Republic Act No.
7042 June 13, 1991 d) The praise "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether
AN ACT TO PROMOTE FOREIGN INVESTMENTS, PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURES FOR REGISTERING
ENTERPRISES DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the, "Foreign Investments Act of 1991".
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to attract, promote and welcome productive
investments from foreign individuals, partnerships, corporations, and governments, including their
political subdivisions, in activities which significantly contribute to national industrialization and
socioeconomic development to the extent that foreign investment is allowed in such activity by the
Constitution and relevant laws. Foreign investments shall be encouraged in enterprises that significantly
expand livelihood and employment opportunities for Filipinos; enhance economic value of farm
products; promote the welfare of Filipino consumers; expand the scope, quality and volume of exports
and their access to foreign markets; and/or transfer relevant technologies in agriculture, industry and
support services. Foreign investments shall be welcome as a supplement to Filipino capital and
technology in those enterprises serving mainly the domestic market.
As a general rule, there are no restrictions on extent of foreign ownership of export enterprises. In
domestic market enterprises, foreigners can invest as much as one hundred percent (100%) equity
except in areas included in the negative list. Foreign owned firms catering mainly to the domestic market
shall be encouraged to undertake measures that will gradually increase Filipino participation in their
businesses by taking in Filipino partners, electing Filipinos to the board of directors, implementing
transfer of technology to Filipinos, generating more employment for the economy and enhancing skills of
Filipino workers.
Section 3. Definitions. - As used in this Act:
a) The term "Philippine national" shall mean a citizen of the Philippines or a domestic partnership or
association wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines; or a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines of which at least sixty percent (60%) of the capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote is
owned and held by citizens of the Philippines; or a trustee of funds for pension or other employee
retirement or separation benefits, where the trustee is a Philippine national and at least sixty (60%) of
the fund will accrue to the benefit of the Philippine nationals: Provided, That where a corporation and its
non-Filipino stockholders own stocks in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registered
enterprise, at least sixty percent (60%) of the capital stocks outstanding and entitled to vote of both
corporations must be owned and held by citizens of the Philippines and at least sixty percent (60%) of
the members of the Board of Directors of both corporations must be citizens of the Philippines, in order
that the corporations shall be considered a Philippine national;
b) The term "investment" shall mean equity participation in any enterprise organized or existing under
the laws of the Philippines;
c) The term "foreign investment" shall mean as equity investment made by a non-Philippine national in
the form of foreign exchange and/or other assets actually transferred to the Philippines and duly
registered with the Central Bank which shall assess and appraise the value of such assets other than
foreign exchange;
called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the
Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the country for a period or periods totalling one hundred
eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any domestic
business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity
of commercial dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or
works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of,
commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization: Provided, however, That the
phrase "doing business: shall not be deemed to include mere investment as a shareholder by a foreign
entity in domestic corporations duly registered to do business, and/or the exercise of rights as such
investor; nor having a nominee director or officer to represent its interests in such corporation; nor
appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in its
own name and for its own account;
e) The term "export enterprise" shall mean an enterprise which produces goods for sale, or renders
services to the domestic market entirely or if exporting a portion of its output fails to consistently export
at least sixty percent (60%) thereof; and
g) The term "Foreign Investments Negative List" or "Negative List" shall mean a list of areas of economic
activity whose foreign ownership is limited to a maximum of forty ownership is limited to a maximum of
forty percent (40%) of the equity capital of the enterprise engaged therein.
Section 4. Scope. - This Act shall not apply to banking and other financial institutions which are governed
and regulated by the General Banking Act and other laws under the supervision of the Central Bank.
Section 5. Registration of Investments of Non-Philippine Nationals. - Without need of prior approval, a
non-Philippine national, as that term is defined in Section 3 a), and not otherwise disqualified by law may
upon registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or with the Bureau of Trade
Regulation and Consumer Protection (BTRCP) of the Department of Trade and Industry in the case of
single proprietorships, do business as defined in Section 3 (d) of this Act or invest in a domestic
enterprise up to one hundred percent (100%) of its capital, unless participation of non-Philippine
nationals in the enterprise is prohibited or limited to a smaller percentage by existing law and/or limited
to a smaller percentage by existing law and/or under the provisions of this Act. The SEC or BTRCP, as the
case may be, shall not impose any limitations on the extent of foreign ownership in an enterprise
additional to those provided in this Act: Provided, however, That any enterprise seeking to avail of
incentives under the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 must apply for registration with the Board of
Investments (BOI), which shall process such application for registration in accordance with the criteria
for evaluation prescribed in said Code: Provided, finally, That a non-Philippine national intending to
engage in the same line of business as an existing joint venture in his application for registration with
SEC. During the transitory period as provided in Section 15 hereof, SEC shall disallow registration of the
applying non-Philippine national if the existing joint venture enterprise, particularly the Filipino partners
therein, can reasonably prove they are capable to make the investment needed for they are competing
applicant. Upon effectivity of this Act, SEC shall effect registration of any enterprise applying under this
Act within fifteen (15) days upon submission of completed requirements.
Section 6. Foreign Investments in Export Enterprises. - Foreign investment in export enterprises whose
products and services do not fall within Lists A and B of the Foreign Investment Negative List provided
under Section 8 hereof is allowed up to one hundred percent (100%) ownership.
Export enterprises which are non-Philippine nationals shall register with BOI and submit the reports that
may be required to ensure continuing compliance of the export enterprise with its export requirement.
BOI shall advise SEC or BTRCP, as the case may be, of any export enterprise that fails to meet the export
ratio requirement. The SEC or BTRCP shall thereupon order the non-complying export enterprise to
reduce its sales to the domestic market to not more than forty percent (40%) of its total production;
failure to comply with such SEC or BTRCP order, without justifiable reason, shall subject the enterprise to
cancellation of SEC or BTRCP registration, and/or the penalties provided in Section 14 hereof.
Section 7. Foreign Investments in Domestic Market Enterprises. - Non-Philippine nationals may own up
to one hundred percent (100%) of domestic market enterprises unless foreign ownership therein is
prohibited or limited by existing law or the Foreign Investment Negative List under Section 8 hereof.
A domestic market enterprise may change its status to export enterprise if over a three (3) year period it
consistently exports in each year thereof sixty per cent (60%) or more of its output.
Section 8. List of Investment Areas Reserved to Philippine Nationals (Foreign Investment Negative List). -
The Foreign Investment Negative List shall have three (3) component lists: A, B, and C:
a) List A shall enumerate the areas of activities reserved to Philippine nationals by mandate of the
Constitution and specific laws.
b) List B shall contain the areas of activities and enterprises pursuant to law:
1) Which are defense-related activities, requiring prior clearance and authorization from Department of
National Defense (DND) to engage in such activity, such as the manufacture, repair, storage and/or
distribution of firearms, ammunition, lethal weapons, military ordnance, explosives, pyrotechnics and
similar materials; unless such manufacturing or repair activity is specifically authorized, with a substantial
export component, to a non-Philippine national by the Secretary of National Defense; or
2) Which have implications on public health and morals, such as the manufacture and distribution of
dangerous drugs; all forms of gambling; nightclubs, bars, beerhouses, dance halls; sauna and steambath
houses and massage clinics.
Small and medium-sized domestic market enterprises with paid-in equity capital less than the equivalent
of five hundred thousand US dollars (US$500,000) are reserved to Philippine nationals, unless they
involve advanced technology as determined by the Department of Science and Technology. Export
enterprises which utilize raw materials from depleting natural resources, with paid-in equity capital of
less than the equivalent of five hundred thousand US dollars (US$500,000) are likewise reserved to
Philippine nationals.
Amendments to List B may be made upon recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense, or the
Secretary of Health, or the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, indorsed by the NEDA, or upon
recommendation motu propio of NEDA, approved by the President, and promulgated by Presidential
Proclamation.
c) List C shall contain the areas of investment in which existing enterprises already serve adequately the
needs of the economy and the consumer and do not require further foreign investments, as determined
by NEDA applying the criteria provided in Section 9 of this Act, approved by the President and
promulgated in a Presidential Proclamation.
The Transitory Foreign Investment Negative List established in Sec. 15 hereof shall be replaced at the
end of the transitory period by the first Regular Negative List to the formulated and recommended by
the NEDA, following the process and criteria provided in Section 8 and 9 of this Act. The first Regular
Negative List shall be published not later than sixty (60) days before the end of the transitory period
provided in said section, and shall become immediately effective at the end of the transitory period.
Subsequent Foreign Investment Negative Lists shall become effective fifteen (15) days after publication
in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, That each Foreign
Investment Negative List shall be prospective in operation and shall in no way affect foreign investments
existing on the date of its publication.
Amendments to List B and C after promulgation and publication of the first Regular Foreign Investment
Negative List at the end of the transitory period shall not be made more often than once every two (2)
years.
Section 9. Determination of Areas of Investment for Inclusion in List C of the Foreign Investment
Negative List. - Upon petition by a Philippine national engage therein, an area of investment may be
recommended by NEDA for inclusion in List C of the Foreign Investment Negative List upon determining
that it complies with all the following criteria:
a) The industry is controlled by firms owned at least sixty percent (60%) by Filipinos;
b) Industry capacity is ample to meet domestic demand;
c) Sufficient competition exists within the industry;
d) Industry products comply with Philippine standards of health and safety or, in the absence of such,
with international standards, and are reasonably competitive in quality with similar products in the same
price range imported into the country;
e) Quantitative restrictions are not applied on imports of directly competing products;
f) The leading firms of the industry substantially comply with environmental standards; and
g) The prices of industry products are reasonable.
The petition shall be subjected to a public hearing at which affected parties will have the opportunity to
show whether the petitioner industry adequately serves the economy and the consumer, in general, and
meets the above stated criteria in particular. NEDA may delegate evaluation of the petition and conduct
of the public hearing to any government agency having cognizance of the petitioner industry. The
delegated agency shall make its evaluation report and recommendations to NEDA which retains the right
and sole responsibility to determine whether to recommend to the President to promulgate the area of
investment in List C of the Negative List. An industry or area of investment included in List C of the
Negative List by Presidential Proclamation shall remain in the said List C for two (2) years, without
prejudice to re-inclusion upon new petition, and due process.

Section 10. Strategic Industries. - Within eighteen (18) months after the effectivity of this Act, the NEDA
Board shall formulate and publish a list of industries strategic to the development of the economy. The
list shall specify, as a matter of policy and not as a legal requirement, the desired equity participation by
Government and/or private Filipino investors in each strategic industry. Said list of strategic industries, as
well as the corresponding desired equity participation of government and/or private Filipino investors,
may be amended by NEDA to reflect changes in economic needs and policy directions of Government.
The amended list of strategic industries shall be published concurrently with publication of the Foreign
Investment Negative List.
The term "strategic industries" shall mean industries that are characterized by all of the following:
a) Crucial to the accelerated industrialization of the country,
b) Require massive capital investments to achieve economies of scale for efficient operations;
c) Require highly specialized or advanced technology which necessitates technology transfer and proven
production techniques in operations;
d) Characterized by strong backward and forward linkages with most industries existing in the country,
and
e) Generate substantial foreign exchange savings through import substitution and collateral foreign
exchange earnings through export of part of the output that will result with the establishment,
expansion or development of the industry.
Section 11. Compliance with Environmental Standards. - All industrial enterprises regardless of
nationality of ownership shall comply with existing rules and regulations to protect and conserve the
environment and meet applicable environmental standards.
Section 12. Consistent Government Action. - No agency, instrumentality or political subdivision of the
Government shall take any action on conflict with or which will nullify the provisions of this Act, or any
certifcate or authority granted hereunder.
Section 13. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - NEDA, in consultation with BOI, SEC and other
government agencies concerned, shall issue the rules and regulations to implement this Act within one
hundred and twenty (120) days after its effectivity. A copy of such rules and regulations shall be
furnished the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.
Section 14. Administrative Sanctions. - A person who violates any provision of this Act or of the terms
and conditions of registration or of the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, or aids or abets in
any manner any violation shall be subject to a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000).
If the offense is committed by a juridical entity, it shall be subject to a fine in an amount not exceeding
of 1% of total paid-in capital but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000). The president and/or
officials responsible therefor shall also be subject to a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000).
In addition to the foregoing, any person, firm or juridical entity involved shall be subject to forfeiture of
all benefits granted under this Act.
SEC shall have the power to impose administrative sanctions as provided herein for any violation of this
Act or its implementing rules and regulations.
Section 15. Transitory Provisions. - Prior to effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations of this
Act, the provisions of Book II of Executive Order 226 and its implementing rules and regulations shall
remain in force.
During the initial transitory period of thirty-six (36) months after issuance of the Rules and Regulations to
implement this Act, the Transitory Foreign Investment Negative List shall consist of the following:
A. List A:
1. All areas of investment in which foreign ownership is limited by mandate of Constitution and specific
laws.
B. List B:
1. Manufacture, repair, storage and/or distribution of firearms, ammunitions, lethal weapons, military
ordinance, explosives, pyrotechnics and similar materials required by law to be licensed by and under
the continuing regulation of the Department of National Defense; unless such manufacturing or repair
activity is specifically authorized with a substantial export component, to a non-Philippine national by
the Secretary of National Defense;
2. Manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs; all forms of gambling; nightclubs, bars, beerhouses,
dance halls; sauna and steam bathhouses, massage clinic and other like activities regulated by law
because of risks they may pose to public health and morals;
3. Small and medium-size domestic market enterprises with paid-in equity capital or less than the
equivalent of US$500,000, unless they involve advanced technology as determined by the Department of
Science and Technology, and
4. Export enterprises which utilize raw materials from depleting natural resources, and with paid-in
equity capital of less than the equivalent US$500,000.
C. List C:
1. Import and wholesale activities not integrated with production or manufacture of goods;
2. Services requiring a license or specific authorization, and subject to continuing regulations by national
government agencies other than BOI and SEC which at the time of effectivity of this Act are restricted to
Philippine nationals by existing administrative regulations and practice of the regulatory agencies
concerned: Provided, That after effectivity of this Act, no other services shall be additionally subjected to
such restrictions on nationality of ownership by the corresponding regulatory agencies, and such
restrictions once removed shall not be reimposed; and
3. Enterprises owned in the majority by a foreign licensor and/or its affiliates for the assembly,
processing or manufacture of goods for the domestic market which are being produced by a Philippine
national as of the date of effectivity of this Act under a technology, know-how and/or brand name
license from such licensor during the term of the license agreement: Provided, That, the license is duly
registered with the Central Bank and/or the Technology Transfer Board and is operatively in force as of
the date of effectivity of this Act.
NEDA shall make the enumeration as appropriate of the areas of the investment covered in this
Transitory Foreign Investment Negative List and publish the Negative List in full at the same time as, or
prior to, the publication of the rules and regulations to implement this Act.
The areas of investment contained in List C above shall be reserved to Philippine nationals only during
the transitory period. The inclusion of any of them in the regular Negative List will require determination
by NEDA after due public hearings that such inclusion is warranted under the criteria set forth in Section
8 and 9 hereof.
Section 16. Repealing Clause. - Articles forty-four (44) to fifty-six (56) of Book II of Executive Order No.
226 are hereby repealed.
All other laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 17. Separability. - If any part or section of this Act is declared unconstitutional for any reason
whatsoever, such declaration shall not in any way affect the other parts or sections of this Act.
Section 18. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after approval and publication in two
(2) newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved: June 13, 1991
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 185
AN ACT TO IMPLEMENT SECTION FIFTEEN OF ARTICLE XIV OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
Section 1. In implementation of Section fifteen of Article XIV of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private land, for use by
him as his residence, subject to the provisions of this Act.
Sec. 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the
legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a
maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of
rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of
the privilege herein granted; Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall
not exceed the maximum herein fixed.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled
to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those
already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.
Sec. 3. A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two lots which should be situated in
different municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines; Provided, That the total area thereof shall
not exceed one thousand square meters in the case of urban lands or one hectare in the case of rural
lands for use by him as urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land, and vice versa.
Sec. 4. As used in this Act (a) A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
(b) Urban areas shall include:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) In their entirety, all municipal jurisdictions which, whether designated as chartered cities, provincial
capitals or not, have a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square kilometer;
(2) Poblaciones or central districts of municipalities and cities which have a population density of at least
500 persons per square kilometer; chanrobles virtual law library
(3) Poblaciones or central districts (not included in 1 and 2) regardless of population size which have the
following:
(a) Street pattern, i.e., network of streets in either at parallel or right angle orientation;
(b) At least six establishments (commercial, manufacturing, recreational and/or personal services); and
(c) At least three of the following:
1. A town hall, church or chapel with religious services at least once a month;
2. A public plaza, park or cemetery;
3. A market place or building where trading activities are carried on at least once a week; and
4. A public building like a school, hospital, puericulture and health center or library.
(4) Barangays having at least 1,000 inhabitants which meet the conditions set forth in sub-paragraph (3)
of paragraph (b) above, and in which the occupation of the inhabitants is predominantly other than
farming or fishing.
(5) All other areas of the Philippines which do not meet the conditions in the preceding definition of
urban areas shall be considered as rural areas.
Sec. 5. Transfer as a mode of acquisition of private land under this Act refers to either voluntary or
involuntary sale, devise or donation. Involuntary sales shall include sales on tax delinquency,
foreclosures and executions of judgment.
Sec. 6. In addition to the requirements provided for in other laws for the registration of titles to lands,
no private land shall be transferred under this Act, unless the transferee shall submit to the register of
deeds of the province or city where the property is located a sworn statement showing the date and
place of his birth; the names and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and children, if any; the area,
the location and the mode of acquisition of his land-holdings in the Philippines, if any; his intention to
reside permanently in the Philippines; the date he lost his Philippine citizenship and the country of which
he is presently a citizen; and such other information as may be required Section 8 of this Act.
Sec. 7. The transferee shall not use the lands acquired under this Act for any purpose other than for his
residence. Violations of this Section, any misrepresentation in the sworn statement required under
Section 6 hereof, any acquisition through fraudulent means or failure to reside permanently in the land
acquired within two years from the acquisition thereof, except when such failure is caused by force
majeure, shall, in addition to any liability under the Revised Penal Code and deportation in appropriate
cases, be penalized by forfeiture of such lands and their improvements to the National Government. For
this purpose the Solicitor General or his representative shall institute escheat proceedings.
Any transferee liable under this Section shall moreover be forever barred from further availing of the
privilege granted under this Act.
Sec. 8. The Minister of Justice shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act. Such rules and regulations shall take effect fifteen days following its publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
Sec. 9. If any part of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not thereby
affected shall remain in full force and effect.
Sec. 10. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: March 16, 1982
1) Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and
taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known
as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an
unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution.
ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is
nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral
domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the
rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely
gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small
scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and
exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They
are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by
the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.
2) DENR et al VS. YAP et al
On November 10, 1978, then President Marcos issued Proc. No. 1801 declaring Boracay Island, among
other islands, caves and peninsulas in the Philippines, as tourist zones and marine reserves under the
administration of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). President Marcos later approved the issuance
of PTA Circular 3-82 dated September 3, 1982, to implement Proclamation No. 1801.
Claiming that Proclamation No. 1801 and PTA Circular No 3-82 precluded them from filing an application
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes, respondents-claimants
Mayor . Yap, Jr., and others filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan
In their petition, respondents-claimants alleged that Proc. No. 1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 raised
doubts on their right to secure titles over their occupied lands. They declared that they themselves, or
through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation in Boracay since June 12, 1945, or earlier since time immemorial. They
declared their lands for tax purposes and paid realty taxes on them. Respondents-claimants posited that
Proclamation No. 1801 and its implementing Circular did not place Boracay beyond the commerce of
man. Since the Island was classified as a tourist zone, it was susceptible of private ownership. Under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, they had the right to have the lots registered in their names through
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.
The Republic, through the OSG, opposed the petition for declaratory relief. The OSG countered that
Boracay Island was an unclassified land of the public domain. It formed part of the mass of lands
classified as public forest, which was not available for disposition pursuant to Section 3(a) of the
Revised Forestry Code, as amended. The OSG maintained that respondents-claimants reliance on PD No.
1801 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 was misplaced. Their right to judicial confirmation of title was governed
by Public Land Act and Revised Forestry Code, as amended. Since Boracay Island had not been classified
as alienable and disposable, whatever possession they had cannot ripen into ownership.
On July 14, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents-claimants, declaring that, PD
1810 and PTA Circular No. 3-82 Revised Forestry Code, as amended.
The OSG moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied. The Republic then appealed to the CA.
On In 2004, the appellate court affirmed in toto the RTC decision. Again, the OSG sought reconsideration
but it was similarly denied. Hence, the present petition under Rule 45.
On May 22, 2006, during the pendency the petition in the trial court, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
issued Proclamation No. 1064 classifying Boracay Island partly reserved forest land (protection purposes)
and partly agricultural land (alienable and disposable).
On August 10, 2006, petitioners-claimants Sacay,and other landowners in Boracay filed with this Court
an original petition for prohibition, mandamus, and nullification of Proclamation No. 1064. They allege
that the Proclamation infringed on their prior vested rights over portions of Boracay. They have been
in continued possession of their respective lots in Boracay since time immemorial.
On November 21, 2006, this Court ordered the consolidation of the two petitions
ISSUE: the main issue is whether private claimants have a right to secure titles over their occupied
portions in Boracay.
HELD: petitions DENIED. The CA decision is reversed
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain
prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public forest under PD No. 705.
PD No. 705 issued by President Marcos categorized all unclassified lands of the public domain as public
forest. Section 3(a) of PD No. 705 defines a public forest as a mass of lands of the public domain which
has not been the subject of the present system of classification for the determination of which lands are
needed for forest purpose and which are not. Applying PD No. 705, all unclassified lands, including
those in Boracay Island, are ipso facto considered public forests. PD No. 705, however, respects titles
already existing prior to its effectivity.
The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, such
classification modified by the 1973 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution
classification with one addition: national parks. Of these, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior
to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively
classified under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.
inscription may be resorted only when there is no other means of registering an interest or right, and
that section 57 of the same statute provides for the registration of a documented sale involving a titled
property and that the register of deeds acted negligently in registering the document without the formal
legal requisites. Respondent de los Santos countered that he had tried to avail himself of Section 57 by
requesting Junio to surrender his owners dusplicate certificate of title but since the latter refused to do
so he was compelled to present an adverse claim pursuant to section 110 of the LRA.
Issue: Whether or not respondents acts were appropriate
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties
Held: The court ruled that considering that Junio had refused to surrender the title; De Los Santos could
not avail of Section 57. Hence the latter correctly resorted to the annotation of an adverse claim.
Further, the court found that the genuineness and due execution of the sale between the parties is in
controversy. Moreover, although the grounds relied upon by Junio for the cancellation of the adverse
claim were unmeritous, it behoved the lower court to have conducted a speedy hearing upon the
question of validity of the adverse claim. The case was remanded to the RTC for hearing and for passing
upon the controversy on the merits between Junio and De Los Santos.
4) Arceo v. CA GR No. 81401. 18 May 1990.
A&E

A positive act declaring land as alienable and disposable is required. In keeping with the presumption of
Esteban
State ownership, the Court has time and again emphasized that there must be a positive act of the
government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action; Jose +
Sotera Antonio Lorenzo Pedro
Blue respondents Virginia
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The applicant
may also secure a certification from the government that the land claimed to have been possessed for Romeo Cesar Manuel Rodolfo Zenaida Carmelita
the required number of years is alienable and disposable. The burden of proof in overcoming such Red and Virginia petitioners
presumption is on the person applying for registration (or claiming ownership), who must prove that the
land subject of the application is alienable or disposable. Sps Abdon Arceo and Escolastica Geronimo were owners of 4 unregistered parcels of land in
Bulacan (6 involved, only 4 disputed).
Arceos executed a deed of donation inter vivos (J) bestowing property to Jose, who paid taxes
In the case at bar, no such proclamation, executive order, administrative action, report, statute, or
thereon and took personal possession.
certification was presented to the Court. The records are bereft of evidence showing that, prior to 2006, o Another deed of donation (T) disposed more properties in favor of Jose
the portions of Boracay occupied by private claimants were subject of a government proclamation that Later, the Arceos supposedly signed a deed of donation mortis causa revoking J (X) and giving
the land is alienable and disposable. Matters of land classification or reclassification cannot be assumed. away the properties to all his grandchildren including Jose.
They call for proof. o This was only notarized 3 years later, after Escolastica died.
Virginia and her children filed with the cadastral court an application to register the lots in
Proc. No. 1801 cannot be deemed the positive act needed to classify Boracay Island as alienable and their names using J and T.
disposable land. If President Marcos intended to classify the island as alienable and disposable or forest, o Pedro et al opposed this, claiming that they were each entitled to 1/3 thereof.
o Cadastral court rejected all of these and instead disposed of the property
or both, he would have identified the specific limits of each, as President Arroyo did in Proclamation No.
according to the law on intestate succession.
1064. This was not done in Proclamation No. 1801. o CA affirmed.
Virginia et al: cadastral court had no jurisdiction, it may only confirm existing title, and that lot
3) Junio vs. De Los Santos GR No. L-35744 ; September 28, 1984 should have been granted to them based on OCENP since 1941, or by acquisitive prescription.
o They also asserted J and T.
Wenceslao Junio is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at Bayambang, Pangasinan with an o Pedro et al: cadastral had jurisdiction, issue of prescription was never brought and
area of 7.65 hectares covered by TCT No. 1004. An Affidavit of Adverse Claim was executed by J had been rescinded.
respondent Feliciano de los Santos, claiming one third undivided portion of Junios property by virtue of Parties are not quarreling over genuineness of documents, but of the dates thereof.
a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Junio. Junio then denies having sold any portion of his o Pedro et al: J 27 September 1941, not 27 October 1941; X 3 October 1941
o Virginia et al: J 27 October 1941; X 3 October 1941 and assuming it came
property to De Los Santos, hence his petition for the cancellation of said adverse claim. Junio disputes
earlier, was notarized only in 1944.
the appropriateness of the annotation alleging that under section 110 of the land registration act such
ISSUES + RULING:
**Who has right over lots in question? Virginia et al.
Does the cadastral court have jurisdiction over the matter? YES.
Act 496 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional
trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely
as a cadastral court.
o This aimed to avoid multiplicity of suits.
o Where the issue, say, of ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right
of registration, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction over
it
Had Virgina et al acquired property through prescription? NO.
Virginia et al presented 4 events:
(1) Joses entry in 1941 until his death in 1970, and work done thereon;
(2) Upon his death, Virginia et al divided the same through extrajudicial
partition;
(3) Taxes paid by Jose from 1941-1970; and
(4) Pedro et al never had them ousted from 1941-1970.
They were supposing that land became co-owned after death of grandparents but in order for
prescription to set in in that context, the following must concur:
(1) clear showing that claimant has repudiated co-ownership;
(2) claimant has made known to rest of co-owners that he is assuming exclusive
ownership;
(3) clear and convincing evidence thereof; and
(4) OCENP
o The fact that Jose occupied it in 1941does not amount to adverse possession since
he was merely occupying it as a co-owner.
o They did not make the extrajudicial partition known to Pedro et al.
HOWEVER, petition was granted based on J.
o Other than claims by Pedro et al that it had been revoked, J appears to have been
executed in compliance with legal requirements, i.e., as to form and acceptance.
o While the cadastral court was supposed to have attributed fraud on Jose in making
Abdon sign (Pedr: Abdon thought it was a deed of sale of another land), there is no
evidence to that effect.
As to T, CA found it defective because it was not signed by Abdon Arceo after the death of his
wife on September 1942 and does not contain the acceptance . . . by Jose Arceo and such is
binding upon SC.
A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on account of officiousness,
failure by the donee to comply with charges imposed in the donation, or by reason of
ingratitude.
DISPOSITION: Granted.
5) Baranda vs. Gustilo GR No. L-81163 ; September 26, 1988
This case has its origins in a petition for reconstitution of title filed with the court of first instance of Iloilo
involving a parcel of land known as Lot No. 5417 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by Original
certificate title No. 5406 in the name of Romana Hitalia. Eventually, such original certificate was
cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia and Eduardo Baranda. The
court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria Gotera and Susana Silao refused to honow
on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the same lot. The court then found the latters
TCT fraudulently acquired and ordered that a writ of possession be carried out. A writ for demolition was
then issued. Perez and Gotera filed for a petition for certiorari and prohibition but was denied until
denial was final. Petitioners Baranda and Hitalia contended that implementation of the writs of
possession and demolition and that the civil case was filed only to delay the implementation of said
writs. The court then issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo. Thereafter, the
court issued a resolution denying with finality the motion for reconsideration and another resolution was
issued for the execution of judgements. The RTC of Iloilo presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued an
order declaring TCT No. 25772 null and void and TCT No. 106098 valid and subsisting and ordered the
register of deeds to register such declaration to which acting register of deeds Avito Saclauso complied.
However, a notice of lis pendens on account or by reason of the separate civil case still pending was
carried out and annotated in the new certificates issued to the petitioners which prompted the latter to
file for a motion to order the trial court to reinstate the order directing the acting register of deeds to
cancel the notice of lis pendens. Judge Gustilo granted the motion and directed the register of deeds to
cancel the lis pendens. Respondent acting register of deeds then filed a motion for reconsideration
contending that such notice cannot be cancelled due to the existence of a pending civil case.
Issue: What is the nature of the duty of the register of deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens
in a certificate of title?
Whether or not the pendency of the appeal in the civil case prevents the court from cancelling the notice
of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of petitioner
Held: Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the respondent acting register of deeds stant
that the notice of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of the petitioners cannot be cancelled on the
ground of an existence of a pending civil case. Further, the court ruled that under section 10 and 117 of
PD No. 1529, the function of a register of deeds is purely ministerial and that the respondent acting
register of deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent
judges order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the
petitioners.
6) ALMIROL VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN (G.R. NO. L-22486, MARCH 20, 1968)
Teodoro Almirol bought a parcel of land in Esperanza, Agusan from Arsenio Abalo.
Almirol then went to the Register of Deeds (ROD) of Agusan to have the Deed of Sale registered and to
secure a transfer certificate in his name. However, the ROD refused. It was based on the ground that the
said property was conjugal and it is necessary that both spouses sign the document. However, since the
wife was dead when the sale was made, the husband cannot dispose the whole property without first
liquidating and transferring it in his name and the heirs by means of extrajudicial settlement. The
consent of the heirs must also be procured. Aggrieved, Almirol went to the RTC of Agusan to have the
ROD be compelled to register the Deed of Sale and issue the transfer certificate of title.
However, the RTC dismissed the petition saying that the adequate remedy is the one provided for under
Sec. 4 of RA 1151 that is to submit and certify the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Hence, petition.
ISSUE: Was the RTC correct?
RULING: Yes. But the ROD should have registered it still. Whether a document is valid or not, is not for
the ROD to determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. However,
where any party in interest does not agree with the ROD, the question shall be submitted to the
Commissioner of Land Registration (Sec. 4, RA 1151).
The lower courts resolution was affirmed.
7) Krivenko vs. Court of Appeals GR No. L-630 ; November 15, 1947
Alexander A. Krivenko, an alien, bought residential lot from the Magdalena Estate Inc. in December of
1941 to which the registration 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 bought the case to the court of first instance in
Manila by means of a consulta and that the court rendered judgment sustaining the refusal of the
register of deeds from which Krivenko appealed to the court.
Issue: Whether or not an alien under the Philippine Constitution may acquire residential land
Held: No, the court stated that under Article XII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, public agricultural
lands include residential, commercial and industrial lands and that natural resources with the exception
of public agricultural land shall not be alienated. Further, with respect to the public agricultural lands,
their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. Moreover, Section 5 of Article XIII provides that in cases of
hereditary succession, no private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned except to individuals,
corporations, associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of public domain in the Philippines. The
court stated that it must be observed that prior to the Constitution, under Section 24 of the Public Land
Act, aliens could acquire public agricultural lands used for industrial or residential purposes but after the
Constitution and under Section 23 of the Commonwealth Act No. 1411, the right of aliens to acquire
such kind of lands is completely stricken out.
8) Halili vs Court of Appeals GR No. 113539 ; March 12, 1998
Simeon de Guzman, an American citizen, died sometime in 1968 leaving real properties int he
Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow, Helen Meyers Guzman and his son David Ray Guzman both
of whom are also American citizens. On August 9, 1989, Helen executed a deed of quitclaim transferring
and conveying David all her rights, titles and interests in and over the six parcels of land which the two of
them inherited from Simeon. Among said parcels of land is one situated in Bagbaguin, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan covered by TCT No. 170514 which was cancelled due to the registration of the quitclaim and
TCT No. 120259 was issued in the name of David. David then sold said parcel of land to Emiliano Cataniag
upon which the certificate was cancelled and another was issued in the latters name. Petitioners, who
are owners of the adjoining lot, filed a complaint questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two
conveyances and claiming ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption under Article 162
of the Civil Code.
Issue: Whether or not the sale the act of conveyance between Helen Guzman and David Ray Guzman and
between the latter and Emiliano Cataniag is valid
Held: Helen Guzmans deed of quitclaim which she assigned transferred and conveyed to David all her
rights collided with the Constitution under Article XII, Section 7. Further, the court ruled that since the
disputed land is now owned by Cataniag, a Filipino citizen, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be
assailed since the objective of the constitutional provision to keep our land in Filipino hands has been
served.
9) LANTINO V. CO LIONG CHONG (1990)
Co Liong Chong entered a contract with Llantino Sps for a lease of land for a period of 60 years. Note that
Co Liong Chong was naturalized as a Filipino citizen (changed name to Juan Molina).Llantino sps wanted
to recover the property from Co Liong Chong.
Issue: WON the lease contract is INvalid because at the time of its execution, he was a Chinese?
Held: NO. it was VALID. Lease contracts with Aliens allowed since an alien's stay in RP is temporary, they
may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not prohibited by the constitution -the
lease contract is valid as long as there are no circumstances attendant to its execution which are used to
circumvent the constitutional prohibition such as an option to buy the contract or a lease for more than
50 years.An exception to this exception is when the alien subsequently acquires Philippine Citizenship
10) Corporate Law Case Digest: Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator Of Davao V. LRC (1957)
Lesson Applicable: Exploitation of Natural Resources (Corporate Law)
October 4, 1954: Mateo L. Rodis, a Filipino citizen and resident of the City of Davao, executed a deed of
sale of a parcel of land in favor of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao Inc.(Roman), a
corporation sole organized and existing in accordance with Philippine Laws, with Msgr. Clovis Thibault, a
Canadian citizen, as actual incumbent.
The Register of Deeds of Davao for registration, having in mind a previous resolution of the CFI in
Carmelite Nuns of Davao were made to prepare an affidavit to the effect that 60% of the members of
their corp. were Filipino citizens when they sought to register in favor of their congregation of deed of
donation of a parcel of land, required it to submit a similar affidavit declaring the same.
June 28, 1954: Roman in the letter expressed willingness to submit an affidavit but not in the same tenor
as the Carmelite Nuns because it had five incorporators while as a corporation sole it has only one and it
was ownership through donation and this was purchased
As the Register of the Land Registration Commissioner (LRC) : Deeds has some doubts as to the
registerability, the matter was referred to the Land Registration Commissioner en consulta for resolution
(section 4 of Republic Act No. 1151)
LRC: In view of the provisions of Section 1 and 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution, the vendee
was not qualified to acquire private lands in the Philippines in the absence of proof that at least 60 per
centum of the capital, property, or assets of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc.,
was actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens, there being no question that the present
incumbent of the corporation sole was a Canadian citizen ordered the Registered Deeds of Davao to
deny registration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of compliance with such condition action for
mandamus was instituted by Roman alleging the land is held in true for the benefit of the Catholic
population of a place
ISSUE: W/N Roman is qualified to acquire private agricultural lands in the Philippines pursuant to the
provisions of Article XIII of the Constitution
HELD: YES. Register of Deeds of the City of Davao is ordered to register the deed of sale. A corporation
sole consists of one person only, and his successors (who will always be one at a time), in some particular
station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages,
particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the
king is a sole corporation; so is a bishop, or dens, distinct from their several chapters corporation sole
composed of only one persons, usually the head or bishop of the diocese, a unit which is not subject to
expansion for the purpose of determining any percentage whatsoever only the administrator and not
the owner of the temporalities located in the territory comprised by said corporation sole and such
temporalities are administered for and on behalf of the faithful residing in the diocese or territory of the
corporation sole has no nationality and the citizenship of the incumbent and ordinary has nothing to do
with the operation, management or administration of the corporation sole, nor effects the citizenship of
the faithful connected with their respective dioceses or corporation sole.
Constitution demands that in the absence of capital stock, the controlling membership should be
composed of Filipino citizens. (Register of Deeds of Rizal vs. Ung Sui Si Temple) undeniable proof that the
members of the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith within the territory of Davao are predominantly Filipino
citizens presented evidence to establish that the clergy and lay members of this religion fully covers the
percentage of Filipino citizens required by the Constitution fact that the law thus expressly authorizes
the corporations sole to receive bequests or gifts of real properties (which were the main source that the
friars had to acquire their big haciendas during the Spanish regime), is a clear indication that the
requisite that bequests or gifts of real estate be for charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, was,
in the opinion of the legislators, considered sufficient and adequate protection against the revitalization
of religious landholdings.as in respect to the property which they hold for the corporation, they stand in
position of TRUSTEES and the courts may exercise the same supervision as in other cases of trust
11) REGISTER OF DEEDS vs UNG SIU SI TEMPLE GR. No. L-6776 May 21,1955
A Filipino citizen executed a deed of donation in favor of the Ung Siu Si Temple, an unregistered religious
organization that operated through three trustees all of Chinese nationality. The Register of Deeds
refused to record the deed of donation executed in due form arguing that the Consitution provides that
acquisition of land is limited to Filipino citizens, or to corporations or associations at least 60% of which is
owned by such citizens.
ISSUE: Whether a deed of donation of a parcel of land executed in favor of a religious organization
whose founder, trustees and administrator are Chinese citizens should be registered or not.
RULING: Sec. 5, Art. 13 of the Constitution provides that save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. The Constitution does not
make any exception in favor of religious associations. The fact that appellant has no capital stock does
not exempt it from the Constitutional inhibition, since its member are of foreign nationality. The purpose
of the 60% requirement is to ensure that corporations or associations allowed to acquire agricultural
lands or to exploit natural resources shall be controlled by Filipinos; and the spirit of the Constitution
demands that in the absence of capital stock, controlling membership should be composed of Filipino
citizens. As to the complaint that the disqualification under Art. 13 of the Constitution violated the
freedom of religion, the Court was not convinced that land tenure is indispensable to the free exercise
and enjoyment of religious profession or worship.
12) De Castro vs. Tan GR No. L-31956 ; April 30, 1984
Filomena Gerona de Castro sold a 1,258 square meter residential lot in Bulan, Sorsogan to Tan Tai, a
Chinese. In 1956, Tan Tai died leaving his widow To O. Hiap, and children Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, Tan
Teng Bio, Dolores Tan and Rosario Tan Hua Ing. Before the death of Tan Tai on August 11, 1956, one of
his sons, Joaquin became a naturalized Filipino. Six years after Tan Tais death, his heirs executed an
extra judicial settlement of estate with sale whereby the disputed lot in its entirely was allotted to
Joaquin. Petitioner de Castro then commenced a suit against the heirs of Tan Tai for annulment of the
sale for alleged violation of the 1935 Constitution prohibiting the sale to aliens.
Issue:
Whether or not the deed of sale can be annulled because of Joaquin Tengs qualification to own the
residential land in dispute
Held:
No, the court ruled that as per the doctrine of pari delicto, petitioner De Castro cannot have the sale
annulled and recover the lot she herself sold. Further, while the vendee was an alien at the time of the
sale, the land since become the property of respondent Joaquin Teng, a naturalized Filipino citizen, who
is constitutionally qualified to own land.
14) RELLOSA v. GAW CHEE HUN G.R. No. L-1411. September 29, 1953
Ponente: J. Bautista Angelo
The In Pari Delicto doctrine provides that the proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or
at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the
property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation.
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
ISSUES: 1. Whether the sale was void because it is against the constitution 2. Whether the petitioner
have the sale declared null and void and recover the property considering the effect of the law governing
rescission of contracts
HELD: 1) Yes, the court held that under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or public
agricultural lands, including residential lands. This matter has been once more submitted to the court for
deliberation, but the ruling was reaffirmed. This ruling fully disposes of the question touching on the SUMMARY:
validity of the sale of the property herein involved.
1) CRUZ V. SEC of DENR
2) No, even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution 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.

15) PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE G.R. No. L-17587. September 12, 1967

DOCTRINE: Even if the contract appears to be valid, if the provisions is against a constitutional
2) SEC of DENR v. YAP
prohibition, the same should be considered null and void.

Justina Santos executed on a contract of lease in favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased
to him and another portion fronting Florentino Torres street. The lease was for 50 years, although the
lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time from the agreement.
On December 21 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 option, written in Tagalog,
imposed 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 Court of First Instance 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 executed on August 24 and 29, 1959, she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had
entered into with Wong, but in a codicil of a later date (November 4, 1959) 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.
CA 926-Public Land Act- homestead system and made provisions for judicial and
administrative confirmation of imperfect titles and for the sale or lease of public lands. Title
to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government and that the
government's title to public land sprung from the Treaty of Paris and other subsequent
treaties between Spain and the US.
Public land- all lands of the public domain whose title still remaine din the govt' and are
thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property
of the government and the friar lands.
1) A positive act of declaring land as alienable and disposable is required.
2) Ankron and De Aldecoa did not make the whole of Boracay or portions of it, agricultural
lands.
Ankron and De Aldecoa attaches only to land registration cases brought under the provisions
of Act 926 or more specifically those cases dealing with judicial and administrative
confirmation of imperfect titles.

ISSUE: Whether the contracts involving Wong were valid
HELD: No, 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 rights the sum total of which make up ownership. If this can be done, then
the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.
SEC 6 of CA 141 gave the Executive Department the exclusive prerogative to classify or
reclassify public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest.The courts no longer had
the authority to determine the classification of lands of the public domain- There was no
opportunity for teh courts to resolve if the land the Boracay occupants are now claiming
were agricultural lands.
3) Private claimants' continued possession under Act No. 926 does not create a presumption
that the land is alienable.
Except for lands already covered by existing titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064. Such unclassified lands are considered public
forest under PD 705.

All forested areas in public lands are declared forest reserves.

GR 167707-PETITION GRANTED-petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of CA
granting the petition for declaratory relied filed by Mayor Yap and ordered the survey of
Boracay for titling purposes.
GR 173775- PETITION DISMISSED- petition for prohibition, mandamus and nullification of
Proclamation 10645 by Pres. Arroyo classifying Boracay into reserved forest and agricultural
land.
3) JUNIO V. DELOS SANTOS
Affidavit of Adverse Claim executed by Feliciano de los Sanos claiming 1/3 undivided portion
of petitioner's property which claim was annotated on petitioner's title.
Considering that petitioner had refused to surrender the title, private respondent could not
avail of SEC 57. Hence, the latter correctly resorted to the annotation of an adverse claim.
SEC 111 can be availed of only if controversial issues are no involved. In this case, the
genuineness and due execution of the sale between the parties is in controversy.
The CFI/RTC as a Land Registration Court can hear cases otherwise litigable only in ordinary
civil actions, since they are COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION and could entertain and
dispose of the validity or invalidity of respondent's adverse claim, with a view to determining
whether petitioner is entitled or not to the relief that he seeks.
CASES REMANDED to RTC
4) ARCEO V. CA
SEC 2 Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of RTC, sitting as a land registration
court, is no longer as limited as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration law. It
eliminated the distinction between the general jurisidiction vested in the RTC and the limited
jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court.
The LIMITED JURISDICTION RULE governing land registration courts is subjec to recognized
exceptions
1) where the parties mutually agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues
for determination
2) where they have been given full opportunity to present their evidence
3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record and is convinced that the
same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon such controversial issues.
Where the issue of ownership is tied up with the question of right of registration, the
cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction over it,in this case, where both
parties rely on their respective exhibits to defeat one another's claims, registration would not
be possible or would be unduly prolonged unless the court first decided it.
For PRESCRIPTION to set in:
1) there is a clear showing that the claimant has repudiated the co-ownership
2) he has made known to the rest of the co-owners that he is assuming exclusive ownership
over the property
3) there is clear and convincing evidence thereof
4) his possession is open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
A valid donation, once accepted, become irrevocable.
The disposition under exhibit J in favor of Jose whould be respected.
The decision appealed from is SET ASIDE.
PETITION GRANTED.
5) BARANDA and HITALIA V. HON. JUDGE GUSTILO- Register of Deeds
The Duties of the Register of Deeds are purely ministerial under Act 496, therefore she must
register all orders, judgment, resolutions of this Cour and that of Honorable Supreme Court.
lis pendens- he could rest secure that he would not lose the property or any part of it. It is a
warning to prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular property is in litigation.
SEC 77 of PD 1529- Cancellation of lis pendens- Before final judgment, a notice of lis pendens
may be cancelled upon Order of the Court after proper showing that teh notice is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the
party who caused it to be registered. It may also be cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon
verified petition of the party who caused the registration thereof.
SEC 10 PD 1529- It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an
instrument presented for registration dealing wih real or personal property which complies
with all the requisites for registration. If the instrument is not registrable, he shall fortwith
deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the
ground or reasons therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance
with SEC 117 of this Decree.
SEC 117- When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken
or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument
presented to him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the
action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question
shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the
party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
6) ALMIROL v. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN
Registration was refused by the Register of Deeds
CONJUGAL PROPERTY- namatay bago maganap ang sale so di nakapirma si spouse
To effect the registration of the aforesaid deed of absolute Sale, it is necessary that the
property be first liquidated and transferred in the name of the surviving spouse and the heirs
of the deceased wife by means of extrajudicial settlement or partition and that the consent
of such other heir or heirs must be procured by means of another document ratifying this
sale executed by their father.
Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register
of Deeds to decide, but a cour of competent jurisdiction.
Registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards.
SEC 4 RA 1151- when the register of deeds is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken with
respect to any deed or other instrument presented to him for registration, all that he is
supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the Commissioner of Land
Registration who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be
taken on the doubtful question.
The administrative remedy must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can have
recourse to the courts.
RESOLUTION OF THE LOWER COURT IS AFFIRMED
7) KRIVENKO V. REGISTER OF DEEDS
ART 13 SEC 1- shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
at least 60 per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens.
Public agricultural lands (can be alienated) includes residential lands.
Public agricultural land- general (not timber nor mineral) and particular (residential,
commercial and industrial) meaning
SEC 60 CA 141- lands may only be leased, but not sold, to aliens, and the lease granted shall
only be valid while the land is used for the purposes referred to.
SEC 5 ART 13- 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.
POLICY OF NATIONALIZATION
NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO ALIENS
RA 133- mortagage of private real property of any kind in favor of aliens but with a
qualification consisting of expressly prohibting aliens to bid or take part in any sale of such
real property as a consequence of the mortgage.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.PETITION DISMISSED- Under the Constitution aliens may not acquire
private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands.
8) HALILI V. CA
The transfer of an interest in a piece of land to an alien may no longer be assailed on
constitutional grounds after the entire parcel has been sold to a qualified citizen.
What is the effect of a subsequent sale by the disqualified alien vendee to a qualified Filipino
citizen?
If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it
to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the
transferee is rendered valid.
The disputed land is now owned by private respondent Cataniag, a Filipino citizen, the prior
invalid transfer can no longer be assailed.
PETITION DENIED.
9) LLANTINO V. CO LIONG CHONG
The lower court correcly ruled that the defendant-appellee Chong had at the time of the
execution of the contract, the right to hold by lease the property involved in the case
although at the time of the execution of the contract, he was still a Chinese national.
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.
Even assuming that the subject contract is prohibited, the same can no longer be questioned
presently upon the acqusiition by the private respondent of Filipino citizenship. It was held
that sale of a residential land to an alien which is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino
citizen is valid.
DECISION AFFIRMED.
10) ROMAN CATHOLIC V. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION
PETITION GRANTED.The resolution of the Land Registration Commission holding that the
vendee is not qualified to acquire lands in the Philippines in the absence of proof that at least
60 per centum of the capital, properties or assets of the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Administrator of Davao, Inc. is actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens, and denying
the regisration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of compliance with such requisite,
is hereby reversed.
PETITION DISMISSED.
14) RELLOSA V. GAW CHEE HUN
Can petitioner have the sale declared null and void and recover the property considering the
effect of the law governing rescission of contracts? NO. 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.
A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal
objects carried out.
IN PARI DELICTO

11) REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL V. UNG SUI SI TEMPLE There are at present two ways by which this situation may be remedied:

The fact that the appellant religious organizations has no capital stock does not suffice to 1) action for reversion- authorized by the Public Land Act
escape the Constitutional inhibition, since it is admitted that its members are of foreign
2) escheat to the estate- may be instituted as a consequence of a violation of ART 13 SEC 5
nationality. To permit religious associations controlled by non-Filipinos to acquire agricultural
CONSTI- prohibits transfers of private agricultural lands to aliens
lands would be to drive the opening wedge to revive alien religious land holdings in this
country.
We hold that the sale in question is NULL and VOID but plaintiff is barred from taking the
present action under the principle of PARI DELICTO.
12) DE CASTRO V. TAN
15) PHIL BANKING CORP V. LUI SHE
Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the petitioner cannot have the sale annulled
and recover the lost she herself has sold. While the vendee was an alien at the time of the
Justina Santos- blind, invalid
sale, the land has since become the property, of respondent Joaquin Teng, a naturalized
Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally qualified to own land. 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
PETITION DENIED.
the contracts.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMED.
The claim of Justina Santos as rentals due to her after deducting various expenses should be
rejected as the evidence is none too clear. Wong's claim must likewise be rejected as his
13) REPUBLIC V. IAC
averment of liquidation is belied by his own admission.
Validity of a conveyance of residential land to an alien prior to his acquisition of Filipino
The contracts in question are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
citizenship by naturalization.

The conveyances were made before the 1935 Constitution went into effect, i.e., at a time
when there was no prohibition against acquisition of private agricultural lands by aliens.

The litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino.