7
Lee vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 FACTS: Sometime in March 1936, the Dinglasans sold to Lee Liong (Chinese citizen) a parcel of land situated at the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street, Roxas City. In 1993, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the RTC of Roxas City a petition for reconstitution of title of the lot. (Alleging that the transfer certificate of title issued to Lee Liong was lost or destroyed during World War II.) Petitioners Elizabeth and Pacita alleged that they were the widows of the deceased Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting, who were the heirs of Lee Liong, the owner of the lot. The RTC approved reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong on the basis of an approved plan and technical description. Solicitor General filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the RTC decision alleging that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. The Solicitor General contended that the petitioners were not the proper parties in the reconstitution of title, since their predecessor-in-interest Lee Liong did not acquire title to the lot because he was a Chinese citizen and was constitutionally not qualified to own the subject land. CA declared the reconstitution void. Hence this petition. Elizabeth and Pacita emphasized that the ownership of the land had been settled in two previous cases of the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Lee Liong. They also pointed out that they acquired ownership of the land through actual possession of the lot and their consistent payment of taxes over the land for more than sixty years. On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that the decision in the reconstitution case was void; otherwise, it would amount to circumventing the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring ownership of private or public agricultural lands. ISSUES: 1. WON Lee Liong has the qualification to own land in the Philippines. NO 2. WON the reconstitution was valid. NO HELD: 1. Lee Liong was not qualified but the ownership of the lot was already acquired by Filipino citizens Lee Liong was disqualified to acquire the land under the 1935 Constitution. 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. It was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring lands of the public or private domain. The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this case when the Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such

LandTi - Lee v. Director of Lands - Roman Catholic v. LRC

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Digest

Citation preview

Lee vs. Director of LandsG.R. No. 128195October 3, 2001FACTS: SometimeinMarch1936, theDinglaanol!to"ee "iong #$hinee citi%en& a 'arcel o( lan! it)ate!at thecorner o( Ro*a+,en)ean!-a,iaStreet,Ro*a $it.. /n1993, 0li%abethMan)el1"eean!-acita2)"ee(ile! 3ith the R4$o( Ro*a $it. a 'etition (orrecontit)tiono( titleo( thelot. #+llegingthat thetran(ercerti(icateo( titlei)e!to"ee"iong3alot or !etro.e! !)ring 5orl! 5ar //.& -etitioner0li%abethan!-acitaallege!that the.3ere the 3i!o3 o(the!eceae!"ee6ing7ooan! "ee 6)n 4ing, 3ho 3ere the heir o( "ee"iong, the o3ner o( the lot. 4he R4$a''ro,e! recontit)tion o( the lot or!etro.e! certi(icate o( title in the name o( "ee "iongonthe bai o( ana''ro,e! 'lan an! technical!ecri'tion. SolicitorGeneral(ile!3iththe$o)rto(+''eala 'etition (or ann)lment o( the R4$!eciionallegingthattheR4$ha!no 8)ri!iction o,er thecae. 4he Solicitor General conten!e! that the 'etitioner3erenotthe 'ro'er'artieinthe recontit)tiono(title, incetheir 're!eceor1in1interet "ee"iong!i!not ac9)iretitletothelot beca)ehe3aa$hinee citi%en an! 3a contit)tionall. not 9)ali(ie!to o3n the )b8ect lan!. $+!eclare! the recontit)tion ,oi!. 7ence thi'etition. 0li%abeth an! -acita em'hai%e! that the o3nerhi'o( the lan! ha! been ettle! in t3o 're,io) cae o(the S)'reme $o)rt, 3here the $o)rt r)le! in (a,or o(their 're!eceor1in1interet, "ee "iong. 4he. alo 'ointe! o)t that the. ac9)ire! o3nerhi'o( the lan! thro)gh act)al 'oeion o( the lot an!their conitent 'a.ment o( ta*e o,er the lan! (ormore than i*t. .ear. Onthe other han!, the Solicitor General)bmitte!that the!eciionintherecontit)tioncae 3a ,oi!: other3ie, it 3o)l! amo)nt tocirc)m,enting the contit)tional 'rocri'tion againtalien ac9)iring o3nerhi' o( 'ri,ate or ')blicagric)lt)ral lan!.ISSUES: 1. 5ON "ee "iong ha the 9)ali(ication to o3n lan! inthe -hili''ine. NO 2. 5ON the recontit)tion 3a ,ali!. NO HELD: 1. "ee"iong3anot9)ali(ie!b)ttheo3nerhi'o( the lot 3a alrea!. ac9)ire! b. ;ili'ino citi%en"ee "iong 3a !i9)ali(ie! to ac9)ire the lan! )n!erthe 1935 $ontit)tion. 4he ale o(the lan!in9)etion3acon)mmate!ometimein March1936, !)ring the e((ecti,it. o( the 1935$ontit)tion./( lan! i in,ali!l. tran(erre! to an alien 3ho)be9)entl. become a citi%en or tran(er it to aciti%en, the (la3 in the original tranaction iconi!ere!c)re!an!thetitleo( thetran(ereeiren!ere! ,ali!.?4h), the)be9)ent tran(er o( the'ro'ert.to9)ali(ie! ;ili'ino ma. no longer be im')gne! on thebai o( the in,ali!it. o( the initial tran(er. 4heob8ecti,e o( the contit)tional'ro,iion to =ee' o)rlan! in ;ili'ino han! ha been achie,e!./nci!entall., it m)t be mentione! that recontit)tiono( the original certi(icate o( title m)t be bae! on ano3ner@!)'licate, econ!ar.e,i!encethereo(, orother ,ali! o)rce o( the title to be recontit)te!.2.Recontit)tion 3a ,oi! (or lac= o( (act)al )''ort/nthicae, recontit)tion3abae!onthe'lanan! technical !ecri'tion a''ro,e! b. the "an!Regitration +)thorit.. 4hi ren!er the or!er o(recontit)tion ,oi! (or lac= o( (act)al )''ort. +8)!gment 3ith abol)tel. nothing to )''ort it i ,oi!.+earliermentione!,arecontit)tiono(titleithere1i)anceo(ane3 certi(icate o( title lot or!etro.e! in it original(orm an! con!ition. /t !oenot 'a )'on the o3nerhi' o( the lan! co,ere! b.the lot or !etro.e! title.+n. change in the o3nerhi' o( the 'ro'ert. m)t bethe )b8ect o( a e'arate )it. 4h), altho)gh'etitioner are in 'oeion o( the lan!, a e'arate'rocee!inginecear.tothreh o)tthei)e o(o3nerhi' o( the lan!.4heS$$o)rt R0A0RS0San!S04S+S/D0the!eciion o( the $+.JG Suit v. CAG.R. No. 12B293Can)ar. 31, 2005FACTS: Can)ar. 2D, 199D1 theNational /n,etment an!De,elo'ment $or'oration #N/D$&, a go,ernmentcor'oration, entere! into a Coint Aent)re +greement#CA+& 3ith Ea3aa=i 7ea,. /n!)trie, "t!. o( Eobe,Ca'an#E+5+S+E/& (orthecontr)ction, o'erationan!management o( theS)bicNational Shi'.ar!,/nc. #SNS& 3hich )be9)entl. became the-hili''ine Shi'.ar! an! 0ngineering $or'oration#-7/"S0$O&.