of the “free portion” to his two grandnephews Roberto In two wills executed on August 1959, Justina bade her

and Jorge Ramirez. Furthermore, one third of the free legatees to respect the contracts entered into with
portion is charged with the widow’s usufruct and the Wong. However, Justina appeared to have a change of
remaining two thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of heart, and claimed that the contracts were made
Wanda Wrobleski. through machinations and inducements practiced by
Wong. Thus, Justina directed her executor to secure the
Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed the project of annulment of the contracts.
partition, as well as the substitutions provided by the
testator as to the usufructs of the widow and of Wanda. In November 1959, a complaint was then filed before
Nonetheless, the lower court approved the project of the Court of First Instance of Manila on the said
partition in its order dated May 1967. Jorge and Roberto grounds, and asked the court to direct the Register of
appealed before the Supreme Court. Deeds of Manila to cancel the registration of the
contracts. Wong denied having taken advantage of the
ISSUE trust and confidence given to him by Justina. The CFI
Whether or not the usufruct over real property in favor rendered its decision annulling all the contracts, except
of Wanda violates the Constitutional prohibition against the lease contract, and condemned Wong to pay Justina
ownership of lands by alien. the unpaid rentals.

RULING Both parties filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Justina (through Petitioner Philippine Banking
The Court upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Corporation) maintained that the lease contract should
Wanda on the ground that the Constitution covers not have been annulled as it lacks mutuality, that it was
only succession by operation of law, but also obtained in violation of the fiduciary relations of the
testamentary succession. Any alien would be able to parties, and that her consent was obtained through
circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation.
Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece
of land. In the present case, the usufruct in favor of ISSUE
Wanda, although a real right, does not vest title to the Whether or not the lease contract is valid, thus, granting
land in the usufructuary. It is the vesting of title in favor
rights to Wong.
of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
RULING
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
The Court ruled that the least contract is valid. The lease
Estate of Eugenio Ramirez is DISTRIBUTED according to contract does not lack mutuality because Wong was
the SC’s order.
never an agent of Justina. The relationship between the
parties were admittedly close, but did not amount to an
agency. Actually, it was cited that the lease contract was
made on the basis of the data of Wong given to the
Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She lawyer who prepared the contract, and that Justina told
him that whatever Wong wants must be followed.
G.R. No. L-17587, 12 September 1967
Despite the words supplied by Wong, it was testified
FACTS that Justina was unyielding and firm in her decision to
follow Wong. Undue influence cannot stand as well given
Justina Santos and her sister own a piece of land in that the contract was signed in the presence of Justina’s
Manila, while Wong Heng is a long-time lessee of the close friend and maid, who could have testified against
property. Eventually, Justina became the owner of the it. Further, Justina’s consent was given freely and
property. Already in advanced age, Justina trusted voluntarily as shown by her recited in the Deed of
various tasks to Wong including the delivery of rental Conditional Option and emphatic avowal gratitude in the
payments to her property. lease contract that Wong saved her and her sister from
In November 1957, in grateful acknowledgement of his the fire that destroyed their house during the liberation
personal services, Justina executed a contract of lease in of Manila. All told, the lease contract stands to be valid.
favor of Wong covering a portion property, and later, the However, despite validity of the lease contract, it also
entire property for 50 years with right to withdraw at gives the clue to a circumvention of the Constitutional
any time. In December 1957, Justina executed a prohibition against transfer of land to aliens. Taken
contract for option to buy the leased property with a singly, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily
condition that Wong obtain Philippine Citizenship then illegal, but considered collectively, they reveal an
pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the
However, the application was withdrawn because it was Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a lease to an
discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. In alient for a reasonable period is valid. So is the option
October 1958, Justina filed a petition to adopt Wong and giving an alien the right to buy the property on condition
his children in the belief that adoption would confer him that he is granted Philippine Citizenship.
Philippine Citizenship. Discovering there was error, the
proceedings were abandoned. But if an alien is given not only a lease, but also an
option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the
In November 1958, Justina executed two other contracts Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his
extending the lease to 99 years, and fixing the term of property, this is to last for 50 years, is a virtual transfer
option to buy at 50 years. Both were written in Tagalog. of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in
stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also As originally drafted by the framers of the Constitution,
the right to dispose of it – rights the sum total of which the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands of
makes up ownership. the public domain, and other natural resources of the
Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved
DISPOSITIVE PORTION to Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them:
Contracts in question were ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. but the "Parity Amendment" expressly extended the
Subject land ordered to be RETURNED to the estate of privilege to citizens of the United States of America
Justina Santos. and/or to business enterprises owned or controlled by
them.No other provision of our Constitution was referred
to by the "Parity Amendment"; not Section 2 of Article
XIII limiting the maximum area of public agricultural
Republic v. Quasha
lands that could be held by individuals or corporations or
Facts: associations; nor Section 5 restricting the transfer or
assignment of private agricultural lands to those
William R. Quasha, an American citizen, had acquired by qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain
purchase on 26 November 1954 a parcel of land with the (which under the original Section 1 of Article XIII meant
permanent improvements thereon, situated at 22 Molave Filipinos exclusively), save in cases of hereditary
Place, in Forbes Park, Municipality of Makati, Province of succession.
Rizal. Quasha averred the acquisition of the real estate
aforesaid; that the Republic of the Philippines, through
its officials, claimed that upon expiration of the Parity
As ruled in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.
Amendment on 3 July 1974, rights acquired by citizens
Guerrero, et al., L-20942, 22 September 1967, 21 SCRA
of the United States of America shall cease and be of no
181, per Justice Enrique M. Fernando:
further force and effect; that such claims necessarily
affect the rights and interest of the plaintiff, and that "'While good faith, no less than adherence to the
continued uncertainty as to the status of plaintiff's categorical wording of the Ordinance, requires that all
property after 3 July 1974 reduces the value thereof, the rights and privileges thus granted to Americans and
and precludes further improvements being introduced business enterprises owned and controlled by them be
thereon, for which reason plaintiff Quasha sought a respected, anything further would not be warranted.
declaration of his rights under the Parity Amendment, Nothing less would suffice but anything more is not
said plaintiff contending that the ownership of properties justified.'"
during the effectivity of the Parity Amendment continues
notwithstanding the termination and effectivity of the
Amendment. The basis for the strict interpretation was given by
former President of the University of the Philippines,
Hon. Vicente G. Sinco (Congressional Record, House of
Then Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo (and later on Representatives, Volume 1, No. 26, page 561):
his successors in office, Felix V. Makasiar and Felix Q.
Antonio) contended that the land acquired by plaintiff "'It should be emphatically stated that the provisions of
constituted private agricultural land and that the our Constitution which limit to Filipinos the rights to
acquisition violated section 5, Article XIII, of the develop the natural resources and to operate the public
Constitution of the Philippines, which prohibits the utilities of the Philippines is one of the bulwarks of our
transfer of private agricultural land to non-Filipinos, national integrity. The Filipino people decided to include
except by hereditary succession; and assuming, without it in our Constitution in order that it may have the
conceding, that Quasha's acquisition was valid, any and stability and permanency that its importance requires. It
all rights by him so acquired "will expire ipso is written in our Constitution so that it may neither be
facto  and ipso jure  at the end of the day on 3 July 1974, the subject of barter nor be impaired in the give and
if he continued to hold the property until then, and will take of politics. With our natural resources, our sources
be subject to escheat or reversion proceedings" by the of power and energy, our public lands, and our public
Republic. utilities, the material basis of the nation's existence, in
the hands of aliens over whom the Philippine
Government does not have complete control, the
Filipinos may soon find themselves deprived of their
CFI of Rizal declared that acquisition by the plaintiff on
patrimony and living as it were, in a house that no
26 November 1954 of, the private agricultural land.
longer belongs to them.'"

Issue:
The true extent of the Parity Amendment, as understood
Whether or not under or by virtue of the so-called Parity by its proponents in the Philippine Congress, was clearly
Amendment to the Philippine Constitution respondent expressed by one of its advocates, Senator Lorenzo
Quasha could validly acquire ownership of the private Sumulong:
residential land in Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, which is
'It is a misconception  to believe that under this
concededly classified private agricultural land.
amendment Americans will be able to acquire all kinds of
natural resources of this country, and even after the
expiration of 28 years their acquired rights cannot be
Held:
divested from them. If we read carefully the language of natural resources of the Philippines; and (2) the
thisamendment which is taken verbatim from the operation of public utilities. That and nothing else.
provisions of the Bell Act, and, which in turn, is taken
also verbatim from certain sections of theConstitution,
you will find out that the equality of rights granted Under the "Parity Amendment" to our Constitution,
under this amendment refers only to two subjects. citizens of the United States and corporations and
Firstly, it refers to exploitation of natural resources, and business enterprises owned or controlled by them can
secondly, it refers to the operation of public utilities . not acquire and own, save in cases of hereditary
Now, when it comes to exploitation of natural resources, succession, private agricultural lands in the Philippines
it must be pointed out here that under our Constitution and that all other rights acquired by them under said
and under this amendment, only public agricultural land Amendment will expire on 3 July 1974.
may be acquired, may be bought, so that on the
supposition that we give way to this amendment and on
the further supposition that it is approved by our people,
Krivenko vs. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila
let not the mistaken belief be entertained that all kinds
of natural resources may be acquired by Americans G.R. No. L-360 November 15, 1947
because under our Constitution forest lands cannot be
bought, mineral lands cannot be bought, because by
explicit provision of the Constitution they belong to the ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner-appelant,
State, they belong to our Government, they belong to vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA,
our people. That is why we call them rightly the respondent and appellee.
patrimony of our race. Even if the Americans should so
desire, they can have no further privilege than to ask for
a lease of concession of forest lands and mineral lands
FACTS:
because it is so commanded in the Constitution. And
under the Constitution, such a concession is given only
for a limited period. It can be extended only for 25 Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot in
years, renewable for another 25. So that with respect to December of 1941. The registration was interrupted by
mineral or forest lands, all they can do is to lease it for war. In 1945, he sought to accomplish the registration
25 years, and after the expiration of the original 25years but was denied by the register of deed on ground that,
they will have to extend it, and I believe it can be being an alien, he cannot acquire land within the
extended provided that it does not exceed 28 years jurisdiction. Krivenko appealed to the Court.
because this agreement is to be effected only as an
ordinance and for the express period of 28 years . So ISSUES:
that it is my humble belief that there is nothing to worry
about insofar as our forest and mineral lands are 1. Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may
concerned. acquire residential land?
Now, coming to the operation of public utilities, as every 2. Whether or not the prohibitions of the rights to
member of the Congress knows, it is also for a limited acquire residential lot that was already of private
period, under our Constitution, for a period not ownership prior to the approval of this Constitutions is
exceeding 50 years. And since this amendment is applicable at the case at bar?
intended to endure only for 28 years, it is my humble
opinion that when Americans try to operate public
RULING:
utilities they cannot take advantage of the maximum
provided in the Constitution but only the 28 years which
is expressly provided to be the life of this amendment. 1. NO. Under the Article XIII, Section 1, of the
Constitution states that: All agricultural, timber, and
There remains for us to consider the case of our public
mineral lands of the public domain, water, minerals,
agricultural lands. To be sure, they may be bought, and
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
if we pass this amendment, Americans may buy our
potential energy, and other natural resources of the
public agricultural lands, but the very same Constitution
Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition,
applying even to Filipinos, provides that the sale of
exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited
public agricultural lands to a corporation can never
to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or
exceed one thousand and twenty-four hectares. That is
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of
to say, if an American corporation, and American
which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing
enterprise, should decide to invest its money in public
right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the
agricultural lands, it will be limited to the amount of
inauguration of the Government established under this
1,024 hectares, no more than 1,024 hectares' (Italics
Constitution. This means to say that, under the
supplied)."
provisions of the Constitutions, aliens are not allowed to
acquire the ownership of urban or residential lands in
the Philippines and, as consequence, all acquisitions
Thus, whether from the Philippine or the American side, made in contravention of the prohibitions since the
the intention was to secure parity for United States fundamental law became effective are null and void per
citizens only in two matters: (1) exploitation, se and ab initio.
development and utilization of public lands, and other
2. Prior to the Constitution, there were in the Public SEC. 2. Such religious institutions, if not incorporated,
Land Act No. 2874 sections 120 and 121 which granted shall hold the land in the name of three Trustees for the
aliens the right to acquire private only by way of use of such associations; . . .. (Printed Rec. App. p. 5.)
reciprocity. It is to be observed that the pharase "no
and (2) that the refusal of the Register of Deeds violates
land" used in this section refers to all private lands,
the freedom of religion clause of our Constitution [Art.
whether strictly agricultural, residential or otherwise,
III, Sec. 1(7)].
there being practically no private land which had not
been acquired by any of the means provided in said two ISSUE: whether a deed of donation of a parcel of land
sections. Therefore, the prohibition contained in these executed in favor of a religious organization whose
two provisions was, in effect, that no private land could founder, trustees and administrator are Chinese citizens
be transferred to aliens except "upon express should be registered or not.
authorization by the Philippine Legislature, to citizens of
Philippine Islands the same right to acquire, hold, lease, HELD:
encumber, dispose of, or alienate land." In other words,
The provisions of Act No. 271 of the old Philippine
aliens were granted the right to acquire private land
Commission must be deemed repealed since the
merely by way of reciprocity.
Constitution was enacted, in so far as incompatible
therewith. In providing that, —

Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private

agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except
G.R. No. L-6776             May 21, 1955 to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioner-
Philippines,
appellee, 
vs. the Constitution makes no exception in favor of religious
UNG SIU SI TEMPLE, respondent-appellant. associations.
FACTS: The Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal The fact that the appellant religious organization has no
refused to accept for record a deed of donation capital stock does not suffice to escape the
executed in due form on January 22, 1953, by Jesus Dy, Constitutional inhibition, since it is admitted that its
a Filipino citizen, conveying a parcel of residential land, members are of foreign nationality. To permit religious
in Caloocan, Rizal, known as lot No. 2, block 48-D, PSD- associations controlled by non-Filipinos to acquire
4212, G.L.R.O. Record No. 11267, in favor of the agricultural lands would be to drive the opening wedge
unregistered religious organization “Ung Siu Si Temple”, to revive alien religious land holdings in this country.
operating through three trustees all of Chinese
nationality. The donation was duly accepted by Yu Juan, The resolution appealed from is affirmed, with
of Chinese nationality, founder and deaconess of the costs against appellant.
Temple, acting in representation and in behalf of the
latter and its trustees.

CFI upheld the action of the Rizal Register of

Deeds. Basis: sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the TOPIC: Nationality of a corporation
Constitution of the Philippines limiting the acquisition of
land in the Philippines to its citizens, or to corporations Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao,
or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital Inc. v. The Land Registration Commission and the
stock of which is owned by such citizens adopted after Register of Deeds of Davao City, G.R. No. L-8451,
the enactment of said Act No. 271, and the decision of December 20,1957
the Supreme Court in the case of Krivenko vs. the Facts:
Register of Deeds of Manila, the deed of donation in
question should not be admitted for admitted for On October 4, 1954, Mateo L. Rodis, a Filipino citizen
registration. and resident of the City of Davao, executed a deed of
sale of a parcel of land located in the same city covered
Not satisfied with the ruling of the Court of First by Transfer Certificate No. 2263, in favor of the Roman
Instance, counsel for the donee Uy Siu Si TempDADAAle Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao Inc.,(RCADI) is
has appealed to this Court, claiming: (1) that the corporation sole organized and existing in accordance
acquisition of the land in question, for religious with Philippine Laws, with Msgr. Clovis Thibault, a
purposes, is authorized and permitted by Act No. 271 of Canadian citizen, as actual incumbent. Registry of Deeds
the old Philippine Commission, providing as follows: Davao (RD) required RCADI to submit affidavit declaring
SECTION 1. It shall be lawful for all religious that 60% of its members were Filipino Citizens. As the
associations, of whatever sort or denomination, whether RD entertained some doubts as to the registerability of
incorporated in the Philippine Islands or in the name of the deed of sale, the matter was referred to the Land
other country, or not incorporated at all, to hold land in Registration Commissioner (LRC) en consulta for
the Philippine Islands upon which to build churches, resolution. LRC hold that pursuant to provisions of
parsonages, or educational or charitable institutions. sections 1 and 5 of Article XII of the Philippine
Constitution, RCADI is not qualified to acquire land in
the Philippines in the absence of proof that at leat 60%
of the capital, properties or assets of the RCADI is
actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens. LRC also under the laws of that country, separate and distinct
denied the registration of the Deed of Sale in the from the personality of the Roman Pontiff or the Holy
absence of proof of compliance with such requisite. See, without prejudice to its religious relations with the
RCADI’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. latter which are governed by the Canon Law or their
Aggrieved, the latter filed a petition for mandamus. rules and regulations.

Issue:   It has been shown before that: (1) the corporation sole,
unlike the ordinary corporations which are formed by no
Whether or not the Universal Roman Catholic Apostolic
less than 5 incorporators, is composed of only one
Church in the Philippines, or better still, the corporation persons, usually the head or bishop of the diocese, a
sole named the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator
unit which is not subject to expansion for the purpose of
of Davao, Inc., is qualified to acquire private agricultural determining any percentage whatsoever; (2) the
lands in the Philippines pursuant to the provisions of
corporation sole is only the administrator and not the
Article XIII of the Constitution. owner of the temporalities located in the territory
Ruling: comprised by said corporation sole; (3) such
temporalities are administered for and on behalf of the
RCADI is qualified. faithful residing in the diocese or territory of the
corporation sole; and (4) the latter, as such, has no
While it is true and We have to concede that in the
nationality and the citizenship of the incumbent Ordinary
profession of their faith, the Roman Pontiff is the
has nothing to do with the operation, management or
supreme head; that in the religious matters, in the
administration of the corporation sole, nor effects the
exercise of their belief, the Catholic congregation of the
citizenship of the faithful connected with their respective
faithful throughout the world seeks the guidance and
dioceses or corporation sole.
direction of their Spiritual Father in the Vatican, yet it
cannot be said that there is a merger of personalities In view of these peculiarities of the corporation sole, it
resultant therein. Neither can it be said that the political would seem obvious that when the specific provision of
and civil rights of the faithful, inherent or acquired under the Constitution invoked by respondent Commissioner
the laws of their country, are affected by that (section 1, Art. XIII), was under consideration, the
relationship with the Pope. The fact that the Roman framers of the same did not have in mind or overlooked
Catholic Church in almost every country springs from this particular form of corporation. If this were so, as the
that society that saw its beginning in Europe and the facts and circumstances already indicated tend to prove
fact that the clergy of this faith derive their authorities it to be so, then the inescapable conclusion would be
and receive orders from the Holy See do not give or that this requirement of at least 60 per cent of Filipino
bestow the citizenship of the Pope upon these branches. capital was never intended to apply to corporations sole,
Citizenship is a political right which cannot be acquired and the existence or not a vested right becomes
by a sort of “radiation”. We have to realize that although unquestionably immaterial.
there is a fraternity among all the catholic countries and
the dioceses therein all over the globe, the universality
that the word “catholic” implies, merely characterize
their faith, a uniformity in the practice and the
interpretation of their dogma and in the exercise of their  
belief, but certainly they are separate and independent
EPIFANIA SARSOSA VDA. DE BARSOBIA
from one another in jurisdiction, governed by different
andPACITA W. VALLAR
laws under which they are incorporated, and entirely
independent on the others in the management and vs
ownership of their temporalities. To allow theory that
the Roman Catholic Churches all over the world follow VICTORIANO T. CUENCO,G.R. No. L-33048. Ap!"
the citizenship of their Supreme Head, the Pontifical #$, #%8&FACTS'
Father, would lead to the absurdity of finding the
•
citizens of a country who embrace the Catholic faith and
become members of that religious society, likewise The lot in controversy is a one-half portion (onthe
citizens of the Vatican or of Italy. And this is more so if northern side) of two adjoining parcels
We consider that the Pope himself may be an Italian or of coconut land located at Barrio Mancapagao,Sagay, Ca
national of any other country of the world. The same miguin, Misamis riental (nowCamiguin province)!
thing be said with regard to the nationality or citizenship
of the corporation sole created under the laws of the •
Philippines, which is not altered by the change of The entire land was owned previously "y acertain
citizenship of the incumbent bishops or head of said #eocadia Balisado, who had sold it to thespouses
corporation sole. $atricio Barso"ia (now deceased) and%pifania Sarsosa,
We must therefore, declare that although a branch of who were &ilipino citi'ens!
the Universal Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, every •
Roman Catholic Church in different countries, if it
exercises its mission and is lawfully incorporated in %pifania who was then a widow, sold the land
accordance with the laws of the country where it is incontroversy to a Chinese,
located, is considered an entity or person with all the ng ing $o wholater too actual possession and enjo
rights and privileges granted to such artificial being yed thefruits of the property!
•

ng ing $o later litigated the property to*ictoriano Cu
enco, a naturali'ed &ilipino whoimmediately too
possession of the property!

%pifania later usurped the controverted propertywho

later sold one-half of the property to $acita*allar!

%pifania claimed that it was not her intention tosell the

property as it was only to evidence her inde"tedness to
ng ing $o!

Cuenco then filed a case for &orci"le %ntryagainst
%pifania "efore the MTC which was
later dismissed since the +uestion of possessioncould
not "e properly determined without firstsettling the issue
on ownership!

Cuenco later filed a case in the C& for recoveryof

possession and ownership of the said land!The C&
rendered a decision in favor of %pifaniaand *allar!

The C later reversed the .ecision

decreeinginstead that Cuenco was the owner of thelitiga
ted property!

ISSUE'

/ho is the rightful owner of the property0

CUENCO.(ELD'No p!)a*+ "and a"" +

*an/++d o on)+1+d *oa"!+n.

There should "e no +uestion that the sale of the

land in+uestion in 1234 "y %pifania to ng ing $o wa
sine5istent and void from the "eginning, "ecause it was
acontract e5ecuted against the mandatory provision of
the1236 Constitution, which is an e5pression of pu"licpol
icy to conserve lands for the &ilipinos!7ad this "een
a suit "etween %pifania and ng ing $o,she could
have "een declared entitled to the litigatedland!
But the factual set-up has changed! The litigatedpropert
y is now in the hands of a naturali'ed &ilipino! t isno
longer owned "y a dis+ualified vendee! 8espondent,as a
naturali'ed citi'en, was constitutionally +ualified toown
the su"ject property! There would "e no more
pu"licpolicy to "e served in allowing petitioner %pifania t
orecover the land as it is already in the hands
of a+ualified
person!/hile, strictly speaing, ng ing $o, privateres
pondent9s vendor, had no rights of ownership totransmi
t, it is liewise inescapa"le that petitioner %pifania had
slept on her rights for :4 years from 1234to 124:! By her
long inaction or ine5cusa"le neglect, sheshould "e held
"arred from asserting her claim to thelitigated property!
8espondent, therefore, must "e declared to "e therightful
owner of the property!