EPIFANIA SARSOSA VDA.

DE BARSOBIA and
PACITA W. VALLAR vs VICTORIANO T. CUENCO,
G.R. No. L-33048. April 16, 1982
FACTS:

The lot in controversy is a one-half portion (on

the northern side) of two adjoining parcels of
coconut land located at Barrio Mancapagao,
Sagay, Camiguin, Misamis Oriental (now
Camiguin province).

The entire land was owned previously by a

certain Leocadia Balisado, who had sold it to the
spouses Patricio Barsobia (now deceased) and
Epifania Sarsosa, who were Filipino citizens.

Epifania who was then a widow, sold the land in

controversy to a Chinese, Ong King Po who
later took actual possession and enjoyed the
fruits of the property.

Ong King Po later litigated the property to

Victoriano Cuenco, a naturalized Filipino who
immediately took possession of the property.

Epifania later usurped the controverted property

who later sold one-half of the property to Pacita
Vallar.

Epifania claimed that it was not her intention to

sell the property as it was only to evidence her
indebtedness to Ong King Po.

Cuenco then filed a case for Forcible Entry

against Epifania before the MTC which was later
dismissed since the question of possession
could not be properly determined without first
settling the issue on ownership.

Cuenco later filed a case in the CFI for recovery

of possession and ownership of the said land.
The CFI rendered a decision in favor of Epifania
and Vallar.

The CA later reversed the Decision decreeing

instead that Cuenco was the owner of the
litigated property.

ISSUE: Who is the rightful owner of the property?

CUENCO.
HELD:
No private lands shall be transferred or conveyed to
aliens.
There should be no question that the sale of the land in
question in 1936 by Epifania to Ong King Po was
inexistent and void from the beginning, because it was a
contract executed against the mandatory provision of the

1935 Constitution, which is an expression of public

policy to conserve lands for the Filipinos.
Had this been a suit between Epifania and Ong King Po,
she could have been declared entitled to the litigated
land.
But the factual set-up has changed. The litigated
property is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino. It is
no longer owned by a disqualified vendee. Respondent,
as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally qualified to
own the subject property. There would be no more public
policy to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to
recover the land as it is already in the hands of a
qualified person.
While, strictly speaking, Ong King Po, private
respondent's vendor, had no rights of ownership to
transmit, it is likewise inescapable that petitioner
Epifania had slept on her rights for 26 years from 1936
to 1962. By her long inaction or inexcusable neglect, she
should be held barred from asserting her claim to the
litigated property.
Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the
rightful owner of the property.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. INTERMEDIATE

APPELLATE COURT, GUILLERMO GONZALVES
G.R. No. 74170 July 18, 1989
Facts:

The case principally concerns Chua Kim Uy @

Teng Be, who became a naturalized Filipino
citizen in 1977.
Chua Kim was the adopted son of Gregorio
Reyes Uy Un.
When Gregorio Reyes Uy Un died, his adopted
son Chua Kim, took possession of the properties
acquired by him in 1934.
Chua Kim filed a petition for the issuance of
confirmation and registration of title of the lots to
his name. His petition was granted by the CFI of
Quezon.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the
Solicitor General, challenged the correctness of
the Order and appealed it to the Court of
Appeals. However, CA affirmed RTCs ruling.
Hence this appeal.
Respondent contended that the conveyances to
Chua Kim were made while he was still an alien,
i.e., prior to his taking oath as a naturalized
Philippine citizen on January 7, 1977, at a time
when he was disqualified to acquire ownership
of land in the Philippines (ART XIII, SEC. 5,
1935 Constitution; ART. XIV, Sec. 14, 1973
Constitution); hence, his asserted titles are null
and void.

Issue: WON the registration of the lots under the name

of Chua Kim was valid. YES
Held:
Conveyance of residential land to an alien prior to
his
acquisition
of
Filipino
citizenship
by
naturalization is valid
Be this as it may, the acquisition by Chua Kim of
Philippine citizenship should foreclose any further
debate regarding the title to the property in controversy,
in line with this Court's rulings relative to persons
similarly situated.
In Sarsosa Vda. de Barsobia v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547,
for instance, the ruling was as follows:
...The litigated property is now in the hands of a
naturalized Filipino. It is no longer owned by a
disqualified vendee. Respondent, as a naturalized
citizen, was constitutionally qualified to own the subject
property. There would be no more public policy to be
served in allowing petitioner Epifania to recover the land
as it is already in the hands of a qualified person.

The lots in question were conveyed to Gregorio

Reyes Uy Un in December 1934, so 1935 constitution
is not applicable
Plainly, the conveyances were made before the 1935
Constitution went into effect, i.e., at a time when there
was no prohibition against acquisition of private
agricultural lands by aliens.
Gregorio Reyes Uy Un therefore acquired good title to
the lands thus purchased by him, and his ownership was
not at all affected either:
(1) by the principle subsequently enunciated in the 1935
Constitution that aliens were incapacitated to acquire
lands in the country, since that constitutional principle
has no retrospective application, or
(2) by his and his successor's omission to procure the
registration of the property prior to the coming into effect
of the Constitution.
Chua Kim acquired the lots through succession in
1946
Since the death of Gregorio Reyes Uy Un in San
Narciso, Quezon, in 1946, Chua Kim @ Uy Teng Be had
been in continuous possession of the lands in concept of
owner, as the putative heir of his adoptive father without
protest whatever from any person.
Note: Chua Kim because a naturalized Filipino citizen
only on January 1977
It was indeed Chua Kim's being in possession of the
property in concept of owner, and his status as adopted
son of Gregorio Reyes, that were the factors that caused
his involvement in Civil Case No. C-385 of the CFI at
Calauag, Quezon, at the instance of the original parties
thereto, 22 and his participation in the Compromise
Agreement later executed by all parties. As already
mentioned, that compromise agreement, approved by
judgment rendered on July 29, 1970,
implicity
recognized Chua Kim's title to the lands in question.

SOCORRO VASQUEZ vs.LI SENG GIAP and LI SENG

GIAP & SONS
CASE: G.R. No. L-3676, January 31, 1955

corporation to which the parcel of land has been

transferred, must also be valid, 96.67 per cent of its
capital stock being owned by Filipinos.
Action for annulment not Rescission

FACTS:

Vasquez sold and transferred to Li Seng Giap,

then Chinese citizen, a parcel of land together
with a house in Tondo, Manila
In 1940: Li Seng Giap sold and transferred unto
Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc., whose shareholdings
then were owned by Chinese citizens, the
property, together with the improvements
thereon, and duly registered under a TCT
Li Seng Giap was duly naturalized as a Filipino
citizen on 1941,
Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc. is now a
Filipino corporation, 96.67 per cent of its stock
being owned by Filipinos, and duly authorized by
its articles of incorporation to own, acquire or
dispose of real properties.
Vasquez filed an action to rescind the sale on
the ground that the Li Seng Giap was an alien
and under the Constitution incapable to own and
hold title to lands.
The Court rendered judgment dismissing the
complaint with cost against Vasquez.

ISSUE: WON Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc. is allowed to

acquire the property. YES.
HELD:
The subsequent naturalization of Giap and transfer
to a Filipino corporation cured the defect.
The majority of the Court has ruled that 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 and being thus in pari delicto the
courts will not afford protection to either party.
Vasquez argued that if at the time of the conveyance of
the real property Giap was incapable of holding title to
such real estate, the contract of sale was null or void and
may be annulled, and his subsequent naturalization as a
Filipino citizen cannot retroact to the date of the
conveyance to make it lawful and valid.
However, if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only
agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this
Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation's
lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or
purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by
making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens
who became Filipino citizens by naturalization. The
title to the parcel of land of the Giap, a naturalized
Filipino citizen, being valid that of the domestic

The action is not of rescission because it is not

postulated upon any of the grounds provided for in
Article 1291 of the old Civil Code and because the action
of rescission involves lesion or damage and seeks to
repair it. It is an action for annulment under Chapter VI,
Title II, Book II, on nullity of contracts, based on a defect
in the contract which invalidates it independently of such
lesion or damages.

ONG CHING PO versus COURT OF APPEALS and

SOLEDAD PARIAN
G.R. Nos. 113472-73 December 20, 1994
FACTS:

respondent as a dummy to have the title over the parcel

of land registered in her name because being an alien
he was disqualified to own real property in the
Philippines. To sustain such an outrageous contention
would be giving a high premium to a violation of our
nationalization laws.

Spouses Soledad Parian and Ong Yee bought a parcel

of land in Fundidor Street, San Nicolas from Ong Joi
Jong. The transfer was in a notarized Deed of Sale and
was also registered (Exhibit A). Subsequently, Ong Yee
died.

Petitioner Ong Ching Po was a Chinese citizen;

therefore, he was disqualified from acquiring and owning
real property. Assuming that the genuineness and due
execution of Exhibit "B" has been established, the same
is null and void, it being contrary to law.

Soledad filed unlawful detainer against her brother-inlaw Ong Ching Po contending that she entrusted the
administration of the house to Ong Ching Po while the
spouses were residing in Ilo-ilo but when her husband
Ong Yee died, she asked Ong Ching Po to leave the
house.

On the other hand, the Deed of Sale presented by

Soledad Parian is duly notarized document.

On the other hand, Ong Ching Po filed an action of

reconveyance and damages against Soledad contending
that he has the right over the land because Ong Joi Jong
sold it to him. The Deed of Sale (Exhibit B) presented by
Ong Ching Po says that the reason why the title is
constituted in the name of Soledad was that Ong Ching
Po was not yet a Filipino citizen.
ISSUE: Which of the two Deed of Sales has more
probative value? (Soledad Parians or Ong Ching
Pos)
HELD:
It is the Deed of Sale in favor of Soledad Parian that
must be given value. We cannot go along with the claim
that petitioner Ong Ching Po merely used private

Other issues:
Was the sale made with due consideration? Yes it
appears that the price for the land was paid out of
Soledad Parian and Ong Yees conjugal funds. Such
transaction is a common practice in Filipino-family
affairs.
Was there delivery? Yes. Even though there was no
physical possession of the spouses because they were
residing in Ilo-ilo, under Article 1498 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, "when the sale is made through a public
instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to
the delivery of the object of the contract, if from the deed
the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be
inferred."