by: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
A squabble that left the parties empty-handed
Sy So, a Chinese citizen, married Jose Ang sometime in the late 1930s. Sy So maintained a sari-sari store, while her husband maintained a foundry shop. Testimonial evidence showed that, by virtue of her business, she was financially well-off on her own. The couple was childless. When Sy So was offered for adoption a seven- or eight-month old infant, she immediately accepted the baby but without the process of formal adoption. The child was christened as Jose Norberto Ang. Later, she also “adopted” three other wards: Mary Ang, Tony Ang, and Teresita Tan. After the death of her husband in 1943, Sy So acquired a 682.5 square meter lot in Caloocan City. She subsequently acquired another property also in Caloocan City. In keeping with the Chinese tradition of registering properties in the name of the eldest male son or ward, the two parcels of land were registered under the name of Jose Norberto Ang.
Between 1940 and 1950, a six-door apartment building on the 10th Avenue lot was constructed at Sy So’s expense. Later on, two more apartment doors were built on the property, bringing the total to eight apartment doors. For over 30 years, Sy So, along with Jose Norberto and her other wards, lived there. The titles of the two properties were under lock and key and were never shown to anyone. Unknown to Sy So, Jose Norberto filed a petition for issuance of second owner’s copy of the titles. Later, Jose Norberto’s counsel sent a demand letter to Sy So demanding a monthly payment of P500.00 as her contribution to the real estate taxes. On 14 March 1989, said counsel wrote another letter to respondent Sy So, formally demanding that she vacate the lot within a period of three months, and informing her that she would be charged P5,000 as
monthly rent. For refusing to heed the demand, a case of ejectment was filed by Jose Norberto against Sy So but the same was dismissed. Another ejectment case was filed but the same was also dismissed.
Meanwhile, Sy So filed with the RTC a case for “Transfer of Trusteeship from the Jose Norberto Ang to the New Trustee, Tony Ang, with Damages.” Citing Jose Norberto’s gross ingratitude, disrespectfulness, dishonesty and breach of trust, respondent Sy So argued that she had bought the two parcels of land and constructed the apartment doors thereon at her own expense. Thus, she alleged that there was an implied trust over the properties in question.
In resolving the trusteeship issue, the Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that Sy So was a Chinese national. The Court said that ‘As early as Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, it has been ruled that aliens may not acquire residential lands: “One of the fundamental principles underlying the provision of Article XIII of the Constitution x x x is ‘that lands, minerals, forests, and other natural resources constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation. They should, therefore, be preserved for those under the sovereign authority of that nation and for their posterity.
Our Constitution clearly reserves for Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos the right to acquire lands of the public domain. The prohibition against aliens owning lands in the Philippines is subject only to limited constitutional exceptions, and not even an implied trust can be permitted on equity considerations.
“Much as We sympathize with the plight of a mother who adopted an infant son, only to have her ungrateful ward eject her from her property during her twilight years, We cannot grant her prayer. Applying the above rules to the present case, We find that she acquired the subject parcels of land in violation of the constitutional prohibition against aliens owning real property in the Philippines. Axiomatically, the properties in question cannot be legally reconveyed to one who had no right to own them in the first place. This being the case, We no longer find it necessary to pass upon the question of Sy So’s substitution in these proceedings.”
Unfortunately for Jose Norberto, the Court did not award him ownership over the property. Instead, the Solicitor General was ordered to initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State. In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution, both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation. Being in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party. The proper party who could assail the sale is the Solicitor General. (Jose Norberto Ang vs. The Estate of Sy So, G.R. No. 182252, August 3, 2016)