2. INVENTARIO
2.3. ANALISIS DE LA OFERTA POTENCIAL DEL MONTE EN RECURSOS,
said that inasmuch as the petitioner is an alien, he is disqualified form acquiring and owning lands in the Philippines. The sale of three parcels of lands was null and void. Neither can the petitioner recover the money he had spent for the purchase thereof. Equity, as a rule will follow the law, and will not permit to be done indirectly that which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly.
An action to recover the property sold filed by the former owner will lie. (The pari delicto rule
has been abandoned as early as PBC v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52, where the Supreme Court declared that a lease for 99 years, with a 50-year oprtion to purchase the property if and when Wong Heng would be naturalized, is a virtual surrender of all rights incident to ownership, and therefore, invlaid.) Land sold to an alien which was later transferred to a Filipino citizen—or where the alien later becomes a Filipino citizen—can no longer be recovered by the vendor, because there is no longer any public policy involved. (Republic v. IAC, 175 SCRA 398; Halili v. CA, 1997; Lee v. Director of Lands, 2001)
A natural born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
Thus, even if private respondents were already Canadians when they applied for registration of the properties in question, there could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof, considering that it is undisputed that they were formerly natural- born citizens. (Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 657) RA 8179 provides that natural-born Filipino citizen may acquire to a maximum area of private land to 5,000 square meters for urban land and 3 hectares for rural land. Furthermore, such land may now be used for business and for other purposes.
Americans hold valid title to private lands as against private persons.
A previous owner may no longer recover the land from an American buyer who succeeded in obtaining title over the land. Only the State has the superior right to the land, through the institution of
escheat proceedings [as a consequence of the
violation of the Constitution], or through an action
for reversion [as expressly authorized under the
Public Land Act with respect to lands which formerly formed part of the public domain].
2. Remedies to Recover Private Land from Disqualified Alien
1. Escheat Proceedings
2. Action for Reversion under the Public Land Act
3.
An action for recovery filed by the former Filipino owner (unless the land is sold to an American citizen prior to July 3, 1974 and the American citizen obtained title thereto.Action for reversion under the Public Land Act.
The Director of Lands has the authority and the specific duty to conduct investigations of alleged fraud in obtaining free patents and the corresponding titles to alienable public lands, and , if facts disclosed in the investigation warrant, to file the corresponding court action for reversion of the land to the State. (Republic v. CA, 172 SCRA 1) The action of the State for reversion to the public domain of land fraudulently granted to private individuals is imprescriptible. (Baguio v. Republic, 1999)
But it is the State alone which may institute reversion proceedings against public lands allegedly acquired through fraud and misrepresentation pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act. Private parties are without legal standing at all to question the validity of the respondent’s title (Urquiga v. CA, 1999)
Thus, in Tankiko v. Cezar, 1999, it was held that where the property in dispute is still part of the public domain, only the State can file suit for reconveyance of such public land. Respondents, who are merely applicants for sales patent thereon, are not proper parties to file an action for reconveyance.
The State can be put in estoppels by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. Estoppel against the State is not favored; it may be invoked only in rare and unusual circumstances as it would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. However, the State may not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens.
In Republic v. CA, 1999 because for nearly 20 years starting from the issuance of the titles I n1996 to the filing of the complaint in 1985, the State failed to correct and recover the alleged increase in the land area of the titles issued, the prolonged inaction strongly militates against its cause, tantamount to laches, which means the “failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexpected length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier.” It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Foreign corporations and land. A foreign
corporation may buy shares in excess of 40% of the shares of the corporation. But the effect would be that the corporation it buys into would lose its status as a Filipino corporation and its capacity to hold private land.197
It should be noted, however, that the prohibition in the Constitution on aliens applies only to ownership of land. It does not extend to all immovable or real property as defined under Article 415 of the Civil Code, that is, those which are considered immovable for being attached to land, including buildings and construction of all kind attached to the soil.198
Violation by aliens. An attempt by an alien to
circumvent to prohibition on alien acquisition of land can have dire consequences for such alien. Thus an alien may not be reimbursed for the money he gave to his wife to purchase land and build a house.. Upon the dissolution of the community of property the alien reimbursement in equity on the theory that Maria merely held the property in trust. To claim equity he must come with clean hands. Klaus knew he was violating the law when he purchased the land.199
VIII. Independent Economic and Planning Agency
197 J.G. Summit v. C.A., G.R. No. 124293. January 31, 2005 198 J.G. Summit v. C.A., G.R. No. 124293. January 31, 2005 199 Muller v. Muller, G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006.
Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent
economic and planning agency headed by the President, which shall, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various private sectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, and implement continuing integrated and coordinated programs and policies for national development.
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic and Development Authority shall function as the independent planning agency of the government.
IX. Filipinization of Areas of Investments
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the
economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, 277 SCRA 408: The
Supreme Court said that the term “patrimony” pertains to heritage—and for over eight decades, the Manila Hotel has been mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipino; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associate with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Verily, the Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy and patrimony, and 51 % of its equity comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter, for it comprises the majority and controlling stock. Consequently, the Filipino First policy provisions is applicable. Furthermore, the Supreme Court said that this provision is a positive command which is complete in itself and needs no further guidelines or implementing rules or laws for its operation. It is per se enforceable. It means precisely that Filipinos should be preferred and when the Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances, an action may be maintained to enforce such right.
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of
authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.
A franchise, certificate or authorization shall not be exclusive nor for a period more than 50 years, and shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress. All executive and managing officers must Filipino citizens. In Pilipino Telephone
Corporation v. NRC, 2003, it was held that a
franchise to operate a public utility is not an exclusive private property of the franchisee. No franchisee can demand or acquire exclusivitly in the operation of a public utility. Thus, a franchisee cannot complain of seizure or taking of property because of the issuance of another franchise to a competitor.
See Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264, where the Supreme Court said that Congress does not have the exclusive power to issue such authorization. Administrative bodies, e.g. LTFRB, ERB, etc., may be empowered to do so.
In Philippine Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board,
1997 where it was held that Section 10, RA 776,
reveals the clear intent of Congress to delegate the authority to regulate the issuance of a license to operate domestic air transport services.
In United Broadcasting Networks v. National
Telecommunications Commission, 2003: the
Supreme Court acknowledged that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise. However, in this case, it was held that in view of the clear requirement for a legislative franchise under PD 576-A, the authorization of a certificate of public convenience by the NTC for the petitioner to operate television Channel 25 does not dispense with the need for a franchise.