GR L 6776; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6776; May 21, 1955
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioner-appellee, vs. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
The Register of Deeds of Rizal refused to register a deed of donation executed by Jesus Dy, a Filipino citizen, conveying a residential lot in Caloocan, Rizal, in favor of the unregistered religious organization “Ung Siu Si Temple.” The organization operated through three trustees, all of Chinese nationality, and the donation was accepted by its founder and deaconess, Yu Juan, also a Chinese national. The refusal was elevated en consulta to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which upheld the Register of Deeds’ action. The donee temple appealed, arguing that the acquisition was authorized by Act No. 271 of the Philippine Commission, which allowed religious associations to hold land for religious purposes, and that the refusal violated the constitutional freedom of religion.
ISSUE
Whether the deed of donation in favor of a religious organization whose founder, trustees, and administrator are all foreign (Chinese) nationals should be admitted for registration, considering the constitutional restrictions on land acquisition and the alleged permissibility under Act No. 271 and the freedom of religion clause.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, denying the registration of the deed of donation. The Court held that the absolute terms of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, which restrict the acquisition of private agricultural lands (interpreted to include residential lands per the Krivenko doctrine) to Filipino citizens, corporations, or associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by such citizens, repealed the incompatible provisions of Act No. 271 . The Constitution makes no exception for religious associations. The fact that the appellant organization has no capital stock does not exempt it, as the constitutional requirement aims to ensure Filipino control; thus, in its absence, the controlling membership must be Filipino citizens. Allowing religious associations controlled by non-Filipinos to acquire land would contravene the constitutional intent and historical context, as alien religious land holdings were a grievance leading to the 1896 revolution. The Court further ruled that the disqualification does not violate the freedom of religion, as land tenure is not indispensable to the free exercise of religious worship.