Philippine Laws govern the transfer of real properties.

Orion Savings Bank vs Shigekane Suzuki GR No. 205487

Facts

Respondent Suzuki purchased a condominium unit and parking slot in cityland pioneer for 2.8 million from
a certain Kang, a Korean national and a Special Resident Retirees Visa holder. Suzuki thereafter issued a
check for the payment of the said condo unit and parking slot, and started to renovate the unit.
Respondent demanded from Kang the titles of the condo units and parking, but the latter said that it was
in the possession of Perez, the Orion’s loans officer. Despite several demands, Kang failed to deliver the
subject titles. Upon learning that Kang has left the country, Suzuki verified the status of the properties.
Both titles had no annotations but were under the name of cityland. Suzuki thereafter demanded the
delivery of the titles from cityland’s possession, but the latter refused for the reason that the condo unit
was covered by a dacion en pago executed between them and Kang for the amount of 1.8 million. The
said dacion en pago however was not registered by Orion with the Registry of Deeds. Thus, Suzuki filed a
complaint for specific performance and damages against Kang and Orion.

Orion contends that the sale between Suzuki and Kang is null and void since under the Korean law, any
conveyance of conjugal property should be made with the consent of both spouses.

Issue

WON the contract of absolute sale between Suzuki and Kang is null and void.

Held

The contention of Orion regarding spousal consent cannot be given weight for it was raised only on appeal.
The Court held that it is a well-settled principle that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not
brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and considered by
a reviewing court. To consider these belated arguments would violate basic principles of fair play, justice,
and due process.

The Court however discussed the matter as if the issue was raised during trial.

The Court ruled in this wise, “It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject
to the laws of the country or state where it is located. The reason is found in the very nature of immovable
property — its immobility. Immovables are part of the country and so closely connected to it that all rights
over them have their natural center of gravity there.

Thus, all matters concerning the title and disposition of real property are determined by what is known as
the lex loci rei sitae, which can alone prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from one person to
another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or lost. This general principle includes all rules
governing the descent, alienation and transfer of immovable property and the validity, effect and
construction of wills and other conveyances.

Thus, an instrument will be ineffective to transfer title to land if the person making it is incapacitated by
the lex loci rei sitae, even though under the law of his domicile and by the law of the place where the
instrument is actually made, his capacity is undoubted.

On the other hand, property relations between spouses are governed principally by the national law of the
spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the foreign
law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge cannot take
judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or the law of the forum.

Accordingly, matters concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be governed by Philippine
law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by South Korean law,
provided it is proven as a fact.

In the present case, Orion, unfortunately failed to prove the South Korean law on the conjugal ownership
of property.

Accordingly, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption

comes into play, i.e., where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proven, the presumption
is that foreign law is the same as Philippine Law.

Accordingly, we see no reason to declare as invalid Kang’s conveyance in favor of Suzuki for the supposed
lack of spousal consent.”