Situación Ambiental del Área donde se Ejecutara el Proyecto

-he is in full agreement with the majority opinion. He wrote this separate opinion only to discuss the consequences of the ruling of the Krivenko case (wherein alien ownership of Philippine land is declared illegal)

-the Krivenko case interpreted the provision in the Constitution that prohibited alien land ownership. The provision took effect on NoV 15, 1935 when the

Commonwealth Government was established. The interpretation as set forth in the Krivenko decision was only handed down on NoV 15, 1947. Prior to that date there were many who were of the opinion that the phrase agricultural land should be construed strictly and not be made to cover residential and commercial lots. Acting on that belief, several transactions were entered into transferring such lots to alien vendees by Filipino vendors. After the Krivenko decision, some Filipino vendors sought recovery of the lots in question on the ground that the sales were null and void.

-No definite ruling was made by this Court until September of 1953, when Rellosa V Gaw Chee Hun, Bautista V Uy Isabelo, Talento V Makiki, Caoile V Chiao Peng, were decided.

-in Rellosa, it was held that while the sale by a Filipino-vendor to an alien-vendee of a residential or a commercial lot is null and void as held in the Krivenko case, still the Filipino-vendor has no right to recover under a civil law doctrine, the parties

Obligations and Contracts A2010 page

185

Prof. Labitag

being in pari delicto. The only remedy to prevent this continuing violation of the Constitution is either escheat or reversion.

- Had the sale by and between Filipino-vendor and alien-vendee occurred after the decision in the Krivenko case, then the above view would be correct that both Filipino-vendor and alien-vendee could not be considered as innocent parties within the contemplation of the law. Both of them should be held equally guilty of evasion of the Constitution. According to the Rellosa opinion, both parties are equally guilty of evasion of the Constitution, based on the broader principle that "both parties are presumed to know the law."

- After the Krivenko decision, there is no doubt that continued possession by alien- vendee of property acquired before its promulgation is violative of the Constitution. The question then as now, therefore, was and is how to divest the alien of such property rights on terms equitable to both parties.

- Alien-vendee is incapacitated or disqualified to acquire and hold real estate. That incapacity and disqualification should date from the adoption of the Constitution on NoV 15, 1935. Such incapacity and disqualification, however, was made known to Filipinovendor and to alien-vendee only upon the promulgation of the Krivenko decision on NoV 15, 1947. Alien-vendee therefore, cannot be allowed to continue owning and exercising acts of ownership over said property, when it is clearly included within the Constitutional prohibition. Alien-vendee should thus be made to restore the property with its fruits and rents to Filipino vendor, its previous owner, if it can be shown that in the utmost good faith, he transferred his title over the same to alien-vendee, upon restitution of the purchase price.

- It ought to follow then, if such a continuing violation of the fundamental law is to be put an end to, that the Filipino-vendor, who in good faith entered into a contract with an incapacitated person, transferring ownership of a piece of land after the Constitution went into full force and effect, should, in the light of the ruling in the Krivenko case, be restored to the possession and ownership thereof, where he has filed the appropriate case or proceeding. Any other construction would defeat the ends and purposes not only of this particular provision in question but the rest of the Constitution itself.

FRENZEL V CATITO

;

11, 2003

CALLEJO July

NATURE

Petition for review of the decision of the CA ordering the dismissal of Frenzel’s complaint against Catito.

FACTS

- Frenzel is a rich Australian guy legally married to a Filipina - Catito is a Filipina legally married to a German guy

- They hooked up. Frenzel buys Catito businesses and land, all of which are registered under Catito’s name (i.e. deeds of sale, receipts, TCTs).

- The relationship goes sour. Frenzel filed a complaint against Catito for recovery of real and personal property.

ISSUE

WON the transactions are illegal per se or merely prohibited, as Frenzel contends, thereby entitling him to recover under Art 1416

HELD

Ratio The sales of three parcels of land in favor of the petitioner who is a foreigner

is illegal per se. The transactions are void ab initio because they were entered into in violation of the Constitution. Thus, to allow the petitioner to recover the properties or the money used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of public policy. Art 1416 applies only to those contracts which are merely prohibited, in order to benefit private interests. It does not apply to contracts void ab initio

Reasoning Lands of the public domain, which include private lands, may be

transferred or conveyed only to individuals or entities qualified to acquire or hold private lands or lands of the public domain. Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain - The said transactions are in violation of the Constitution; hence, are null and void

ab initio. A contract that violates the Constitution and the law, is null and void and

vests no rights and creates no obligations. The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them

Disposition The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is

AFFIRMED in toto

VILLARROEL V ESTRADA

;

19, 1940

EN BANC December

Petition to review the decision of the CFI.

FACTS

- On May 9, 1912, Alexander F. Callao, mother of Juan F. Villarroel, obtained from the spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina debt of P1,000, payable after seven years.

- Alejandra, passed away, leaving Villaroel as sole heir. The spouses Mariano Estrada and Severina also passed away, leaving Bernardino Estrada as sole heir. - On August 9, 1930, Villaroel gave a document to Estrada, in which he declared in owing the amount of P1,000, with an interest of 12 percent per year. This action turns on the collection of this amount.

- The Court of First Instance of Lagoon, in as interposed this action, and decided for Villaroel to pay the amount demanded of P1,000 with its legal interests of 12 percent from August 9, 1930 to its complete payment. Villaroel appealed.

ISSUE

WON Villaroel should pay the amount despite the prescription of the original debt

HELD

- The present action is not based on the original obligation contracted by the mother Villaroel, which has prescribed, but on that which he contracted on August 9, 1930 when assuming the fulfillment of that obligation. Being the sole heir of the indebted one, with right her inheritance, that debt which was contracted by his mother legally, although no longer effective by prescription, now is, nevertheless, a

Obligations and Contracts A2010 page

186

Prof. Labitag

moral obligation. That consideration is sufficient to create and to make his obligation voluntarily contracted, effective August of 1930.

- The rule in which a new promise to pay a prescribed debt must be done only by the same person or another who is legally authorized by her, is not applicable to the present case, because Villaroel voluntarily wanted to assume this obligation.

Disposition The appealed sentence is confirmed, with costs to the apellant.