Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ contract for option to buy the leased property with a
MARIA LUISA PALACIOS v. MARCELLA VDA. DE condition that Wong obtain Philippine Citizenship then
RAMIREZ, et.al. pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
However, the application was withdrawn because it was
G.R. No. L-27952, 15 February 1982 discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. In
FACTS October 1958, Justina filed a petition to adopt Wong and
his children in the belief that adoption would confer him
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain Philippine Citizenship. Discovering there was error, the
with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was proceedings were abandoned.
admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch X. The administratrix of the estate In November 1958, Justina executed two other contracts
submitted a project of partition giving one part of the extending the lease to 99 years, and fixing the term of
estate to the widow “en pleno dominio” in satisfaction of option to buy at 50 years. Both were written in Tagalog.
her legitime while the other part of the “free portion” to In two wills executed on August 1959, Justina bade her
his two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez. legatees to respect the contracts entered into with
Furthermore, one third of the free portion is charged Wong. However, Justina appeared to have a change of
with the widow’s usufruct and the remaining two thirds heart, and claimed that the contracts were made
(2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda Wrobleski. through machinations and inducements practiced by
Wong. Thus, Justina directed her executor to secure the
Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed the project of annulment of the contracts.
partition, as well as the substitutions provided by the
testator as to the usufructs of the widow and of Wanda. In November 1959, a complaint was then filed before
Nonetheless, the lower court approved the project of the Court of First Instance of Manila on the said
partition in its order dated May 1967. Jorge and Roberto grounds, and asked the court to direct the Register of
appealed before the Supreme Court. Deeds of Manila to cancel the registration of the
contracts. Wong denied having taken advantage of the
ISSUE trust and confidence given to him by Justina. The CFI
rendered its decision annulling all the contracts, except
Whether or not the usufruct over real property in favor
the lease contract, and condemned Wong to pay Justina
of Wanda violates the Constitutional prohibition against
the unpaid rentals.
ownership of lands by alien.
Both parties filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
RULING
Justina (through Petitioner Philippine Banking
The Court upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Corporation) maintained that the lease contract should
Wanda on the ground that the Constitution covers not have been annulled as it lacks mutuality, that it was
only succession by operation of law, but also obtained in violation of the fiduciary relations of the
testamentary succession. Any alien would be able to parties, and that her consent was obtained through
circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation.
Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece
ISSUE
of land. In the present case, the usufruct in favor of
Wanda, although a real right, does not vest title to the Whether or not the lease contract is valid, thus, granting
land in the usufructuary. It is the vesting of title in favor rights to Wong.
of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
RULING
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
The Court ruled that the least contract is valid. The lease
Estate of Eugenio Ramirez is DISTRIBUTED according to contract does not lack mutuality because Wong was
the SC’s order. never an agent of Justina. The relationship between the
parties were admittedly close, but did not amount to an
agency. Actually, it was cited that the lease contract was
made on the basis of the data of Wong given to the
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She lawyer who prepared the contract, and that Justina told
him that whatever Wong wants must be followed.
G.R. No. L-17587, 12 September 1967 Despite the words supplied by Wong, it was testified
FACTS that Justina was unyielding and firm in her decision to
follow Wong. Undue influence cannot stand as well given
Justina Santos and her sister own a piece of land in that the contract was signed in the presence of Justina’s
Manila, while Wong Heng is a long-time lessee of the close friend and maid, who could have testified against
property. Eventually, Justina became the owner of the it. Further, Justina’s consent was given freely and
property. Already in advanced age, Justina trusted voluntarily as shown by her recited in the Deed of
various tasks to Wong including the delivery of rental Conditional Option and emphatic avowal gratitude in the
payments to her property. lease contract that Wong saved her and her sister from
the fire that destroyed their house during the liberation
In November 1957, in grateful acknowledgement of his
of Manila. All told, the lease contract stands to be valid.
personal services, Justina executed a contract of lease in
favor of Wong covering a portion property, and later, the However, despite validity of the lease contract, it also
entire property for 50 years with right to withdraw at gives the clue to a circumvention of the Constitutional
any time. In December 1957, Justina executed a prohibition against transfer of land to aliens. Taken
singly, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily CFI of Rizal declared that acquisition by the plaintiff on
illegal, but considered collectively, they reveal an 26 November 1954 of, the private agricultural land.
insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the
Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a lease to an
alient for a reasonable period is valid. So is the option Issue:
giving an alien the right to buy the property on condition
that he is granted Philippine Citizenship. Whether or not under or by virtue of the so-called Parity
Amendment to the Philippine Constitution respondent
But if an alien is given not only a lease, but also an Quasha could validly acquire ownership of the private
option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the residential land in Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, which is
Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his concededly classified private agricultural land.
property, this is to last for 50 years, is a virtual transfer
of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in
stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also
Held:
the right to dispose of it – rights the sum total of which
makes up ownership. As originally drafted by the framers of the Constitution,
the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands of
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
the public domain, and other natural resources of the
Contracts in question were ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved
Subject land ordered to be RETURNED to the estate of to Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them:
Justina Santos. but the "Parity Amendment" expressly extended the
privilege to citizens of the United States of America
and/or to business enterprises owned or controlled by
them.No other provision of our Constitution was referred
Republic v. Quasha
to by the "Parity Amendment"; not Section 2 of Article
Facts: XIII limiting the maximum area of public agricultural
lands that could be held by individuals or corporations or
William R. Quasha, an American citizen, had acquired by
associations; nor Section 5 restricting the transfer or
purchase on 26 November 1954 a parcel of land with the assignment of private agricultural lands to those
permanent improvements thereon, situated at 22 Molave
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain
Place, in Forbes Park, Municipality of Makati, Province of (which under the original Section 1 of Article XIII meant
Rizal. Quasha averred the acquisition of the real estate
Filipinos exclusively), save in cases of hereditary
aforesaid; that the Republic of the Philippines, through succession.
its officials, 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
As ruled in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.
further force and effect; that such claims necessarily
Guerrero, et al., L-20942, 22 September 1967, 21 SCRA
affect the rights and interest of the plaintiff, and that
181, per Justice Enrique M. Fernando:
continued uncertainty as to the status of plaintiff's
property after 3 July 1974 reduces the value thereof, "'While good faith, no less than adherence to the
and precludes further improvements being introduced categorical wording of the Ordinance, requires that all
thereon, for which reason plaintiff Quasha sought a the rights and privileges thus granted to Americans and
declaration of his rights under the Parity Amendment, business enterprises owned and controlled by them be
said plaintiff contending that the ownership of properties respected, anything further would not be warranted.
during the effectivity of the Parity Amendment continues Nothing less would suffice but anything more is not
notwithstanding the termination and effectivity of the justified.'"
Amendment.
ng ing $o later litigated the property to*ictoriano Cu
enco, a naturali'ed &ilipino whoimmediately too
possession of the property!
Cuenco then filed a case for &orci"le %ntryagainst
%pifania "efore the MTC which was
later dismissed since the +uestion of possessioncould
not "e properly determined without firstsettling the issue
on ownership!
ISSUE'
/ho is the rightful owner of the property0