The term "full beneficial ownership" found in the FIA-IRR is to be understood in the context of

the entire paragraph defining the term "Philippine national". Mere legal title is not enough to
meet the required Filipino equity, which means that it is not sufficient that a share is registered
in the name of a Filipino citizen or national, i.e., he should also have full beneficial ownership of
the share. If the voting right of a share held in the name of a Filipino citizen or national is
assigned or transferred to an alien, that share is not to be counted in the determination of the
required Filipino equity. In the same vein, if the dividends and other fruits and accessions of the
share do not accrue to a Filipino citizen or national, then that share is also to be excluded or not
counted. (Roy vs. Herbosa)

As defined in the SRC-IRR, "[b]eneficial owner or beneficial ownership means any person who,
directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or
otherwise, has or shares voting power (which includes the power to vote or direct the voting of
such security) and/or investment returns or power (which includes the power to dispose of, or
direct the disposition of such security) x x x."84

Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous, the
court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. As we
have held in the case of Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines:
"x x x We cannot see any room for interpretation or construction in the clear and unambiguous
language of the above-quoted provision of law. This Court had steadfastly adhered to the
doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its
express terms, interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible.
No process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law
peremptorily calls for application. Where a requirement or condition is made in explicit and
unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the judiciary. It must see to it that its mandate is
obeyed."16 (Emphasis supplied) - Tawang Multipurpose Cooperative

in this regard, it would be apropos to state that since Filipinos own at least 60% of the
outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote directors, which is what the Constitution precisely
requires, then the Filipino stockholders control the corporation, i.e., they dictate corporate
actions and decisions, and they have all the rights of ownership including, but not limited to,
offering certain preferred shares that may have greater economic interest to foreign investors -
as the need for capital for corporate pursuits (such as expansion), may be good for the
corporation that they own. Surely, these "true owners" will not allow any dilution of their
ownership and control if such move will not be beneficial to them. - Roy vs. Herbosa