1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for business or other purposes which when added to those already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized. A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two (2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That the total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for business or other purposes. A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land area and vice versa. As the foregoing indicates, Angelita did not have any unlimited right to own lands. On the other hand, the records were not clear on whether or not she had owned real property as allowed by law. It was imperative for the lower courts to determine so. Hence, remand for further proceedings is called for. It is true that Angelita stated in her petition that she had meanwhile re-acquired Filipino citizenship.[17] This statement remained unsubstantiated, but the impact thereof would be far reaching if the statement was true, for there would then be no need to determine whether or not Angelita had complied with Section 5 of R.A. No. 8179. Thus, the remand of the case will enable the parties to adduce evidence on this aspect of the case, particularly to provide factual basis to determine whether or not Angelita had validly re-acquired her Filipino citizenship; and, if she had, to ascertain what would be the extent of her ownership of the real assets pertaining to the marriage. If the remand should establish that she had remained a foreigner, it must next be determined whether or not she complied with the limits defined or set by R.A. No. 8179 regarding her land ownership. The trial court shall award her the real property that complied with the limits of the law, and inform the Office of the Solicitor General for purposes of a proper disposition of any excess land whose ownership violated the law. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 26, 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89297 subject to the MODIFICATION that the personal properties of the parties are to be equally divided between them; and REMANDS the case to the court of origin for the determination of the issues deriving from the petitioner's re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship as far as the ownership of the land pertaining to the parties is concerned consistent with this decision. No pronouncement on costs of suit. SO ORDERED. Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65677 9/10