CASE DIGEST: LANDTITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT – SECTION 5, ARTICLE III OF THE PHILIPPINE

CONSTITUTION)
RAMIREZ VS VDA DE RAMIREZ, G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982

FACTS OF THE CASE: The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez among the principal
beneficiaries, namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez; his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion Wanda de
Wrobleski.

CASE DIGEST 3: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP)

REPUBLIC VS QUASHA, G.R. No. L-30299 August 17, 1972

FACTS OF THE CASE: Respondent, William H. Quasha, an American citizen, had acquired by purchase on 26 November 1954 a parcel of land
with the permanent improvements thereon, in Forbes Park, Municipality of Makati, with an area of 2,616 sq. m. more or less, and covered by a T.
C. T. He filed a petition in the CFI of Rizal averring the acquisition of said real estate. The Republic claimed that upon expiration of the Parity
Amendment on 3 July 1974, rights acquired by citizens of the United States of America shall cease and be of no further force and effect . Such
claims necessarily affect the rights and interest of the plaintiff, for which reason plaintiff Quasha sought a declaration of his rights under the
Parity Amendment, said plaintiff contending that the ownership of properties during the effectivity of the Parity Amendment continues
notwithstanding the termination and effectivity of the Amendment.
The Solicitor General contended that the land acquired by plaintiff constituted private agricultural land and that the acquisition violated
section 5, Article XIII, of the Constitution of the Philippines, which prohibits the transfer of private agricultural land to non-Filipinos, except by
hereditary succession; and assuming that Quasha's acquisition was valid, any and all rights by him so acquired "will expire ipso facto and ipso
jure at the end of the day on 3 July 1974, if he continued to hold the property until then, and will be subject to escheat or reversion proceedings" by
the Republic.
The CFI of Rizal held that acquisition by the plaintiff the private agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title in his name
was valid, and that plaintiff has a right to continue in ownership of the said property even beyond July 3, 1974.

ISSUE: Whether or not by virtue of the so-called Parity Amendment to the Philippine Constitution respondent Quasha could validly acquire
ownership of the private residential land in Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, which is concededly classified private agricultural land. NO

CASE DIGEST 4: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP)

HULST VS PR BUILDERS, G.R. No. 156364             September 3, 2007

FACTS OF THE CASE: Jacobus Bernhard Hulst (petitioner) and his spouse Ida Johanna Hulst-Van Ijzeren (Ida), Dutch nationals, entered
into a Contract to Sell with PR Builders, Inc. (respondent), for the purchase of a 210-sq m residential unit in respondent's townhouse project in
Barangay Niyugan, Laurel, Batangas. When respondent failed to comply with its verbal promise to complete the project by June 1995, the spouses
Hulst filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board a complaint for rescission of contract. HLURB Arbiter rendered a Decision in
favor of spouses Hulst and reimburse complainant the sum of P3,187,500.00, representing the purchase price paid by the complainants to P.R.
Builders, plus interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time complaint was filed and other damages.
CASE DIGEST 2: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT)
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION VS LUI SHE, G.R. No. L-17587, September 12, 1967

FACTS OF THE CASE: Justina Santos y Canon Faustino and her sister Lorenzo were the owners in common of a piece of land in Manila with
an area of 2,582.30 square meters. In it are two residential houses with entrance on Florentino Torres street and the Hen Wah Restaurant with
entrance on Rizal Avenue. The sisters lived in one of the houses, while Wong Heng, a Chinese, lived with his family in the restaurant. Wong had
been a long-time lessee of a portion of the property, paying a monthly rental of P2,620. Justina Santos became the owner of the entire property as
her sister died with no other heir.
Justina Santos executed a contract of lease in favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased to him and another
portion fronting Florentino Torres street. The lease was for 50 years, although the lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time from the
agreement and the monthly rental was P3,120. The contract was amended so as to cover the entire property. On December 21 she executed another
contract giving Wong the option to buy the leased premises for P120,000, payable within ten years at a monthly installment of P1,000. The
option was conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citizenship, a petition for which was then pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal .
However the application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. She then filed a petition to
adopt him and his children on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine citizenship. The error was discovered and the
proceedings were abandoned. On November 18, 1958 she executed two other contracts, one extending the term of the lease to 99 years, and another
fixing the term of the option of 50 years. In the two wills executed on August 24 and 29, 1959 she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had
entered into with Wong, but in a later date she appears to have a change of heart. Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because
of machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now directed her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts.
A complaint was filed in CFI alleging that the contracts were obtained by Wong "through fraud, misrepresentation, inequitable
conduct, undue influence and abuse of confidence and trust of and (by) taking advantage of the helplessness of the plaintiff and were made to
circumvent the constitutional provision prohibiting aliens from acquiring lands in the Philippines and also of the Philippine Naturalization Laws ." In
his answer, Wong insisted that the various contracts were freely and voluntarily entered into by the parties. The Court ruled that with the exception
of the first which is the lease contract, all other documents were declared null and void. After the case was submitted for decision, both parties
died. Wong was substituted by his wife, Lui She, the other defendant in this case, while Justina Santos was substituted by the Philippine Banking
Corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contracts in question and the land subject-matter of the contracts be returned to the estate of Justina Santos as
represented by the Philippine Banking Corporation. YES

RULING: Taken singly, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, but considered collectively, they reveal an insidious pattern to
subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option
giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship . As this Court said in Krivenko v. Register
of Deeds, Aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the
Philippines is temporary, they may be granted  temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution . Should they
desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.

But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land , by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or
otherwise dispose of his property, 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, jus utendi, 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. It is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow,
the use, the next day, the disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of which ownership is made up are consolidated in an alien. And yet
this is just exactly what the parties in this case did within the space of one year, with the result that Justina Santos' ownership of her property was
reduced to a hollow concept. If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.

The Constitutional provision that "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines" is an expression of public policy
to conserve lands for the Filipinos. We hold that under the Constitution aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including
residential lands.

Hence, the contracts in question are annulled and set aside and the land subject-matter of the contracts is ordered returned to the estate of
Justina Santos as represented by the Philippine Banking Corporation. Moreover, Wong Heng (as substituted by the defendant-appellant Lui She) is
ordered to pay the Philippine Banking Corporation the sum of P56,564.35, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the amended complaint.