LAND TILES & DEEDS | RELLOSA V. GAW CHEE HUN
RELLOSA V. GAW CHEE HUN
FACTS
On February 2, 1944, Dionisio
Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together with the house erected
thereon, situated in the City of Manila, Philippines, for the sum of P25,000.
The vendor remained in possession of the property under a contract of lease
entered into on the same date between the same parties. Alleging that the sale
was executed subject to the condition that the vendee, being a Chinese citizen,
would obtain the approval of the Japanese Military Administration in accordance
with (seirei) No. 6 issued on April 2, 1943, by the Japanese authorities, and
said approval has not been obtained, and that, even if said requirement were
met, the sale would at all events be void under article XIII, section 5, of our
Constitution, the vendor instituted the present action in the Court of First
Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of the sale as well as the lease
covering the land and the house above mentioned, and praying that, once the
sale and the lease are declared null and void, the vendee be ordered to return
to vendor the duplicate of the title covering the property, and be restrained
from in any way dispossessing the latter of said property.
ISSUE
The sale in question having
been entered into in violation of the Constitution, the next question to be
determined is, can petitioner have the sale declared null and void and recover
the property considering the effect of the law governing rescission of contracts.
RULING
No.
Here the court held that that even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution, or the doctrine in the Krivenko Case, to set aside the sale in question, they are now prevented from doing so if their purpose is to recover the lands that they have voluntarily parted with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They cannot escape this conclusion because they are presumed to know the law. As this court well said: 'A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out. The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.' The rule is expressed in the maxims: 'Ex dolo malo non oritur actio,' and 'In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.' (Bough and Bough vs. Cantiveros and Hanopol, 40 Phil., 210, 216.)https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/