LAND TILES & DEEDS | PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION V. LUI SHE
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION
V. LUI SHE
FACTS
Justina Santos executed on a
contract of lease of real properties in favor of Wong.The lease was for 50
years, although the lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time from the
agreement.
Subsequently, 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
optionimposed 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 CFI 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application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered that he was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, she bade her
legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into with Wong, but in a
codicil of a later date 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.
RULING
No.
The court held that 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 lease to an alien for a
reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy
real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship.
But if an alien is given not
only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which
the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this
to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual
transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of
the right to enjoy the land but also of the right to dispose of it.
Article 1416 of the Civil Code
provides, as an exception to the rule on pari delicto, that “When the
agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the
prohibition by law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may, if
public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered.” The
Constitutional provision that “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” is an expression of public policy
to conserve lands for the Filipinos.
Accordingly, the contracts in question are annulled and set aside; the land subject-matter of the contracts is ordered returned to the estate of Justina Santos.https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/