GR L 10931; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10931; May 28, 1958
FLORENCIA R. SORIANO, assisted by her husband MANUEL A. Q. SORIANO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ONG HOO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On November 29, 1943, Florencia R. Soriano and her brother Teodoro R. Soriano, as co-owners, along with their father Ramon Soriano as usufructuary, sold two lots in Manila to Ong Hoo, a Chinese citizen, for P160,000. The sale was registered, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 70030 was issued to Ong Hoo. Subsequently, on January 16, 1946, Ong Hoo sold the land to defendants Chung Te, Ching Leng, and Ching Tan, who also obtained a new title. Florencia R. Soriano, as the sole heir of her deceased father and brother, filed an action to recover the lots. She alleged that both the original sale and the subsequent transfer were null and void because the vendees were Chinese citizens prohibited from acquiring ownership of private agricultural land under the Constitution. She prayed for the declaration of nullity of the sale and to be declared owner upon reimbursement of the price. The defendants argued that the complaint stated no cause of action, invoking the principle of in pari delicto (both parties equally at fault), that they were innocent purchasers for value, and that the sale was executed during the Japanese regime when the Philippine Constitution was not in force. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the action.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, a Filipino citizen who sold land to an alien in violation of the constitutional prohibition, can recover the property from the alien vendee or subsequent alien transferees.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court dismissing the action. The Court held that the principle of in pari delicto applies, barring the vendor from recovering the property. The constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring agricultural land is absolute and contains no saving clause for those unaware of its implications; ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The Court distinguished this case from those involving homesteads, where the Public Land Law contains specific provisions designed to conserve ownership for homesteaders and their heirs, allowing repurchase. In contrast, the Constitution merely prohibits acquisition by aliens and is silent on the consequences of a violation. Since both the citizen-vendor and alien-vendee violated the law, neither should have recourse against the other. Only the State, through proceedings like escheat, is entitled to intervene. In the absence of definitive legislative policy on how to handle such violations, the courts cannot go beyond the constitutional text to declare the sale null and void at the instance of the vendor. The remedy, if any, lies with the State.
Separate Opinion: Justice J.B.L. Reyes, dissenting (with Justice Concepcion concurring), argued that given prolonged legislative inaction on escheat, the pari delicto rule should not be applied to these transactions, as it results in aliens continuing to hold land in violation of the Constitution, thereby mocking its spirit. He submitted that it is more important for the courts to vindicate the constitutional inhibition.