The Supreme Court in Jose Norberto Ang v. The Estate of Sy So ruled that properties acquired by aliens in violation of the constitutional prohibition against land ownership in the Philippines are subject to reversion to the State. This decision reaffirms the principle that the Constitution reserves the right to own land to Filipino citizens and corporations with at least 60% Filipino ownership. It highlights that even equitable considerations cannot override constitutional mandates, emphasizing the importance of upholding the nation’s patrimony.

When National Patrimony Trumps Equitable Claims: Can an Alien Retain Land Acquired in Violation of the Constitution?

This case revolves around a dispute over two parcels of land in Caloocan City, originally registered under the name of Jose Norberto Ang. Sy So, a Chinese citizen, claimed she purchased the properties in 1944 and registered them in Jose Norberto’s name, her ward, following a Chinese tradition. She later filed a case seeking to transfer the properties to another ward, citing Jose Norberto’s alleged ingratitude and breach of trust. The central legal question is whether Sy So, as a Chinese citizen, could legally own land in the Philippines, and whether the properties could be reconveyed to her despite the constitutional prohibition against alien land ownership.

The 1935 Constitution, in effect when Sy So acquired the properties, explicitly restricted land ownership to Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino ownership. Section 5 of Article XIII stated:

“Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.”

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision, and similar provisions in subsequent constitutions, as a prohibition against aliens owning lands in the Philippines, save for hereditary succession. This principle was firmly established in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, which declared that lands are part of the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation.

In this case, Sy So’s claim of ownership was challenged based on her citizenship. The Court acknowledged her status as a Chinese citizen. Despite the arguments presented regarding implied trust and equitable considerations, the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional mandates take precedence. It stated that:

“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.”

The Court recognized the difficult situation of Sy So, who had acted out of care for her ward. However, it emphasized that it could not disregard the constitutional prohibition. Allowing the reconveyance of the properties to Sy So would, in effect, validate an unconstitutional act. This would undermine the very essence of the constitutional provision designed to protect the nation’s patrimony.

The Court further explained the concept of pari delicto, which applies when both parties are at fault in violating the law. In such cases, courts will not provide relief to either party. As both Sy So and Jose Norberto were deemed to have participated in the unconstitutional transaction, neither could seek legal protection from the courts. The Court clarified that the proper party to challenge the sale and seek the reversion of the property to the State is the Solicitor General.

The implications of this ruling are significant. It reinforces the strict interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding land ownership. The decision serves as a reminder that equitable considerations cannot override explicit constitutional prohibitions. It clarifies the role of the Solicitor General in initiating actions for reversion or escheat when land is illegally acquired by aliens.

The decision also highlights the limitations of implied trusts in situations where the underlying transaction violates constitutional principles. Even if an implied trust could be established, it cannot be used to circumvent the prohibition against alien land ownership. The Court’s ruling provides a clear framework for future cases involving similar issues, emphasizing the primacy of constitutional law in regulating land ownership in the Philippines.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a Chinese citizen could legally own land in the Philippines, and whether properties acquired in violation of the constitutional prohibition could be reconveyed to her.
What did the Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that the properties acquired by the Chinese citizen in violation of the constitutional prohibition against alien land ownership were subject to reversion to the State.
Why couldn’t the properties be reconveyed?	The Court held that reconveying the properties would validate an unconstitutional act, undermining the constitutional provision designed to protect the nation’s patrimony.
What is the principle of pari delicto?	Pari delicto applies when both parties are at fault in violating the law. In such cases, courts will not provide relief to either party.
Who is the proper party to challenge the sale?	The Solicitor General is the proper party to challenge the sale and seek the reversion of the property to the State.
What is an implied trust?	An implied trust is a trust created by operation of law, where one party holds property for the benefit of another. However, it cannot be used to circumvent constitutional prohibitions.
What happens to the land now?	The Office of the Solicitor General is directed to initiate proceedings for the reversion of the subject property to the State.
Does this ruling affect all aliens owning land in the Philippines?	This ruling reinforces existing constitutional prohibitions against alien land ownership, subject to limited exceptions like hereditary succession.

This case serves as a significant reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional principles, particularly those concerning land ownership. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the nation’s patrimony, even when faced with compelling equitable considerations. The decision clarifies the roles of various parties involved in transactions that potentially violate constitutional prohibitions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE NORBERTO ANG v. THE ESTATE OF SY SO, G.R. No. 182252, August 03, 2016