto constitucionalpor 3ele*ados de palabraautoriada) bien por su si*nificacion personal bein por el papelparticula 5ue dese)peNaban en las treas constituyentes. or e+e)ploel 3ele*ado -ontilla por $e*ros ccidental, conspicuo representantedel a*ro, usando del privile*io de )adia horaparla)entaria di+o enparte lo si*uinteE

. . . Con la co)pleta nacionnaliation de nuestras tierras yrecursos natural debe entenderse 5ue nuetro patri)onionacional debe estar vinculado 1:: por 1:: en )anosfilipinas. )ierras y recursos naturales son in),uebles y co)otales pueden co)pararse con los or*anos vitales del cuerpode una personaE la falta de posesion de los )is)o puedecaussar la )uete instantannea o el abrevia)iento de la vida;3iario de esiones Asa)blea Constituyente, inedita,

GFra)in* of the Constitution,G tit. 2 : pa*. '92 6ibro delrofesor Arue*o<.

Co)o se ve el 3ele*ado -ontilla habla de tierras sin ad+etivacion, esdecir sin difenciar entre propiedad publica y privada.

8l 3el*ado 6edes)a, por /loilo, otro conspicuo representante del a*ropresidente del co)te de a*ricultura de la Asa)blea 5ue losetra)n+eros no podian ser )is)as palabrasE

6a eclusion de los etran+eros del privile*io de ad5uirirterrenos publicos a*ricolas y de poder se dueNos depropiedades in)uebles ;real estate< es una parte necesariade las leyes de terrenos publicos de Filipinas para )antenerfir)e la idea de conservar Filipinaspara los filipos ;3iario de

esiones, id.D 6ibro de Arue*o, spra, pa*. '9.<

8s harto si*nifictativo 5ue en el infor)e del Colite de $acionaliacion yConservacion de #ecursos $aturales de la Asa)blea Constituyente laplabra tierra ;land< se usa *enerrica)ente sin cualificacion de publicao privada. 3ice el Co)iteE

@ue la tierra los )inerales los bos5ues y otros recursosnaturalesconstituyen la herencia eclusiva de la nacionfilipina. 3eben,por tanto, ser conservados para a5uellos 5uese halian ba+o la autoridad soberana de esa nacion y parasu posteridad. ;6ibro de Arue*o, spra pa*. '9'.<

6a conservacion y fo)ento del patri)onio nacional fue una verdaderaobsesion en la Asa)blea Constituyente. us )ienbros 5ue todavia

viven recordaran lDa infinita paciencia, el es)ero de orfe breria con 5uese traba+o el prea)bulo de la Constitucion. Cada frase, cada conceptose so)etio a un ri*ido proceso de seleccion y las *e)as resultans esla labor benedictina una de las *e)as redel patri)onio nacional. =ea5ui el prea)buloE

The Filipino people, i)plorin* the aid of 3ivenerovidence,in order to establish a *overn)ent that shallenbody their ideals, conserve and develop te patrimon( ofte nation, pro)ote the *eneral welfare, and secure tothe)slves and their posterity the blessin*s of independenceunder a re*i)e of +ustice, liberty, and de)ocracy, do ordainand pro)ul*ate this Constitution.

8l espiritu fuerte)ente nacionalista 5ue saturaba la Asa)bleaConstituyente con respecto a la tierre y recursosnaturales es de facileplicacion. 8staba)os escribiendouna Constitucion no solo para elCo))onwealth, sino ta)bien para la republica 5ue advendriadespues de1: aNos. @uerianos, puesd ase*urar fir)e)ente lasbasesde nuestra nacionalidad. Q@ue cosa )a+or para ello 5uebildarpor los cuatro costrados el cuerpo dela )nacion delcual > parodiandoal 3ele*ado -ontilla > la tierra y losresoursos naturales son co)oor*anos vitales cuya perdidapuede causar la )uerte instantanea o elabrevia)iento dela vida

ara aprociar el pulso de la nacion en a5uel )e)ontohistorico espreciso tener en cuenta las ciruc)stancias.$os deba)os perfectacuenta de nuetra posicion *eo*rafica,asi co)o ta)bien de nuestrasli)itaciones de)o*raficas.e trataba, por ciento de una concienciaa*uda)enteator)entadora y alar)ante. 8staba)os roodeadosdeenor)es )esas hu)anas > centenares de )illiones > econo)ica ybiolo*ica)ente a*resivas, avidad de desbordarsepor tadas partes, poir las areas del afico particular)ente,en busca de espacio vitales.China, 4apon!4apon, sobretodo 5ue estaba entonces en el apo*eo desu delirio deen*randeci)iento econo)ico y )ilitarista. Tenia)osapantadoal )is)o coraon, co)o espada rutilante de a)urrai,elpavoroso proble)a de 3avao, donde, por errores incialesdel"obierno, 4apon tenia el control de la tierra, instituyendos alli unaespecie de 4apon en )iniatura, con todaslas a)enasas y peli*ros 5ueello i)plicaba para la inte*ridadde nuestra eistancia nacional. Co)o5ue 3avaoya se lla)aba popular y sarcastica)ente 3avaoko,entra*ica ri)a con -anchuko.

Ta)bien nos obsesionaban otras lecciones dolorosas dehistoriaconte)poranea. Teas, -e+ico, Cuba y otraspaises del -ar Caribe yde la A)erica 6atina 5ue todaviaepiaban, co)o una terrible )aldicionel error de sus*obernantes al per)itir la ena+enacion del suelo aetran+eros.

Con el co))ercio y la industria principal)ente en )anosno!filipinas,los 3ele*ados a la Constituyente se haciancar*o ta)bien de lavitalisi)a necesidad de, por lo )enos,vincular el apatri)onio nacional,entre otras cosas la tierra, en )anos de los filipinos.

@ue de etraNo habia, pues, 5ue en se)e+ante at)osfera y talescircu)stancias se aprobase un articulo ri*ida)entenacionalis)taco)o es el Article H/// 6a )otivacion y finalidad, co)o ya se ha dicho,

era tripleE ;a<consetvar el patri)onio nacional para las presentesyfuturas *eneraciones filipinasD ;b< vincular, por lo )enos,la propiedadde la tierra y de los recursos naturales en )anos filipinas co)o la)e+or )anera de )antener ele5uilibrio de un siste)a econo)icodo)inado principal)ente por etran+eros en virtud de su tecnica;0no%!o% < superior y de su abudancia de capitalesE ;c< prefictos yco)plicaciones internacionales.

$o se concibe 5ue los 3ele*ados tuvieran la intercionde ecluir delprecepto los terrenos residenciales co)ercialese industrial, puessabian )uy bien 5ue los fines5ue se trataban de conse*uir y lospeli*ros 5uie se trataban de evitar con la politica de nacionaliacion yconservacionreaban tanto para una clase de terrenos co)o para otra.Qor 5ue se iba a te)er, verbi*racia, el do)inio etran+ero sobre unterreno estricta)ente, a*ricola, su+eto a cultivo, y no sobre el terrenoen 5ue estuviera instalada unafor)idable industria o fabrica

tro detalle si*nificativo. 8ra tan vi*oroso el senti)iento nacionalistaen la Asa)blea Constituyente 5ue, noobstante el natural senti)ientode *ratitud 5ue nos obli*abaa favor de los a)ericanos., a estos no seles concedionin*un privile*io en relacion con la tierra y de)asrecusosnaturales, sino 5ue se les coloco en el )is)o plano 5ue alosotros etran+eros. Co)o 5ue ha habido necesidad deuna refor)aconstitucional > la ll)ada refor)a sobre laparidad > parae5uipararlos a los filipinos.

The )ere literal construction of a section in a statute ou*htnot to prevail if it is opposed to the intention of the le*islatureapparent by the statuteD and if the words are sufficientlyfleible to ad)it of so)e other construction it is to beadopted to effectuate that intention. )e intent prevails overte letter and te latter %ill if possible be so read as to

conform to te spirit of te act . hile the intention of thele*islature )ust be ascertained fro) the words used toepress it, the )anifest reason and the obvious purpose ofthe law should not be sacrificed to a literal interpretation ofsuch words. ;// utherland, tat. Construction, pp. 721, 722.<

/B. > e insinua 5ue no debiera)os declarar 5ue laConstitucionecluye a loc etran+eros de la propiedadsobre terrenos residencialese industriales,por5ue ello i)posibilitaria toda accion le*islativa ensentidocontrario para el caso de 5ue el Con*reso /le*a*eal*una ve apensar 5ue se)e+ante interdiccio debialevantarse. e dice 5ue es)a+es y )as conveniente de+aresta cuestion en )anos del Con*resopara 5ue haya )aselasticidad en las soluciones de los diferentesproble)assobre la tierra.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Co)eteria)os un *rave error si esto hiciera)os. 8staes una cuestionconstitucional por ecelencia. ola)enteel pueblo puede disponer delpatri)onio nacional. $i el Con*reso, ni )ucho )enos los tribunales,pueden disponerde ese patri)onio. 6o )as 5ue puede hecer elCon*reso es proponer una refor)a constitucional )ediante losvotosde tres cuartas ;P%< de sus )ie)brosD y el pueblo tienela ulti)apalabra 5ue se epresara en una eleccion oplebiscito convocado alefecto.

8l ar*u)ento de 5ue esto costaria dinero es insostenible. eria unaecono)ia )al entendida. i no se escati)an *astos para celebrarelctiones ordinarias periodica)ente Qco)o ha del pueblo en un asuntotan vital co)o es la disposicion del patri)onio nacional, base de su)is)aeistencia para refor)ar la Constitucion, apoyado portrescuartas ;P%< del Con*reso, por lo )enos.

8n el entretanto el articulo H/// de la Constitucion debe5uedar tal co)oes, e interpretarse en la for)a co)o lo interpreta)os en nuestradecision.

e confir)a la sentencia.

ARAS, J., dissentin*E

ection ' of Article H/// of the Constitution provides that Gsave in casesof hereditary succession, no private a*ricultural land shall betransferred or assi*ned ecept to individuals, corporations, orassociations 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of the public do)ain inthe hilippines.G The i)portant 5uestion that arises is whether privateresidential land is included in the ter)s Gprivate a*ricultural land.G

There is no doubt that under section 1 of Article H/// of the Constitution,5uoted in the )a+ority opinion, lands of the public do)ain are classifiedinto a*ricultural, ti)ber,or )ineral. There can be no doubt, also, thatpublic lands suitable or actually used for residential purposes, )ust ofnecessity co)e under any of the three classes.

0ut )ay it be reasonably supposed that lands already of private

ownership at the ti)e of the approval of the Constitution, have thesa)e classification An affir)ative answer will lead to the conclusion> which is at once absurd and ano)alous > that private ti)ber and)ineral lands )ay be transferred or assi*ned to aliens by a )odeother than hereditary succession. /t is, however, contended that ti)berand )ineral lands can never be private, and reliance is placed onsection 1, Article H///, of the Constitution providin* that Gall a*ricultural,ti)ber and )ineral lands of the public do)ain . . . belon* to the tate,Gand li)itin* the alienation of natural resources only to publica*ricultural land. The contention is obviously untenable. Thisconstitutional provision, far fro) statin* that all ti)ber and )inerallands eistin* at the ti)e of its approval belon* to the tate, )erelyproclai)s ownership by the "overn)ent of all such lands as are thenof the public do)ainD and althou*h, after the approval of theConstitution, no public ti)ber or )ineral land )ay be alienated, it doesnot follow that ti)ber or )ineral lands theretofore already of private

ownership also beca)e part of the public do)ain. e have held, 5uiterecently, that lands in the possession of occupants and theirpredecessors in interest since ti)e i))e)orial do not belon* to the"overn)ent, for such possession +ustifies the presu)ption that saidlands had been private properties even before the panish con5uest.;h Cho vs. 3irector of 6ands, % ff. "a., (&&.< This *ives effect tothe pronounce)ent in Cario vs. 2nslar Government ;212 ?.., %%&D' 6aw. ed., '9%<, that it could not be supposed that Gevery native whohad not a paper title is a trespasser.G /t is easy to i)a*ine that so)e ofsuch lands )ay be ti)ber or )ineral. =owever, if there are absolutelyno private ti)ber or )ineral. =owever, if there are absolutely no privateti)ber or )ineral lands, why did the fra)ers of the Constitution botherabout speakin* of Gprivate a*ricultural landG in sections and ' of

Article H///, and )erely of GlandsG in section %

8C. . The Con*ress )ay deter)ine by law the sie ofprivate a*ricultural land which individuals, corporations, orassociations )ay ac5uire and hold, sub+ect to ri*hts eistin*prior to the enact)entof such law.

8C. %. The Con*ress )ay authorie, upon pay)ent of +ustco)pensation, the epropriation of lands to be subdividedinto s)all lots and conveyed at cost to individuals.

8C. '. ave in cases of hereditary succession, no privatea'ricltral land shall be transferred or assi*ned ecept toindividuals, corporations, or associations 5ualified to ac5uireor hold lands of the public do)ain in the hilippines.

?nder section , the Con*ress )ay deter)ine by law the sie ofprivate a*ricultural land which individuals, corporations, or associations)ay ac5uire and hold, subb+ect to ri*hts eistin* prior to the enact)entof such law, and under section % it )ay authorie, upon pay)ent of +ustco)pensation, the epropriation of lands to be subdivided into s)alllots and conveyed at cost to individuals. The latter section clearlyne*atives the idea that private lands can only be a*ricultural. /f theeclusive classification of public lands contained in section 1 is heldapplicable to private lands, and , as we have shown, there )ay beprivate ti)ber and )ineral lands, there would be neither sense nor

+ustification in authoriin* the Con*ress to deter)ine the sie of privatea*ricultural land only, and in not etendin* the prohibition of section '

to ti)ber and )ineral lands.

/n )ay opinion, private lands are not conte)plated or controlled by theclassification of public lands, and the ter) Ga*riculturalG appearin* insection ' was used as it is co))only understood, na)ely, as denotin*lands devoted to a*ricultural. /n other words, residential or urban lotsare not e)braced within the inhibition established in said provision. /t isnoteworthy that the ori*inal draft referred )erely to Gprivate land.G Thiscertainty would have been co)prehensive enou*h to included any kindof land. The insertion of the ad+ective Ga*ricultural G is thereforesi*nificant. /f the Constitution prohibits the alienation to forei*ners ofprivate lands of and kind, no le*islation can ever be enacted with aview to per)ittin* li)ited areas of land for residential, co))ercial, orindustrial use, and said prohibition )ay readily affect any effort towardsthe attain)ent of rapid pro*ress in hilippine econo)y. n the otherhand, should any dan*er arise fro) the absence of such constitutional

prohibition, a law )ay be passed to re)edy the situation, therebyenablin* the "overn)ent to adopt such elastic policy as )ay fro) ti)eto ti)e be necessary, unha)pered by any inconveniences ordifficulties in a)endin* the Constitution. The power of epropriation is,further)ore, a handy safe*uard a*ainst undersirable effects ofunrestricted alienation to, or ownership by, aliens of urban properties.The )a+ority ar*ue that the ori*inal draft in which the )ore *eneralter)s Gprivate landG was used, was a)ended in the sa)e that thead+ective Ga*riculturalG was inserted in order )erely Gto clarify conceptsand avoid uncertaintiesG and because, as under section 1, ti)ber and)ineral lands can never be private, Gthe prohibition to transfer thesa)e, would be superfluous.G /n answer, it )ay be stated that section %of Article H///, referrin* to the ri*ht of epropriation, uses GlandsGwithout any 5ualification, and it is lo*ical to believe that the use was)ade knowin*ly in contradistinctions with the li)ited ter) Gprivatea*ricultural landG in section and '. Followin* the line of reasonin* ofthe )a+ority, GlandsG in section % necessarily i)plies that what )ay be

epropriated is not only private a*ricultural land but also private ti)berand )ineral lands, as well, of course, as private residential lands. Thisof course tears apart the )a+oritys contention that there cannot be anyprivate ti)ber or )ineral land.

Any doubt in the )atter will be re)oved when it is, borne in )ind thatno less than =onorable File)on otto, Chair)an of the ponsorshipCo))ittee of the Constitutional Convention, in supportin* section ofthe Article H///, eplained that the sa)e refers to a*ricultural land, andnot to rban properties, and such eplanation is so)ewhat confir)edby the state)ent of another )e)ber of the Convention ;dele*ateevilla< to the effect that said section Gis discri)inatory and un+ust withre*ard to the a*riculturists.G

r. TT ;F< eNor residenteE G@ue hay caballeros de

laConvencion en el fondo de esta cuestion al parecerinocente yordinaria para 5ue tanto revuelo haya )etido tantoen la sesion de ayer co)o en la de hoy @ue hay de)isterios en el fondo de este proble), para 5ue politicos delvolu)en del caballero por /loilo y del caballero por0atan*as, to)en con *ran interes una )acion parareconsiderar lo acordado ayer Boy a ser frio, seNores.arece 5ue es )eyor tratar estas cuestiones con cal)a y noapasiona)iento. =e prestado atencion, co)o sie)pre suelohacer a todos los ar*u)entos a5ui en contra del preceptocontenido en el draft y a favor ahora de la reconsideracion ysiento decir lo si*uienteD todos son ar*u)entos )uy buenosa posteriori. Cuando la Asa)ble $acional se haya reunido,sera la ocasion de ver si procede o no epropiar terrenos olatifundios eistentes ahorao eistentes despues. 8n elpresente, yo )e li)ito a invitar la atencion de la Convencional hecho de 5ue el procepto no to)e las )edidas necesarias

en tie)po oportuno, cuando el proble)a del latifundis)o sehaya presentado con caracterres tales 5ue el beinestar,interes y orden publico lo re5uieran. er)ita)e laConvencion 5ue lo discuta en *lobo las dos pates delarticulo 9. =ay tal en*rana+e en los dos )andatos 5ue tienedicho precepto, hay tral eslabon en una u otra parte 5ue esi)posible, 5ue es dificil 5ue 5uitara)os deslindes si nosli)itase)os a considerar una sola parte. 6a primera parteatoriza a la le'islatra para fi4ar el limite ma#imo de

propiedad a'ricola 8e los cidadanos particlares pedetener. arece 8e es n pnto 8e a pasadodesapercibido. No se trata a8i aora de propiedadesrbanas sino de propiedades a'ricolas ( es por la razon de8e con mca especialidad en las re'iones a'ricolas enlas zones rsticas es donde el latifndismo se e#tiende con

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


facilidad ( desde alli los pe8eos propietario precisamente para ao'arles ( para intilizarles. Esta pes asalvo completamente la cestion de las propiedades rbans.Cietos 'randes soleres de nestras cidaes 8e con

prete#to de tener cietos eficios 8e en realidad nonecesitan de tales e#tensos solares para s e#istencia ni

para s mantenimineto pedan dormir trans8ilos. No<amos contra esas propiedades. or na casa o por otrael pasado nos le'ardo ese lastre doloroso. ero la re'iona'ricola la re'ion menos e#plotada por netro peblo lare'ion 8e necesitamos si 8eremos vivir centa propia lare'ion 8e es el ma(or incentivo no para solo para los

'randes capitalistas de fera merece todos los cidados del'obierno.

Boy a pasar ahora a la relacion 5ue tiene la se**unda partede la en)iendad con la pri)era. ?na ve de)ostrado antela 6eh*islatura, una ve convencida la Asa)blea $acionalde 5ue eiste un latifundis)o y 5ue este laitifundis)o puedeproducir )ales e esta produciendo daNos a la co)unidad,es cuando entonces la 6e*islatura puede acordar laepropiacion de los latifundios. 3onde esta el )al 5ue losopositores a este es un postulado 5ue todos conocen. 0ien,voy a ad)itir para los propositos del ar*u)ento 5ue hoy noeisten laifundios, y si los opostores al precepto 5uieren )asva)os a convenir en 5ue no eistrian en el futuro. ues,entonces, donde este el te)or de 5ue el hi+o de tal no puedarecibir la herencia de cual or lo de)as el e+e)plo

repetidas veces presentado ayer yhoy en cuanto al herderoy al causahabiente no es co)pleta)ente eacto. Ba)os asuponer 5ue efectiva)ente un padre de fa)ilia posee unnu)ero tal de hectareas de terreno, superior o eedente a lo5ue fi+a la ley. Creen los Caballeros, creen los opositorees alprecepto 5ue la 6e*islatura, la Asa)blea $acional va a sertan i)prudente, tan loca 5ue in)ediate)ente dispon*a porley 5ue a5uella porcion ecedente del terreno 5ue ha derecibir un hi+o de su padre no podra poseerlo, no podratenerlo o recibirlo el heredero.

8sa es una )ateria para la Asa)blea $acional. 6aasa)blea $acional sabe 5ue no puede dictar leyes o)edidas i)posibles de cu)plir. Fi+ara el plao, fi+ara laproporcion de acuedo con las circunstancias del tie)poentonces en 5ue viva)os. 8s posible 5ue ahora un nu)ero

deter)inado de hectereas sea ecesivoD es posible 5ue pordesenvolvi)ientos econo)ics del paius ese nu)ero dehectareas puede ser elevado o reducido. 8s por esto por5ueel Co)ite precisa)ente no ha 5uerido fi+ar desde ahora elnu)ero de hectareas presa)ente no ha 5uerido fi+ar desdeahora el nu)ero de hectareas, prefireindo de+ar a lasabiduria, a la prudencia, al patriotis)o y a la +usticia de la

Asa)bela $acional el fi+ar ese nu)ero.

6o)is)o di*o de la epropiacion. e habla de 5ue el*obierno no tendra dineroD se habl5a de 5ue no podrarevender las propieedades. ero, Caballeros de laConvencion, caballeros opositores del preceptoD si la6e*islatura, si la Asa)blea$acional estuviera convencida de5ue el *obierno no puede hecer una eporpiacion, va ahecerlo 6a Asa)blea $acional dictara una ley autoriando

la epropiacion de tal a cual latifundio cuando esteconvencida, pri)ero, de 5ue la eistencia de ese latifundioes a)enaante para el publicoD y se*undo, cuando laasa)blea $acional este convencida de 5ue el *obierno estadisposicion para disponer la epropiacion.

Bisto, pues, desde este punto el asunto, no es )aloautoriar,fi+ar los li)ites, ni )acho )enos es )alo autoriara la 6e*islatura para dictar leyes de epropiacion.

ero voy a )olestaros por un )inuto )as. e ha )entadoa5uicon al*un eito esta )aNana > y di*o con eito por5uehe oidoal*unos aplausos > se ha )entado la posibilidad de5ue los co)unistas ha*an unisse de esta disposicion 5ueeiste en el draft D podran los co)unistas pedir los votos delelectorado para ser elloslos 5ue dicten las leyes fi+ando el

li)ite del terreno y ordenen la epropriacion R@uear*u)ento )as bonito si tuviera baseS 6o )as natural, creoyo, es 5ue el pueblo, el electorado, al ver 5ueno es una

Asa)blea Constituyente co)unista la 5ue ha puestoestadisposicion, otor*ue sus votors a esta )is)a Asa)blea$acional, o a esos condidatos no co)unistas. Q@uien estaen disposicion de ter)inar )e+or una obra a5uel 5ue traadoy puesto los pri)eros pilares, o a5uel 5ue viene de *orra alfinal de la obra para decirE GA5ui estoy poner el te+adoG

8s sensible, sin e)bar*o, 5ue una cuetion de i)portanciatannacional co)o este, pretenda)os li*arla a los votos delos co)ulites de terrenoD no ha de venir por5ue nosotrosfi+e)os losli)ites de terrenoD no ha de venir por5ue

prohiba)os los latifundios)ediante epropiacion forosa,noD ha de venir precisa)entepor causa de los *randespropietarios de terreno, y ha de venir,5uera)oslo o no,por5ue el )undo esta evolucionando y se va aconvencer de5ue la vida no es sola)ente para unos cuantos sinoparatodos , por5ue 3ios no la dio, con la libertad, el aire, la lu,latierra para vivir ;"randes Aplausos<, y por al*o se hadicho5ue en los co)ienos de la vida hi)ana debio habersido fusilado,)atado, a a5uel pri)ero 5ue puso un cerco aun pedao de tierrarecla)ando ser suya a propiedad.

or estas raones, seNor residente, y sintiendo 5ue )itie)poesta para ter)inar, voy a dar fin a )i discursoa*radeciendo a la Convencion. ;peech of 3ele*ate otto.<

/ would further add, -r. resident, that this precept byli)itin* private individuals to holdin* and ac5uirin* lands,private a*ricultural lands . . . is discri)inatory and un+ust withre*ard to the a*riculturists. hy not, -r. resident, etendthis provision also to those who are en*a*ed in co))erceand industries 0oth ele)ents a)ass wealth. /f the purposeof the Co))ittee, -r. resident, is to distribute the wealth insuch a )anner that it will no breed discontent, / see noreason for the discri)ination a*ainst the a*ricultural. /n viewof these reasons, -r. resident, / do not want to speakfurther and / sub)it this a)end)ent because )any reasonshave been *iven already yesterday and this )ornin*.;peech of 3ele*ate evilla.<

3ele*ate otto was not interpellated, )uch less contradicted, on theobservation that section of Article H/// does not e)brace privateurban lands. There is of course every reason to believe that the sensein which the ter)s Gprivate a*ricultural landsG were e)ployed in section )ust be the sa)e as that in section ', if consistency is to beattributed to the fra)ers of the Constitution.

e should not be concluded by te re)arks, cited in the )a+orityopinion, )ade by 3ele*ate 6edes)a to the effect that Gthe eclusion of aleins fro) the private of ac5uirin* public a*ricultural lands and ofownin* real estate is a necessary part of the ublic 6and 6aws,G and of the state)ent of 3ele*ate -ontilla re*ardin* Gthe co)pletenationaliation of our lands and natural resources,G because ;1< there)arks of 3ele*ate 6edes)a epressly )entions Gpublic a*ricultural

landsG and the ter)s Greal estateG )ust undoubtedly carry the sa)e)eanin* as the precedin* words Gpublic a*ricultural landsG, under theprinciple of Ge+usde) *enerisGD ;2< 3ele*ate 6edes)a )ust have in)ind purely Ga*riculturalG lands, sicne he was the Chair)an of theCo))ittee on A*ricultural 3evelop)ent and his speech was )ade inconnection with the national policy on a*ricultural landsD ;< the *eneralnature of the eplanations of both 3ele*ate 6edes)a and 3ele*ate-ontilla, cannot control the )ore specific clarification of 3ele*ate ottothat a*ricultural lands in section do not include urban propeties.$either are we bound to *ive reater force to the view ;apparentlybased on )ere )ental recollections< of the 4ustices who were)e)bers of the Constitutional Convention than tot he specific recorded)anifestation of 3ele*ate otto.

The decision in the case of Mapa vs. 2nslar Government ;1: hil.,17'<, invoked by the )a+ority, is surely not controllin*, because, first, it

dealt with Ga*ricultural public landsG and, secondly, in that case it wasepressly held that the phrase Ga*ricultural landG as used in Act $o.92& G)eans those pblic lands ac5uired fro) pain which are notti)ber or )ineral lands,G > the definition held to be found in section 1of the Act of Con*ress of 4uly 1, 19:2.

e hold that there is to found in the act of Con*ress adefinition of the phrase Ga*ricultural public lands,G and after acarefully consideration of the 5uestion we are satisfied thatthe only definition which eists in said act is the definitionadopted by the court below. ection 1 says that the"overn)ent shall G)ake rules and re*ulations for the lease,sale or other disposition of the public lands other than ti)ber or )ineral lands.G To our )inds that is the only definition thatcan be said to be *iven to a*ricultural lands. /n other words,that the phrase Ga*ricultural landG as used in Act $o. 92&)eans those public lands acc5uired fro) pain which arenot ti)ber or )ineral lands. ;-apa vs. /nsular "overn)ent,1: hil., 1(2.<

The )a+ority, in support of their construction, invoke Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, enected after the approval of the Constitution, whichprohibits the alienation to forei*ners of Gland ori*inally ac5uired in any)anner under the provisions of this Act,G ;section 122< or Glandori*inally ac5uired in any )anner under the provisions of any previous

Act, ordinance, royal order, royal decree, or any other provision of lawfor)erly in force in the hilippines with re*ard to public lands, terrenosbaldios realen'os, or lands of any other deno)ination that wereactually or presu)ptively of the public do)ain.G ;ection 12.< Theyhold that the constitutional intent Gis )ade )ore patent and is stron*lyi)ple)ented by said Act.G The )a+ority have evidently overlooked the

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


fact that the prohibition contained in said sections refer to landsori*inally ac5uired under said sections referto land ori*inally ac5uredunder said Act or otherle*al provisions lands, which of course do notinclude lands not ori*inally of the public do)ain. The lands that )ay beac5uired under Act $o. 1%1 necessarily have to be public a*riculturallands, since they are the only kinds that are sub+ect to alienation ordisposition under the Constitution. =ence, even if they beco)e private,said lands retained their ori*inal a*ricultural character and )ay nottherefore be alienated to forei*ners. /t is only in this sense, / think, thatact $o. 1%1 seeks to carry out and i)ple)ent the constitutionalob+ective. /n the case before us, however, there is no pretense that theland bou*ht by the appellant was ori*inally ac5uired under said Act or

other le*al provisions conte)plated therein.

The )a+ority is also )istaken in ar*uin* that Gprior to the Constitution,under section 2% of the ublic 6and Act $o. 2(7% aliens could ac5uirepublic a*ricultural lands used for industrial or residential purposes, butafter the Constitution and under section 2 of Co))onwealth Act $o.1%1, the ri*ht of aliens to ac5uire such kind of lands is co)pletelystricken out, undoubtedly in pursuanceof the Constitutional li)itation,Gand that Gprior to the Constitution, under section '7 of the ublic 6and

Act $o.2(7%, land of the public do)ain suitable for residence orindustrial purposes could be sold or leased to aliens, but after theConstitution and under section &: of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, suchland )ay only be leased, but not sold, to aliens, and the lease *rantedshall only be valid while the land is used for the purpose referred to.Gection 1 of article H/// of the Constitution speaks of Gpublic a*riculturallandsG and 5uite lo*ically, Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, enacted after

the approval of the Constitution, has to li)it the alienation of its sub+ect)atter ;public a*ricultural land, which includes public residential orindustrial land< to Filipino citiens. 0ut it is not correct to consider said

Act as a le*islation on, or a li)itation a*ainst, the ri*ht of aliens toac5uire residential land that was already of private ownership prior tothe approval of the Constitution.

The sweepin* assertion of the )a+ority that Gthe three *reatdepart)ents of the "overn)ent > 4udicial, 6e*islative and 8ecutive> have always )aintained that lands of the public do)ain areclassified into a*ricultural, )ineral and ti)ber, and that a*riculturallands include residential lots,G is rather )isleadin* and notinconsistent, with our position. hile the construction )istakenlyinvoked by the )a+ority refers eclusively to lands of the public do)ain,our view is that private residential lands are not e)braced within theter)s Gprivate a*ricultural landG in section ' of Article H///. 6et us

particularie in so)ewhat chronolo*ical order. e have alreadypointed out that the leadin* case of Mapa vs. 2nslar Governmentspra only held that a*ricultural public lands are those pbliclands ac5uired fro) pain which are neither ti)ber nor )ineral lands.The opinion of the ecretary of 4ustice dated 4uly 1', 199, 5uoted inthe )a+ority opinion, li)ited itself in affir)in* that Gresidential,co))ercial or industrial lots formin' part of te pblic domain . . . )ustbe classified as a*ricultural.G /ndeed, the li)ited scope of said opinionis clearly pointed out in the followin* subse5uent opinion of theecretary of 4ustice dated epte)ber 2', 19%1, epressly hodin* thatGin cases involvin* the prohibition in section ' of Article H/// ;for)erly

Article H//< re*ardin* transfer or assi*n)ent of private a'ricltrallands to forei*ners, the opinion that residential lots are not a*riculturallands is applicable.G

This is with reference to your first indorse)ent dated 4uly :,

19%1, forwardin* the re5uest of the #e*ister of 3eeds ofriental -isa)is for an opinion as to whether pinion $o.1:, dated 4uly 1', 199, of this 3epart)ent 5uoted in itsCircular $o. 2(, dated -ay 1, 19%1, holdin* a)on* others,that the phrase Gpublic a*ricultural landG in section 1, ArticleH/// ;for)erly article H//< of the Constitution of thehilippines, includes residential, co))ercial or industrial lotsfor purposes of their disposition, a)ends or supersedeas adecision or order of the fourth branch of the Court of First/nstance of the City of -anila rendered pursuant to section2:: of the Ad)inistrative Code which holds that a residentiallot is not an a*ricultural land, and therefore, the prohibition insection ', Article H/// ;for)erly Article H//< of the Constitutionof the hilippines does not apply.

There is no conflict between the two opinions.

ection 1, Artcile H/// ;for)erly article H// of the Constitutionof the hilippines, speaks of pblic a'ricltral lands whilesection ' of the sa)e article treats of private a'ricltrallands. A holdin*, therefore, that a residential lot is not privatea*ricultural land within the )eanin* of that phrase as foundin section ' of Article H/// ;for)erly Article H//< does notconflict with an opinion that residential, co))ercial orindustrial lots for)in* part of the public do)ain are includedwithin the phrase Gpublic a*ricultural landG found in section 1,

Article H/// ;for)erly Article H//< of the Constitution of thehilippines. /n cases involvin* the prohibition in section ' of

Article H/// ;for)erly Article H//< re*ardin* transfer orassi*n)ent of private a'ricltral lands to forei*ners, theopinion that residential lots are not a*ricultural lands is

applicable. /n cases involvin* the prohibition in section 1 of Article H/// ;for)erly Article H//< re*ardin* disposition in favorof, and eploitation, develop)ent or utiliation by forei*nersof pblic a'ricltral lands, the opinion that residential,co))ercial or industrial lots for)in* part of the publicdo)ain are included within the phrase Gpublic a*riculturallandG found in said section 1 of the Article H/// ;for)erly

Article H//< *overns.

Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, passed after the approval of theConstitution li)ited its restriction a*ainst transfers in favor of alien topublic a*ricultural lands or to lands ori*inally ac5uired under said Actor other le*al provisions for)erly in force in the hilippines with re*ardto public lands. n $ove)ber 29, 19%, the Court of Appeals rendereda decision affir)in* that of the Court of First rendered a decisionaffir)in* that of the Court of First /nstance of Tarlac in a case in whichit was held that private residential lots are not included in theprohibition in section ' of Article H///. ;CA!". #. $o. 29.< 3urin*the4apanese occupation, the Constitution of the then #epublic of thehilippines contained an al)ost verbati) reproduction of said section' of Article H///D and the then $ational Asse)bly passed an Actprovidin* that Gno natural or +uridical person who is not a Filipino citienshall ac5uire directly or indirectly any title to private lands ;which arenot a*ricultural lands< includin* buildin*s and other i)prove)entsthereon or leasehold ri*hts on said lands, ecept by le*al successionof proper cases, unless authoried by the resident of the #epublic ofthe hilippines.G ;ff. "a., Bol. /, p. %97, February,19%%.< /t is true thatthe ecretary of 4ustice in 19%' appears to have rendered an opinion

on the )atter, but it cannot have any persuasive force because it)erely suspended the effect of the previous opinion of his 3epart)entpendin* +udicial deter)ination of the 5uestion. Bery recently, theecretary of 4ustice issued a circular adoptin* in effect the opinion ofhis 3epart)ent rendered in19%1. 6ast but not least, since the approvalof the Constitution, nu)erous transactions involvin* transfers of privateresidential lots to aliens had been allowed to be re*istered without anyopposition on the part of the "overn)ent. /t will thus be seen that,contrary to what the )a+ority believe, our "overn)ent has constantlyadopted the view that private residential lands do not fall under theli)itation contained in section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution.

/ do not 5uestion or doubt the nationalistic spirit per)eatin* theConstitution, but / will not per)it )yself to be blinded by anysenti)ental feelin* or con+ectural considerations to such a de*ree asto attribute to any of i ts provisions a construction not +ustified by or

beyond what the plain written words purport to convey. e need notepress any unnecessary concern over the possibility that entire townsand cities )ay co)e to the hands of aliens, as lon* as we have faith inour independence and in our power to supply any deficiency in theConstitution either by its a)end)ent or by Con*ressional action.

There should really have been no occasion for writin* this dissent,because the appellant, with the confor)ity of the appellee, had filed a)otion for the withdrawal of the appeal and the sa)e should havebeen *ranted outri*ht. /n Co Cion' vs. Din'lasan ;p.122, ante<,decided only a few days a*o, we reiterated the well!settledrule that Ga court should not pass upon a constitutional 5uestion anddecide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid unless such 5uestion israised by the the parties, and that when it is raised, if the record alsopresents so)e other *round upon which the court )ay rest its

+ud*)ent, that course will be adopted and the constitutional 5uestion

will be left for consideration until a case arises in which a decisionupon such 5uestion will be unavoidable.G /n other words, a court willalways avoid a constitutional 5uestion, if possible. /n the present case,that course of action was not only possible but absolutely i)perative. /f appellants )otion for withdrawal had been opposed by the appellee,there )i*ht be so)e reasons for its denial, in view of section % of #ule'2 which provides that after the filin* of appellees brief, Gthewithdrawal )ay be allowed by the court in its discretion.G At any rate,this discretion should always be eercised in favor of a withdrawalwhere a constitutional 5uestion will thereby be avoided.

/n this connection, let us describe the proceedin*s ;called Garbitraryand ille*alG by -r. 4ustice Tuason< that led to teh denial of the )otionfor withdrawal. 3urin* the deliberation in which all the eleven )e)berswere present, seven voted to allow and four to deny. ubse5uently,without any previous notice and when -r. 4ustice =ontiveros wasabsent, the )atter was a*ain sub)itted to a vote, and one 4ustice;who previously was in favor of the withdrawal< reversed his stand, withthe result that the votes were five to five. This result was officiallyreleased and the )otion denied under the technicality provided in #uleof Court $o. '&, section 2. /t is very interestin* to observe that -r.4ustice =ontiveros, who was still a )e)ber of the Court and couldhave attended the later deliberation, if notified and re5uested,previously voted for the *rantin* of the )otion. The real eplanation for ecludin* -r. 4ustice =ontiveros, a*ainst )y ob+ection, and for thereversal of the vote of one 4ustice who ori*inally was in favor of thewithdrawal is found in the confession )ade in the )a+ority opinion tothe effect that the circular of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice instructin* allre*isters of deeds to accept for re*istration transfers of residential lotsto aliens, was an Ginterference with the re*ular and co)plete eerciseby this Court of its constitutional functions,G and that Gif we *rant the

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


withdrawal, the result is that petitioner!appellant Aleander A. Mrivenkowins his case, not by a decision of this Court, but by the decision orcircular of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice issued while this case waspendin* before this Court.G The ealousness thus shown in denyin*the )otion for wuthdrawal is open to 5uestion. The denial of course isanother way of assu)in* that the petitioner!appellant and the olicitor"eneral had connived with the 3epart)ent of 4ustice in a sche)e notonly to interfere with the functions of this Court but to dispose of thenational patri)ony in favor of aliens.

/n the absence of any in+unction fro) this Court, we should reco*nietha ri*ht of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice to issue any circular it )ay dee)le*al and proper on any sub+ect, and the corollary ri*ht of the appellantto take advanta*e thereof. hat is )ost re*rettable is the i)plicationthat the 3epart)ent of 4ustice, as a part of the 8ecutive 3epart)ent,cannot be as patriotic and able as this Court in defendin* theConstitution. /f the circular in 5uestion is ob+ectionable, the sa)e canbe said of the opinion of the ecretary of 4ustice in 19%' in effectprohibitin* the re*istration of transfers of private residential lots in favor of aliens, notwithstandin* the pendency in this Court of the case of *Co vs. Director of 6ands ;% ff. "a., (&&<, wherin accordin* to theappellant, the only 5uestion raised was whether, or not Gan alien canac5uire a residential lot and re*ister it in his na)e,G andnotwithstandin* the fact that in said case the appealed decision was infavor of the alien applicant and that, as hereinbefore stated, the Courtof Appeals in another case ;CA!".#. $o. 29< had renderd in 19% adecision holdin* that private residential lots are not included in theprohibition in section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution. And yet this

Court, failin* to consider said opinion as an Ginterference,G chose toevade the only issue raised by the appellant and s5uarely )et by theappellee in the h Cho case which already re5uired a decision on theconstitutional 5uestion resolved in the case at bar a*ainst, so to say,the will of the parties liti*ant. /n other words, the )a+ority did not allowthe withdrawal of the present appeal not so )uch as to dispose of it onthe )erits, but to annul the circular of the 3epart)ent of 4ustice whichis, needless to say, not involved in this case. / cannot accept theshallow ecuse of the )a+ority that the denial of the )otion forwithdrawal was pro)ted by the fear that Gour indifference of today)i*ht si*nify a per)anent offense to the Constitution,G because itcarries the rather i))odest i)plication that this Court has a )onopolyof the virtue of upholdin* and enforcin*, or supplyin* any deficiency in,the Constitution. /ndeed, the fallacy of the i)pliation is )ade *larin*when enator Franscisco lost no ti)e in introducin* a bill that wouldclarify the constitutional provision in 5uestion in the sense desired bythe )a+ority. ?pon the other hand, the )a+ority should not worry about

the re)oteness of the opportunity that will enable this Court to passupon this constitutional 5uestion, because we can take advance noticeof the fact that in #ellosa vs. "aw Chee =un ;%9 ff. "a., %%'<, inwhich the parties have already presented. 0ut even disre*ardin* saidcase, / a) sure that, in view of the recent newspaper discussion whichnaturally reached the len*th and breadth of the country, there will bethose who will dispute their sales of residential lots in favor of aliensand invoke the constitutional prohibition.

ENGZON, J., dissentin*E

/t is unnecessary to deliver at this ti)e any opinion about the etent ofthe constitutional prohibition. 0oth parties havin* a*reed to writer finisto the liti*ation, there is no obli*ation to hold forth on the issue. /t is notour )ission to *ive advice to other person who )i*ht be interested to

*ive advice to other persons who )i*ht be interested to know thevalidity or invalidity of their sales or purchases. That is the work oflawyers and +uriscounsults.

There is )uch to what -r. 4ustice adilla eplains re*ardin* anyea*erness to solve the constitutional proble). /t )ust be re)e)beredthat the other depart)ents of the "overn)ent are not prevented fro)passin* on constitutional 5uestion arisin* in the eercise of their officialpowers. ;Cooley, Constitutional 6i)itations, (th ed., p. 1:1.< ThisTribunal was not established, nor is it epected to play the role of anoverseer to supervise the other "overn)ent depart)ents, with theobli*ation to seie any opportunity to correct what we )ay believe tobe erroneous application of the constitutional )andate. / cannot a*reeto the su**estion that the way the incu)bent ecretary of 4ustice hasinterpreted the funda)ental law, no case will ever arise before thecourt, because the re*isters of deeds under his co))and, will transferon thier books all sales to aliens. /t is easy to perceive severalprobabilitiesE ;1< a new secretary )ay entertain opposite viewsD ;2<parties le*ally affected > like heirs or or creditors of the seller > )aywish to avoid the conveyance to aliens, invokin* the constitutionalinhibition. Then, in a truly contested case, with opposin* liti*antsactively ar*uin* their sides we shall be in a position to do full +ustice. /tis not enou*h that briefs > as in this case > have been filedD it isdesirable, perhaps essential, to )ake sure that in a )otion forreconsideration, or in a re!hearin* in case of tie, our attention shall beinvited to points inade5uately touched or i)properly considered.

/t is stated that sales to aliens of residential lots are currently bein*effected. $o )atter. Those sales will be sub+ect to the final decision weshall reach in a properly sub)itted liti*ation. To spell necessity out ofthe eistence of such conveyances, )i*ht a)ount to be**in* the issue

with the assu)ption that such transfers are obviously barred by ther*anic 6aw. And yet sales to forei*ners of residential lots have takenplace since our Constitution was approved in 19', and no one5uestioned their validity in Court until nine years later in 19%', after the4apanese authorities had shown distaste for such transfers.

The Court should have, / sub)it, a)ple ti)e to discuss this all!i)portant point, and reflect upon the conflictin* politico!econo)icphilosophies of those who advocate national isolation a*ainstinternational cooperation, and vice!versa. e could also delve intoseveral aspects necessarily involved, to witE

;a< hether the prohibition in the Constitution operated to curtail thefreedo) to dispose of lando%ners at te time of its adoption; orwhether it )erely affected the ri*hts of those who should beco)elandowners after the approval of the ConstitutionD7

;b< hat conse5uences would a rulin* adverse to aliens have uponour position and co))it)ents in the ?nited $ations r*aniation, andupon our treaty!)akin* ne*otiations with other nations of the worldsDand

;c< hen in 19%1 Mrivenko ac5uired this land he was a #ussian citien.?nder the treaties between the ?nited tates and #ussia, were#ussian nationals allowed to ac5uire residential lots in places underthe +urisdiction of the ?nited tates /f so, did our Constitution have theeffect of )odifyin* such treaty durin* the eistence of the

Co))onwealth "overn)ent

The fore*oin* view and doubts induced )e to vote for dis)issal of theappeal as re5uested by the parties, and for withholdin* of any rulin* onthe constitutional prohibition. =owever, / a) now ready to cast )yvote. / a) convinced that the or*anic law bans the sales of a*riculturallands as they are popularly understood > not includin* residential,co))ercial, industrial or urban lots. This belief is founded on thereasons ably epounded by -r. 4ustice aras, -r. 4ustice adilla and-r. 4ustice Tuason. / a) particularly )oved by the consideration that arestricted interpretation of the prohibition, if erroneous or contrary tothe poeples desire, )ay be re)edied by le*islation a)plifyin* itDwhereas a liberal and wide application, if erroneous, would need thecu)berso)e and hi*hly epensive process of a constitutionala)end)ent.

AD*LLA, J., dissentin*E

The 5uestion sub)itted for decision is whether a parcel of land ofprivate ownership suitable or intended for residence )ay be alienatedor sold to an alien.

ection ', Article H///, of the Constitution providesE

ave in cases of hereditary succession, no privatea*ricultural land shall be transferred or assi*ned ecept toindividuals, corporations, or associations 5ualified to ac5uireor hold lands of the public do)ain in the hilippines.

The )a+ority holds that a parcel of land of privateownership suitable or

intended or used for residence is included in the ter) Gprivatea*ricultural landG and co)es within the prohibition of the Constitution./n support of the opinion that lands of private ownership suitable forresidence are included in the ter) Gprivate a*ricultural landG andcannot be alienated or sold to aliens, the )a+ority invokes the decisionof this Court in Mapa vs. 2nslar Government ;1: hil., 17'<, whichholds that urban lands of the public do)ain are included in the ter)Gpublic a*ricultural land.G 0ut the opinion of the )a+ority overlooks thefact that the inclusion by this Court of public lands suitable forresidence in the ter) Gpublic a*ricultural landG was due to theclassification )ade by the Con*ress of the ?nited tates in the Act of 14uly 19:2, co))only known as the hilippine 0ill. /n said Act, lands ofthe public do)ain were classified into a*ricultural, ti)ber and )ineral.The only alienable or disposable lands of the public do)ain were thosebelon*in* to the first class. =ence a parcel of land of the public do)ainsuitable for residence, which was neither ti)ber nor )ineral, could not

be disposed of or alienated unless classified as public a*ricultural land.The susceptibility of a residential lot of the public do)ain of bein*cultivated is not the real reason for the inclusion of such lot in theclassification of public a*ricultural land, for there are lands, such asforeshore lands, which would hardly be susceptible of cultivation;/baNe de Aldecoa vs. /nsular "overn)ent, 1 hil., 1'9, 1&7!1&(<,and yet the sa)e co)e under the classification of public a*riculturalland. The fact, therefore, that parcels of land of the public do)ainsuitable for residence are included in the classification of publica*ricultural land, is not a safe *uide or inde of what the fra)ers of theConstitution intended to )ean by the ter) Gprivate a*ricultural land.G /tis contrary to the rules of statutory construction to attach technical)eanin* to ter)s or phrases that have a co))on or ordinary )eanin*as understood by he avera*e citien.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


At the ti)e of the adoption of the Constitution ;( February 19'<, theublic 6and Act in force was Act $o. 2(7%. ?nder this Act, only citiensof the hilippine /slands or of the ?nited tates and corporations orassociations described in section 2 thereof, and citiens of countriesthe laws of which *rant to citiens of the hilippine /slands the sa)eri*ht to ac5uire the public land as to their own citiens, could ac5uireby purchase a*ricultural land of the public do)ain ;section 2, Act $o.2(7%<. This was the *eneral rule. There was an eception. ection2%of the Act providesE

$o person, corporation, association or partnership other thanthose )entioned in the last precedin* section )ay ac5uire or own a*ricultural public land or land of any otherdeno)ination or classification, not sed for indstrial orresidence prposes, that is at the ti)e or was ori*inally,really or presu)ptively, of the public do)ain, or anyper)anent i)prove)ent thereon, or any real ri*ht on suchland and i)prove)entErovided o%ever , That persons,corporations, associations, or partnerships which at the dateupon which this Act shall take effect, hold a*ricultural publiclands or land of any other deno)ination not sed forindstrial or residence prposes that belon*ed ori*inally,really or presu)ptively, to the public do)ain, or per)anenti)prove)ents on such lands, or a real ri*ht upon such landsand i)prove)ents, havin* ac5uired the sa)e under thelaws and re*ulations in force at the date of such ac5uisition,shall be authoried to continue holdin* the sa)e as if suchpersons, corporations, associations, or partnerships were

5ualified under the last precedin* sectionD but they shall notencu)ber, convey, or alienate the sa)e to persons,corporations, associations or partnerships not included insection twenty!three of this Act, ecept by reason ofhereditary succession, duly le*alied and acknowled*ed byco)petent Courts. ;8)phasis supplied.<

ection '7 of the Act, dealin* with lands of the public do)ain suitablefor residential, co))ercial, industrial, or other productive purposesother than a*ricultural, providesE

Any tract of land co)prised under this title )ay be leased orsold, as the case )ay be, to any person, corporation, orassociation authoried to purchase or lease public lands fora*ricultural purposes. . . .rovided frter , That any person,corporation, association, or partnership dis8alified fro)

purchasin* public land for a*ricultural purposes under theprovisions of this Act, ma( prcase or lease land incldednder tis title sitable for indstrial or residence prposes,but the title or lease *ranted shall only be valid while suchland issued for the purposes referred to. ;8)phasissupplied.<

ection 121 of the Act providesE

$o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner under theprovisions of the for)er ublic 6and Act or of any other Act,ordinance, royal order, royal decree, or any other provisionof law for)erly in force in the hilippine /slands with re*ardto public lands, terrenos baldios ( realen'os or lands of anyother deno)ination that were actually or presu)ptively of

the public do)ain, or by royal *rant or in any other for), norany per)anent i)prove)ent on such land, shall beencu)bered, alienated, or conveyed, ecept to persons,corporations, or associations who )ay ac5uire land of thepublic do)ain under this ActD . . .rovided o%ever Thatthis prohibition shall not be applicable to the conveyance orac5uisition by reason of hereditary succession dulyacknowled*ed and le*alied by co)petent Courts, nor tolands and i)prove)ents ac5uired or held for industrial orresidence purposes, while used for such purposesE . . .;8)phasis supplied.<

?nder and pursuant to the above 5uoted provisions of Act $o. 2(7%,lands of the public do)ain, that were neither ti)ber nor )ineral, heldfor industrial or residence purposes, could be ac5uired by aliensdis5ualified fro) ac5uirin* by purchase or lease public a*riculturallands ;sections 2%, '7, 121, Act $o. 2(7%<. The dele*ates to theConstituent Asse)bly were fa)iliar with the provisions of the ublic6and Act referred to. The prohibition to alienate public a*riculturallands to dis5ualified persons, corporations or associations did notapply to Glands and i)prove)ents ac5uired or held for industrial orresidence purposes, while used for such purposes.G 8ven under theprovisions of Act $o. 92&, the first ublic 6and Act, lots for townsitescould be ac5uired by any person irrespective of citienship, pursuant tosection %7 of the said Act. /n spite of the nationalistic spirit thatpervades all the provisions of Act $o. 2(7%, the hilippine 6e*islaturedid not dee) it necessary to eclude aliens fro) ac5uirin* and ownin*lands of the public do)ain suitable for industrial or residencepurposes. /t adopted the policy of ecludin* aliens fro) ac5uirin*a*ricultural lands of the public do)ain not Gsuitable for residential,co))ercial, industrial, or other productive purposes,G which, to*ether

with ti)ber, )ineral and private a*ricultural lands, constitute the)ainstay of the nation. Act $o. 2(7% was in force for nearly siteenyears > fro) 1919 to 19'. There is nothin* recorded in the +ournalsof proceedin*s of the Constituent Asse)bly re*ardin* the )atter whichwould have +ustified a departure fro) the policy theretofore adopted.

/f under the law in force at the ti)e of the adoption of the Constitution,aliens could ac5uire by purchase or lease lands of the public do)ain,that were neither ti)ber nor )ineral, held for industrial or residencepurposes, how can it be presu)ed that the fra)ers of the Constitutionintended to eclude such aliens fro) ac5uirin* by purchase privatelands suitable for industrial or residence purposes /f pursuant to thelaw in force at the ti)e of the adoption of the Constitution, lands of thepublic do)ain and i)prove)ents thereon ac5uired or held forindustrial or residence purposes were not included in the prohibitionfound in section 121 of Act$o. 2(7%, there is every reason for believin*that the fra)ers of the Constitution, who were fa)iliar with the law thenin force, did not have the intention of applyin* the prohibition containedin section ', Article H///, of the Constitution to lands of privateownership suitable or intended or used for residence, there bein*nothin* recorded in the +ournals of proceedin*s of the Constituent

Asse)bly re*ardin* the )atter which, as above stated, would have +ustified a departure fro) the policy then eistin*. /f the ter) Gprivatea*ricultural landG co)prehends lands of private ownership suitable orintended or used for residence, as held by the )a+ority, there was noneed of i)ple)entin* a self!eecutory prohibition found in theConstitution. The prohibition to alienate such lands found in section12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1 is a clear indication and proof that

section ', Article H///, of the Constitution does not apply to lands ofprivate ownership suitable or intended or used for residence. The ter)Gprivate a*ricultural landG )eans privately owned lands devoted tocultivation, to the raisin* of a*ricultural products, and does not includeurban lands of private ownership suitable for industrial or residencepurposes. The use of the ad+ective Ga*riculturalG has the effect ofecludin* all other private lands that are not a*ricultural. Ti)ber and)ineral ands are not, however, included a)on* the ecluded, becausethese lands could not and can never beco)e private lands. Fro) theland *rants known as caballerias and peonias under the 6aws of /ndiesdown to those under the #oyal 3ecrees of 2' 4une 1((: and 1February 1(9%, the hilippine 0ill, Act $o. 92&, the 4ones 6aw, Act $o.2(7%, the Constitution, and Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, ti)ber and)ineral lands have always been ecluded fro) alienation. The repealby sections 2, &:, 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1 of the eceptionprovided for in sections 2%, '7, 121 of Act $o. 2(7%, did not chan*e the)eanin* of the ter) Gprivate a*ricultural land,G as intended by the

fra)ers of the Constitution and understood by the people that adoptedit.

The net 5uestion is whether the court below was +ustified under the inconfir)in* the refusal of the #e*ister of 3eeds of -anila to record thesale of the private land for residence purposes to the appellant who isan alien.

There is no evidence to show the kind of land, the deed of sale ofwhich is sou*ht to be recorded by the appellant > whether it is one ofthose described in section 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1D or aprivate land that had never been a part of the public do)ain;Carino vs. /nsular "overn)ent, 212 ?.., %%9D h Cho vs. 3irector of6ands, % ff. "a., (&&<. /f it is the latter, the prohibition of section12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1 does not apply. /f it is the for)er,

section 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, which providesthat >

$o land ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner under theprovisions of any previous Act, ordinance, royal order, royaldecree, or any other provision of law for)erly in force in thehilippines with re*ard to public lands,terrenos baldios (realen'os or lands of any other deno)ination that wereactually or presu)ptively of the public do)ain, or by royal*rant or in any other for), nor any per)anent i)prove)enton such land, shall be encu)bered, alienated, or conveyed,ecept to persons, corporations or associations who )ayac5uire land of the public do)ain under this Act or tocorporate bodies or*anied in the hilippines whosecharters authorie the) to do soE . . .

is si)ilar in nature to section 121 of Act $o. 2(7%. This Court held the

last )entioned section unconstitutional, for it violates section of the Act of Con*ress of 29 Au*ust 191&, co))only known as the 4ones6aw ;Central Capivs. #a)ire, %: hil., ((<. ection 12 ofCo))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, followin* the rule laid down in theaforecited case, )ust also be declared unconstitutional, for it violatessection 21 ;1<, Article B/, of the Constitution, which is eactly the sa)eas the one infrin*ed upon by section 121 of Act $o. 2(7%. This doesnot )ean that a law )ay not be passed by Con*ress to prohibitalienation to forei*ners of urban lands of private ownershipD but in sodoin*, it )ust avoid offendin* a*ainst the constitutional provisionreferred to above.

0efore closin*, / cannot help but co))ent on the action taken by theCourt in considerin* the )erits of the case, despite the withdrawal of

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


the appeal by the appellants, consented to by the appellee. /fdiscretion was to be eercised, this Court did not eercise it wisely.Courts of last resort *enerally avoid passin* upon constitutional5uestions if the case where such 5uestions are raised )ay be decidedon other *rounds. Courts of last resort do not epress their opinion ona consitutional 5uestion ecept when it is the very lismota ;an*co vs. 0oard of ublic ?tility Co))issioners, & hil., 11&,12:D Co Chion* vs. 3in*lasan, p. 122, ante<. -oreover, theinterpretation of the provisions of the Constitution is no eclusive of thecourts. The other coordinate branches of the *overn)ent )ay interpretsuch provisions actin* on )atters co)in* within their +urisdiction. Andalthou*h such interpretation is only persuasive and not bindin* upon

the courts, nevertheless they cannot be deprived of such power. fcourse, the final say on what is the correct interpretation of aconstitutional provision )ust co)e fro) and be )ade by this Court inan appropriate action sub)itted to it for decision. The correctinterpretation of a constitutional provision is that which *ives effect tothe intent of its fra)ers and pri)arily to the understandin* of suchprovision by the poeple that adopted i t. This Court is only an interpreter of the instru)ent which e)bodies what its fra)ers had in )ind andespecially what the people understood it to be when they adopted it.The ea*erness of this Court to epress its opinion on the constitutionalprovision involved in this case, notwithstandin* of the withdrawal of theappeal, is unusualf or a Court of last resort. /t see)s as if it were afraidto be deprived by the other coordinate branches of the *overn)ent ofits prero*ative to pass upon the constitutional 5uestion herein involved./f all the )e)bers of the Court were unani)ous in the interpretation ofthe constitutional provision under scrutiny, that ea*erness )i*ht be

+ustified, but when so)e )e)bers of the Court do not a*ree to the

interpretation placed upon such provision, that ea*erness beco)esrecklessness. The interpretation thus placed by the )a+ority of theCourt upon the constitutional provision referred to will be bindin* uponthe other coordinate branches of the *overn)ent. /f, in the course ofti)e, such opinion should turn out to be erroneous and a*ainst thewelfare of the country,an a)end)ent to the Constitution > a costlyprocess > would have to be proposed and adopted. 0ut, if the Courthad *ranted the )otion for the withdrawal of the appeal, it would nothave to epress its opinion upon the constitutional provision in5uestion. /t would let the other coordinate branches of the "overn)entact accordin* to their wisdo), foresi*ht and patriotis). They, too,possess those 5ualities and virtues. These are not of the eclusivepossession of the )e)bers of this Court. The end sou*ht to beacco)plished by the decision of this Court )ay be carried out by theenact)ent of a law. And if the law should turn out to be a*ainst thewell!bein* of the people, its a)end)ent or repeal would not be as

costly a process as a constitutional a)end)ent.

/n view of the denial by this Court of the )otion to dis)iss the appeal,as prayed for by the appellant and consented to by the appellee, / a)constrained to record )y opinion, that, for the reasons hereinbefore setforth, the +ud*)ent under review should be reversed.

/ASON, J., dissentin*E

The decision concludes with the assertion that there is no choice. Geare construin*G it says, Gthe Constitution as we see it and not as we)ay wish it to be. /f this is the sole)n )andate of the Constitution, wecannot co)pro)ise it even in the na)e of e5uity.G e wish deep in our heart that we were *iven the li*ht to see as the )a+ority do and couldshare their opinion. As it is, we perceive thin*s the other way around.

As we see it, the decision by!passed what accordin* to our hu)bleunderstandin* is the plain intent of the Constitution and *roped out ofits way in search of the ideal result. The denial by this Court of the)otion to withdraw the appeal to which the olicitor "eneral *ave hisconfor)ity collides with the professed sorrow that the decision cannotbe helped.

ection ', Article H///, of the Constitution readsE

'. ave in cases of hereditary succession, no privatea*ricultural land shall be transferred or assi*ned ecept toindividuals, corporations, or associations 5ualified to ac5uire

or hold lands of the public do)ain in the hilippines.

The sole and si)ple 5uestion at issue is, what is the )eanin* of theter) Ga*ricultural landG as used in this section 0efore answerin* the5uestion, it is convenient to refresh our )e)ory of the pertinent rule inthe interpretation of constitutions as epounded in decisions of courtsof last resort and by law authors.

/t is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of constitutions thatthe instru)ent )ust be a construed so to *ive effect to theintention of the people who adopted it. This intention is to besou*ht in the constitution itself, and the apparent )eanin* of the words e)ployed is to be taken as epressin* it, ecept incases where the assu)ption would lead to absurdity,

a)bi*uity, or contradiction. 0lack on /nterpretation of 6aws,2nd ed., p. 2:.<

8very word e)ployed in the constitution is to be epoundedin its plain, obvious, and co))on sense, unless the contetfurnishes so)e *round to control, 5ualify, or enlar*e it.Constitutions are not desi*ned for )etaphysical or lo*icalsubtleties, for niceties of epression, for critical propriety, forelaborate shades of )eanin*, or for the eercise ofphilosophical acuteness or +udicial research. They areinstru)ents of a practical nature founded on the co))onbusiness of hu)an life adapted to co))on wants, desi*nedfor co))on use, and fitted for co))on understandin*s. Thepeople )ake the), the people adopt the), the people )ustbe supposed to read the) with the help of co))on sense,and cannot be presu)ed to ad)it in the) any recondite)eanin*or any etraordinary *loss. ;1 tory, Const. sec.%'1.<

-arshall , Ch. 4., saysE

The fra)ers of the Constitution, and the people who adoptedit, G)ust be understood to have e)ployed words in theirnatural sense, and to have intended what they have said.G;"ibbons vs. *don, 9 heat, 1, 1((D & 6aw. ed., 2<.

@uestions as to the wisdo), epediency, or +ustice of

constitutional provisions afford no basis for constructionwhere the intent to adopt such provisions is epressed inclear and un)istakable ter)s. $or can construction read intothe provisions of a constitution so)e unepressed *eneralpolicy or spirit, supposed to underline and pervade theinstru)ent and to render it consonant to the *enius of theinstitutions of the state. The courts are not at liberty todeclare an act void because they dee) it opposed to thespirit of the Constitution. ;12 C.4., 7:2!7:.<

There is no obscurity or a)bi*uity in the section of the Constitutionabove 5uoted, nor does a literal interpretation of the words Ga*riculturallandG lead to any un!the )a+ority opinion, the phrase has no technical)eanin*, and the sa)e could not have been used in any sense otherthan that in which it is understood by the )en in the street.

That there are lands of private ownership will not be denied, inspite ofthe fiction tha all lands proceed fro) the soverei*n. And, that lands ofprivate ownership are known as a*ricultural, residential, co))ercialand industrial, is another truth which no one can successfully dispute./n prohibitin* the alienation of private a*ricultural land to aliens, theConstitution, by necessary i)plication, authories the alienation ofother kinds of private property. The epress )ention of one thin*ecludes all others of the sa)e kind.

6et us then ascertain the )eanin* of the word Ga*riculturalG so that byprocess of eli)ination we can see what lands do not fall within thepurview of the constitutional inhibition. ebsters $ew international3ictionary defines this word as Gof or pertainin* to a*ricultureconnected with, or en*a*ed in, tilla*eD as, the a*ricultural classDa*ricultural i)ple)ents, wa*es, etc.G Accordin* to this definition and

accordin* to the popular conception of the word, lands in cities andtowns intended or used for buildin*s or other kinds of structure arenever understood to )ean a*ricultural lands. They are eitherresidential, co))ercial, or industrial lands. /n all city plannin*s,co))unities are divided into residential, co))ercial and industrialsections. /t would be etre)ely out of the ordinary, not to sayridiculous, to i)a*ine that the Constitutional Convention considered alot on the 8scolta with its i)prove)ent as a*ricultural land.

/f etrinsic evidence is needed, a reference to the history of theconstitutional provision under consideration will dispel all doubts thaturban lands were in the )inds of the fra)ers of the Constitution asproperties that )ay be assi*ned to forei*ners.

3ean Arue*o, hi)self a )e)ber of the Constitutional Convention, isauthority for the state)ent that the co))ittee on nationaliation and

preservation of lands and other natural resources in its reportreco))ended the incorporation into the Constitution of the followin*provisionE

8C. %. ave in cases of hereditary succession, no land ofprivate ownership shall be transferred or assi*ned by theowner thereof ecept to individuals, corporations, orassociations 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of the publicdo)ain in the hilippine /slandsD and the "overn)ent shallre*ulate the transfer or assi*n)ent of land now owned bypersons, or corporations,or associations not 5ualified underthe provisions of this Constitution to ac5uire or hold lands inthe hilippine /slands.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


/n Article H///, entitled G"eneral rovisions,G of the first draft of theConstitution, the sub!co))ittee of seven e)bodied the followin*provision which had been reco))ended in the reports of theco))ittee on a*ricultural develop)ent, national defense, industry, andnationaliation and preservation of lands and other natural resourcesE

8C. 1&. ave in cases of hereditary succession, no land ofprivate ownership shall be transferred or assi*ned by theowner thereof ecept to individuals, corporations, orassociations 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of the publicdo)ain in the hilippines.

0ut on 4anuary 22, 19', the sub!co))ittee of seven sub)itted to theConvention a revised draft of the articleo n "eneral rovisions of thefirst draft, which revised draft had been prepared by the co))ittee inconsultation with resident @ueon. The revised draft as it touchesprivate lands provides as followsE

ave in cases of hereditary succession, no a*ricultural landof private ownership shall be transferred or assi*ned by theowner thereof ecept to individuals, corporations, orassociations 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands, of the publicdo)ain in the hilippine /slands. ;2 The Fra)in* of thehilippine Constitution, Arue*o, '9'!'99.<

The last!5uoted proposal beca)e section ' of Article H/// of theConstitution in its final for) with sli*h alteration in the phraseolo*y.

/t will thus be seen that two co))ittees in their reports and the sub!co))ittee of seven in its first draft of the Constitution all proposed toprescribe the transfer to non!Filipino citiens of any land of privateownership without re*ard to its nature or use, but that the last)entioned sub!co))ittee later a)ended that proposal by puttin* theword Ga*riculturalG before the word Gland.G hat are we to concludefro) this )odification /ts self!evident purpose was to confine theprohibition to a*ricultural lands, allowin* the ownership by forei*ners of private lands that do not partake of a*ricultural character. The insertionof the word Ga*riculturalG was studied and deliberated, therebyeli)inatin* any possibility that its i)plication was not co)prehended.

/n the followin* para*raphs we shall, in our inade5uate way, atte)pt toshow that the conclusions in this Courts decision are erroneous either

because the pre)ises are wron* or because the conclusions do notfollow the pre)ises.

Accordin* to the decision, the insertion of the word Ga*riculturalG wasnot intended to chan*e the scope of the provision. /t says that Gthewordin* of the first draft was a)ended for no other purpose than toclarify concepts and avoid uncertainties.G

/f this was the intention of the Constitutional Asse)bly, that could nothave devised a better way of )essin* up and obscurin* the )eanin*of the provision than what it did. /f the purpose was Gto clarify conceptsand avoid uncertainties,G the insertion of the word Ga*riculturalG beforethe word GlandG produced the eact opposite of the result which thechan*e was epected to acco)plish > as witness the present sharpand bitter controversy which would not have arisen had they let wellenou*h alone.

0ut the assu)ption is untenable. To brush aside the introduction of theword Ga*riculturalG into the final draft as G)erely one of wordsG is utterlyunsupported by evidence, by the tet of the Constitution, or by soundprinciples of construction. There is absolutely no warrant or thestate)ent that the Constitutional Convention, which was *uided bywise )en, )en of ability and eperience in different fields of endeavor,used the ter)after )ature deliberation and reflection and afterconsultation with the resident, without intendin* to *ive it its naturalsi*nification and connotation. Ge are not at liberty to presu)e that thefra)ers of the Constitution, or the people who adopted it, did notunderstand the force of lan*ua*e.G ;eople vs. #athbone, 2 $...,1:(.< The Constitution will be scanned in vain for any reasonableindication that its authors )ade the chan*e with intention that it shouldnot operate accordin* to the rules of *ra))ar and the ordinaryprocess of drawin* lo*ical inferences. The theory is a*ainst the

presu)ption, based on hu)an eperience, that the fra)ers of aconstitution Ghave epressed the)selves in careful and )easuredter)s, correspondin* with the i))ense i)portance of the powersdele*ated, leavin* as little as possible to i)plication.G ;1 CooleysConstitutional 6i)itations, (th ed., 12(, 129.< GAs )en, whose intentionre5uire no conceal)ent, *enerally e)ploy the words which )ostdirectly and aptly epress the ideas they intend to convey, theenli*htened patriots who fra)ed our constitution, and the people whoadopted it, )ust be understood to have e)ployed words in theirnatural sense and to have intended what they have said.G;"ibbons vs. *den, ante.<

hen instead of prohibitin* the ac5uisition of private land of any kindby forei*ners, as ori*inally proposed, the prohibition was chan*ed to

private a*ricultural lands, the avera*e )ans faculty of reasonin* tellshi) that other lands )ay be ac5uired. The ele)entary rules of speechwith which )en of avera*e intelli*ence, and, above all, the )e)bers of the Constitutional Asse)bly were fa)iliar, infor) us that the ob+ect of adescriptive ad+ective is to specify a thin* as distinct fro) another. /t isfro) this process of reasonin* that the )ai) e#pressio nis este#clsio alteris ste)sD a fa)iliar rule of interpretation often 5uoted,and ad)itted as a*reeable to natural reason.

/f then a forei*ner )ay ac5uire private lands that are not a*ricultural,what lands are they Ti)ber land or )ineral land, or both As thedecision itself says these lands are not susceptible of privateownership, the answer can only be residential, co))ercial, industrialor other lands that are not a*ricultural. hether a property is )oresuitable and profitable to the owners as residential, co))ercial orindustrial than if he devotes it to the cultivation of crops is a )atter thathas to be decided accordin* to the value of the property, its sie, andother attendin* circu)stances.

The )ain burden of this Courts ar*u)ent is that, as lands of the publicdo)ain which are suitable for ho)e buildin* are considereda*ricultural land, the Constitution intended that private residential,co))ercial or industrial lands should be considered also a*riculturallands. The Court says that Gwhat the )e)bers of the ConstitutionalConvention had in )ind when they drafted the Constitution was thiswell!known classification ;ti)ber, )ineral and a*ricultural< and itstechnical )eanin* then prevailin*.G

As far as private lands are concerned, there is no factual or le*al basisfor this assu)ption. The classification of public lands was used for onepurpose not conte)plated in the classification of private lands. At theoutset, it should be distinctively )ade clear that it was this Courtsprevious decisions and not an Act of Con*ress which declared thatpublic lands which were not forest or )ineral were a*ricultural lands.6ittle reflection on the back*round of this Courts decisions and thenature of the 5uestion presented in relation to the peculia rprovisions of the enact)ents which ca)e up for construction, will brin* into relief theerror of applyin* to private lands the classification of public lands.

/n the first place, we cannot classify private lands in the sa)e )anneras public lands for the very si)ple and )anifest reason that only landspertainin* to one of the three *roups of public lands > a*ricultural >can find their way into the hands of private persons. Forest lands and

)ineral lands are preserved by the tate for itself and for posterity."rantin* what is possible, that there are here and there forest landsand )ineral lands to which private persons have obtained patents ortitles, it would be pointless to suppose that such properties are theones which section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution wants todistin*uish fro) private a*ricultural lands as lienable. The )a+oritythe)selves will not ad)it that the Constitution which forbids thealienation or private a*ricultural lands allows the conveyance of privateforests and )ines.

/n the second place, public lands are classified under specialconditions and with a different ob+ect in view. Classification of publiclands was and is )ade for purposes of ad)inistrationD for the purposeprincipally of se*re*atin* lands that )ay be sold fro) lands that shouldbe conserved. The Act of 4uly 1, 19:2, of the ?nited tates Con*ressdesi*nated what lands of the public do)ain )i*ht be alienated and

what should be kept by the tate. ublic lands are divided into threeclasses to the end that natural resources )ay be used without waste.ub+ect to so)e eceptions and li)itation, a*ricultural lands )ay bedisposed of by the "overn)ent. reservation of forest and )inerallands was and is a do)inant preoccupation. These are i)portant partsof the countrys natural resources. rivate non!a*ricultural land doesnot co)e within the cate*ory of natural resources. $atural resourcesare defined in ebsters tandard 3ictionary as )aterials supplied orproduced by nature. The ?nited tates Con*ress evinced very little ifany concern with private lands.

/t should also be distinctively kept in )ind that the Act of Con*ress ofthe ?nited tates above )entioned was an or*anic law and dealt withvast tracts of untouched public lands. /t was enacted by a Con*resswhose )e)bers were not closely fa)iliar with local conditionsaffectin* lands. ?nder the circu)stances, it was natural that theCon*ress e)ployed Gwords in a co)prehensive sense as epressiveof *eneral ideas rather than of finer shades of thou*ht or of narrowdistinctions. GThe ?nited tates Con*ress was content with layin*down a broad outline *overnin* the ad)inistration, eploitation, anddisposition of the public wealth, leavin* the details to be worked out bythe local authorities and courts entrusted with the enforce)ent andinterpretation of the law.

/t was a result of this broad classification that 5uestions crept for adefinition of the status of scattered s)all parcels of public lands thatwere neither forest, )ineral, nor a*ricultural, and with which theCon*ress had not bothered itself to )ention separately or specifically.This Court, forced by nature of its duty to decide le*al controversies,ruled that public lands that were fit for residential purposes, publicswa)ps and other public lands that were neither forest nor )ineral,

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


were to be re*arded as a*ricultural lands. /n other words, there was anapparent void, often inevitable in a law or constitution, and this Court)erely filled that void. /t should be noted that this Court did not say thata*ricultural lands and residential lands are the sa)e or alike in theircharacter and use. /t )erely said that for the purpose of +ud*in* theiralienability, residential, co))ercial or industrial lands should bebrou*ht under the class of a*ricultural lands.

n the other hand, section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution treats ofprivate lands with a different ai). This Court is not now confronted withany proble) for which there is no specific provision, such as faced itwhen the 5uestion of deter)inin* the character of public residentialland ca)e up for decision. This Court is not called to rule whether aprivate residential land is forest, )ineral or a*ricultural. This Court isnot, in re*ard to private lands, in the position where it found itself withreference to public lands, co)pelled by the li)ited field of its choice for a na)e to call public residential lands, a*ricultural lands. hen itco)es to deter)inin* the character of private non!a*ricultural lands,the Courts task is not to co)pare it with forests, )ines and a*riculturallands, to see which of these bears the closest rese)brance to the landin 5uestion. ince there are no private ti)ber nor )ineral lands, and ifthere were, they could not be transferred to forei*ners, and since theob+ect of section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution is radically atvariance withthat of the laws coverin* public lands, we have to havedifferent standards of co)parison and have to look of the intent of thisconstitutional provision fro) a different an*le and perspective. hen aprivate non!a*ricultural land de)ands to know where it stands, we donot ac5uire, is it )ineral, forest or a*ricultural e only ask, is it

a*ricultural To ascertain whether it is within the inhibition of section 'of Article H///.

The last 5uestion in turn resolves itself into what is understood bya*ricultural land. tripped of the special considerations which dictatedthe classification of public lands into three *eneral *roups, there is noalternative but to take the ter) Ga*ricultural landG in its natural andpopular si*nificationD and thus re*arded, it i)ports a distinctconnotation which involves no absurdity and no contradiction betweendifferent parts of the or*anic law. /ts )eanin* is that a*ricultural land isspecified in section ' of Article H/// to differentiate it fro) lands that areused or are )ore suitable for purposes other than a*riculture.

/t would profit us to take notice of the ad)onition of two of the )ostrevered writers on constitutional law, 4ustice tory and rofessorCooleyE

GAs a *eneral thin*, it is to be supposed that the sa)e word is used inthe sa)e sense wherever it occurs in a constitution. =ere a*ain,however, *reat caution )ust be observed in applyin* an arbitrary ruleDfor, as -r. 4ustice tory has well observedD K/t does not follow, eitherlo*ically or *ra))atically, that because a word is found in oneconnection in the Constitution with a definite sense, therefore the sa)eis to be adopted in every other connection in which it occurs. Thiswould be to suppose that the fra)ers wei*hed only the force of sin*lewords, as philolo*ists or critics, and not whole clauses and ob+ects, asstates)en and practical reasoners. And yet nothin* has been )oreco))on than to sub+ect the Constitution to this narrow and)ischievous criticis). -en of in*enious and subtle )inds, who seekfor sy))etry and har)ony in lan*ua*e, havin* found in theConstitution a word used in so)e sense which falls in with theirfavorite theory of interpretin* it, have )ade that the standard by which

to )easure its use in every other part of the instru)ent. They havethus stretched it, as it were, on the bed of rocrustes, loppin* off its)eanin* when it see)ed too lar*e for their purposes, and etendin* it,when it see)ed too short. They have thus distorted it to the )ostunnatural shapes, and crippled where they have sou*ht only to ad+ustits proportions accordin* to their own opinions And he *ives )anyinstances where, in the $ational Constitution, it is very )anifest thesa)e word is e)ployed in different )eanin*s. o that, while the rule)ay be sound as one of presu)ption )erely, its force is but sli*ht, andit )ust readily *ive way to a different intent appearin* in theinstru)ent.G ;1 Cooleys Constitutional 6i)itations, (th ed., 1'.<

As to the proposition that the words Ga*ricultural landsG have been*iven a technical )eanin* and that the Constitution has e)ployedthe) in that sense, it can only be accepted in reference to public lands./f a technical i)port has been affied to the ter), it can not be

etended to private lands if we are not to be led to an absurdity and ifwe are avoid the char*e that we are resortin* to subtle and in*eniousrefine)ent to force fro) the Constitution a )eanin* which its fra)ersnever held. hile in the construction of a constitution words )ust be*iven the technical )eanin* which they have ac5uired, the rule isli)ited to the Gwell!understood )eanin*G Gwhich the people )ust besupposed to have had in view in adoptin* the).G To *ive an ea)ple.Ghen the constitution speaks of an e# post facto law, it )eans a lawtechnically known by that desi*nationD the )eanin* of the phrasehavin* beco)e definite in the history of constitutional law, andbein* so familiar to te people tat it is not necessar( to emplo(lan'a'e of a more poplar caracter to desi'nate it .G /n reality, this isnot a departure fro) the *eneral rule that the lan*ua*e used is to betaken in the sense it conveys to the popular )ind, Gfor the technicalsense in these cases is the sense popularly understood, because that

is the sense fied upon the words in le*al and constitutional historywhere they have been e)ployed for the protection of popular ri*hts.G ;1Cooleys Constitutional 6i)itations, (th ed., 12!1.< Biewed fro) thisan*le, Ga*ricultural landG does not possess the 5uality of a technicalter). 8ven as applied to public lands, and even a)on* lawyers and

+ud*es, how )any are fa)iliar with the decisions of this Court whichhold that public swa)ps and public lands )ore appropriate forbuildin*s and other structures than for a*riculture are a*riculturallands The sa)e can be truthfully said of )e)bers of theConstitutional Asse)bly.

The speeches of dele*ates -ontilla and 6edes)a cannot serve as a)eans of interpretation. The senti)ents epressed in those speeches,like the first drafts of section ' of Article H///, )ay have reflected thesenti)ents of the Convention in the first sta*es of the deliberation ordown to its close. /f they were, those senti)ents were relaed and not*iven full sway for reasons on which we need not speculate. peechesin support of a pro+ect can be a valuable criterion for +ud*in* theintention of a law or constitution only if no chan*es were afterwardaffected. /f anythin*, the chan*e in section ' of Article H/// wrou*ht inthe face of a stron* advocacy for co)plete and absolutenationaliation of all lands, without eception, offers itself as the bestproof that to the fra)ers of the Constitution the chan*e was notG)erely one of wordsG but represented so)ethin* real and substantial.Fir) and resolute convictions are epressed in a docu)ent in stron*,une5uivocal and un5ualified lan*ua*e. This is specially true when theinstru)ent is a constitution, Gthe )ost sole)n and deliberate of hu)anwritin*s, always carefully drawn, and calculated for per)anent

endurance.G

The decision 5uotes fro) the Fra)in* of the Constitution by 3ean Arue*o a sentence which says that one of the principles underlyin* theprovision of Article H/// of the Constitution is Gthat lands, )inerals,forests and other natural resources constitute the eclusive herita*e ofthe Filipino $ation.G /n underlyin* the word lands the Court wants toinsinuate that all lands without eceptions are included. This is nothin*to be enthusiastic over. /t is hyperbole, Ga fi*ure of speech in which thestate)ent epresses )ore than the truthG but Gis accepted as a le*alfor) of epression.G /t is an epression that Glies but does not deceive.Ghen we say )en )ust fi*ht we do not )ean all )en, and every oneknows we dont.

The decision saysE

/t is true that in section 9 of said Co))onwealth Act $o.1%1,Galienable or disposable public landsG which are thesa)e as Gpublic a*ricultural landsG under the Constitution,are classified into a*ricultural, residential, co))ercial,industrial and for other purposes. This si)ply )eans that theter) Gpublic a*ricultural landsG has both a broad and aparticular )eanin*. ?nder its broad or *eneral )eanin*, asused in the Constitution, it e)braces all lands that areneither ti)ber nor )ineral. This broad )eanin* isparticularied in section 9 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1which classifies Gpublic a*ricultural landsG for purposes ofalienation or disposition, into lands that are strictlya*ricultural or actually devoted to cultivation for a*riculturalpurposesD lands that are residentialD co))ercialD industrialDor lands for other purposes. The fact that these lands are)ade alienable or disposable under Co))onwealth Act $o.

1%1, in favor of Filipino Citien, is a conclusive indication oftheir character as public a*ricultural lands under said statuteand under the Constitution.G

/f / a) not )istaken in )y understandin* of the line of reasonin* in thefore*oin* passa*e, )y hu)ble opinion is that there is no lo*icalconnection between the pre)ise and the conclusion. hat to )esee)s clearly to e)er*e fro) it is that Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, sofar fro) sustainin* that Courts theory, actually pulls down its casewhich it has built upon the foundation of parallel classification of publicand private lands into forest, )ineral and a*ricultural lands, and theineistence of such thin*s as residential, industrial or co))erciallands. /t is to be noted that Act $o. 1%1, section 9, classifies disposablelands into a*ricultural, industrial, residential, co))ercial, etc. Andthese are lands of the public do)ain.

The fact that the provisions re*ardin* alienation of private landshappens to be included in Article H///, which is entitled GConservationand ?tiliation of $atural #esources,G is no *round for treatin* publiclands and private lands on the sa)e footin*. The inference shouldrather be the eact reverse. A*ricultural lands, whether public orprivate, are natural resources. 0ut residential, co))ercial, andindustrial lands, as we have seen, are not natural resources either inthe sense these words convey to the popular )ind or as defined in thedictionary. This fact )ay have been one factor which pro)pted theeli)ination of private non!a*ricultural lands fro) the ran*e of theprohibition, alon* with reasons, of forei*n policy, econo)ics andpolitics.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Fro) the opinion of ecretary of 4ustice 4ose A. antos in 199, the)a+ority can not derive any co)fort unless we clin* to the seriousar*u)ent that as public lands *o so *o private lands. /n that opinionthe 5uestion propounded was whether a piece of public land whichwas )ore profitable as a ho)esite )i*ht not be sold and consideredas a*ricultural. The illustrious ecretary answered yes, which wascorrect. 0ut the classification of private lands was not directly orindirectly involved. /t is the opinion of the present ecretary of 4usticethat is to the point. /f the construction placed by the law!officer of the*overn)ent on a constitutional provision )ay properly be invoked, asthe )a+ority say but which / doubt, as representin* the true intent of theinstru)ent, this Court, if it is to be consistent, should adopt ecretary

aetas view. /f the olicitor "enerals attitude as interested counselfor the *overn)ent in a +udicial action is > as the decision alsosu**ests but which, / think, is still )ore incorrect both in theory and inpractice > then this Court should have *iven heed to the )otion forwithdrawal of the present appeal, which had been concurred in by theolicitor "eneral in line presu)ably with the opinion of the head of hisdepart)ent.

The Court fears that Gthis constitutional purpose of conservin*a*ricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citiens )ay easily bedefeated by the Filipino citiens the)selves who )ay alienate theira*ricultural lands in favor of aliens.G /t reasons that Git would certainlybe futile to prohibit the alienation of public a*ricultural lands to aliens if,after all, they )ay be freely so alienated upon their beco)in* privatea*ricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citiens.G ections122 and12 of Act $o. 1%1 should banish this fear. These sections, 5uoted and

relied upon in the )a+ority opinion, prevent private lands that havebeen ac5uired under any of the public land laws fro) fallin* into alienpossession in fee si)ple. ithout this law, the fear would be well!founded if we adopt the )a+oritys theory, which we precisely re+ect,that a*ricultural and residential lands are synony)ous, be they publicor private. The fear would not )aterialie under our theory, that onlylands which are not a*ricultural )ay be owned by persons other thanF/lipino citiens.

Act $o. 1%1, by the way, supplies the best ar*u)ent a*ainst the)a+oritys interpretation of section ' of Article H///. rohibitin* theac5uisition by forei*ners of any lands ori*inally ac5uired in any )anner under its provisions or under the provisions of any previous law,ordinace, royal order, royal decree, or any other law for)erly enforcedin the hilippines with re*ard to public lands, etc., it is a )ute elo5uenttesti)ony that in the )inds of the le*islature, whose interpretation the

)a+ority correctly say should be looked to as authoritative, theConstitution did not carry such prohibition. For if the Constitutionalready barred the alienation of lands of any kind in favor of aliens, theprovisions of sections 122 and 12 of Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1would have been superfluous.

The decision says that Gif under Article H/B section (, of theConstitution, an alien )ay not even operate a s)all +eepney for hire, itis certainly not hard to understand that neither is he allowed to own apiece of land.G There is no si)ilitude between ownin* a lot for a ho)eor a factory or a store and operatin* a +eepney for hire. /t is not theownership of a +eepney that is forbiddenD it is the use of it for publicservice that is not allowed. A forei*ner is not barred fro) ownin* thecostliest )otor cars, stea)ships or airplanes in any nu)ber, for hisprivate use or that of his friends and relatives. =e can not use a

+eepney for hire because the operation of public utilities is reserved to

Filipino nationals, and the operation of a +eepney happens to be withinthis policy. The use of a +eepney for hire )aybe insi*nificant in itself butit falls within a class of industry that perfor)s a vital function in thecountrys econo)ic life, closely associated with its advancin*civiliation, supplyin* needs so funda)ental for co))unal livin* andfor the develop)ent of the countrys econo)y, that the *overn)entfinds need of sub+ectin* the) to so)e )easure of control and theConstitution dee)s it necessary to li)it their operation by Filipinocitiens. The i)portance of usin* a +eepney for hire cannot be sneeredat or )ini)ied +ust as a vote for public office by a sin*le forei*n citiencan not be looked at with a shru* of the shoulder on the theory that itwould not cause a ripple in the political co)pleion or scene of thenation.

This Court 5uotes with approval fro) the olicitor "enerals brief thispassa*eE G/f the ter) Kprivate a*ricultural lands is to be construed asnot includin* residential lots or lands of si)ilar nature, the result will bethat aliens )ay freely ac5uire and possess not only residential lots andhouses for the)selves but entire subdivisions and whole towns andcities, and that they )ay validly buy and hold in their na)es lands ofany area for buildin* ho)es, factories, industrial plants, fisheries,hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts, )arkets, *olf >courses, play*rounds, airfields and a host of other uses and purposesthat are not, in appellants words, strictly a*ricultural.G Ar*u)ents likethis have no place where there is no a)bi*uity in the constitution orlaw. The courts are not at liberty to disre*ard a provision that is clearand certain si)ply because its enforce)ent would work inconvenienceor hardship or lead to what they believe pernicious results. Courts havenothin* to do with inconvenience or conse5uences. This role isfounded on sound principles of constitutional *overn)ent and is sowell known as to )ake citations of authorities presu)ptuous.

"rantin* the possibility or probability of the conse5uences which thisCourt and the olicitor "eneral dread, we should not overlook the factthat there is the Con*ress standin* *uard to curtail or stop suchecesses or abuses if and when the )enace should show its head.The fact that the Constitution has not prohibited, as we contend, thetransfer of private non!a*ricultural lands to aliens does not prevent theCon*ress fro) passin* le*islation to re*ulate or prohibit such transfer,to define the sie of private lands a forei*ner )ay possess in feesi)ple, or to specify the uses for which lands )ay be dedicated, inorder to prevent aliens fro) conductin* fisheries, hatcheries, vacationresorts, )arkets, *olf!courses, ce)eteries. The Con*ress could, if itwants, *o so far as to eclude forei*ners fro) enterin* the country or

settlin* here. /f / )ay be per)itted to *uess, the alteration in theori*inal draft of section ' of Article H/// )ay have been pro)ptedprecisely by the thou*ht that it is the better policy to leave to thepolitical depart)ents of the "overn)ent the re*ulation or absoluteprohibition of all land ownership by forei*ners, as the chan*ed,chan*in* and ever!chan*in* conditions de)and. The Co))onwealth6e*islature did that with respect to lands that were ori*inally publiclands, throu*h Co))onwealth Act $o. 1%1, and the 6e*islative

Asse)bly durin* the 4apanese occupation etended the prohibition toall private lands, as -r. 4ustice aras has pointed out. /n the presentCon*ress, at least two bills have been introduced proposin*Con*ressional le*islation in the sa)e direction. All of which is aninfallible si*n that the Constitution does not carry such prohibition, inthe opinion of three le*islatures, an opinion which, we entirely a*reewith the )a+ority, should be *iven serious consideration by the courts;if needed there were any doubt<, both as a )atter of policy, and alsobecause it )ay be presu)ed to represent the true intent of the

instru)ent. ;12 C.4., 71%.< /n truth, the decision lays special e)phasison the fact that G)any )e)bers of the $ational Asse)bly whoapproved the new Act ;$o. 1%1< had been )e)bers of theConstitutional Convention.G -ay / add that enator Francisco, who isthe author of one of the bills / have referred to, in the enate, was aleadin*, active and influential )e)ber of the ConstitutionalConvention

0oot&ots

1 8n vista de la circular nu). 12( del 3eparta)ento de

4usticia fechada el 12 de A*osto, 19%7, la cual en)ienda lacircular nu). 1% en el sentido de autoriar el re*istro de laventa de terrenos urbanos a etran+eros, y en vista delhecho de 5ue el rocrador General se a nido a lamocion para la retirada de la apelacion (a no e#istenin'na controversia entre las partes ( la cestion es aoraacademica. or esta raon, la Corte (a no tiene 4risdiccionsobre el caso ;TraduccionD las cursivas son nuestras<.

2 <ease re*la &%, seccion , incisos c y d, #e*la)ento de losTribunales.

<ease el asunto de Bera contra Avelino ;77 hil.,192<D vease tambien el asunto de -abana* contra6opeBito ;7( hil., 1<.

% 8l Con*reso puede deter)inar por ley la etencion delterreno privado a*ricola 5ue los individuos, corporaciones, oasociaciones pueden ad5uirir y poseer, su+eto alos derechoseistentes antes de la pro)ul*acion de dicha ley.

' <ease los si*uientes asuntosE -apa contra "obierno/nsular, 1: 4ur. Fil., 17(D -ontano contra "obierno /nsular,12 4ur. Fil., '92D antia*o contra "obierno /nsular, 12 4ur.Fil., &1'D /baNe de Aldecoa contra"obierno /nsular, 1 4ur.Fil., 1&D #a)os contra 3irector de Terrenos, 9 4ur. Fil.,1(%D y 4ocson contra3irector de -ontes, 9 4ur. Fil., '&9D

Ankron contra "obierno de Filipinas, %: 4ur. Fil., 1:.

& sorio y "allardo.

7 Cf. 0uchanan vs. orley, 2%' ?.. &:, ( . Ct. 1&.

G.R. No. 158998 Au>ust 4, 1994

RE/L* O0 E *L**NES, petitioner,vs.E O/R O0 AEALS AND SO/SES MAR*O . LA*CA AND0LOR DE +EGA, respondents.

B(ron <. Belarmino and Jan B. Belarmino for private respondents.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


*D*N, J.:

Can a forei*n national apply for re*istration of title over a parcel of landwhich he ac5uired by purchase while still a citien of the hilippines,fro) a vendor who has co)plied with the re5uire)ents for re*istrationunder the ublic 6and Act ;CA 1%1<

The #epublic would have us rule on the ne*ative and asks this Courtto nullify the decision of the appellate court which affir)ed the

+ud*)ent of the court a 8o in *rantin* the application of respondentspouses for re*istration over the lots in 5uestion.

n 4une 17, 197(, respondent spouses bou*ht 6ots %7 and %(,Cad. s(!3, as their residence with a total area of 91.77 s5. ).situated in an ablo City, fro) one Cristeta 3ao 0elen ;#ollo, p. %1<.

At the ti)e of the purchase, respondent spouses where then natural!born Filipino citiens.

n February ', 19(7, the spouses filed an application for re*istrationof title of the two ;2< parcels of land before the #e*ional Trial Court ofan ablo City, 0ranch HHH/. This ti)e, however, they were no lon*erFilipino citiens and have opted to e)brace Canadian citienshipthrou*h naturaliation.

An opposition was filed by the #epublic and after the parties havepresented their respective evidence, the court a 8o rendered a

decision confir)in* private respondents title to the lots in 5uestion, thedispositive portion of which reads as followsE

=8#8F#8, in view of the fore*oin*, this Courthereby approves the said application and confir)sthe title and possession of herein applicants over6ots %7 and %(, Ap!:%!::7'' in the na)es ofspouses -ario 0. 6apiNa and Flor de Be*a, all ofle*al a*e, Filipino citiens by birth but nowCanadian citiens by naturaliation and residin* at1% A. -abini treet, an ablo City andPor 2:1!117:!12% treet, 8d)onton, Alberta T'-!M9,Canada.

nce this 3ecision beco)es final, let thecorrespondin* decree of re*istration be issued. /n

the certificate of title to be issued, there shall beannotated an ease)ent of .2&' )eters road ri*ht!of!way.

#38#83. ;#ollo, p. 2'<

n appeal, respondent court affir)ed the decision of the trial courtbased on the followin* ratiocinationE

/n the present case, it is undisputed that bothapplicants were still Filipino citiens when theybou*ht the land in controversy fro) its for)erowner. For this reason, the prohibition a*ainst theac5uisition of private lands by aliens could notapply. /n +ustice and e5uity, they are the ri*htful

owners of the sub+ect realty considerin* also thatthey had paid for it 5uite a lar*e su) of )oney.Their purpose in initiatin* the instant action is)erely to confir) their title over the land, for, ashas been passed upon, they had been the ownersof the sa)e since 197(. /t ou*ht to be pointed outthat re*istration is not a )ode of ac5uirin*ownership. The Torrens yste) was notestablished as a )eans for the ac5uisition of titleto private land. /t is intended )erely to confir) andre*ister the title which one )ay already have;-unicipality of Bictorias vs. Court of Appeals,".#. $o. 6!11(9, -arch 1, 19(7<. ithparticular reference to the )ain issue at bar, the=i*h Court has ruled that title and ownership overlands within the )eanin* and for the purposes of

the constitutional prohibition dates back to the ti)eof their purchase, not later. The fact that theapplicants!appellees are not Filipino citiens nowcannot be taken a*ainst the) for they were notdis5ualified fro) ac5uirin* the land in 5uestion;0olloos vs. u Tien* u, ".#. $o. 6!29%%2,$ove)ber 11, 19(7<. ;#ollo, pp. 27!2(<

8pectedly, respondent courts disposition did not )erit petitionersapproval, hence this present recourse, which was belatedly filed.

rdinarily, this petition would have been denied outri*ht for havin*been filed out of ti)e had it not been for the constitutional issuepresented therein.

At the outset, petitioner sub)its that private respondents have notac5uired proprietary ri*hts over the sub+ect properties before theyac5uired Canadian citienship throu*h naturaliation to +ustify there*istration thereof in their favor. /t )aintains that even privately ownedunre*istered lands are presu)ed to be public lands under the principlethat lands of whatever classification belon* to the tate under the#e*alian doctrine. Thus, before the issuance of the certificate of title,the occupant is not in the +urisdical sense the true owner of the landsince it still pertains to the tate. etitioner further ar*ued that it is onlywhen the court ad+udicates the land to the applicant for confir)ation oftitle would the land beco)e privately owned land, for in the sa)eproceedin*, the court )ay declare it public land, dependin* on the

evidence.

As found by the trial courtE

The evidence thus presented established thatapplicants, by the)selves and their predecessors!in!interest, had been in open, public, peaceful,continuous, eclusive and notorious possessionand occupation of the two ad+acent parcels of landapplied for re*istration of title under a bona!fideclai) of ownership lon* before 4une 12, 19%'.uch bein* the case, it is conclusively presu)edthat all the conditions essential to the confir)ationof their title over the two ad+acent parcels of landare sou*ht to be re*istered have been co)pliedwith thereby entitlin* the) to the issuance of the

correspondin* certificate of title pursuant to theprovisions of residential 3ecree $o. 1'29,otherwise known as the roperty #e*istration3ecree. ;#ollo, p. 2&<

#espondent court echoed the court a 8os observation, thusE

The land sou*ht to be re*istered has beendeclared to be within the alienable and disposableone established by the 0ureau of Forest3evelop)ent ;8hibit GG<. The investi*ationconducted by the 0ureau of 6ands, $atural#esources 3istrict ;/B!2< reveals that the disputedrealty had been occupied by the applicants Gwhosehouse of stron* )aterials stands thereonGD that it

had been declared for taation purposes in thena)e of applicants!spouses since 1979D that theyac5uired the sa)e by )eans of a publicinstru)ent entitled GMasulatan n* 0ilihan*TuluyanG duly eecuted by the vendor, Cristeta3ao 0elen, on 4une 17, 197( ;8hibits G/G andG4G<D and that applicants and their predecessors ininterest had been in possession of the land for)ore than : years prior to the filin* of theapplication for re*istration. 0ut what is of *reatsi*nificance in the instant case is the circu)stancethat at the ti)e the applicants purchased thesub+ect lot in 197(, both of the) were Filipinocitiens such that when they filed their applicationfor re*istration in 19(7, ownership over the land indispute had already passed to the). ;#ollo, p., 27<

The #epublic disa*rees with the appellate courts concept ofpossession and ar*uesE

17. The Court of Appeals found that the land wasdeclared for taation purposes in the na)e ofrespondent spouses only since +-=-. =owever,ta declarations or reality ta pay)ents of propertyare not conclusive evidence of ownership. ;citin*cases<

1(. Then a*ain, the appellate court found thatGapplicants ;respondents< and their predecessors!in!interest had been in possession of the land for)ore than : years prior to the filin* of theapplication for re*istration.G This is not , however,

the sa)e as sayin* that respondents have been inpossession Gsince 4une 12, 19%'.G ;3 $o. 1:7,a)endin* ec. %( IbJ, CA $. 1%1D sec. also ec.1%, 3 $o. 1'29<. o there is a void inrespondents possession. They fall short of there5uired possession since 4une 12, 19%' or priorthereto. And, even if they needed only to provethirty ;:< years possession prior to the filin* oftheir application ;on February ', 19(7<, they wouldstill be short of the re5uired possession if thestartin* point is 1979 when, accordin* to the Courtof Appeals, the land was declared for taationpurposes in their na)e. ;#ollo, pp. 1%!1'<

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


The ar*u)ent is )yopic, to say the least. Followin* the lo*ic ofpetitioner, any transferee is thus foreclosed to apply for re*istration oftitle over a parcel of land notwithstandin* the fact that the transferor, or his predecessor!in!interest has been in open, notorious and eclusivepossession thereof for thirty ;:< years or )ore. This is not, however,what the law provides.

As petitioner itself ar*ues, ection %( of the ublic 6and Act ;CA 1%1<readsE

ec. %(. The followin*!described citiens of the

hilippines, occupyin* lands of the public do)ainor clai)in* interest therein, but whose titles havenot been perfected or co)pleted, )ay apply to theCourt of First /nstance ;now #e*ional Trial Court<of the province where the land is located forconfir)ation of their clai)s and the issuance of acertificate of title therefor under the 6and#e*istration Act, to witE

;b< )ose %o b( temselves or tro' teir predecessors!in!interest ave been in opencontinos e#clsive and notorios possessionand occpation of a'ricltral lands of te pblicdomain nder a bona fide claim of ac8isition or

o%nersip for at least tirt( (ears i))ediatelyprecedin* the filin* of the application forconfir)ation of title ecept when prevented bywars or force )a+eure. These sall be conclsivel(

presmed to ave performed all te conditionsessential to a Government 'rant and sall beentitled to a certificate of title nder te provisionsof tis capter

. ;8)phasis supplied<

As a)ended by 3 1:7E

ec. %. The provisions of ection %(;b< andection %(;c<, Chapter B///, of the ublic 6and Actare hereby a)ended in the sense that theseprovisions shall apply only to alienable and

disposable lands of the public do)ain which havebeen in open, continuous, eclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation by the applicanthi)self or thru his predecessor!in!interest, undera bona fide clai) of ac5uisition or ownership,since 4une 12, 19%'.

/t )ust be noted that with respect to possession and occupation of thealienable and disposable lands of the public do)ain, the law e)ploysthe ter)s Gby the)selvesG, Gthe applicant hi)self or throu*h hispredecessor!in!interestG. Thus, it )atters not whether thevendeePapplicant has been in possession of the sub+ect property foronly a day so lon* as the period andPor le*al re5uire)ents forconfir)ation of title has been co)plied with by his predecessor!in!interest, the said period is tacked to his possession. /n the case at bar,respondents predecessors!in!interest have been in open, continuous,

eclusive and notorious possession of the disputed land not only since4une 12, 19%', but even as early as 197. etitioner does not denythis ecept that respondent spouses, in its perception, were inpossession of the land sou*ht to be re*istered only in 197( andtherefore short of the re5uired len*th of ti)e. As aforesaid, thedisputed parcels of land were ac5uired by private respondents throu*htheir predecessors!in!interest, who, in turn, have been in open andcontinued possession thereof since 197. rivate respondents steppedinto the shoes of their predecessors!in!interest and by virtue thereof,ac5uired all the le*al ri*hts necessary to confir) what could otherwisebe dee)ed as an i)perfect title.

At this +uncture, petitioners reliance in #epublic v. Billanueva ;11%C#A (7' I19(2J< deserves scant consideration. There, it was heldthat before the issuance of the certificate of title, the occupant is not inthe +uridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the

tate.

uffice it to state that the rulin* in #epublic v. Billanueva ;spra<, hasalready been abandoned in the 19(& case of 3irector of 6ands v./nter)ediate Appellate Court ;1%& C#A ':9D and reiterated in 3irector of 6ands v. /*lesia ni Cristo, 2:: C#A &:& I1991J< where the Court,throu*h then Associate 4ustice, now Chief 4ustice $arvasa, declaredthatE

;The wei*ht of authority is< that open, eclusiveand undisputed possession of alienable publicland for the period prescribed by law creates thele*al fiction whereby the land, upon co)pletion ofthe re5uisite period ipso 4re and without the need

of +udicial or other sanction, ceases to be publicland and beco)es private property. . . .

1erico in particular, appears to be s5uarelyaffir)ativeE

. . . econdly, under theprovisions of #epublic Act$o. 19%2, which therespondent Court held to beinapplicable to the petitioners

case, with the latters provenoccupation and cultivation for)ore than : years since191%, by hi)self and by hispredecessors!in!interest, titleover te land as vested on

petitioner so as to se're'atete land from te mass of

pblic land

. Thereafter, it is nolon*er disposable under theublic 6and Act as by freepatent . . .

As interpreted in several

cases, when the conditions asspecified in the fore*oin*provision are co)plied with,the possessor is dee)ed tohave ac5uired, b( operationof la% , a ri*ht to a *rant, a*overn)ent *rant, without thenecessity of a certificate oftitle bein* issued. The land,therefore, ceases to be of thepublic do)ain and beyond theauthority of the 3irector of6ands to dispose of. )eapplication for confirmation ismere formalit( te lac0 of%ic does not affect te

le'al sfficienc( of te title as%old be evidenced b( te patent and te )orrens title tobe issed pon te stren'tof said patent .

$othin* can )ore clearly de)onstrate the lo*icalinevitability of considerin* possession of publicland which is of the character and durationprescribed by the statute as the e5uivalent of anepress *rant fro) the tate than the dictu) ofthe statute itself ;ection %( IbJ< that thepossessor;s< G. . . shall be conclusively presu)edto have perfor)ed all the conditions essential to a"overn)ent *rant and shall be entitled to acertificate of title ...G No proof bein' admissible to

overcome a conclsive presmption confirmation proceedin's %old in trt be little more tan aformalit( at te most limited to ascertainin'%eter te possession claims is of te re8iredcaracter and len't of time; and re'istrationterender %old not confer title bt simpl(reco'nize a title alread( vested. )e proceedin's%old not ori'inall( convert te land from pblic to

private land bt onl( confirm sc a conversionalread( affected b( operation of la% from temoment te re8ired period of possessionbecame complete. As %as so %ell pt in Cario". . .9)ere are indications tat re'istration %ase#pected from all bt none sfficient to so% tatfor %ant of it o%nersip actall( 'ained %old belost. )e effect of te proof %erever made %asnot to confer title bt simpl( to establis it as

alread( conferred b( te decree if not b( earlierla%

. ;8)phasis supplied<

ubse5uent cases have hewed to the above pronounce)ent such thatopen, continuous and eclusive possession for at least : years ofalienable public land ipso 4re converts the sa)e to private property;3irector of 6ands v. /AC, 21% C#A &:% I1992JD ineda v. CA, 1(C#A &:2 I199:J<. This )eans that occupation and cultivation for)ore than : years by an applicant and his predecessors!in!interest,vest title on such applicant so as to se*re*ate the land fro) the )assof public and ;$ational ower Corporation v. CA, 21( C#A %1I199J<.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


The ublic 6and Act re5uires that the applicant )ust prove that ;a< theland is alienable public land and ;b< his possession, in the conceptabove stated, )ust be either since ti)e i))e)orial or for the periodprescribed in the ublic 6and Act ;3irector of 6ands v. 0uyco, 21&C#A 7( I1992J<. hen the conditions set by law are co)plied with,the possessor of the land, by operation of law, ac5uires a ri*ht to a*rant, a *overn)ent *rant, without the necessity of a certificate of titlebein* issued ;$ational ower Corporation v. CA, spra<. As such, theland ceases to be a part of the public do)ain and *oes beyond theauthority of the 3irector of 6ands to dispose of.

/n other words, the Torrens syste) was not established as a )eans for the ac5uisition of title to private land ;-unicipality of Bictorias v. CA,1%9 C#A 2 I19(7J<. /t )erely confir)s, but does not conferownership. As could be *leaned fro) the evidence adduced, privaterespondents were able to establish the nature of possession of theirpredecessors!in!interest. 8vidence was offered to prove that theirpredecessors!in!interest had paid taes on the sub+ect land andintroduced i)prove)ents thereon ;8hibits GFG to GF9G<. A certified truecopy of the affidavit eecuted by Cristeta 3ao and her sister i)pliciawas also for)ally offered to prove that the sub+ect parcels of land wereinherited by vendor Cristeta 3ao fro) her father edro 3ao with theconfor)ity of her only sister i)plicia ;8hibit G"G<. 6ikewise, a reportfro) the 0ureau of 6ands was presented in evidence to*ether with aletter fro) the 0ureau of Forest 3evelop)ent, to prove that the5uestioned lots were part of the alienable and disposable one of the*overn)ent and that no forestry interest was affected ;CA "# $o.2(9', #ecords, p. <.

/n the )ain, petitioner seeks to defeat respondents application forre*istration of title on the *round of forei*n nationality. Accordin*ly, therulin* in 3irector of 6ands v. 0uyco ;spra< supports petitioners thesis.

e disa*ree.

/n B(co, the applicants therein were likewise forei*n nationals butwere natural!born Filipino citiens at the ti)e of their supposedac5uisition of the property. 0ut this is where the si)ilarity ends. Theapplicants in B(co sou*ht to re*ister a lar*e tract of land under theprovisions of the 6and #e*istration Act, and in the alternative, underthe provisions of the ublic 6and Act. The land re*istration courtdecided in favor of the applicants and was affir)ed by the appellatecourt on appeal. The 3irector of 6ands brou*ht the )atter before us on

review and we reversed.

This Court, speakin* throu*h 4ustice 3avide, 4r.,statedE

As could be *leaned fro) the evidence adduced,the private respondents do not rely on fee si)pleownership based on a panish *rant orpossessory infor)ation title under ection 19 ofthe 6and #e*istration ActD the private respondentsdid not present any proof that they or theirpredecessors!in!interest derived title fro) an oldpanish *rant such as ;a< the Gtitulo realG or royal*rant ;b< the Gconcession especialG or especial*rantD ;c< the Gco)posicion con el estadoG title orad+ust)ent titleD ;d< the Gtitulo de co)praG or title

by purchaseD and ;e< the Ginfor)acion posesoriaGor possessory infor)ation title, which couldbeco)e a Gtitulo *ratuitoG or a *ratuitous title;3irector of Forestry v. -uNo, 2 C#A 11(I19&(J<. The pri)ary basis of their clai) ispossession, by the)selves and theirpredecessors!in!interest, since time immemorial .

/f indeed private respondents and theirpredecessors have been in possession since ti)ei))e)orial, the rulin*s of both courts could beupheld for, as this Court stated in h Cho v.3irector of 6ands ;7' hil. (9: I19%&J<E

. . . All lands that were not

ac5uired fro) the"overn)ent, either bypurchase or by *rant, belon*to the public do)ain. Aneception to the rule would beany land that should havebeen in the possession of anoccupant and of hispredecessors in interest sinceti)e i))e)orial, for suchpossession would +ustify thepresu)ption that the land hadnever been part of the publicdo)ain or that if had been aprivate property even before

the panish con5uest ;CariNov. /nsular "overn)ent, %1 hil9' I19:9JD 212 ?.. %%9D '6aw. 8d., '9%< The applicantdoes not co)e under theeception, for the earliestpossession of the lot by hisfirst predecessor in interestbe*an in 1((:.

. . . alienable public land heldby a possessor, personally orthrou*h his predecessors!in!interest, openly, continuouslyand eclusively for theprescribed statutory period;: years under the ublic6and Act, as a)ended< isconverted to private propertyby the )ere lapse orco)pletion of saidperiod, ipso 4re. ;3irector of6ands v. /nter)ediate

Appellate Court, spra<

/t is obvious fro) the fore*oin* rule that theapplicant )ust prove that ;a< the land is alienablepublic land and ;b< his possession, in the concept

above stated, )ust be either since ti)ei))e)orial, as ruled in both CariNo and usi, orfor the period prescribed in the ublic 6and Act. Asto the latter, this Court, in "utierre =er)anos v.Court of Appeals ;17( C#A 7 I19(9J<, adoptedthe rule enunciated by the Court of Appeals, perthen Associate 4ustice =u*o #. "utierre, 4r., . . .,that an applicant for re*istration under ection %(of the ublic 6and Act )ust secure a certificationfro) the "overn)ent that the lands which heclai)s to have possessed as owner for )ore thanthirty ;:< years are alienable and disposable. /t isthe burden of the applicant to prove its positiveaver)ents.

/n the instant case, private respondents offered no

evidence at all to prove that the property sub+ect of the application is an alienable and disposableland. n the contrary, the entire property . . . waspasture land ;and therefore inalienable under thethen 197 Constitution<.

. . . ;<rivate respondents evidence )iserablyfailed to establish their i)perfect title to theproperty in 5uestion. Their alle*ation ofpossession since ti)e i))e)orial, . . ., is patentlybaseless. . . . hen referrin* to possession,specifically Gi))e)orial possession,G it )eanspossession of which no )an livin* has seen thebe*innin*, and the eistence of which he haslearned fro) his elders ;usi v. #aon, supra<.uch possession was never present in the case of

private respondents. . . .

. . ., there does not even eist a reasonable basisfor the findin* that the private respondents andtheir predecessors!in!interest possessed the landfor )ore than ei*hty ;(:< years, . . .

To this Courts )ind, private respondents failed toprove that ;their predecessor!in!interest< hadpossessed the property alle*edly covered by Ta3eclaration $o. 1'(' and )ade the sub+ect ofboth his last will and testa)ent and the pro+ect ofpartition of his estate a)on* his heirs > in such

)anner as to re)ove the sa)e fro) the publicdo)ain under the CariNo and usi doctrines.Thus, ;when the predecessor!in!interest< died on1 -ay 197, he trans)itted no ri*ht whatsoever,with respect to the said property, to his heirs. Thisbein* the case, his possession cannot be tackedto that of the private respondents for the lattersbenefit pursuant to ection %(;b< of the ublic6and Act, the alternative *round relied upon intheir application . . .

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Considerin* that the private respondents beca)e A)erican citiens before such filin*, it *oeswithout sayin* that te( ad ac8ired no vestedri't consistin' of an imperfect title over te

propert( before te( lost teir ilippinecitizensip. ;8)phasis supplied<

Clearly, the application in B(co were denied re*istration of title not)erely because they were A)erican citiens at the ti)e of theirapplication therefor. #espondents therein failed to prove possession oftheir predecessor!in!interest since ti)e i))e)orial or possession insuch a )anner that the property has been se*re*ated fro) publicdo)ainD such that at the ti)e of their application, as A)erican citiens,they have ac5uired no vested ri*hts over the parcel of land.

/n the case at bar, private respondents were undoubtedly natural!bornFilipino citiens at the ti)e of the ac5uisition of the properties and byvirtue thereof, ac5uired vested ri*hts thereon, tackin* in the process,the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period ofti)e held by their predecessors!in!interest under the ublic 6and Act./n addition, private respondents have constructed a house of stron*)aterials on the contested property, now occupied by respondent6apiNas )other.

0ut what should not be )issed in the disposition of this case is the factthat the Constitution itself allows private respondents to re*ister thecontested parcels of land in their favor. ections 7 and ( of Article H//

of the Constitution contain the followin* pertinent provisions, to witE

ec. 7. ave in cases of hereditary succession, noprivate lands shall be transferred or conveyedecept to individuals, corporations, or associations5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of the publicdo)ain.

ec. (. $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection7 of this Article, a natral!born citizen of teilippines %o as lost is ilippine citizensipma( be a transferee of private lands sb4ect tolimitations provided b( la% . ;8)phasis supplied<

ection (, Article H// of the 19(7 Constitution above 5uoted is si)ilar to

ection 1', Article H/B of the then 197 Constitution which readsE

ec. 1'. $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection1% of this Article, a natural!born citien of thehilippines who has lost his citienship )ay be atransferee of private land, for use by hi) as hisresidence, as the 0atasan* a)bansa )ayprovide.

ursuant thereto, 0atas a)bansa 0l*. 1(' was passed into law, therelevant provision of which providesE

ec. 2. Any natural!born citien of the hilippineswho has lost his hilippine citienship and whohas the le*al capacity to enter into a contract

under hilippine laws )ay be a transferee of aprivate land up to a )ai)u) area of onethousand s5uare )eters, in the case of urbanland, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to beused by hi) as his residence. /n the case of)arried couples, one of the) )ay avail of theprivile*e herein *rantedD rovided, That if bothshall avail of the sa)e, the total area ac5uiredshall not eceed the )ai)u) herein fied.

/n case the transferee already owns urban or rurallands for residential purposes, he shall still beentitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, whenadded to those already owned by hi), shall noteceed the )ai)u) areas herein authoried.

Fro) the adoption of the 19(7 Constitution up to the present, no otherlaw has been passed by the le*islature on the sa)e sub+ect. Thus,what *overns the disposition of private lands in favor of a natural!bornFilipino citien who has lost his hilippine citienship re)ains to be 01('.

8ven if private respondents were already Canadian citiens at the ti)ethey applied for re*istration of the properties in 5uestion, saidproperties as discussed above were already private landsDconse5uently, there could be no le*al i)pedi)ent for the re*istrationthereof by respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains. Theparcels of land sou*ht to be re*istered no lon*er for) part of the publicdo)ain. They are already private in character since private

respondents predecessors!in!interest have been in open, continuousand eclusive possession and occupation thereof under clai) ofownership prior to 4une 12, 19%' or since 197. The law provides thata natural!born citien of the hilippines who has lost his hilippinecitienship )ay be a transferee of a private land up to a )ai)u) areaof 1,::: s5.)., if urban, or one ;1< hectare in case of rural land, to beused by hi) as his residence ;0 1('<.

/t is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land,were natural!born citiens of the hilippines. For the purpose oftransfer andPor ac5uisition of a parcel of residential land, it is notsi*nificant whether private respondents are no lon*er Filipino citiensat the ti)e they purchased or re*istered the parcels of land in5uestion. hat is i)portant is that private respondents were for)erlynatural!born citiens of the hilippines, and as transferees of a privateland, they could apply for re*istration in accordance with the )andateof ection (, Article H// of the Constitution. Considerin* that privaterespondents were able to prove the re5uisite period and character ofpossession of their predecessors!in!interest over the sub+ect lots, theirapplication for re*istration of title )ust perforce be approved.

The dissentin* opinion, however, states that the re5uire)ents in 01(', )ust also be co)plied with by private respondents. pecifically, itrefers to ection &, which providesE

ec. &. /n addition to the re5uire)ents provided for in other laws for the re*istration of titles to lands,

no private land shall be transferred under this Act,unless the transferee shall sub)it to the re*ister of deeds of the province or city where the property islocated a sworn state)ent showin* the date andplace of his birthD the na)es and addresses of hisparents, of his spouse and children, if anyD thearea, the location and the )ode of ac5uisition ofhis landholdin*s in the hilippines, if anyD hisintention to reside per)anently in the hilippinesDthe date he lost his hilippine citienship and thecountry of which he is presently a citienD andsuch other infor)ation as )ay be re5uired underection ( of this Act.

The Court is of the view that the re5uire)ents in ec. & of 0 1(' donot apply in the instant case since said re5uire)ents are pri)arily

directed to the re*ister of deeds before who) co)pliance therewith isto be sub)itted. $owhere in the provision is it stated, )uch lessi)plied, that the re5uire)ents )ust likewise be sub)itted before theland re*istration court prior to the approval of an application forre*istration of title. An application for re*istration of title before a landre*istration court should not be confused with the issuance of acertificate of title by the re*ister of deeds. /t is only when the +ud*)entof the land re*istration court approvin* the application for re*istrationhas beco)e final that a decree of re*istration is issued. And that is theti)e when the re5uire)ents of ec. &, 0 1(', before the re*ister ofdeeds should be co)plied with by the applicants. This decree ofre*istration is the one that is sub)itted to the office of the re*ister ofdeeds for issuance of the certificate of title in favor of the applicant.rior to the issuance of the decree of re*istration, the re*ister of deedshas no participation in the approval of the application for re*istration oftitle as the decree of re*istration is yet to be issued.

=8#8F#8, the petition is 3/-/83 and the decision appealedfro) is hereby AFF/#-83.

#38#83.

Narvasa C.J. Crz 7eliciano adilla ?e'alado DavideJr. ?omero Bellosillo Melo @iason no <it'apnan and Mendoza JJ.concr.

S%(%t Oi&io&s

R/Z, J., !iss&ti&><

ith all due respect, / have to dissent.

The ponencia be*ins by posin* the issue thusE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


Can a forei*n national apply for re*istration of titleover a parcel of land which he ac5uired bypurchase while still a citien of the hilippines,fro) a vendor who has co)plied with there5uire)ents for re*istration under the ublic6and Act ;CA 1%1<

There is no 5uestion that the property is private land and thus sub+ectto re*istration by 5ualified persons. /t was really needless to elaborateon 0uyco, which is clearly inapplicable here. e can a*ree that therulin* case is 3irector of 6ands v. /nter)ediate Appellate Court, whichis not challen*ed in this petition.

0ut / think the ponencia )isses the point. The findin* that therespondent spouses were natural!born Filpinos at the ti)e theyac5uired the land does not settle the 5uestion posed.

The i)portant point is that the respondent spouses are no lon*ercitiens of the hilippines but naturalied Canadians. /t does not followthat because they were citiens of the hilippines when they ac5uiredthe land, they can re*ister it in their na)es now even if they are nolon*er Filipinos.

ection 7 of Article H// of the Constitution is irrelevant because it is notdisputed that the respondent spouses were 5ualified to ac5uire theland in 5uestion when i t was transferred to the).

ection ( of the sa)e article is not applicable either because it speaksof a transfer of private land to a for)er natural!born citien of thehilippines after

he beca)e a forei*ner.

Thus it statesE

ec. (. $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection7 of this Article, a natural!born citien of thehilippines who has lost his hilippine citienship)ay be a transferee of private lands, sub+ect toli)itations provided by law.

8ven if it be assu)ed that the provision is applicable, it does notappear that the private respondents have observed Gthe li)itations

provided by law.G

The ponencia finds that all the re5uisites for the re*istration of the landin the private respondents na)e have been co)plied with. / do notbelieve so for there is no showin* that 0.. 1(' has also beenenforced.

The view has been epressed that we should confine ourselves to there5uire)ents for re*istration under the ublic 6and Act. / respectfullysub)it that the re5uire)ents in 0.. 1(' have been read into the Actand should also be applied.

trict co)pliance is necessary because of the special privile*e *rantedto for)er Filipinos who have beco)e forei*ners by their own choice. /fwe can be so strict with our own citiens, / see no reason why we

should be less so with those who have renounced our country.

0li=i%&o, J.< =o&=u((i&>

/ a*ree with the *reat bulk of the )a+ority opinion written by -r. 4ustice0idin and the result reached therein.

This separate state)ent is concerned only with the last two ;2<para*raphs, +ust before the dispositive portion, of the )a+ority opinion./n )y view, it should be stressed that 0.. 0l*. 1(' which took effect on1& -arch 19(2, does not purport to cover the set of facts before theCourt in this caseE i.e., the respondent sposes became transferees9on += Jne +-=>: of te land ere involved %ile te( %ere natral!born ilippine citizens who happened so)eti)e later to have beennaturalied as citiens of another country. 0.. 0l*. 1(', as far as / can

deter)ine, addresses itself only to a situation of persons %o %erealread( forei'n nationals at te time te( became transfereesof

private land in the hilippines, but who were previosl( natural!bornhilippine citiens. /t is difficult, therefore, to see how 0.. 0l*. 1(' canbeco)e applicable to the present situation even at the subse5uentti)e when the respondent spouses would co)e before the #e*ister of3eeds. 0.. 0l*. 1(', especially ection & thereof, i)poses certainre5uire)ents, includin* a specific li)itation on the 5uantity of land ;not)ore than 1,::: s5uare )eters< which )ay be ac5uired therender

,an a)ount li)itation which )ust not be eceeded both by the land ofwhich such forei*n national beco)es transferee and by such landtaken to*ether with other land previously ac5uired by such forei*nnational. ;2nd para*raph, ection 2, 0.. 0l*. 1('<

0.. 0l*. 1(' would, of course, apply to sbse8ent

purchases of landby the respondent spouses, that is, purchases )ade after

they werenaturalied as Canadian nationals.

S%(%t Oi&io&s

R/Z, J., !iss&ti&><

ith all due respect, / have to dissent.

The ponencia be*ins by posin* the issue thusE

Can a forei*n national apply for re*istration of titleover a parcel of land which he ac5uired bypurchase while still a citien of the hilippines,fro) a vendor who has co)plied with there5uire)ents for re*istration under the ublic6and Act ;CA 1%1<

There is no 5uestion that the property is private land and thus sub+ectto re*istration by 5ualified persons. /t was really needless to elaborateon 0uyco, which is clearly inapplicable here. e can a*ree that therulin* case is 3irector of 6ands v. /nter)ediate Appellate Court, which

is not challen*ed in this petition.

0ut / think the ponencia )isses the point. The findin* that therespondent spouses were natural!born Filpinos at the ti)e theyac5uired the land does not settle the 5uestion posed.

The i)portant point is that the respondent spouses are no lon*ercitiens of the hilippines but naturalied Canadians. /t does not followthat because they were citiens of the hilippines when they ac5uiredthe land, they can re*ister it in their na)es now even if they are nolon*er Filipinos.

ection 7 of Article H// of the Constitution is irrelevant because it is notdisputed that the respondent spouses were 5ualified to ac5uire theland in 5uestion when it was transferred to the).

ection ( of the sa)e article is not applicable either because it speaksof a transfer of private land to a for)er natural!born citien of thehilippines after he beca)e a forei*ner.

Thus it statesE

ec. (. $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection7 of this Article, a natural!born citien of thehilippines who has lost his hilippine citienship)ay be a transferee of private lands, sub+ect toli)itations provided by law.

8ven if it be assu)ed that the provision is applicable, it does notappear that the private respondents have observed Gthe li)itations

provided by law.G

The ponencia finds that all the re5uisites for the re*istration of the landin the private respondents na)e have been co)plied with. / do notbelieve so for there is no showin* that 0.. 1(' has also beenenforced.

The view has been epressed that we should confine ourselves to there5uire)ents for re*istration under the ublic 6and Act. / respectfullysub)it that the re5uire)ents in 0.. 1(' have been read into the Actand should also be applied.

trict co)pliance is necessary because of the special privile*e *rantedto for)er Filipinos who have beco)e forei*ners by their own choice. /fwe can be so strict with our own citiens, / see no reason why we

should be less so with those who have renounced our country.

0li=i%&o, J.< =o&=u((i&>

/ a*ree with the *reat bulk of the )a+ority opinion written by -r. 4ustice0idin and the result reached therein.

This separate state)ent is concerned only with the last two ;2<para*raphs, +ust before the dispositive portion, of the )a+ority opinion./n )y view, it should be stressed that 0.. 0l*. 1(' which took effect on1& -arch 19(2, does not

purport to cover the set of facts before theCourt in this caseE i.e., the respondent sposes became transferees9on += Jne +-=>: of te land ere involved %ile te( %ere natral!

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


born ilippine citizens who happened so)eti)e later to have beennaturalied as citiens of another country. 0.. 0l*. 1(', as far as / candeter)ine, addresses itself only to a situation of persons %o %erealread( forei'n nationals at te time te( became transfereesof

private land in the hilippines, but who were previosl( natural!bornhilippine citiens. /t is difficult, therefore, to see how 0.. 0l*. 1(' canbeco)e applicable to the present situation even at the subse5uentti)e when the respondent spouses would co)e before the #e*ister of3eeds. 0.. 0l*. 1(', especially ection & thereof, i)poses certainre5uire)ents, includin* a specific li)itation on the 5uantity of land ;not)ore than 1,::: s5uare )eters< which )ay be ac5uired therender

,an a)ount li)itation which )ust not be eceeded both by the land of

which such forei*n national beco)es transferee and by such landtaken to*ether with other land previously ac5uired by such forei*nnational. ;2nd para*raph, ection 2, 0.. 0l*. 1('<

0.. 0l*. 1(' would, of course, apply to sbse8ent purchases of landby the respondent spouses, that is, purchases )ade after

they werenaturalied as Canadian nationals.

G.R. No. L-1787 St'b( 1, 1967

*L**NE ANB*NG ORORA*ON, ((s&ti&> t" st%t o$J/S*NA SANOS ; ANON 0A/S*NO, !=%s!, plaintiff!appellant,vs.L/* SE i& "( o#& b"%l$ %&! %s %!'i&ist(%t(i) o$ t" i&tst%t

st%t o$ ?o&> &>, !=%s!,defendant!appellant.

Nicanor S. Sison for plaintiff!appellant.*zaeta Gibbs & *zaeta for defendant!appellant.

ASRO, J.:

4ustina antos y Canon Faustino and her sister 6oreno were theowners in co))on of a piece of land in -anila. This parcel, with anarea of 2,'(2.: s5uare )eters, is located on #ial Avenue and opensinto Florentino Torres street at the back and Matubusan street on oneside. /n it are two residential houses with entrance on Florentino Torresstreet and the =en ah #estaurant with entrance on #ial Avenue.

The sisters lived in one of the houses, while on* =en*, a Chinese,lived with his fa)ily in the restaurant. on* had been a lon*!ti)elessee of a portion of the property, payin* a )onthly rental of 2,&2:.

n epte)ber 22, 19'7 4ustina antos beca)e the owner of theentire property as her sister died with no other heir. Then already welladvanced in years, bein* at the ti)e 9: years old, blind, crippled andan invalid, she was left with no other relative to live with. =er onlyco)panions in the house were her 17 do*s and ( )aids. =erotherwise dreary eistence was bri*htened now and then by the visitsof on*s four children who had beco)e the +oy of her life. on*hi)self was the trusted )an to who) she delivered various a)ountsfor safekeepin*, includin* rentals fro) her property at the corner ofn*pin and alaar streets and the rentals which on* hi)self paidas lessee of a part of the #ial Avenue property. on* also took careof the pay)entD in her behalf, of taes, lawyers fees, funeral epenses,

)asses, salaries of )aids and security *uard, and her householdepenses.

G/n *rateful acknowled*)ent of the personal services of the lessee toher,G 4ustina antos eecuted on $ove)ber 1', 19'7 a contract oflease ;lff 8h. < in favor of on*, coverin* the portion then alreadyleased to hi) and another portion frontin* Florentino Torres street. Thelease was for ': years, althou*h the lessee was *iven the ri*ht towithdraw at any ti)e fro) the a*ree)entD the )onthly rental was,12:. The contract covered an area of 1,12% s5uare )eters. Tendays later ;$ove)ber 2'<, the contract was a)ended ;lff 8h. %< soas to )ake it cover the entire property, includin* the portion on whichthe house of 4ustina antos stood, at an additional )onthly rental of&:. For his part on* undertook to pay, out of the rental due fro)hi), an a)ount not eceedin* 1,::: a )onth for the food of her do*sand the salaries of her )aids.

n 3ece)ber 21 she eecuted another contract ;lff 8h. 7< *ivin*on* the option to buy the leased pre)ises for 12:,:::, payablewithin ten years at a )onthly install)ent of 1,:::. The option, writtenin Ta*alo*, i)posed on hi) the obli*ation to pay for the food of thedo*s and the salaries of the )aids in her household, the char*e not toeceed 1,(:: a )onth. The option was conditioned on his obtainin*hilippine citienship, a petition for which was then pendin* in theCourt of First /nstance of #ial. /t appears, however, that thisapplication for naturaliation was withdrawn when it was discoveredthat he was not a resident of #ial. n ctober 2(, 19'( she filed apetition to adopt hi) and his children on the erroneous belief thatadoption would confer on the) hilippine citienship. The error wasdiscovered and the proceedin*s were abandoned.

n $ove)ber 1(, 19'( she eecuted two other contracts, one ;lff8h. '< etendin* the ter) of the lease to 99 years, and another ;lff8h. &< fiin* the ter) of the option of ': years. 0oth contracts arewritten in Ta*alo*.

/n two wills eecuted on Au*ust 2% and 29, 19'9 ;3ef 8hs. 2(' L279<, she bade her le*atees to respect the contracts she had enteredinto with on*, but in a codicil ;lff 8h. 17< of a later date ;$ove)ber%, 19'9< she appears to have a chan*e of heart. Clai)in* that thevarious contracts were )ade by her because of )achinations andinduce)ents practiced by hi), she now directed her eecutor tosecure the annul)ent of the contracts.

n $ove)ber 1( the present action was filed in the Court of First/nstance of -anila. The co)plaint alle*ed that the contracts wereobtained by on* Gthrou*h fraud, )isrepresentation, ine5uitableconduct, undue influence and abuse of confidence and trust of and;by< takin* advanta*e of the helplessness of the plaintiff and were)ade to circu)vent the constitutional provision prohibitin* aliens fro)ac5uirin* lands in the hilippines and also of the hilippine$aturaliation 6aws.G The court was asked to direct the #e*ister of3eeds of -anila to cancel the re*istration of the contracts and to orderon* to pay 4ustina antos the additional rent of ,12: a )onth fro)$ove)ber 1', 19'7 on the alle*ation that the reasonable rental of theleased pre)ises was &,2%: a )onth.

/n his answer, on* ad)itted that he en+oyed her trust and confidence

as proof of which he volunteered the infor)ation that, in addition to thesu) of ,::: which he said she had delivered to hi) for safekeepin*,another su) of 22,::: had been deposited in a +oint account whichhe had with one of her )aids. 0ut he denied havin* taken advanta*eof her trust in order to secure the eecution of the contracts in5uestion. As counterclai) he sou*ht the recovery of 9,21:.%9 whichhe said she owed hi) for advances.

on*s ad)ission of the receipt of 22,::: and ,::: was the cuefor the filin* of an a)ended co)plaint. Thus on 4une 9, 19&:, asidefro) the nullity of the contracts, the collection of various a)ountsalle*edly delivered on different occasions was sou*ht. These a)ountsand the dates of their delivery are ,72%.27 ;$ov. %, 19'7<D7,%%.%2 ;3ec. 1, 19'7<D 1:,::: ;3ec. &, 19'7<D 22,::: and,::: ;as ad)itted in his answer<. An accountin* of the rentals fro)the n*pin and #ial Avenue properties was also de)anded.

/n the )eanti)e as a result of a petition for *uardianship filed in the4uvenile and 3o)estic #elations Court, the ecurity 0ank L Trust Co.was appointed *uardian of the properties of 4ustina antos, while8phrai) ". "ochan*co was appointed *uardian of her person.

/n his answer, on* insisted that the various contracts were freely andvoluntarily entered into by the parties. =e likewise disclai)edknowled*e of the su) of ,72%.27, ad)itted receipt of 7,%%.%2and 1:,:::, but contended that these a)ounts had been spent inaccordance with the instructions of 4ustina antosD he epressedreadiness to co)ply with any order that the court )i*ht )ake withrespect to the su)s of 22,::: in the bank and ,::: in hispossession.

The case was heard, after which the lower court rendered +ud*)ent asfollowsE

IAJll the docu)ents )entioned in the first cause of action,with the eception of the first which is the lease contract of1' $ove)ber 19'7, are declared null and voidD on* =en*is conde)ned to pay unto plaintiff thru *uardian of herproperty the su) of '',''%.2' with le*al interest fro) thedate of the filin* of the a)ended co)plaintD he is alsoordered to pay the su) of ,12:.:: for every )onth of hisoccupation as lessee under the docu)ent of lease hereinsustained, fro) 1' $ove)ber 19'9, and the )oneys he hasconsi*ned since then shall be i)puted to thatD costs a*ainston* =en*.

Fro) this +ud*)ent both parties appealed directly to this Court. After

the case was sub)itted for decision, both parties died, on* =en* onctober 21, 19&2 and 4ustina antos on 3ece)ber 2(, 19&%. on*was substituted by his wife, 6ui he, the other defendant in this case,while 4ustina antos was substituted by the hilippine 0ankin*Corporation.

4ustina antos )aintained > now reiterated by the hilippine 0ankin*Corporation > that the lease contract ;lff 8h. < should have beenannulled alon* with the four other contracts ;lff 8hs. %!7< because itlacks )utualityD because it included a portion which, at the ti)e, wasin cstodia le'isD because the contract was obtained in violation of thefiduciary relations of the partiesD because her consent was obtainedthrou*h undue influence, fraud and )isrepresentationD and because

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


the lease contract, like the rest of the contracts, is absolutelysi)ulated.

ara*raph ' of the lease contract states that GThe lessee )ay at anyti)e withdraw fro) this a*ree)ent.G /t is clai)ed that this stipulationoffends article 1:( of the Civil Code which provides that Gthe contract)ust bind both contractin* partiesD its validity or co)pliance cannot beleft to the will of one of the).G

e have had occasion to delineate the scope and application of article1:( in the early case of )a(lor v. ( )ien' iao.1 e said in that

caseE

Article 12'& Inow art. 1:(J of the Civil Code in our opinioncreates no i)pedi)ent to the insertion in a contract forpersonal service of a resolutory condition per)ittin* thecancellation of the contract by one of the parties. uch astipulation, as can be readily seen, does not )ake either thevalidity or the fulfill)ent of the contract dependent upon thewill of the party to who) is conceded the privile*e ofcancellationD for where the contractin* parties have a*reedthat such option shall eist, the eercise of the option is as)uch in the fulfill)ent of the contract as any other act which)ay have been the sub+ect of a*ree)ent. /ndeed, thecancellation of a contract in accordance with conditionsa*reed upon beforehand is fulfill)ent.2

And so it was held in Melencio v. D( )iao 6a( that a Gprovision in alease contract that the lessee, at any ti)e before he erected anybuildin* on the land, )i*ht rescind the lease, can hardly be re*ardedas a violation of article 12'& Inow art. 1:(J of the Civil Code.G

The case of Sin'son Encarnacion v. Baldomar % cannot be cited insupport of the clai) of want of )utuality, because of a difference infactual settin*. /n that case, the lessees ar*ued that they could occupythe pre)ises as lon* as they paid the rent. This is of course untenable,for as this Court said, G/f this defense were to be allowed, so lon* asdefendants elected to continue the lease by continuin* the pay)ent ofthe rentals, the owner would never be able to discontinue itDconversely, althou*h the owner should desire the lease to continue thelessees could effectively thwart his purpose if they should prefer toter)inate the contract by the si)ple epedient of stoppin* pay)ent ofthe rentals.G =ere, in contrast, the ri*ht of the lessee to continue the

lease or to ter)inate it is so circu)scribed by the ter) of the contractthat it cannot be said that the continuance of the lease depends uponhis will. At any rate, even if no ter) had been fied in the a*ree)ent,this case would at )ost +ustify the fiin* of a period' but not theannul)ent of the contract.

$or is there )erit in the clai) that as the portion of the propertyfor)erly owned by the sister of 4ustina antos was still in the processof settle)ent in the probate court at the ti)e it was leased, the lease isinvalid as to such portion. 4ustina antos beca)e the owner of theentire property upon the death of her sister 6oreno on epte)ber 22,19'7 by force of article 777 of the Civil Code. =ence, when she leasedthe property on $ove)ber 1', she did so already as owner thereof. Asthis Court eplained in upholdin* the sale )ade by an heir of aproperty under +udicial ad)inistrationE

That the land could not ordinarily be levied upon whilein cstodia le'is does not )ean that one of the heirs )ay notsell the ri*ht, interest or participation which he has or )i*hthave in the lands under ad)inistration. The ordinaryeecution of property in cstodia le'is is prohibited in orderto avoid interference with the possession by the court. 0utthe sale )ade by an heir of his share in an inheritance,sub+ect to the result of the pendin* ad)inistration, in no wisestands in the way of such ad)inistration.&

/t is net contended that the lease contract was obtained by on* inviolation of his fiduciary relationship with 4ustina antos, contrary toarticle 1&%&, in relation to article 19%1 of the Civil Code, whichdis5ualifies Ga*ents ;fro) leasin*< the property whose ad)inistration or sale )ay have been entrusted to the).G 0ut on* was never an a*ent

of 4ustina antos. The relationship of the parties, althou*h ad)ittedlyclose and confidential, did not a)ount to an a*ency so as to brin* thecase within the prohibition of the law.

4ust the sa)e, it is ar*ued that on* so co)pletely do)inated her lifeand affairs that the contracts epress not her will but only his. Counselfor 4ustina antos cites the testi)ony of Atty. To)as . u)ol whosaid that he prepared the lease contract on the basis of data *iven tohi) by on* and that she told hi) that Gwhatever -r. on* wants)ust be followed.G7

The testi)ony of Atty. u)ol cannot be read out of contet in order towarrant a findin* that on* practically dictated the ter)s of thecontract. hat this witness said wasE

@ 3id you eplain carefully to your client, 3oNa 4ustina, thecontents of this docu)ent before she si*ned it

A / eplained to her each and every one of these conditionsand / also told her these conditions were 5uite onerous forher, / dont really know if / have epressed )y opinion, but /told her that we would rather not eecute any contractany)ore, but to hold it as it was before, on a verbal )onth to)onth contract of lease.

@ 0ut, she did not follow your advice, and she went with the

contract +ust the sa)e

A he a*reed first . . .

@ A*reed what

A A*reed with )y ob+ectives that it is really onerous and that/ was really ri*ht, but after that, / was called a*ain by her andshe told )e to follow the wishes of -r. on* =en*.

@ o, as far as consent is concerned, you were satisfied thatthis docu)ent was perfectly proper

A our =onor, if 2 ave to e#press m( personal opinion, /would say she is not, because, as / said before, she told )e> Ghatever -r. on* wants )ust be followed.G(

on* )i*ht indeed have supplied the data which Atty. u)ole)bodied in the lease contract, but to say this is not to detract fro) thebindin* force of the contract. For the contract was fully eplained to4ustina antos by her own lawyer. ne incident, related by the sa)ewitness, )akes clear that she voluntarily consented to the leasecontract. This witness said that the ori*inal ter) fied for the lease was99 years but that as he doubted the validity of a lease to an alien forthat len*th of ti)e, he tried to persuade her to enter instead into a

lease on a )onth!to!)onth basis. he was, however, fir) andunyieldin*. /nstead of heedin* the advice of the lawyer, she orderedhi), G4ust follow -r. on* =en*.G9 #ecountin* the incident, Atty.u)ol declared on cross ea)inationE

Considerin* her a*e, ninety ;9:< years old at the ti)e andher condition, she is a wealthy wo)an, it is +ust natural whenshe said G)is is %at 2 %ant and tis %ill be done.G /nparticular reference to this contract of lease, when / saidGThis is not proper,G she said > G$o 4st 'o aead (o

prepare tat 2 am te o%ner and if tere is an( ille'alit( 2am te onl( one tat can 8estion te ille'alit( .G1:

Atty. u)ol further testified that she si*ned the lease contract in thepresence of her close friend, =er)ene*ilda 6ao, and her )aid,$atividad 6una, who was constantly by her side.11 Any of the) could

have testified on the undue influence that on* supposedly wieldedover 4ustina antos, but neither of the) was presented as a witness.The truth is that even after *ivin* his client ti)e to think the )atterover, the lawyer could not )ake her chan*e her )ind. This persuadedthe lower court to uphold the validity of the lease contract a*ainst theclai) that it was procured throu*h undue influence.

/ndeed, the char*e of undue influence in this case rests on a )ereinference12 drawn fro) the fact that 4ustina antos could not read ;asshe was blind< and did not understand the 8n*lish lan*ua*e in whichthe contract is written, but that inference has been overco)e by herown evidence.

$or is there )erit in the clai) that her consent to the lease contract, aswell as to the rest of the contracts in 5uestion, was *iven out of a

)istaken sense of *ratitude to on* who, she was )ade to believe,had saved her and her sister fro) a fire that destroyed their housedurin* the liberation of -anila. For while a witness clai)ed that thesisters were saved by other persons ;the brothers 8dilberto and-ariano ta. Ana<1 it was 4ustina antos herself who, accordin* to her own witness, 0en+a)in C. Alono, said Gvery e)phaticallyG that sheand her sister would have perished in the fire had it not been foron*.1% =ence the recital in the deed of conditional option ;lff 8h. 7<that GI/Jton* si on* =en* an* siyan* na*li*tas sa a)in* dalawan*)a*kapatid sa halos ay tiyak na ka)atayanG, and the e5ually e)phaticavowal of *ratitude in the lease contract ;lff 8h. <.

As it was with the lease contract ;lff 8h. <, so it was with the rest ofthe contracts ;lff 8hs. %!7< > the consent of 4ustina antos was*iven freely and voluntarily. As Atty. Alono, testifyin* for her, saidE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


I/Jn nearly all docu)ents, it was either -r. on* =en* or4ud*e Torres andPor both. hen we had conferences, theyused to tell )e what the docu)ents should contain. 0ut, as /said, / would always ask the old wo)an about the) andinvariably the old wo)an used to tell )eE GThats okay. /ts allri*ht.G1'

0ut the lower court set aside all the contracts, with the eception of thelease contract of $ove)ber 1', 19'7, on the *round that they arecontrary to the epressed wish of 4ustina antos and that theirconsiderations are fictitious. on* stated in his deposition that he didnot pay &: a )onth for the additional pre)ises leased to hi),because she did not want hi) to, but the trial court did not believe hi).$either did it believe his state)ent that he paid 1,::: asconsideration for each of the contracts ;na)ely, the option to buy theleased pre)ises, the etension of the lease to 99 years, and the fiin*of the ter) of the option at ': years<, but that the a)ount was returnedto hi) by her for safekeepin*. /nstead, the court relied on thetesti)ony of Atty. Alono in reachin* the conclusion that the contractsare void for want of consideration.

Atty. Alono declared that he saw no )oney paid at the ti)e of theeecution of the docu)ents, but his ne*ative testi)ony does not ruleout the possibility that the considerations were paid at so)e other ti)eas the contracts in fact recite. hat is )ore, the consideration neednot pass fro) one party to the other at the ti)e a contract is eecutedbecause the pro)ise of one is the consideration for the other.1&

ith respect to the lower courts findin* that in all probability 4ustinaantos could not have intended to part with her property while she wasalive nor even to lease it in its entirety as her house was built on it,suffice it to 5uote the testi)ony of her own witness and lawyer whoprepared the contracts ;lff 8hs. %!7< in 5uestion, Atty. AlonoE

The a)bition of the old wo)an, before er deat, accordin*to her revelation to )e, was to see to it that these propertiesbe en+oyed, even to own the), by on* =en* because3oNa 4ustina told )e that she did not have any relatives,near or far, and she considered on* =en* as a son and hischildren her *randchildrenD especially her consolation in lifewas when she would hear the children recitin* prayers inTa*alo*.17

he was very e)phatic in the care of the seventeen ;17<do*s and of the )aids who helped her )uch, and she told)e to see to it that no one could disturb on* =en* fro)those properties. That is why we thou*ht of the ninety!nine;99< years leaseD we thou*ht of adoption, believin* that thruadoption on* =en* )i*ht ac5uire Filipino citienshipDbein* the adopted child of a Filipino citien.1(

This is not to say, however, that the contracts ;lff 8hs. !7< are valid.For the testi)ony +ust 5uoted, while dispellin* doubt as to the intentionof 4ustina antos, at the sa)e ti)e *ives the clue to what we view asa sche)e to circu)vent the Constitutional prohibition a*ainst thetransfer of lands to aliens. GThe i llicit purpose then beco)es theille*al casaG19 renderin* the contracts void.

Taken sin*ly, the contracts show nothin* that is necessarily ille*al, butconsidered collectively, they reveal an insidious pattern to subvert byindirection what the Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a leaseto an alien for a reasonable period is valid. o is an option *ivin* analien the ri*ht to buy real property on condition that he is *rantedhilippine citienship. As this Court said in riven0o v. ?e'ister ofDeedsE2:

IAJliens are not co)pletely ecluded by the Constitution fro)the use of lands for residential purposes. ince theirresidence in the hilippines is te)porary, they )ay be*ranted temporar( ri'ts sc as a lease contract %ic isnot forbidden b( te Constittion. hould they desire tore)ain here forever and share our fortunes and )isfortunes,Filipino citienship is not i)possible to ac5uire.

0ut if an alien is *iven not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, apiece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell orotherwise dispose of his property,21 this to last for ': years, then itbeco)es clear that the arran*e)ent is a virtual transfer of ownershipwhereby the owner divests hi)self in sta*es not only of the ri*ht toen+oy the land ; 4s possidendi 4s tendi 4s frendi and 4s abtendi <but also of the ri*ht to dispose of it ; 4s disponendi < > ri*hts the su)total of which )ake up ownership. /t is +ust as if today the possessionis transferred, to)orrow, the use, the net day, the disposition, and soon, until ulti)ately all the ri*hts of which ownership is )ade up areconsolidated in an alien. And yet this is +ust eactly what the parties inthis case did within the space of one year, with the result that 4ustinaantos ownership of her property was reduced to a hollow concept. /fthis can be done, then the Constitutional ban a*ainst alien landholdin*

in the hilippines, as announced in riven0o v. ?e'ister of Deeds,22 isindeed in *rave peril.

/t does not follow fro) what has been said, however, that because theparties are in pari delicto they will be left where they are, without relief.For one thin*, the ori*inal parties who were *uilty of a violation of thefunda)ental charter have died and have since been substituted bytheir ad)inistrators to who) it would be un+ust to i)pute their*uilt.2 For another thin*, and this is not only co*ent but also i)portant,article 1%1& of the Civil Code provides, as an eception to the ruleon pari delicto, that Ghen the a*ree)ent is not ille*al per se but is)erely prohibited, and the prohibition by law is desi*ned for theprotection of the plaintiff, he )ay, if public policy is thereby enhanced,recover what he has paid or delivered.G The Constitutional provisionthat Gave in cases of hereditary succession, no private a*riculturalland shall be transferred or assi*ned ecept to individuals,corporations, or associations 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of thepublic do)ain in the hilippinesG2% is an epression of public policy toconserve lands for the Filipinos. As this Court said in riven0oE

/t is well to note at this +uncture that in the present case wehave no choice. e are construin* the Constitution as it isand not as we )ay desire it to be. erhaps the effect of ourconstruction is to preclude aliens ad)itted freely into thehilippines fro) ownin* sites where they )ay build theirho)es. 0ut if this is the sole)n )andate of the Constitution,we will not atte)pt to co)pro)ise it even in the na)e ofa)ity or e5uity . . . .

For all the fore*oin*, we hold that under the Constitutionaliens )ay not ac5uire private or public a*ricultural lands,includin* residential lands, and, accordin*ly, +ud*)ent isaffir)ed, without costs.2'

That policy would be defeated and its continued violation sanctioned if,instead of settin* the contracts aside and orderin* the restoration ofthe land to the estate of the deceased 4ustina antos, this Courtshould apply the *eneral rule of pari delicto. To the etent that ourrulin* in this case conflicts with that laid down in ?ellosa v. Ga% Cee1n 2& and subse5uent si)ilar cases, the latter )ust be consideredas pro tanto 5ualified.

The clai) for increased rentals and attorneys fees, )ade in behalf of

4ustina antos, )ust be denied for lack of )erit.

And what of the various a)ounts which on* received in trust fro)her /t appears that he kept two classes of accounts, one pertainin* toa)ount which she entrusted to hi) fro) ti)e to ti)e, and anotherpertainin* to rentals fro) the n*pin property and fro) the #ial

Avenue property, which he hi)self was leasin*.

ith respect to the first account, the evidence shows that he received,72%.27 on $ove)ber (, 19'7 ;lff 8h. 1&<D 7,'%.%2 on3ece)ber 1, 19'7 ;lff 8h. 1<D 1:,::: on 3ece)ber &, 19'7 ;lff8h. 1%< D and 1(,92(.': on Au*ust 2&, 19'9 ;3ef. 8h. 2%&<, or atotal of 7:,::7.19. =e clai)s, however, that he settled his accountsand that the last a)ount of 1(,92(.': was in fact pay)ent to hi) ofwhat in the li5uidation was found to be due to hi).

=e )ade disburse)ents fro) this account to dischar*e 4ustina antosobli*ations for taes, attorneys fees, funeral services and security*uard services, but the checks ;3ef 8hs. 2%7!27(< drawn by hi) forthis purpose a)ount to only (,%%2.(%.27 0esides, if he had reallysettled his accounts with her on Au*ust 2&, 19'9, we cannotunderstand why he still had 22,::: in the bank and ,::: in hispossession, or a total of 2',:::. /n his answer, he offered to pay thisa)ount if the court so directed hi). n these two *rounds, therefore,his clai) of li5uidation and settle)ent of accounts )ust be re+ected.

After subtractin* (,%%2.(% ;ependitures< fro) 7:,::7.19;receipts<, there is a difference of 1,'&% which, added to the a)ountof 2',:::, leaves a balance of '&,'&%.'2( in favor of 4ustinaantos.

As to the second account, the evidence shows that the )onthly inco)efro) the n*pin property until its sale in #ial Avenue 4uly, 19'9 was1,:::, and that fro) the #ial Avenue property, of which on* wasthe lessee, was ,12:. A*ainst this account the household epensesand disburse)ents for the care of the 17 do*s and the salaries of the ()aids of 4ustina antos were char*ed. This account is contained in anotebook ;3ef. 8h. &< which shows a balance of 9,21:.%9 in favor ofon*. 0ut it is clai)ed that the rental fro) both the n*pin and #ial

Avenue properties was )ore than enou*h to pay for her )onthlyepenses and that, as a )atter of fact, there should be a balance inher favor. The lower court did not allow either party to recover a*ainstthe other. aid the courtE

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


ITJhe docu)ents bear the ear)arks of *enuinenessD thetrouble is that they were )ade only by Francisco on* and

Antonia -atias, nick!na)ed Tonin*, > which was the wayshe si*ned the loose sheets, and there is no clear proof that3oNa 4ustina had authoried these two to act for her in suchli5uidationD on the contrary if the result of that was a deficitas alle*ed and sou*ht to be there shown, of 9,21:.%9, thatwas not what 3oNa 4ustina apparently understood for as theCourt understands her state)ent to the =onorable 4ud*e ofthe 4uvenile Court . . . the reason why she preferred to stayin her ho)e was because there she did not incur in anydebts . . . this bein* the case, . . . the Court will not

ad+udicate in favor of on* =en* on his counterclai)D onthe other hand, while it is clai)ed that the epenses were)uch less than the rentals and there in fact should be asuperavit, . . . this Court )ust concede that daily epensesare not easy to co)pute, for this reason, the Court facedwith the choice of the two alternatives will choose the )iddlecourse which after all is per)itted by the rules of proof, ec.&9, #ule 12 for in the ordinary course of thin*s, a personwill live within his inco)e so that the conclusion of the Courtwill be that there is neither deficit nor superavit and will letthe )atter rest here.

0oth parties on appeal reiterate their respective clai)s but we a*reewith the lower court that both clai)s should be denied. Aside fro) thereasons *iven by the court, we think that the clai) of 4ustina antostotallin* 7,2', as rentals due to her after deductin* various

epenses, should be re+ected as the evidence is none too clear aboutthe a)ounts spent by on* for food29 )asses: and salaries of her)aids.1 =is clai) for 9,21:.%9 )ust likewise be re+ected as hisaver)ent of li5uidation is belied by his own ad)ission that even as lateas 19&: he still had 22,::: in the bank and ,::: in his possession.

ACC#3/$"6, the contracts in 5uestion ;lff 8hs. !7< are annulledand set asideD the land sub+ect!)atter of the contracts is orderedreturned to the estate of 4ustina antos as represented by thehilippine 0ankin* CorporationD on* =en* ;as substituted by thedefendant!appellant 6ui he< is ordered to pay the hilippine 0ankin*Corporation the su) of '&,'&%.', with le*al interest fro) the date ofthe filin* of the a)ended co)plaintD and the a)ounts consi*ned incourt by on* =en* shall be applied to the pay)ent of rental fro)$ove)ber 1', 19'9 until the pre)ises shall have been vacated by hisheirs. Costs a*ainst the defendant!appellant.

Concepcion C.J. ?e(es J.B.6. Dizon Ma0alintal Ben'zon J..Faldivar Sancez and An'eles JJ. concr.

S%(%t Oi&io&s

0ERNANDO, J., concurrin*E

ith the able and well!written opinion of 4ustice Castro, / a) in fulla*ree)ent. The eposition of the facts leaves nothin* to be desiredand the state)ent of the law is notable for its co)prehensiveness andclarity. This concurrin* opinion has been written solely to epress what/ consider to be the unfortunate and deplorable conse5uences ofapplyin* the pari delicto concept, as was, to )y )ind, indiscri)inatelydone, to alien landholdin* declared ille*al under the riven0o doctrinein so)e past decisions.

/t is to be re)e)bered that in riven0o v. )e ?e'ister of Deeds ofManila,1 this Court over stron* dissents heldthat residential and commercial lots )ay be considered a*riculturalwithin the )eanin* of the constitutional provision prohibitin* thetransfer of any private a*ricultural land to individuals, corporations orassociations not 5ualified to ac5uire or hold lands of the public do)ain

in the hilippines save in cases of hereditary succession.

That provision of the Constitution took effect on $ove)ber 1', 19'when the Co))onwealth "overn)ent was established. Theinterpretation as set forth in the riven0o decision was only handeddown on $ove)ber 1', 19%7. rior to that date there were )any whowere of the opinion that the phrase a'ricltral land should beconstrued strictly and not be )ade tocover residential and commercial lots. Actin* on that belief, severaltransactions were entered into transferrin* such lots to alien vendeesby Filipino!vendors.

After the riven0o decision, so)e Filipino vendors sou*ht recovery ofthe lots in 5uestion on the *round that the sales were null and void. $o

definite rulin* was )ade by this Court until epte)ber of 19', whenon the 29th of said )onth, ?ellosa v. Ga% Cee 1n,2 Batista v. (2sabelo, )alento v. Ma0i0i ,% Caoile v. Ciao en' ' were decided.

f the four decisions in epte)ber, 19', the )ost etensivediscussion of the 5uestion is found in ?ellosa v. Ga% Cee 1n, theopinion bein* penned by retired 4ustice 0autista An*elo with theconcurrence only of one 4ustice, 4ustice 6abrador, also retired. For)er Chief 4ustice aras as well as the for)er 4ustices Tuason and-onte)ayor concurred in the result. The necessary sith vote for adecision was *iven by the then 4ustice 0en*on, who had a two!para*raph concurrin* opinion disa*reein* with the )ain opinion as tothe force to be accorded to the two cases,& therein cited. There weretwo dissentin* opinions by for)er 4ustices ablo and Ale #eyes. Thedoctrine as announced in the ?ellosa case is that while the sale by aFilipino!vendor to an alien!vendee of a residential or a co))ercial lotis null and void as held in the riven0o case, still the Filipino!vendorhas no ri*ht to recover under a civil law doctrine, the parties bein* in

pari delicto. The only re)edy to prevent this continuin* violation of theConstitution which the decision i)pliedly sanctions by allowin* thealien vendees to retain the lots in 5uestion is either escheat orreversion. ThusE G0y followin* either of these re)edies, or byapprovin* an i)ple)entary law as above su**ested, we can enforcethe funda)ental policy of our Constitution re*ardin* our naturalresources without doin* violence to the principle of pari delicto.G7

ere the parties really in pari delicto =ad the sale by and betweenFilipino!vendor and alien!vendee occurred after the decision in

the riven0o case, then the above view would be correct that bothFilipino!vendor and alien!vendee could not be considered as innocentparties within the conte)plation of the law. 0oth of the) should beheld e5ually *uilty of evasion of the Constitution.

ince, however, the sales in 5uestion took place prior tothe riven0o decision, at a ti)e when the assu)ption could behonestly entertained that there was no constitutional prohibition a*ainstthe sale of co))ercial or residential lots by Filipino!vendor to alien!vendee, in the absence of a definite decision by the upre)e Court, itwould not be doin* violence to reason to free the) fro) the i)putationof evadin* the Constitution. For evidently evasion i)plies at the veryleast knowled*e of what is bein* evaded. The new Civil Codeepressly providesE G-istakes upon a doubtful or difficult 5uestion oflaw )ay be the basis of *ood faith.G(

Accordin* to the ?ellosa opinion, both parties are e5ually *uilty ofevasion of the Constitution, based on the broader principle that Gbothparties are presu)ed to know the law.G This state)ent that the salesentered into prior to the riven0o decision were at that ti)e alreadyvitiated by a *uilty knowled*e of the parties )ay be too etre)e aview. /t appears to i*nore a postulate of a constitutional syste),wherein the words of the Constitution ac5uire )eanin* throu*hupre)e Court ad+udication.+a%pl.nHt

#eference )ay be )ade by way of analo*y to a decision ad+ud*in* astatute void. ?nder the orthodo theory of constitutional law, the acthavin* been found unconstitutional was not a law, conferred no ri*hts,i)posed no duty, afforded no protection.9 As pointed out by for)erChief 4ustice =u*hes thou*h in Cicot Cont( Draina'e District v.Ba#ter State Ban0 E1: G/t is 5uite clear, however, that such broad

state)ents as to the effect of a deter)ination of unconstitutionality)ust be taken with 5ualifications. The actual eistence of a statute,prior to such a deter)ination, is an operative fact and )ay haveconse5uences which cannot +ustly be i*nored. The past cannot alwaysbe erased by a new +udicial declaration. The effect of subse5uent rulin*as to invalidity )ay have to be considered in various aspects, > withrespect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particularconduct, private and official. @uestions of ri*hts clai)ed to havebeco)e vested, of status, of prior deter)inations dee)ed to havefinality and acted upon accordin*ly, of public policy in the l i*ht of thenature both of the statute and of its previous application, de)andea)ination.G

After the riven0o decision, there is no doubt that continuedpossession by alien!vendee of property ac5uired before itspro)ul*ation is violative of the Constitution. /t is as if an act *rantin*aliens the ri*ht to ac5uire residential and co))ercial lots wereannulled by the upre)e Court as contrary to the provision of theConstitution prohibitin* aliens fro) ac5uirin* private a*ricultural land.

The 5uestion then as now, therefore, was and is how to divest the alienof such property ri*hts on ter)s e5uitable to both parties. That5uestion should be +ustly resolved in accordance with the )andates ofthe Constitution not by a wholesale conde)nation of both parties forenterin* into a contract at a ti)e when there was no ban as yet arisin*fro) the riven0o decision, which could not have been anticipated.?nfortunately, under the ?ellosa case, it was assu)ed that the parties,bein* in pari delicto, would be left in the situation in which they were,neither bein* in a position to seek +udicial redress.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


ould it not have been )ore in consonance with the Constitution, ifinstead the decision co)pelled the restitution of the property by thealien!vendee to the Filipino!vendor Mrivenko decision held in clear,eplicit and una)bi*ous lan*ua*e thatE Ge are decidin* the instantcase under section ' of Article H/// of the Constitution which is )oreco)prehensive and )ore absolute in the sense that i t prohibits thetransfer to aliens of any private a*ricultural land includin* residentialland whatever its ori*in )i*ht have been . . . . This prohibition I#ep.

Act $o. 1J )akes no distinction between private lands that arestrictly a*ricultural and private lands that are residential or co))ercial.The prohibition e)braces the sale of private lands of any kind in favorof aliens, which is a*ain a clear i)ple)entation and a le*islative

interpretation of the constitutional prohibition. . . . /t is well to note atthis +uncture that in the present case we have no choice. e areconstruin* the Constitution as it is and not as we )ay desire it to be.erhaps the effect of our construction is to preclude aliens, ad)ittedfreely into the hilippines, fro) ownin* sites where they )ay build their ho)es. 0ut if this is the sole)n )andate of the Constitution, we willnot atte)pt to co)pro)ise it even in the na)e of a)ity or e5uity.G11

Alien!vendee is therefore incapacitated or dis5ualified to ac5uire andhold real estate. That incapacity and that dis5ualification should datefro) the adoption of the Constitution on $ove)ber 1', 19'. Thatincapacity and that dis5ualification, however, was )ade known toFilipino!vendor and to alien!vendee only upon the pro)ul*ation ofthe riven0o decision on $ove)ber 1', 19%7. Alien!vendee, therefore,cannot be allowed to continue ownin* and eercisin* acts of ownershipover said property, when it is clearly included within the Constitutional

prohibition. Alien!vendee should thus be )ade to restore the propertywith its fruits and rents to Filipino!vendor, its previous owner, if it couldbe shown that in the ut)ost *ood faith, he transferred his title over thesa)e to alien!vendee, upon restitution of the purchase price of course.

The Constitution bars alien!vendees fro) ownin* the property in5uestion. 0y dis)issin* those suits, the lots re)ained in alien hands.$otwithstandin* the solution of escheat or reversion offered, they arestill at the )o)ent of writin*, for the )ost part in alien hands. Therehave been after al)ost twenty years no proceedin*s for escheat orreversion.

et it is clear that an alien!vendee cannot consistently with theconstitutional provision, as interpreted in theriven0o decision,continue ownin* and eercisin* acts of ownership over the real estatein 5uestion. /t ou*ht to follow then, if such a continuin* violation of the

funda)ental law is to be put an end to, that the Filipino!vendor, who in*ood faith entered into, a contract with an incapacitated person,transferrin* ownership of a piece of land after the Constitution wentinto full force and effect, should, in the li*ht of the rulin* inthe riven0o case, be restored to the possession and ownershipthereof, where he has filed the appropriate case or proceedin*. Anyother construction would defeat the ends and purposes not only of thisparticular provision in 5uestion but the rest of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution frowns upon the title re)ainin* in the alien!vendees.#estoration of the property upon pay)ent of price received by Filipinovendor or its reasonable e5uivalent as fied by the court is the answer.To *ive the constitutional provision full force and effect, in consonancewith the dictates of e5uity and +ustice, the restoration to Filipino!vendorupon the pay)ent of a price fied by the court is the better re)edy. =ethou*ht he could transfer the property to an alien and did so. After

the riven0o case had )ade clear that he had no ri*ht to sell nor analien!vendee to purchase the property in 5uestion, the obvious solutionwould be for hi) to reac5uire the sa)e. That way the Constitutionwould be *iven, as it ou*ht to be *iven, respect and deference.

/t )ay be said that it is too late at this sta*e to hope for such a solution,the #ellosa opinion, althou*h ori*inally concurred in by only one

+ustice, bein* too fir)ly i)bedded. The writer however sees a welco)esi*n in the adoption by the Court in this case of the concurrin* opinionof the then 4ustice, later Chief 4ustice, 0en*on. =ad it been followedthen, the proble) would not be still with us now. Fortunately, it is never too late > not even in constitutional ad+udication.

0oot&ots

1% hil. (7 ;1922<.

22d . at (7&.

'' hil. 99 ;19:<.

%77 hil. %7: ;19%&<.

'Civ. Code, art. 1197.

&4akosale) vs. #afols, 7 hil. &2( ;19%2<.

7T.s.n., pp. 7!7%, 4une 2:, 19&:.

(T.s.n., pp. 7:!71, 7!7%, 4une 2:, 19&: ;e)phasis added<.

9T.s.n., pp. '%!'', 4une &, 19&:.

1:T.s.n., p. (&, 4une 2:, 19&: ;e)phasis added<.

11T.s.n., pp. &9!7:, 4une 2:, 19&:.

12 Article 12 of the Civil Code provides that Ghen one ofthe parties is unable to read or if the contract is in alan*ua*e not understood by hi), and )istake or fraud isalle*ed, the person enforcin* the contract )ust show thatthe ter)s thereof have been fully eplained to the for)er.G

1T.s.n., p. 11, 4une 21, 19&:.

1%T.s.n., pp. 119!12:, 4une 2:, 19&:.

1'T.s.n., p. 7&, 4une &, 19&:.

1&#odri*ue v. #odri*ue, ".#. 6!2::2, 4uly 1, 19&7D8nri5ue de la Cavada v. 3ia, 7 hil. 9(2 ;191(< D see alsouato v. -endoa, &% hil. %'7 ;197<.

17T.s.n., p. 79, 4une &, 19&: ;e)phasis added<.

1(T.s.n., p. 121, 4une 2:, 19&:.

19#odri*ue v. #odri*ue, spra, note 1&.

2:79 hil. %&1, %(:!%(1 ;19%7< ;e)phasis added<. Thestate)ent in Smit Bell & Co. v. ?e'ister of Deeds, 9& hil.', &1!&2 ;19'%<, to the effect that an alien )ay lease landsin the hilippines for as lon* as 99 years under article 1&%

of the Civil Code, is obiter as the ter) of the lease in thatcase for 2' years only, renewable for a like period, and thecharacter ;whether te)porary or per)anent< of ri*hts undera 99!year lease was not considered.

21The contract ;lff 8h. &< of $ove)ber 1(, 19'( providesthat Ga loob nan* naban**it na panahon li)an*pun* ;':<taon na hindi pa *ina*a)it ni $" o kaniyan* kaanak an*karapatan nilan* bu)ili, ay an* naban**it na lupa ay hindi)aarin* ipa*bili, ibi*ay, isan*la, o itali n* -A!A#/ sa ibaGIithin the said period of fifty ;':< years durin* which neither $" nor any of his children has eercised the option tobuy, the said piece of land cannot be sold, donated,)ort*a*ed or encu)bered in favor of other persons by theownerJ.

22Spra, note 2:.

2Cf. #ellosa v. "aw Chee =un, 9 hil. (27, (& ;19'<;Cesar 0en*on, J., concurrin*< E Gerhaps the innocentspouse of the seller and his creditors are not barred fro)raisin* the issue of invalidity.G

2%Const. art. H/// sec. '.

2'Spra, note 2:, at %(:!%(1.

2&9 hil. (27 ;19'<.

27 Accordin* to the lower court the a)ount should be(,%22.9%, but the difference appears to be the result of anerror in addition.

2( Accordin* to the trial court the a)ount should be'&,''%.2', but the difference appears to be due to the error pointed out in note 27.

29T.s.n., pp. &!(, 4uly 2&, 19&:.

:T.s.n., p. ', 4uly 2&, 19&:.

1T.s.n., pp. 1!', 4uly 2&, 19&:.

7/17/2019 Landti Days 10-12


F8#$A$3, 4., concurrin*E

179 hil. %&1 ;19%7<.

29 hil. (27.

9 hil. (%.

%9 hil. (''.

'9 hil. (&1. ee also Ara)bulo v. Cua o, ;19'%< 9' hil.7%9D 3in*lasan v. 6ee 0un Tin*, ;19'&< 99 hil. %27.

&0ou*h v. Cantiveros, ;1919< %: hil. 21: and ere v.=erran ;19:2< 7 hil. &9.

7 At p. ('.

( Art. '2&, par. . The above provision is )erely a reiterationof the doctrine announced in the case of asila' v.?odri'ez decided on 3ece)ber 7, 199 ;&9 hil. 217<, the

pertinent ecerpt followsE

GThis bein* the case, the 5uestion is whether *oodfaith )ay be pre)ised upon i*norance of the laws.-anresa, co))entin* on article %% in connectionwith the precedin* article, sustains the affir)ative.=e saysE

Ge do not believe that in real life there are not)any cases of *ood faith founded upon an error of

law. hen the ac5uisition appears in a publicdocu)ent, the capacity of the parties has alreadybeen passed upon by co)petent authority, andeven established by appeals taken fro) final

+ud*)ents and ad)inistrative re)edies a*ainstthe 5ualification of re*istrars, and the possibility oferror is re)ote under such circu)stancesD but,unfortunately, private docu)ents and even verbala*ree)ents far eceed public docu)ents innu)ber, and while no one should be i*norant ofthe law, the truth is that even we who are calledupon to know and apply it fall into error not

infre5uently. =owever, a clear, )anifest, and trulyunecusable i*norance is one thin*, to whichundoubtedly refers article 2, and another anddifferent thin* is possible and ecusable errorarisin* fro) co)ple le*al principle and fro) theinterpretation of conflictin* doctrines.

G0ut even i*norance of the law )ay be basedupon an error of fact, or better still, i*norance of afact is possible as to the capacity to trans)it andas to the intervention of certain persons,co)pliance with certain for)alities andappreciation of certain acts, and error of law ispossible in the interpretation of doubtfuldoctrines.G ;-anresa, Co))entaries on thepanish Civil Code, Bolu)e /B, pp. 1::, 1:1 and

1:2.<

9$orton v. helby County, ;1((&< 11( ?.. %2'.

1::( ?.. 71 ;19%:<.

1179 hil. %&1, %(: ;19%7<.

landti days 10-12

Documents