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/

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459