CASE DIGEST: Krivenko vs.

The Register of Deeds, land" used in this section refers to all private lands,
City of Manila whether strictly agricultural, residential or otherwise,
G.R. No. L-360 November 15, 1947 there being practically no private land which had not
been acquired by any of the means provided in said
ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner-appelant, vs. two sections. Therefore, the prohibition contained in
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA, these two provisions was, in effect, that no private
respondent and appellee. land could be transferred to aliens except "upon
express authorization by the Philippine Legislature, to
FACTS: citizens of Philippine Islands the same right to
acquire, hold, lease, encumber, dispose of, or
Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot alienate land." In other words, aliens were granted the
in December of 1941. The registration was interrupted right to acquire private land merely by way of
by war. In 1945, he sought to accomplish the reciprocity.
registration but was denied by the register of deed on
ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land
within the jurisdiction. Krivenko appealed to the Court.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may

acquire residential land?
2. Whether or not the prohibitions of the rights to
acquire residential lot that was already of private
ownership prior to the approval of this Constitutions is
applicable at the case at bar?

RULING:

1. NO. Under the Article XIII, Section 1, of the

Constitution states that: All agricultural, timber, and
mineral lands of the public domain, water, minerals,
coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, and other natural resources of the
Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition,
exploitation, development, or utilization shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital
of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any
existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time
of the inauguration of the Government established
under this Constitution. This means to say that, under
the provisions of the Constitutions, aliens are not
allowed to acquire the ownership of urban or
residential lands in the Philippines and, as
consequence, all acquisitions made in contravention
of the prohibitions since the fundamental law became
effective are null and void per se and ab initio.

2. Prior to the Constitution, there were in the Public

Land Act No. 2874 sections 120 and 121 which
granted aliens the right to acquire private only by way
of reciprocity. It is to be observed that the pharase "no
REPUBLIC v. CA AND SPS. MARIO B. LAPIÑA AND predecessor-in-interest". Thus, it matters not whether
FLOR DE VEGA, GR No. 108998, 1994-08-24 the... vendee/applicant has been in possession of the
subject property for only a day so long as the period
Facts: and/or legal requirements for confirmation of title has
been complied with by his predecessor-in-interest, the
On June 17, 1978, respondent spouses bought Lots said period is tacked to his possession.
347 and 348, Cad. s38-D, as their residence with a
total area of 91.77 sq. m. situated in San Pablo City, respondents' predecessors-in-interest have been in
from one Cristeta Dazo Belen (Rollo, p. 41). At the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
time of the purchase, respondent spouses were then of the disputed land not only since June 12, 1945, but
natural-born even as early as 1937.

Filipino citizens. Private respondents stepped into the shoes of their

predecessors-in-interest and by virtue thereof,
On February 5, 1987, the spouses filed an application acquired all the legal rights necessary to confirm what
for registration of title of the two (2) parcels of land could otherwise be deemed as an imperfect title.
before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Branch XXXI. This time, however, they were no open, continuous and exclusive possession for at
longer Filipino citizens and have opted to embrace least 30 years of alienable public land ipso jure
Canadian... citizenship through naturalization. converts the same to private property

An opposition was filed by the Republic... court a quo This means that occupation and cultivation for more
rendered a decision confirming private respondents' than 30 years by an applicant and his predecessors-
title to the lots in question... petitioner submits that in-interest, vest title on such applicant so as to
private respondents have not acquired Canadian segregate the land from the mass of public land
citizenship through naturalization to justify the
registration thereof in their favor. The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must
prove that (a) the land is alienable public land and (b)
It maintains that even privately owned unregistered his possession, in the concept above stated, must be
lands are presumed to be public lands under the... either since time immemorial or for the period
principle that lands of whatever classification belong prescribed in the Public Land Act
to the State under the Regalian doctrine.
Torrens system
before the issuance of the certificate of title, the
occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of It merely confirms, but does not confer ownership.
the land since it still pertains to the State.
private... respondents were able to establish the
Issues: nature of possession of their predecessors-in-interest.

Can a foreign national apply for registration of title Evidence was offered to prove that their
over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase predecessors-in-interest had paid taxes on the
while still a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor subject land and introduced improvements thereon...
who has complied with the requirements for certified true copy... of the affidavit executed by
registration under the Public Land Act (CA 141)? Cristeta Dazo and her sister Simplicia was also
formally offered to prove that the subject parcels of
Ruling: land were inherited by vendor Cristeta Dazo from her
father Pedro Dazo with the conformity of her only
It must be noted that with respect to possession and sister Simplicia... a... report from the Bureau of Lands
occupation of the alienable and disposable lands of was presented in evidence together with a letter from
the public domain, the law employs the terms "by the Bureau of Forest Development, to prove that the
themselves", "the applicant himself or through his questioned lots were part of the alienable and
disposable zone of the government and that no The parcels of land sought to be registered no longer
forestry interest was affected... private respondents form part of the public domain. They are already
were undoubtedly natural-born Filipino citizens at the private in character since private respondents'
time of the acquisition of the properties and by virtue predecessors-in--interest have been in open,
thereof, acquired vested rights thereon, tacking in the continuous and exclusive... possession and
process, the possession in the concept of... owner occupation thereof under claim of ownership prior to
and the prescribed period of time held by their June 12, 1945 or since 1937.
predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land Act.
The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the
private respondents have constructed a house of Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may
strong materials on the contested property, now be a transferee of a private land up to a... maximum
occupied by respondent Lapiña's mother. area of 1,000 sq.m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in
case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence
"Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7
of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees
who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a... of a private land, were natural-born citizens of the
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations Philippines.
provided by law."
For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a
"Sec. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether
14 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the private respondents are no longer Filipino... citizens at
Philippines who has lost his citizenship may be a the time they purchased or registered the parcels of
transferee of private land, for use by him as his land in question. What is important is that private
residence, as the Batasang Pambansa may provide." respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the
Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they
"Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines could apply for registration
who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has
the legal capacity to enter into a contract under This decree of registration is the one that is submitted
Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land to the office of the register of deeds for issuance of
up to a maximum area of one thousand square the certificate of title in favor of the applicant. Prior
meters, in the... case of urban land, or one hectare in to... the issuance of the decree of registration, the
the case of rural land, to be used by him as his register of deeds has no participation in the approval
residence. In the case of married couples, one of of the application for registration of title as the decree
them may avail of the privilege herein granted; of registration is yet to be issued.
Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total
area acquired shall not exceed the... maximum herein Principles:
fixed.
The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must
what governs the disposition of private lands in favor prove that (a) the land is alienable public land and (b)
of a natural-born Filipino citizen who has lost his his possession, in the concept above stated, must be
Philippine citizenship remains... to be BP 185. either since time immemorial or for the period
prescribed in the Public Land Act
Even if private respondents were already Canadian
citizens at the time they applied for registration of the When the conditions set by law are complied with, the
properties in question, said properties as discussed possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a
above were already private lands; consequently, there right to a grant, a government grant, without the
could be no legal impediment for the registration necessity of a certificate of title being issued
thereof by... respondents in view of what the
Constitution ordains. As such, the land ceases to be a part of the public
domain and goes beyond the authority of the Director
of Lands to dispose of.
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE an option giving an alien the right to buy real property
G.R. No. L-17587. September 12, 1967 on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship.
Ponente: J. Castro But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but
also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of
DOCTRINE: which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise
Even if the contract appears to be valid, if the dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it
provisions is against a constitutional prohibition, the becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual
same should be considered null and void. transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests
himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land
FACTS: but also of the right to dispose of it— rights the sum
Justina Santos executed on a contract of lease in total of which make up ownership. If this can be done,
favor of Wong, covering the portion then already then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding
leased to him and another portion fronting Florentino in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.
Torres street. The lease was for 50 years, although
the lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time
from the agreement.
On December 21 she executed another contract
giving Wong the option to buy the leased premises for
P120,000, payable within ten years at a monthly
installment of P1,000. The option, written in Tagalog,
imposed on him the obligation to pay for the food of
the dogs and the salaries of the maids in her
household, the charge not to exceed P1,800 a month.
The option was conditioned on his obtaining
Philippine citizenship, a petition for which was then
pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
It appears, however, that this application for
naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered
that he was not a resident of Rizal. On October 28,
1958 she filed a petition to adopt him and his children
on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on
them Philippine citizenship. The error was discovered
and the proceedings were abandoned.
In two wills executed on August 24 and 29, 1959, she
bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had
entered into with Wong, but in a codicil of a later date
(November 4, 1959) she appears to have a change of
heart. Claiming that the various contracts were made
by her because of machinations and inducements
practiced by him, she now directed her executor to
secure the annulment of the contracts.

ISSUE:
Whether the contracts involving Wong were
valid
HELD:
No, the contracts show nothing that is
necessarily illegal, but considered collectively, they
reveal an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection
what the Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a
The Director of Lands, Petitioner Vs. Court of Appeals be invited in the court to prove why the title should not
and Teodoro Abistado, substituted by Margarita, be granted.
Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed
Abistado, Respondents. Such provision used the term "shall" which indicated
G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997 that it is mandatory.
When the law speaks in clear and categorical
Facts: Teodoro Abistado, private respondent, Filed a language, there is no room for interpretation,
petition for original registration of his title over 648 vacillation, or equivocation, there is room only for
square meters of land under P.D. No. 1529 or the application.
Property Registration Decree. The application was
docketed as Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 Thus. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court Lower Court dismissing the petition for registration of
of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. During the Land Title to the respondents.
pendency of the case, Teodoro Abistado died and
was substituted by his children - Margarita, Marissa,
Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann, all surnamed
Abistado, who were all represented by their aunt
Josefa Abistado, ad litem ( act in which a lawsuit has
a representative in behalf of children not capable of
representation.)

Land Registration Court dismissed the petition for

want of jurisdiction in compliance with the mandatory
provision requiring publication of initial public hearing
in a newspaper of general circulation. Records show
that applicants failed to comply with P.D. No. 1529
Section 23 (1) requiring publication of notice of initial
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
Initial public hearing was only published in the Official
Gazette.

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals which

granted the application and ordered the registration of
title to Teodoro Abistado, since publication in a
newspaper of general Circulation is merely
procedural, hence dispensable. The Director of Land,
represented by the Solicitor General, elevated this
case to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or Not the Director of Land is correct

that the publication of Notice of Initial hearing in a
Land Registration Case is mandatory.

Held: Yes. Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 shall be

followed requiring a publication once both in the
Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation.
The Land Registration Case is an in Rem proceeding,
meaning the applicant must prove his title over the
land against all persons concerned, who might have
interest to right in the property and should effectively
 against anyone adversely occupying the land or any
LUCERO V. LOOT portion of the land. Even fraud shall not be a bar to
the issuance of the writ of possession, which
necessarily implied the delivery of possession of the
FACTS: land.
Julio Lucero filed was granted a writ of possession of
property (based on a final decree in a land registration
proceeding). Although the other party (all surnamed As to the questions of fact raised by the Loots, the SC
Loot) filed a motion to quash the writ, this was granted can do nothing. These must be raised at the CA of
by CFI Iloilo’s Judge Fernan on September 21, 1959. appeals; otherwise, the parties contesting the facts
are deemed to have waived the opportunity to
question the correctness of the findings.
The Loots opposed the decision on the ground that
there were defects in the reconstitution of the records
and that the motion was not under oath. The court
dismissed these as trivial arguments. Two motions for
reconsideration were also denied. The writ of
possession prayed for was issued in favour of Lucero.

The Loots were stubborn as hell. They then went

straight to the Supreme Court for an appeal for
certiorari. The Loots desperately tried to assert

ISSUE: Whether or not the order granting the writ of

possession was in accordance with law

RULING: Yes.

The order granting the writ of possession was based

on a decision promulgated on a land registration case
in 1938, which became a final decree on October 29,
1941.
After the final decree, the issuance of the writ of
possession was only a ministerial duty of the court if
no writ has been issued to the registered owner yet.
The final decree, in effect, immediately empowered
the court to enforce the order/judgment/decree. This
automatic process is to avoid further delay and
inconvenience to a successful land registration litigant
if he were compelled to commence another action to
secure possession.

Furthermore, there is no period of prescription as to

the issuance of a writ of possession.
The writ may be issued not only against the person
who has been defeated in a registration case, but also