Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu Lee Digest
Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu Lee Digest
JUDGE JOSE
D. ALOVERA,* Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 17, Roxas City, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
ROXAS CITY, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,*
respondents.
March 1936 - Rafael, Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Ramon,
Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto,
Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy, all surnamed Dinglasan sold
to Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with an
approximate area of 1,631 square meters, designated
as Lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. 3389, situated at the corner of Roxas Avenue and
Pavia Street, Roxas City.[3]
In 1948, the former owners filed with the CFI, Capiz an
action against the heirs of Lee Liong for annulment of
sale and recovery of land.
The plaintiffs assailed the validity of the sale because
of the constitutional prohibition against aliens
acquiring ownership of private agricultural land,
including residential, commercial or industrial
land.
RTC and CA dismissed the same.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On
June 27, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled thus:
granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to
the vendee, it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the
title remained in the vendor, who had also violated the
constitutional prohibition, or that he (vendor) has the right to
recover the title of which he has divested himself by his act in
ignoring the prohibition. In such contingency another
principle of law sets in to bar the equally guilty vendor
from recovering the title which he had voluntarily
conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto.[5]
2.
2. YES
The sale of the land in question was consummated
sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of the
1935 Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, aliens
could not acquire private agricultural lands, save in
cases of hereditary succession. Thus, Lee Liong, a
Chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in
question.
The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the
land to an alien did not validate the transaction, for it
was still contrary to the constitutional proscription