RP v.
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY for being null and void ab initio, thus never forming part of the deceaseds estate,
July 16, 2008 | Carpio, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Rule 91
PETITIONER: Republic of the Philippines, represented by Director of Lands
RESPONDENT: Register of Deeds of Roxas City, Elizabeth Lee, Pacita Yu-Lee
SUMMARY: A Chinese citizen bought Lot No. 398, which passed by succession
to his wife and 2 sons. During the sons lifetime, the Court refused to nullify the
sale on the doctrine of in pari delicto. 40 years after, after the lot has passed by
succession to the sons widows, the OSG filed a complaint for reversion of title.
SC ruled against the OSG.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS:
1. In March 1936, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, bought Lot No. 398 (1,574 m2)
from Vicenta Arcenas and 7 Dinglasans. In Feb. 1944, Lee Liong died intestate
and was survived by his widow Ang Chia and his sons Lee Bing Ho and Lee Bun
Ting. On June 30, 1947, the surviving heirs of Lee Liong extrajudicially settled
the estate of the deceased and partitioned among themselves Lot No. 398. When
the sons died, the lot was then transferred by succession to their respective wives
Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu-Lee.
2. In the case of Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, involving the same lot, the Court held
that even if the sale of the property was null and void for violating the
constitutional prohibition on the sale of land to an alien, still the doctrine of in
pari delicto barred the sellers from recovering title to the property. A subsequent
case over the same land was dismissed applying the doctrine of res judicata.
3. On Sept. 7, 1993, Elizabeth and Pacita filed a petition for reconstitution of title of
Lot No. 398 because the records of the Register of Deeds, Roxas City were
burned during the war. On Oct. 3, 2001, the Court held that the TCs order of
reconstitution was void for lack of factual support because it was based merely
on the plan & technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority.
4. Meanwhile, on Jan. 26, 1995, the RP filed with the RTC a Complaint for
Reversion of Title, praying that the sale of Lot No. 398 to Lee Liong be set aside
and that the lot be reverted to the public domain for the States disposal in
accordance with law. Respondents invoked the following as affirmative defenses:
prescription, private ownership of Lot No. 398, and Lee Liongs being a buyer in
good faith and for value. Furthermore, respondents claimed that, being Filipino
citizens, they are qualified to acquire Lot No. 398 by succession.
5. TC ordered reversion, ruling that respondents could not acquire title to the land,
the sale to their predecessor-in-interest being null and void. CA reversed, ruling
that the transfer to respondents of the lot cured the flow in the orig transaction.
ISSUE: WoN reversion proceedings is still viable, considering that the lot has
already been transferred to Filipino citizensNO.
RULING: Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
1. This case is similar to De Castro v. Teng Queen Tan, where the Court,
independently of the doctrine of in pari delicto, sustained the sale, holding that
while the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land has since become
the property of a naturalized Filipino citizen.
2. As the Court held in Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, although ownership of the land
cannot revert to the original sellers because of the doctrine of in pari delicto,
the OSG may initiate an action for reversion/escheat of the land to the State.
But in this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings
because the land is now in the Filipinos hands. The constitutional proscription
on alien ownership of lands was intended to protect lands from falling in the
hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, however, there would be no more public
policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire
and own such land. 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.
3. In this case, the reversion proceedings was initiated only after 40 years from
Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, and the land has already been transferred by
succession to Filipino citizens. In Chavez v. PEA, the law disregards the
constitutional disqualification of the buyer to hold land if the land is
subsequently transferred to a qualified party, or the buyer himself becomes a
qualified party.