5/3/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
418 Phil. 793
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 128195, October 03, 2001 ]
ELIZABETH LEE AND PACITA YU LEE, HON. JUDGE JOSE D.
ALOVERA,* PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
17, ROXAS CITY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY,
PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED
BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,*
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The case under consideration is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals nullifying that of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, in
Reconstitution Case No. R-1928,[2] pertaining to Lot 398, Capiz Cadastre, covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 3389.
Sometime in March 1936, Rafael, Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes,
Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy, all surnamed Dinglasan
sold to Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with an approximate area of 1,631
square meters, designated as Lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
3389, situated at the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street, Roxas City.[3]
However, in 1948, the former owners filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an
action against the heirs of Lee Liong for annulment of sale and recovery of land.[4] The
plaintiffs assailed the validity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition
against aliens acquiring ownership of private agricultural land, including residential,
commercial or industrial land. Rebuffed in the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 27, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled
thus:
"... granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to the vendee,
it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the title remained in the vendor,
who had also violated the constitutional prohibition, or that he (vendor) has
the right to recover the title of which he has divested himself by his act in
ignoring the prohibition. In such contingency another principle of law sets in
to bar the equally guilty vendor from recovering the title which he had
voluntarily conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto."[5]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52904
1/8