You are on page 1of 7

Krivenko vs Register of Deeds, GR No.

L-630, November 15, 1947; 79 Phil 461


(Land Titles and Deeds Aliens disqualified from acquiring public and private lands)
Facts: An alien bought a residential lot and its registration was denied by the Register of Deeds on the
ground that being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction. When the former brought the
case to the CFI, the court rendered judgement sustaining the refusal of the Register of Deeds.
Issue: WON an alien may own private lands in the Philippines.
Held. No. Public agricultural lands mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution, include
residential, commercial and industrial lands, the Court stated: Natural resources, with the exception of
public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and with respect to public agricultural lands, their
alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. 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. Thus Section 5, Article XIII provides: Save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned except to individuals,
corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

HALILI vs. CA GR # 113539, MARCH 23, 1998


FACTS: Private respondents, both American Citizens, inherited real properties from Simeon de Guzman,
who died intestate, located in the Philippines. His wife, Helen, executed a deed of quit claim assigning,
transferring and conveying to their son, David Rey, all her rights, titles and interests in and over 6 parcels
of land which the 2 of them inherited from Simeon who himself was an AMCIT. David thereafter sold the
land to private respondent Emiliano Cataniag. Petitioners, the adjoining lots owners, questioned the
validity and constitutionality of the 2 conveyances, i.e. from Helen to David and between David and
Emiliano. They also claimed ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption under Art.1621,
NCC.
HELD: The SC ruled that although Helens deed of quit claim -in which she assigned, transferred and
conveyed to David all her rights, titles, and interests over the property she had inherited from her
husbandcollided with Sec.7, Art. XII of the 87 Constitution. Since the disputed land is now owned by
Cataniag, a FILCIT, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed. The objective of the constitutional
provision to keep our land in Filipino hands has been served. Non Filipinos can not acquire or hold title
to private lands or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession. However, if
land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen,
the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
Halili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113539, 12 March 1998, First Division, J. Panganiban.
Jurisprudence is consistent that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a
citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is deemed cured and the title of the

transferee is rendered valid. If the rationale of the ban on aliens from acquiring lands is to preserve the
nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but
achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who subsequently become Filipino
citizens by naturalization, or the transfer to Filipino citizens.

MULLER VS MULLER
Gr 149615
FACTS Elena and Helmut,a German national were married in Germany and resided there in a house
owned by RHelmuts parents but later permanently resided in the Philippines. Helmut had inh erited the
house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of
land in Antipolo and in the construction of a house. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of
Elena. After they separated, Helmut filed a motion for separation of properties for reimbursement of
the property in Antipolo.
ISSUE: WON respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the
Antipolo property?
NO. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, Helmuts disqualification from
owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Where the purchase is made in violation of an existing
statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty o f
the fraud. Helmut cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly
and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES MARIO B.
LAPIA AND FLOR DE VEGA

FACTS:
On June 17, 1978, respondent spouses bought Lots 347 and 348, Cad. s38-D, as their residence with a
total area of 91.77 sq. m. situated in San Pablo City, from one Cristeta Dazo Belen (Rollo, p. 41). At the
time of the purchase, respondent spouses where then natural-born Filipino citizens.On February 5, 1987,
the spouses filed an application for registration of title of the two (2) parcels of land before the Regional
Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch XXXI. This time, however, they were no longer Filipino citizens
and have opted to embrace Canadian citizenship through naturalization.An opposition was filed by the
Republic and after the parties have presented their respective evidence, the court a quo rendered a
decision confirming private respondents' title to the lots in question.On appeal, respondent court affirmed
the decision of the trial court based on the following ratiocination: In the present case, it is undisputed that
both applicants were still Filipino citizens when they bought the land in controversy from its former

owner. For this reason, the prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by aliens could not apply.
In justice and equity, they are the rightful owners of the subject realty considering also that they had paid
for it quite a large sum of money.
Issue: Whether or not a foreign national can apply for registration of title over a parcel of land which he
acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor who has complied with the
requirements for registration under the Public Land Act (CA 141).
Held: The Court disagreed on the petition to seek to defeat respondents' application for registration of title
on the ground of foreign nationality. This Court, speaking through Justice Davide, Jr., stated: As could be
gleaned from the evidence adduced, the private respondents do not rely on fee simple ownership based on
a Spanish grant or possessory information title under Section 19 of the Land Registration Act; the private
respondents did not present any proof that they or their predecessors-in-interest derived title from an old
Spanish grant such as (a) the "titulo real" or royal grant (b) the "concession especial" or especial grant; (c)
the "composicion con el estado" title or adjustment title; (d) the "titulo de compra" or title by purchase;
and (e) the "informacion posesoria" or possessory information title, which could become a "titulo
gratuito" or a gratuitous title (Director of Forestry v. Muoz, 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]). The primary basis
of their claim is possession, by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, since time immemorial.
Pursuant thereto, Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 was passed into law, the relevant provision of which provides:
Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the
legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a
maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural
land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the
privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not
exceed the maximum herein fixed.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled
to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those
already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.
The Court is of the view that the requirements in Sec. 6 of BP 185 do not apply in the instant case since
said requirements are primarily directed to the register of deeds before whom compliance therewith is to
be submitted. Nowhere in the provision is it stated, much less implied, that the requirements must
likewise be submitted before the land registration court prior to the approval of an application for
registration of title. An application for registration of title before a land registration court should not be
confused with the issuance of a certificate of title by the register of deeds. It is only when the judgment of
the land registration court approving the application for registration has become final that a decree of
registration is issued. And that is the time when the requirements of Sec. 6, BP 185, before the register of
deeds should be complied with by the applicants. This decree of registration is the one that is submitted to
the office of the register of deeds for issuance of the certificate of title in favor of the applicant. Prior to
the issuance of the decree of registration, the register of deeds has no participation in the approval of the
application for registration of title as the decree of registration is yet to be issued. The petition is
DISMISSED and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

Land Titles And Deeds Case Digest: Carino V. Insular Government (1909)
FACTS:
Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land lies filed for writ of error because the CFI
and SC dismissed his petition for application
For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and his ancestors had held the land
as recognized owners by the Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for holding cattle>father had
cultivated parts and used parts for pasturing cattle>he used it for pasture)
1893-1894 & 1896-1897: he made an application but with no avail
1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law and the lands were registered to him but
process only established possessory title
Even if the applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the Philippine Commission's Act
No. 926, of 1903, excepts the Province of Benguet among others from its operation
ISSUE: W/N Carino has ownership and is entitled to registration.
HELD: YES. Petition Granted.
Land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not always, public land.
Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if
they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription." For cultivated land, 20 years,
uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated, 30.
Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any such proceedings against him or his
father ever was made.
Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
There must be a presumption against the government when a private individual claims property as his
or her own. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary proof.

Case: DBP v COA


Facts:
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) seeks to set aside COA Decision
which disallowed in audit the dividends distributed under the Special Loan Program
(SLP) to the members of the DBP Gratuity Plan.

The DBP is a government financial institution with an original charter, Executive


Order No. 81, as amended by Republic Act No. 8523 (DBP Charter).
In 1983, the Bank established a Special Loan Program availed thru the facilities
of the DBP Provident Fund and funded by placements from the Gratuity Plan Fund.
This Special Loan Program was adopted as part of the benefit program of the Bank to
provide financial assistance to qualified members to enhance and protect the value of
their gratuity benefits because Philippine retirement laws and the Gratuity Plan do not
allow partial payment of retirement benefits. The program was suspended in 1986 but
was revived in 1991 thru DBP Board Resolution No. 066 dated January 5, 1991.
Under the Special Loan Program, a prospective retiree is allowed the option to
utilize in the form of a loan a portion of his outstanding equity in the gratuity fund and
to invest it in a profitable investment or undertaking. The earnings of the investment
shall then be applied to pay for the interest due on the gratuity loan which was initially
set at 9% per annum subject to the minimum investment rate resulting from the updated
actuarial study. The excess or balance of the interest earnings shall then be distributed
to the investor-members.
Pursuant to the investment scheme, DBP-TSD paid to the investor-members a
total of P11,626,414.25 representing the net earnings of the investments for the years
1991 and 1992. The payments were disallowed by the Auditor under Audit Observation
Memorandum No. 93-2 dated March 1, 1993, on the ground that the distribution of
income of the Gratuity Plan Fund (GPF) to future retirees of DBP is irregular and
constituted the use of public funds for private purposes which is specifically proscribed
under Section 4 of P.D. 1445.
Chairman Antonio of DBP also asked COA to lift the disallowance of the
P11,626,414.25 distributed as dividends under the SLP on the ground that the latter
was simply a normal loan transaction.
Issues:
Whether or not the distribution of dividends under the SLP is valid.
Decision:
NO. The beneficiaries or cestui que trust of the Fund are the DBP officials and
employees who will retire. Retirement benefits can only be demanded and enjoyed
when the employee shall have met the last requisite, that is, actual retirement under the
Gratuity Plan. In this case, dividends were distributed to employees even before
retirement.
As Chairman Zalamea himself noted, neither the Gratuity Plan nor our laws on
retirement allow the partial payment of retirement benefits ahead of actual retirement. It
appears that DBP sought to circumvent these restrictions through the SLP, which
released a portion of an employees retirement benefits to him in the form of a loan.
Severance of employment is a condition sine qua non for the release of
retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are not meant to recompense employees who

are still in the employ of the


government. That is the function of salaries and other emoluments. Retirement
benefits are in the nature of a reward granted by the State to a government employee
who has given the best years of his life to the service of his country.

Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank
G.R. No. 132051 June 25, 2001
FACTS:
Tala alleged that on the basis of a contract of lease executed on August 25, 1981. its contract with Banco
Filipino expired on August 31, 1992. However, Banco Filipino has continued to occupy the premises even
after the expiration of the lease. On June 2, 1993, Tala imposed upon Banco Filipino the following terms
and conditions: that the bank should pay P70,050.00 as monthly rental retroactive as of September 1,
1992, with rental escalation of 10% per year; and advance deposit equivalent to rents for four months,
plus a goodwill of P500,000.00. Banco Filipino did not comply and in April 1994, it stopped paying rents.
Banco Filipino denied having executed the lease contract providing for a term of eleven (11) years;
claiming that its contract with Tala is for twenty (20) years, citing the Contract of Lease executed on
August 25, 1981.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the eleven-year lease contract superseded the twenty-year lease contract
HELD:
The eleven (11)-year contract is a forgery because (1) Teodoro O. Arcenas, then Executive Vice-President
of private respondent Banco Filipino, denied having signed the contract; (2) the records of the notary
public who notarized the said contract, Atty. Generoso S. Fulgencio, Jr., do not include the said
document; and (3) the said contract was never submitted to the Central Bank as required b y the latter's
rules and regulations. It is not the eleven (11)-year lease contract but the twenty (20)-year lease
contract which is the real and genuine contract between petitioner Tala Realty and private respondent
Banco Filipino. Considering that the twenty (20)-year lease contract is still subsisting and will expire in
2001 yet, Banco Filipino is entitled to the possession of the subject premises for as long as it pays the
agreed rental and does not violate the other terms and conditions thereof. The validity of the twenty
(20) year lease contract was further reinforced on June 20, 2000 when the First Division of this Court
rendered a Decision in G.R. No. 137980, likewise upholding the twenty (20) -year lease contract, thus:
"In light of the foregoing recent Decision of this Court (G.R. No. 129887), we have no option but to
uphold the twenty-year lease contract over the eleven-year contract presented by petitioner. It is the
better practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the

same. 'Stare decisis et non quieta movere.


That the principle of stare decisis applies in the instant case, even though the subject property is
different, may be gleaned from the pronouncement in Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals. Stare decisis simply declares that, for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case
should be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties
may be different. Considering the above rulings, the term of the lease in the present case is also twenty
(20) years.

You might also like