Part of The Public Land Laws of The Philippines To Keep Pace With The Idea of Preserving The Philippines For The Filipinos."
Part of The Public Land Laws of The Philippines To Keep Pace With The Idea of Preserving The Philippines For The Filipinos."
FACTS OF THE CASE: Alenxander A. Kriventor alien, bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate, Inc., in December of 1941, the
registration of which was interrupted by the war. In May, 1945, he sought to accomplish said registration but was denied by the register of deeds of
Manila on the ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction. Krivenko then brought the case to the Court of First Instance
of Manila by means of a consulta, and that court rendered judgment sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds, from which Krivenko appealed
to this Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may acquire residential land. NO
RULING: Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be
aliented," and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving
agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural
lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that Section 5 is included in Article XIII, and it reads as follows: Sec. 5. Save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that
"aliens may freely acquire and possess not only residential lots and houses for themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and
that "they may validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools,
health and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in appellant's words,
strictly agricultural." The exclusion of aliens from the privilege of acquiring public agricultural lands and of owning real estate is a necessary
part of the Public Land Laws of the Philippines to keep pace with the idea of preserving the Philippines for the Filipinos."
It is well to note at this juncture that in the present case we have no choice. We are construing the Constitution as it is and not as we may desire it to
be. Perhaps the effect of our construction is to preclude aliens, admitted freely into the Philippines from owning sites where they may build their
homes. But if this is the solemn mandate of the Constitution, we will not attempt to compromise it even in the name of amity or equity. We are
satisfied, however, that aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence
in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution . Should
they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
For all the foregoing, we hold that under the Constitution aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including residential
lands. The Court affirmed the decision of CFI of Manila sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds to register the disputed lot.