This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
which they inherited from their father who had inherited the same from their own parents. The Director of Lands, through the Solicitor General opposed to the application. The Court found that the applicants' possession of the parcel of land sought to be registered, together with that of their predecessors-ininterest, has been public, peaceful, continuous, adverse to the whole world and in the concept of an owner for a period of more than thirty (30) years, and, that the land is not located within any forest reservation nor mortgaged or encumbered in favor of any person or lending institution. The trial court affirmed the order of general default and confirmed the title of the applicants to the parcel of land. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, appealed and alleged that the applicants-appellees have not met the statutory requirements on possession under Section 48(b) of CA 141, mainly because the land applied for was inalienable forest land before its release as alienable and disposable land on January 3, 1968. The applicants' possession thereof prior to January 3, 1968 was invalid for purposes of a grant under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. They have to their credit only seventeen (17) years possession and occupation of the land, counted from January 23, 1968, when it was declared alienable and disposable, up to September 12, 1984, when their application for registration was filed. Issue: Whether or not the classification made by Director of Forestry could affect the vested rights of the applicants and their predecessors-in-interest who had continuously occupied and profited from the land since 1918 or very much earlier. Held: The SC held that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the private respondents had not qualified for a grant under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act because their possession of the land while it was still inalienable forest land, or before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the public domain on January 13, 1968, could not ripen into private ownership, and should be excluded from the computation of the 30-year open and continuous possession in concept of owner required under Section 48(b) of Com. Act 141. . It accords with our ruling in Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, Ibarra Bishar et al., 178 SCRA 708, that: Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
As testified by the District Forester. Held: There is no question that the lands in the case at bar were not alienable lands of the public domain. however. CFI of Albay ordered the registration of 15 parcels of land covered by EO No. therefore. December 28. Issue Whether or not the land claimed by the Palomos may be acquired by adverse possession.The Palomos. and January 17. 40 which reserved parcels of land for provincial park purposes in Tiwi Albay on June 13. 16 Moreover. as part of the reservation for provincial park purposes. Ignacio and Carmen Palomo two months before his death. cannot convert it into private property. 47 converting the area embraced by Executive Order No. is neither susceptible to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Law (CA 141) nor registrable under the Land Registration Act (Act No. On May 7. 1913. Ignacio filed a petition for reconstitution on May 30. they form part of the forest zone. 1954 President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. Palomo donated several parcels of land to his heirs. no matter how lengthy. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot Spring National Park. 496). records in the Bureau of Forestry show that the subject lands were never declared as alienable and disposable and subject to private alienation prior to 1913 up to the present. On December 9. It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. 40 to Diego Palomo. continued in possession of the property. 1950 as the aforesaid original certificates of title were lost during the Japanese Occupation.Palomo vs ca Facts: Governor General William Cameron Forbes issued EO no. It is not registrable and possession thereof. . 17 unless such lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. On July 10. herein petitioners. 1974 petitioners filed a civil case against privaterespondents who are all employees of the Bureau of Forest Development who entered their land and cut down bamboos. 1917. 1916. The Republic of the Philippines also filed a Civil Case for the annulmentand cancellation of the Certificate of Titles involving the 15 parcels of land. The area was never released as alienable and disposable portion of the public domain and. RTC ad CA ruledagainst the Palomos.
represented by Msgr. It need not therefore be treated as an ordinary private corporation because whether or not it be so treated as such.Rep vs ca roman catholic Facts: On February 2. In the light of the facts obtaining in this case and the ruling of this Court in Director of Lands vs. IAC. Jose T. The Solicitor General further contended that granting title to alienable lot of public domain to respondent would be in violation of Article XIV. portion of Lot 2 also by purchase thru Rev. 1928. nevertheless. Issue: Whether or not the Roman Catholic Bishop can acquire alienable land of public domain. Father Raymundo Esquenet from the spouses Benito Maramot and Venancia Descaller on May 22. section II of the 1973 constitution. the lands subject of this petition were already private property at the time the application for confirmation of title was filed in 1979. Sanchez. the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena. There is therefore no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the appellate court. And lot 4 was donated by spouses Paulo G. be not applicable. Macasaet and Gabriela V. filed an application for confirmation of title to four (4) parcels of land. 1979. Lot 1 was acquired by the Roman Catholic Church thru Rev. de Macasaet on February 26. 1941. filed an opposition on April 20. The Republic of the Philippines thru the Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development represented by the Solicitor General. alleging that the applicant did not have an imperfect title or title in fee simple to the parcels of lands. The applicant claimed title to the various properties through either purchase or donation dating as far back as 1928. the Constitutional provision involved will. 1969. Held: There is no doubt that a corporation sole by the nature of its Incorporation is vested with the right to purchase and hold real estate and personal property. while the remaining portion of Lot 2 and Lot 3 were already owned and possessed by the Roman Catholic Church even prior to the survey of the said three lots in 1928. 1979 in the Court of the First Instance of Quezon. Father Raymundo Esquenet by purchase from the spouses Atanacio Yranso and Maria Coronado on October 20. .
the Court again applied the rule that the subsequent sale can no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer. and his son. is to preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos. Issue: Whether or not the subsequent sale by the disqualified alien vendee to a qualified Filipino citizen is valid. . who are owners of the adjoining lot. On February 5. 25 Godinez vs. 1621 5 of the Civil Code. Luy Kim Guan. The rationale of this principle was explained in Vasquez vs. filed a complaint questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two conveyances — between Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman. The objective of the constitutional provision — to keep our land in Filipino hands — has been served. His forced heirs were his widow. defendant appellee [also herein private respondent] David Rey Guzman. as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case. Held: Jurisprudence is consistent that "if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen. Li Seng Giap 27 and Herrera vs. 1991. an American citizen. 26 Vasquez vs. leaving real properties in the Philippines. Petitioners. since the disputed land is now owned by Private Respondent Cataniag. and between the latter and Emiliano Cataniag — and claiming ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption under Art. 29 Accordingly. Li Seng Giap thus: . . [I]f the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands.Halili vs ca Facts Simeon de Guzman. . that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization. David Rey Guzman sold said parcel Emiliano Cataniag. the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed. died sometime in 1968. defendant appellee [herein private respondent] Helen Meyers Guzman. in the cases of Sarsosa vs." 22 Likewise. 28 which similarly involved the sale of land to an alien who thereafter sold the same to a Filipino citizen. a Filipino citizen. both of whom are also American citizens. Pak Luen. Cuenco.
exploitation. Issue: Whether or not Ong Ching Po acquired title to the lands. Private respondent contended that when she and her husband settled in Iloilo.]). while petitioner Ong Ching Po died in October 1986. petitioner Ong Ching Po executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to his children. She demanded that the lot be vacated when her husband died because she was going to sell it but the petitioners refused to vacate. the wife of Ong Yee. Aliens . The translation showed that petitioner Ong Ching Po merely used private respondent as a dummy to have the title over the parcel of land registered in her name because being an alien he was disqualified to own real property in the Philippines. . 1946. hence. she entrusted the administration of the lot and building to petitioner Ong Ching Po. On March 19. Held: The capacity to acquire private land is made dependent upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. 1984. 1947. Private land may be transferred or conveyed only to individuals or entities "qualified to acquire lands of the public domain" (II Bernas. The latter. petitioner Ong Ching Po bought the said parcel of land from Ong Joi Jong. On December 12 1985. private respondent filed a case for unlawful detainer against petitioner Ong Ching Po. petitioners Ong Ching Po. Ong Joi Jong sold a parcel of Land to private respondent Soledad Parian. On December 6. have been disqualified from acquiring public lands. they have also been disqualified from acquiring private lands.Ong Ching Po vs Court of Appeals Facts: On July 23. petitioners Jimmy and David Ong. The Constitution of the Philippines 439-440 [1988 ed. 9260. The sale was evidenced by a photo copy of a Deed of Sale written in Chinese. 1983. which issued TCT no. Jimmy Ong and David Ong filed an action for reconveyance and damages against private respondent. The 1935 Constitution reserved the right to participate in the "disposition. development and utilization" of all "lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines" for Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which was owned by Filipinos. whether individuals or corporations. the same property sold by Ong Joi Jong to private respondent in 1947. The said sale was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale written in English and the document was registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila. the brother of petitioner Ong Ching Po. Petitioners claimed that on July 23. died in January 1983.
bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate. therefore. or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. Both sections must. after all. Save in cases of hereditary succession. Issue: Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may acquire residential land. "natural resources. corporations. Krivenko then brought the case to the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila by means of a consulta. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if. This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural resources may leak into aliens' hands. section 5 is intended to insure the policy of nationalization contained in section 1. It must be noticed that the persons against whom the prohibition is directed in section 5 are the very same persons who under section 1 are disqualified "to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. 1945. being an alien. no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals. he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction. Kriventor. they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens.Krivenko vs Register of deeds Facts: Alexander A. the non-transferability of "agricultural land" to aliens. their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included in Article XIII. as above indicated. and it reads as follows: Sec. The registration of the lot was interrupted by the war. he filed for registration." And the subject matter of both sections is the same. Undoubtedly. The register of deeds of Manila denied on the ground that. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. an alien. and that court rendered judgment sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds. Held: Under section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution. shall not be aliented. namely. 5. In May. be read together for they have the same purpose and the same subject matter. . Inc. with the exception of public agricultural land." and with respect to public agricultural lands. on December 1941. from which Krivenko appealed to the Supreme Court.
if it exercises its mission and is lawfully incorporated in accordance with the laws of the country where it is located. church properties acquired by the incumbent of a corporation sole pass. Manager. s corporation sole organized and existing in accordance with Philippine Laws. as actual incumbent. usually the head or bishop of the diocese. is considered an entity or person with all the rights and privileges granted to such artificial being under the laws of that country. the vendee was not qualified to acquire private lands in the Philippines in the absence of proof that at least 60 per centum of the capital. although a branch of the Universal Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. Clovis Thibault. Held: It has been held that: (1) the corporation sole. . there being no question that the present incumbent of the corporation sole was a Canadian citizen. as such. upon his death not his personal heirs but to his successor in office. thus. A resolution was rendered holding that in view of the provisions of Section 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution. a unit which is not subject to expansion for the purpose of determining any percentage whatsoever.Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao Inc v LRC Facts: On October 4. separate and distinct from the personality of the Roman Pontiff or the Holy See. The Registry of Deeds required said corporation sole to submit a similar affidavit declaring that 60 per cent of the members thereof were Filipino citizens Davao when the deed of sale was presented to them for registration. by operation of law. is composed of only one person. management or administration of the corporation sole. Rodis. in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao Inc. with Msgr. 1954. or assets of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao. the matter was referred to the Land Registration Commissioner en consulta for resolution in accordance with section 4 of Republic Act No. Furthermore. a Canadian citizen. Mateo L. a Roman Catholic Church. property.. (3) such temporalities are administered for and on behalf of the faithful residing in the diocese or territory of the corporation sole. was actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens. Issue: Whether or not a corporation sole may acquire and register private agricultural land when the Head. nor effects the citizenship of the faithful connected with their respective dioceses or corporation sole.. 1151. a Filipino citizen executed a deed of sale of a parcel of land. and (4) the latter. Inc. As the Register of Deeds entertained some doubts as to the registerability if the document. has no nationality and the citizenship of the incumbent Ordinary has nothing to do with the operation. unlike the ordinary corporations which are formed by no less than 5 incorporators. Administrator or actual incumbent is an alien. (2) the corporation sole is only the administrator and not the owner of the temporalities located in the territory comprised by said corporation sole.
while Wong Heng. The error was discovered and the proceedings were abandoned. Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because of machinations and inducements practiced by him. but also an option to buy. they reveal an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits. And yet this is just exactly what the parties in this case did within the space of one year. tomorrow. In the two wills executed. But if an alien is given not only a lease of. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary. She filed a petition to adopt him and his children on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine citizenship. Should they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship. the use.21 this to last for 50 years. then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land ( jus possidendi. but in a codicil of a later date she appears to have a change of heart. Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire. Vs lui she Facts: Justina Santos y Canon Faustino and her sister Lorenzo were the owners in common of a piece of land in Manila with two residential houses. she executed two other contracts. the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal. Register of Deeds. the next day. by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property. lived with his family in the restaurant. with the result that Justina Santos' ownership of her property was reduced to a hollow concept. until ultimately all the rights of which ownership is made up are consolidated in an alien. she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into with Wong. Held: Taken singly. . jus fruendi and jus abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it ( jus disponendi) — rights the sum total of which make up ownership. but considered collectively. then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines. Justina Santos became the owner of the entire property as her sister died with no other heir.Phil banking corp. one extending the term of the lease to 99 years. and another fixing the term of the option of 50 years. Issue: Whether or not an alien can lease and or own lands. a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. a piece of land.22 is indeed in grave peril. she now directed her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts. If this can be done. Justina Santos executed a contract of lease in favour of Wong which was for 50 years with the right to withdraw at any time. 1957. As this Court said in Krivenko v. In 1958. jus utendi. the disposition. as announced in Krivenko v. It is just as if today the possession is transferred. She was at the time 90 years old. Wong became her trusted man to whom she delivered various amounts for safekeeping. Wong had been a long-time lessee of a portion of the property. Register of Deeds:20 [A]liens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. The sisters lived in one of the houses. and so on. To be sure. Wong also took care of the payment of several expenses in her behalf. a Chinese. crippled and an invalid who lived by herself with no other relative. On September 22. blind. The contract was further amended.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.