LAND TITLES & DEEDS | CABAUATAN V. UY HOO
CABAUATAN V. UY HOO
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
"when both parties are
guilty, neither of them can recover what he may have given by virtue of the
contract, or enforce the performance of the undertaking of the other
party".
FACTS
On March 18, 1943, plaintiffs
sold to Uy Hoo and Siy Hong, all Chinese citizens two parcels of residential
land in the consideration of the sum of P13,000 in Japanese was notes.
On November 15, 1947, the case
of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, G. R. No. L-630 was decided by this Court
holding that a conveyance of a residential land to aliens infringes Section 5,
Article XIII of the Constitution. As a result, on December 15, 1947, plaintiffs
demanded from the defendants to restore to them the lands above-referred to on
the ground that the sale they made thereof to the defendants was null and void,
but the latter refused to do so. Hence the plaintffs brought this action on
January 14, 1948, seeking the anullment of the sale above-mentioned.
The sale therefore took place
during the Japanese occupation. At that time the Constitution of the Philippines
was not in force, it being political in nature.
ISSUE
Whether the deed of sale
executed by the plaintiffs in favor of the defendants on March 18, 1943, over
the two parcels of land in question can be declared null and void in the light
of the decision in the Krivenko case.
RULING
No.
The court held that "when
both parties are guilty, neither of them can recover what he may have given by
virtue of the contract, or enforce the performance of the undertaking of the
other party". 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
est conditio defendentis.
Here, the contract in question was executed on March 18, 1943. Following the above principle, the Civil Code, therefore, should govern its validity. Hence 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.https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/