CITIZENSHIP G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989 JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, SORSOGON CHAPTER, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SALVADOR NEE ESTUYE, respondents. J.L. Misa & Associates for petitioner. Lladoc, Huab & Associates for private respondent.

CRUZ, J.: Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988, and assumed office in due time. On October 27, 1988, the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter (hereafter, League), represented by its President, Salvador Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States on January 20, 1983. In his answer dated May 22, 1988, Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos. His naturalization, he said, was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad." He added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. He also argued that the challenge to his title should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto petition that should have been filed within ten days from his proclamation, in accordance with Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. The League, moreover, was not a proper party because it was not a voter and so could not sue under the said section. Frivaldo moved for a preliminary hearing on his affirmative defenses but the respondent Commission on Elections decided instead by its Order of January 20, 1988, to set the case for hearing on the merits. His motion for reconsideration was denied in another Order dated February 21, 1988. He then came to this Court in a petition forcertiorari and prohibition to ask that the said orders be set aside on the ground that they had been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Pending resolution of the petition, we issued a temporary order against the hearing on the merits scheduled by the COMELEC and at the same time required comments from the respondents. In their Comment, the private respondents reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected governor. They also argued that their petition in the Commission on Elections was not really for quo warranto under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. The ultimate purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as governor, his candidacy and election being null and void ab initio because of his alienage. Even if their petition were to be considered as one for quo warranto, it could not have been filed within ten days from Frivaldo's proclamation because it was only in September 1988 that they received proof of his naturalization. And assuming that the League itself was not a proper party, Estuye himself, who was suing not only for the League but also in his personal capacity, could nevertheless institute the suit by himself alone. Speaking for the public respondent, the Solicitor General supported the contention that Frivaldo was not a citizen of the Philippines and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as an American citizen. As an alien, he was disqualified from public office in the Philippines. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and the Omnibus Election Code. He also joined in the private respondent's argument that Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code was not applicable because what the League and Estuye were seeking was not only the annulment of the proclamation and election of Frivaldo. He agreed that they were also asking for the termination of Frivaldo's incumbency as governor of Sorsogon on the ground that he was not a Filipino.

In his Reply, Frivaldo insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines because his naturalization as an American citizen was not "impressed with voluntariness." In support he cited the Nottebohm Case, [(1955 I.C.J. 4; 49 A.J.I.L. 396 (1955)] where a German national's naturalization in Liechtenstein was not recognized because it had been obtained for reasons of convenience only. He said he could not have repatriated himself before the 1988 elections because the Special Committee on Naturalization created for the purpose by LOI No. 27C had not yet been organized then. His oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation. Additionally, his active participation in the 1987 congressional elections had divested him of American citizenship under the laws of the United States, thus restoring his Philippine citizenship. He ended by reiterating his prayer for the rejection of the move to disqualify him for being time-barred under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. Considering the importance and urgency of the question herein raised, the Court has decided to resolve it directly instead of allowing the normal circuitous route that will after all eventually end with this Court, albeit only after a, long delay. We cannot permit this delay. Such delay will be inimical to the public interest and the vital principles of public office to be here applied. It is true that the Commission on Elections has the primary jurisdiction over this question as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the Congress and elective provincial and city officials. However, the decision on Frivaldo's citizenship has already been made by the COMELEC through its counsel, the Solicitor General, who categorically claims that Frivaldo is a foreigner. We assume this stance was taken by him after consultation with the public respondent and with its approval. It therefore represents the decision of the COMELEC itself that we may now review. Exercising our discretion to interpret the Rules of Court and the Constitution, we shall consider the present petition as having been filed in accordance with Article IX-A Section 7, of the Constitution, to challenge the aforementioned Orders of the COMELEC. The basic question we must resolve is whether or not Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on January 18, 1988, as provincial governor of Sorsogon. All the other issues raised in this petition are merely secondary to this basic question. The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all times" and the specific requirement in Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate for local elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is running. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution. In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19, 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. The evidence shows, however, that he was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the following certification from the United States District Court, Northern District of California, as duly authenticated by Vice Consul Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA September 23, 1988 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Our records show that JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, born on October 20, 1915, was naturalized in this Court on January 20, 1983, and issued Certificate of Naturalization No. 11690178. Petition No. 280225. Alien Registration No. A23 079 270. THE DISTRICT CLERK COURT

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM L. WHITTAKER Clerk by: (Sgd.)

ARACELI V. BAREN Deputy Clerk This evidence is not denied by the petitioner. In fact, he expressly admitted it in his answer. Nevertheless, as earlier noted, he claims it was "forced" on him as a measure of protection from the persecution of the Marcos government through his agents in the United States. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing American citizenship. His feeble suggestion that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and must be rejected outright. There were many other Filipinos in the United States similarly situated as Frivaldo, and some of them subject to greater risk than he, who did not find it necessary nor do they claim to have been coerced to abandon their cherished status as Filipinos. They did not take the oath of allegiance to the United States, unlike the petitioner who solemnly declared "on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," meaning in his case the Republic of the Philippines. The martyred Ninoy Aquino heads the impressive list of those Filipinos in exile who, unlike the petitioner, held fast to their Philippine citizenship despite the perils of their resistance to the Marcos regime. The Nottebohm case cited by the petitioner invoked the international law principle of effective nationality which is clearly not applicable to the case at bar. This principle is expressed in Article 5 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws as follows: Art. 5. Within a third State a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status and of any convention in force, a third State shall, of the nationalities which any such person possesses, recognize exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected. Nottebohm was a German by birth but a resident of Guatemala for 34 years when he applied for and acquired naturalization in Liechtenstein one month before the outbreak of World War II. Many members of his family and his business interests were in Germany. In 1943, Guatemala, which had declared war on Germany, arrested Nottebohm and confiscated all his properties on the ground that he was a German national. Liechtenstein thereupon filed suit on his behalf, as its citizen, against Guatemala. The International Court of Justice held Nottebohm to be still a national of Germany, with which he was more closely connected than with Liechtenstein.

That case is not relevant to the petition before us because it dealt with a conflict between the nationality laws of two states as decided by a third state. No third state is involved in the case at bar; in fact, even the United States is not actively claiming Frivaldo as its national. The sole question presented to us is whether or not Frivaldo is a citizen of the Philippines under our own laws, regardless of other nationality laws. We can decide this question alone as sovereign of our own territory, conformably to Section 1 of the said Convention providing that "it is for each State to determine under its law who are its nationals." It is also worth noting that Nottebohm was invoking his naturalization in Liechtenstein whereas in the present case Frivaldo is rejecting his naturalization in the United States. If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. While Frivaldo does not invoke either of the first two methods, he nevertheless claims he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of a valid repatriation. He claims that by actively participating in the elections in this country, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United States. Such laws do not concern us here. The alleged forfeiture is between him and the United States as his adopted country. It should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual. Frivaldo's contention that he could not have repatriated himself under LOI 270 because the Special Committee provided for therein had not yet been constituted seems to suggest that the lack of that body rendered his repatriation unnecessary. That is far-fetched if not specious Such a conclusion would open the floodgates, as it were. It would allow all Filipinos who have renounced this country to claim back their abandoned citizenship without formally rejecting their adoptedstate and reaffirming their allegiance to the Philippines. It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken these categorical acts. He contends that by simply filing his certificate of candidacy he had, without more, already effectively recovered Philippine citizenship. But that is hardly the formal declaration the law envisions surely, Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered. If the Special Committee had not yet been convened, what that meant simply was that the petitioner had to wait until this was done, or seek naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. The argument that the petition filed with the Commission on Elections should be dismissed for tardiness is not well-taken. The herein private respondents are seeking to prevent Frivaldo from continuing to discharge his office of governor because he is disqualified from doing so as a foreigner. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged. If, say, a female legislator were to marry a foreigner during her term and by her act or omission acquires his nationality, would she have a right to remain in office simply because the challenge to her title may no longer be made within ten days from her proclamation? It has been established, and not even denied, that the evidence of Frivaldo's naturalization was discovered only eight months after his proclamation and his title was challenged shortly thereafter. This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive allegiance to another country. The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the

candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws, which is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. But once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. This country of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. The returning renegade must show, by an express and unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and love. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and petitioner JUAN G. FRIVALDO is hereby declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from serving as Governor of the Province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered to vacate his office and surrender the same to the duly elected Vice-Governor of the said province once this decision becomes final and executory. The temporary restraining order dated March 9, 1989, is LIFTED. SO ORDERED.

SPOUSES ONESIFORO and ROSARIO ALINAS, Petitioners,

G.R. No. 158040 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ.

- versus -

SPOUSES VICTOR and ELENA ALINAS, Promulgated: Respondents. April 14, 2008 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 25, 2002, and the CA Resolution[2] dated March 31, 2003, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, be reversed and set aside. The factual antecedents of the case are as follows. Spouses Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas (petitioners) separated sometime in 1982, with Rosario moving to Pagadian City and Onesiforo moving to Manila. They left behind two lots identified as Lot 896-B-9-A with a bodega standing on it and Lot 896-B-9-B with petitioners' house. These two lots are the subject of the present petition. Petitioner Onesiforo Alinas (Onesiforo) and respondent Victor Alinas (Victor) are brothers. Petitioners allege that they entrusted their properties to Victor and Elena Alinas(respondent spouses) with the agreement that any income from rentals of the properties should be remitted to the Social Security System (SSS) and to the Rural Bank of OroquietaCity (RBO), as such rentals were believed sufficient to pay off petitioners' loans with said institutions. Lot 896-B-9-A with the bodega was mortgaged as security for the loan obtained from the RBO, while Lot 896-B-9-B with the house was mortgaged to the SSS. Onesiforo alleges that he left blank papers with his signature on them to facilitate the administration of said properties. Sometime in 1993, petitioners discovered that their two lots were already titled in the name of respondent spouses. Records show that after Lot 896-B-9-A was extra-judicially foreclosed, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T11853[3] covering said property was issued in the name of mortgagee RBO on November 13, 1987. On May 2, 1988, the duly authorized representative of RBO executed a Deed of Installment Sale of Bank's Acquired Assets[4]conveying Lot 896-B-9-A to respondent spouses. RBO's TCT over Lot 896-B-9-A was then cancelled and on February 22, 1989, TCT No. T12664[5] covering said lot was issued in the name of respondent spouses. Lot 896-B-9-B was also foreclosed by the SSS and on November 17, 1986, the Ex-Oficio City Sheriff of Ozamis City issued a Certificate of Sale[6] over said property in favor of the SSS. However, pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney[7] signed by Onesiforo in favor of Victor, dated March 10, 1989, the latter was able to redeem, on the same date, Lot 896-B-9-B from the SSS for the sum of P111,110.09. On June 19, 1989, a Certificate of Redemption[8] was issued by the SSS. Onesiforo's signature also appears in an Absolute Deed of Sale[9] likewise dated March 10, 1989, selling Lot 896-B-9-B to respondent spouses. The records also show a notarized document dated March 10, 1989 and captioned Agreement[10] whereby petitioner Onesiforo acknowledged that his brother Victor used his own money to redeem Lot896-B-9-B from the SSS and, thus, Victor became the owner of said lot. In the same Agreeement, petitioner Onesiforo waived whatever rights, claims, and interests he or his heirs, successors and assigns have or may have over the subject property. On March 15, 1993, by virtue of said documents, TCT No. 17394[11] covering Lot 896-B-9-B was issued in the name of respondent spouses.

On June 25, 1993, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership of their conjugal properties with damages against respondent spouses. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated November 13, 1995, finding that: 1. Plaintiffs have not proven that they entrusted defendant spouses with the care and administration of their properties. It was Valeria Alinas, their mother, whom plaintiff Onesifororequested/directed to take care of everything and sell everything and Teresita Nuez, his elder sister, to whom he left a verbal authority to administer his properties. 2. Plaintiffs have not proven their allegation that defendant spouses agreed to pay rent of P1,500.00 a month for the occupancy of plaintiffs' house, which rent was to be remitted to the SSS and Rural Bank of Oroquieta to pay off plaintiffs' loan and to keep for plaintiffs the rest of the rent after the loans would have been paid in full. 3. Plaintiff Onesiforo's allegation that defendants concocted deeds of conveyances (Exh. M, N & O) with the use of his signatures in blank is not worthy of credence. Why his family would conspire to rob him at a time when life had struck him with a cruel blow in the form of a failed marriage that sent him plummeting to the depths of despair is not explained and likewise defies comprehension. That his signatures appear exactly on the spot where they ought to be in Exhs. M, N & O belies his pretension that he affixed them on blank paper only for the purpose of facilitating his sister Terry's acts of administration. This Court, therefore, does not find that defendant spouses had schemed to obtain title to plaintiffs' properties or enriched themselves at the expense of plaintiffs.[12] with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment: 1. declaring [respondents] Victor Jr. and Elena Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) standing thereon and affirming the validity of their acquisition thereof from the Rural Bank of Oroquieta, Inc.; declaring [petitioners] Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-B with the house standing thereon, plaintiff Onesiforo's sale thereof to defendants spouses without the consent of his wife being null and void and defendant spouses' redemption thereof from the SSS not having conferred its ownership to them; ordering [petitioners] to reimburse [respondents] Victor Jr. and Elena Alinas the redemption sum of P111,100.09, paid by them to the SSS (without interest as it shall be compensated with the rental value of the house they occupy) within sixty days from the finality of this judgment; ordering [respondents] to vacate the subject house within thirty days from receiving the reimbursement mentioned in No. 3 above; and reinstating TCT No. T-7248 in the name of [petitioners] and cancelling TCT No. T-17394 in the name of [respondents].

2.

3.

4.

5.

No costs. SO ORDERED.[13] Only respondent spouses appealed to the CA assailing the RTC's ruling that they acquired Lot 896-B-9-B from the SSS by mere redemption and not by purchase. They likewise question the reimbursement by petitioners of the redemption price without interest. On September 25, 2002, the CA promulgated herein assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the first paragraph of the dispositive portion of the assailed decision is AFFIRMED and the rest MODIFIED as follows: 1. declaring [respondents] Victor Jr. and Elena Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) standing thereon and affirming the validity of their acquisition thereof from the Rural Bank ofOroquieta, Inc.; declaring Onesiforo's sale of Lot 896-B-9-B together with the house standing thereon to [respondents] in so far as Rosario Alinas, his wife's share of one half thereof is concerned, of no force and effect; ordering [petitioners] Rosario Alinas to reimburse [respondents] the redemption amount of P55,550.00 with interest of 12% per annum from the time of redemption until fully paid. ordering the [respondents] to convey and transfer one half portion of Lot 896-B-9-B unto Rosario Alinas, which comprises her share on the property simultaneous to the tender of the above redemption price, both to be accomplished within sixty (60) days from finality of this judgment. in the event of failure of [respondents] to execute the acts as specified above, [petitioner] Rosario Alinas may proceed against them under Section 10, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. on the other hand, failure of [petitioner] Rosario Alinas to reimburse the redemption price within sixty (60) days from the finality of this decision will render the conveyance and sale of her share by her husband to [respondents], of full force and effect.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

No costs. SO ORDERED.[14] Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the CA denied said motion per herein assailed Resolution dated March 31, 2003. Hence, the present petition on the following grounds: The Honorable Court of Appeals abuse [sic] its discretion in disregarding the testimony of the Register of Deeds, Atty. Nerio Nuez, who swore that the signatures appearing on various TCTswere not his own; The Honorable Court of Appeals manifestly abuse [sic] its discretion in declaring the respondents to be the owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) standing thereon when they merely redeemed the property and are therefore mere trustees of the real owners of the property; It was pure speculation and conjecture and surmise for the Honorable Court of Appeals to impose an obligation to reimburse upon petitioners without ordering respondents to account for the rentals of the properties from the time they occupied the same up to the present time and thereafter credit one against the other whichever is higher.[15] The first issue raised by petitioners deserves scant consideration. By assailing the authenticity of the Registrar of Deeds' signature on the certificates of title, they are, in effect, questioning the validity of the certificates. Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides, thus: Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Pursuant to said provision, the Court ruled in De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation[16] that: It has been held that a certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. x xx

The action of the petitioners against the respondents, based on the material allegations of the complaint, is one for recovery of possession of the subject property and damages. However,such action is not a direct, but a collateral attack of TCT No. 236044.[17] (Emphasis supplied) As in De Pedro, the complaint filed by herein petitioners with the RTC is also one for recovery of possession and ownership. Verily, the present case is merely a collateral attack on TCT No. T-17394, which is not allowed by law and jurisprudence. With regard to the second issue, petitioners claim that it was the CA which declared respondent spouses owners of Lot 896-B-9-A (with bodega) is misleading. It was the RTC which ruled that respondent spouses are the owners of Lot 896-B9-A and, therefore, since only the respondent spouses appealed to the CA, the issue of ownership over Lot896-B-9-A is not raised before the appellate court. Necessarily, the CA merely reiterated in the dispositive portion of its decision the RTC's ruling on respondent spouses' ownership of Lot 896-B-9-A. It is a basic principle that no modification of judgment or affirmative relief can be granted to a party who did not appeal.[18] Hence, not having appealed from the RTC Decision, petitioners can no longer seek the reversal or modification of the trial court's ruling that respondent spouses had acquired ownership of Lot 896-B-9-A by virtue of the sale of the lot to them by RBO. Furthermore, the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the trial court's factual findings as the records are indeed bereft of proof to support the petitioners allegations that they left the care and administration of their properties to respondent spouses; and that there is an agreement between petitioners and respondent spouses regarding remittance to the SSS and the RBO of rental income from their properties. Thus, respondent spouses may not be held responsible for the nonpayment of the loan with RBO and the eventual foreclosure of petitioners' Lot 896-B-9-A. Petitioners do not assail the validity of the foreclosure of said lot but argues that respondent spouses merely redeemed the property from RBO. This is, however, belied by evidence on record which shows that ownership over the lot had duly passed on to the RBO, as shown by TCT No. T-11853 registered in its name; and subsequently, RBO sold the lot with its improvements to respondent spouses. Needless to stress, the sale was made after the redemption period had lapsed. The trial court, therefore, correctly held that respondent spouses acquired their title over the lot from RBO and definitely not from petitioners. However, with regard to Lot 896-B-9-B (with house), the Court finds it patently erroneous for the CA to have applied the principle of equity in sustaining the validity of the sale of Onesiforos one-half share in the subject property to respondent spouses. Although petitioners were married before the enactment of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, the sale in question occurred in 1989. Thus, their property relations are governed by Chapter IV on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of the Family Code. The CA ruling completely deviated from the clear dictate of Article 124 of the Family Code which provides: Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. x x x In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. x x x (Underscoring and emphasis supplied) In Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo,[19] the Court categorically stated thus: In Guiang v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and wife. In applying Article 124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null and void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the husband who contracted the sale. x x x xxxx x x x By express provision of Article 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of (court) authority or written consent of the other spouse, any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal property shall be void. [20]

Thus, pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code and jurisprudence, the sale of petitioners' conjugal property made by petitioner Onesiforo alone is void in its entirety. It is true that in a number of cases, this Court abstained from applying the literal import of a particular provision of law if doing so would lead to unjust, unfair and absurd results.[21] In the present case, the Court does not see how applying Article 124 of the Family Code would lead to injustice or absurdity. It should be noted that respondent spouses were well aware that Lot 896-B-9-B is a conjugal property of petitioners. They also knew that the disposition being made by Onesiforo is without the consent of his wife, as they knew that petitioners had separated, and, the sale documents do not bear the signature of petitioner Rosario. The fact that Onesiforo had to execute two documents, namely: the Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 10, 1989 and a notarized Agreement likewise dated March 10, 1989, reveals that they had full knowledge of the severe infirmities of the sale. As held in Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses Mijares,[22] a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith.[23] Such being the case, no injustice is being foisted on respondent spouses as they risked transacting with Onesiforo alone despite their knowledge that the subject property is a conjugal property. Verily, the sale of Lot 896-B-9-B to respondent spouses is entirely null and void. However, in consonance with the salutary principle of non-enrichment at anothers expense, the Court agrees with the CA that petitioners should reimburse respondent spouses the redemption price paid for Lot 896-B-9-B in the amount of P111,110.09 with legal interest from the time of filing of the complaint. In Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes, the husband's sale of conjugal property without the consent of the wife was annulled but the spouses were ordered to refund the purchase price to the buyers, it was ruled that an interest of 12% per annum on the purchase price to be refunded is not proper. The Court elucidated as follows: The trial court, however, erred in imposing 12% interest per annum on the amount due the respondents. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, it was held that interest on obligations not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is six percent (6%) annually. If the purchase price could be established with certainty at the time of the filing of the complaint, the six percent (6%) interest should be computed from the date the complaint was filed until finality of the decision. In Lui vs. Loy, involving a suit for reconveyance and annulment of title filed by the first buyer against the seller and the second buyer, the Court, ruling in favor of the first buyer and annulling the second sale, ordered the seller to refund to the second buyer (who was not a purchaser in good faith) the purchase price of the lots. It was held therein that the 6% interest should be computed from the date of the filing of the complaint by the first buyer. After the judgment becomes final and executory until the obligation is satisfied, the amount due shall earn interest at 12% per year, the interim period being deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Accordingly, the amount of P110,000.00 due the respondent spouses which could be determined with certainty at the time of the filing of the complaint shall earn 6% interest per annum from June 4, 1986 until the finality of this decision. If the adjudged principal and the interest (or any part thereof) remain unpaid thereafter, the interest rate shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from the time the judgment becomes final and executory until it is fully satisfied.[24] Thus, herein petitioners should reimburse respondent spouses the redemption price plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, and after the judgment becomes final and executory, the amount due shall earn 12% interest per annum until the obligation is satisfied. Petitioners pray that said redemption price and interest be offset or compensated against the rentals for the house and bodega. The records show that the testimonial evidence for rentals was only with regard to the bodega.[25] However, the Court has affirmed the ruling of the RTC that Lot 896-B-9-A with the bodega had been validly purchased by respondent spouses from the RBO and a TCT over said property was issued in the name of respondent spouses on February 22, 1989. Testimonial evidence shows that the bodega was leased out by respondent spouses only beginning January of 1990 when ownership had been transferred to them.[26] Hence, any rentals earned from the lease of said bodega rightfully belongs to respondent spouses and cannot be offset against petitioners' obligation to respondent spouses.

As to rentals for Lot 896-B-9-B and the house thereon, respondent Victor testified that they never agreed to rent the house and when they finally took over the same, it was practically inhabitable and so they even incurred expenses to repair the house.[27] There is absolutely no proof of the rental value for the house, considering the condition it was in; as well as for the lot respondent spouses are occupying. Respondent spouses, having knowledge of the flaw in their mode of acquisition, are deemed to be possessors in bad faith under Article 526[28] of the Civil Code. However, they have a right to be refunded for necessary expenses on the property as provided under Article 546[29] of the same Code. Unfortunately, there is no credible proof to support respondent spouses' allegation that they spent more than P400,000.00 to repair and make the house habitable. Set-off or compensation is governed by Article 1279 of the Civil Code which provides, thus: Article 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary: 1. 2. That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the time a principal creditor of the other; That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; That the two debts be due; That they be liquidated and demandable; That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

3. 4. 5.

Therefore, under paragraph 4 of the foregoing provision, compensation or set-off is allowed only if the debts of both parties against each other is already liquidated and demandable. To liquidate means to make the amount of indebtedness or an obligation clear and settled in the form of money.[30] In the present case, no definite amounts for rentals nor for expenses for repairs on subject house has been determined. Thus, in the absence of evidence upon which to base the amount of rentals, no compensation or set-off can take place between petitioners and respondent spouses. While the courts are empowered to set an amount as reasonable compensation to the owners for the use of their property, this Court cannot set such amount based on mere surmises and conjecture WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 25, 2002 is MODIFIED to read as follows: 1. declaring respondent spouses Victor Jr. and Elena Alinas owners of Lot 896-B-9-A with the building (bodega) standing thereon and affirming the validity of their acquisition thereof from the Rural Bank of Oroquieta, Inc.; 2. declaring Onesiforo's sale of Lot 896-B-9-B together with the house standing thereon to respondent spouses null and void ab initio; 3. ordering petitioners to jointly and severally reimburse respondent spouses the redemption amount of P111,110.09 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, until finality of this decision. After this decision becomes final, interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal and interest (or any part thereof) shall be imposed until full payment; 4. ordering the respondent spouses to convey and transfer Lot 896-B-9-B to petitioners and vacate said premises within fifteen (15) days from finality of this Decision; and 5. in the event of failure of respondent spouses to execute the acts as specified above, petitioners may proceed against them under Section 10, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No costs. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 137000. August 9, 2000]

CIRILO R. VALLES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROSALIND YBASCO LOPEZ, respondents. DECISION PURISIMA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing Resolutions dated July 17, 1998 and January 15, 1999, respectively, of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 98-336, dismissing the petition for disqualification filed by the herein petitioner, Cirilo R. Valles, against private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, in the May 1998 elections for governor of Davao Oriental. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. On June 27, 1952, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen, at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila. Since then, she has continuously participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. She served as Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. In 1992, she ran for and was elected governor of Davao Oriental. Her election was contested by her opponent, Gil Taojo, Jr., in a petition for quo warranto, docketed as EPC No. 92-54, alleging as ground therefor her alleged Australian citizenship. However, finding no sufficient proof that respondent had renounced her Philippine citizenship, the Commission on Elections en banc dismissed the petition, ratiocinating thus: A cursory reading of the records of this case vis-a-vis the impugned resolution shows that respondent was able to produce documentary proofs of the Filipino citizenship of her late father... and consequently, prove her own citizenship and filiation by virtue of the Principle of Jus Sanguinis, the perorations of the petitioner to the contrary notwithstanding. On the other hand, except for the three (3) alleged important documents . . . no other evidence substantial in nature surfaced to confirm the allegations of petitioner that respondent is an Australian citizen and not a Filipino. Express renunciation of citizenship as a mode of losing citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63 is an equivocal and deliberate act with full awareness of its significance and consequence. The evidence adduced by petitioner are inadequate, nay meager, to prove that respondent contemplated renunciation of her Filipino citizenship.[1] In the 1995 local elections, respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. Her opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for disqualification, docketed as SPA No. 95-066 before the COMELEC, First Division, contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was likewise dismissed by the COMELEC, reiterating substantially its decision in EPC 92-54. The citizenship of private respondent was once again raised as an issue when she ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental in the May 11, 1998 elections. Her candidacy was questioned by the herein petitioner, Cirilo Valles, in SPA No. 98-336. On July 17, 1998, the COMELECs First Division came out with a Resolution dismissing the petition, and disposing as follows: Assuming arguendo that res judicata does not apply and We are to dispose the instant case on the merits trying it de novo, the above table definitely shows that petitioner herein has presented no new evidence to disturb the Resolution of this Commission in SPA No. 95-066. The present petition merely restates the same matters and incidents already passed upon by this Commission not just in 1995 Resolution but likewise in the Resolution of EPC No. 92-54. Not having put forth any new evidence and matter substantial in nature, persuasive in character or

sufficiently provocative to compel reversal of such Resolutions, the dismissal of the present petition follows as a matter of course. xxx....................................xxx....................................xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered and there being no new matters and issues tendered, We find no convincing reason or impressive explanation to disturb and reverse the Resolutions promulgated by this Commission in EPC 92-54 and SPA. 95-066. This Commission RESOLVES as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the present petition. SO ORDERED.[2] Petitioner interposed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution but to no avail. The same was denied by the COMELEC in its en banc Resolution of January 15, 1999. Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present petition; questioning the citizenship of private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. The Commission on Elections ruled that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen and therefore, qualified to run for a public office because (1) her father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) she was married to a Filipino, thereby making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473; (3) and that, she renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was accordingly cancelled as certified to by the Australian Embassy in Manila; and (4) furthermore, there are the COMELEC Resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA Case No. 95-066, declaring her a Filipino citizen duly qualified to run for the elective position of Davao Oriental governor. Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the private respondent is an Australian citizen, placing reliance on the admitted facts that: a) In 1988, private respondent registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 dated September 19, 1988; b) On even date, she applied for the issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), and c) She was issued Australian Passport No. H700888 on March 3, 1988. Petitioner theorizes that under the aforestated facts and circumstances, the private respondent had renounced her Filipino citizenship. He contends that in her application for alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence, private respondent expressly declared under oath that she was a citizen or subject of Australia; and said declaration forfeited her Philippine citizenship, and operated to disqualify her to run for elective office. As regards the COMELECs finding that private respondent had renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and had her Australian passport cancelled on February 11, 1992, as certified to by the Australian Embassy here in Manila, petitioner argues that the said acts did not automatically restore the status of private respondent as a Filipino citizen. According to petitioner, for the private respondent to reacquire Philippine citizenship she must comply with the mandatory requirements for repatriation under Republic Act 8171; and the election of private respondent to public office did not mean the restoration of her Filipino citizenship since the private respondent was not legally repatriated. Coupled with her alleged renunciation of Australian citizenship, private respondent has effectively become a stateless person and as such, is disqualified to run for a public office in the Philippines; petitioner concluded. Petitioner theorizes further that the Commission on Elections erred in applying the principle of res judicata to the case under consideration; citing the ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration,[3] that: xxx Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally

not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. xxx The petition is unmeritorious. The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law. Among others, these laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine islands. The Philippine Bill of 1902 defined Philippine citizens as: SEC. 4 xxx all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. (underscoring ours) The Jones Law, on the other hand, provides: SEC. 2 That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who cannot come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States if residing therein. (underscoring ours) Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the Registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, to wit: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973[4] and 1987[5] Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. Petitioner also contends that even on the assumption that the private respondent is a Filipino citizen, she has nonetheless renounced her Philippine citizenship. To buttress this contention, petitioner cited private respondents application for an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), on September 19, 1988, and the issuance to her of an Australian passport on March 3, 1988. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of citizenship; (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more; (4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country; (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; (6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted: and (7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husbands country, she acquires his nationality. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express. Petitioners contention that the application of private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue was put to rest in the case of Aznar vs. COMELEC[6] and in the more recent case of Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC.[7] In the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the mere fact that respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. And, in Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. Thus, the mere fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same must be express.[8]As held by this court in the aforecited case of Aznar, an application for an alien certificate of registration does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of ones citizenship. The application of the herein private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her holding of an Australian passport, as in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, were mere acts of assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual citizenship - she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well. Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country has not been included as a ground for losing ones Philippine citizenship. Since private respondent did not lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship, petitioners claim that respondent must go through the process of repatriation does not hold water. Petitioner also maintains that even on the assumption that the private respondent had dual citizenship, still, she is disqualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental; citing Section 40 of Republic Act 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which states:

SEC. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: xxx....................................xxx....................................xxx (d) Those with dual citizenship; xxx....................................xxx....................................xxx Again, petitioners contention is untenable. In the aforecited case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court clarified dual citizenship as used in the Local Government Code and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance.[9] Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. The Court succinctly pronounced: xxx the phrase dual citizenship in R.A. No. 7160, xxx 40 (d) and in R.A. No. 7854, xxx 20 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Thus, the fact that the private respondent had dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify her from running for a public office. Furthermore, it was ruled that for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship.[10] The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen.[11] This is so because in the certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, when the herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy in 1992, such fact alone terminated her Australian citizenship. Then, too, it is significant to note that on January 15 1992, private respondent executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship, duly registered in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia on May 12, 1992. And, as a result, on February 11, 1992, the Australian passport of private respondent was cancelled, as certified to by Second Secretary Richard F. Munro of the Embassy of Australia in Manila. As aptly appreciated by the COMELEC, the aforesaid acts were enough to settle the issue of the alleged dual citizenship of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. Since her renunciation was effective, petitioners claim that private respondent must go through the whole process of repatriation holds no water. Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the same; citing the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration.[12] He insists that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e. the principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic,[13] an exception to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: 1) a persons citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler.[14] Indeed, there appears sufficient basis to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Elections in SPA. No. 95-066 and EPC 92-54 which resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein private respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner is substantially the same evidence presented in these two prior cases. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior resolutions. However, the procedural issue notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition cannot prosper.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the COMELEC Resolutions, dated July 17, 1998 and January 15, 1999, respectively, in SPA No. 98-336 AFFIRMED. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is hereby adjudged qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 158230 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CORONA, AZCUNA, and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.

- versus -

REGISTER OF DEEDS OFROXAS CITY, ELIZABETH LEE, and PACITA YU-LEE, Respondents.

Promulgated: July 16, 2008

x-------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review[1] of the Decision[2] dated 12 July 2002 and the Resolution dated 9 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53890. The Facts In March 1936, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, bought Lot No. 398 from Vicenta Arcenas, Francisco, Carmen Ramon, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, and Manuel, all surnamed Dinglasan. Lot No. 398, with an area of 1,574 square meters, is located at the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street in Roxas City. In February 1944, Lee Liongdied intestate and was survived by his widow Ang Chia, and his sons Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting. On 30 June 1947, the surviving heirs of Lee Liong extrajudicially settled the estate of the deceased and partitioned among themselves Lot No. 398. When Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting died, Lot No. 398 was transferred by succession to their respective wives, Elizabeth Lee (Elizabeth) and Pacita Yu-Lee (Pacita). In the 1956 case of Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting,[3] involving Lot No. 398, the Court held that even if the sale of the property was null and void for violating the constitutional prohibition on the sale of land to an alien, still the doctrine of in pari delicto barred the sellers from recovering the title to the property. Eleven years later, in the case of Lee Bun Ting v. Judge Aligaen,[4] the Court ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint of the Dinglasans for the recovery of Lot No. 398. Applying the doctrine of resjudicata, the Court held that the case was a mere relitigation of the same issues previously adjudged with finality in the Dinglasan case, involving the same parties or their privies and concerning the same subject matter. On 7 September 1993, Elizabeth and Pacita (private respondents) filed a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 because the records of the Register of Deeds,Roxas City were burned during the war. On 3 October 2001, the Court held that the trial courts order of reconstitution was void for lack of factual support because it was based merely on the plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority.[5] Meanwhile, on 26 January 1995, petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed with the Regional Trial Court ofRoxas City a Complaint[6] for Reversion of Title against private respondents and the Register of Deeds of Roxas City, praying that (1) the sale of Lot No. 398 to Lee Liong be set aside for being null and void ab initio; and (2) Lot No. 398 be reverted to the public domain for the States disposal in accordance with law.

In their Answer, private respondents invoked as affirmative defenses: (1) prescription; (2) private ownership of Lot No. 398; and (3) Lee Liongs being a buyer in good faith and for value. Furthermore, private respondents claimed that as Filipino citizens, they are qualified to acquire Lot No. 398 by succession. The Register of Deeds of Roxas City did not file an answer. On 7 May 1996, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the reversion of Lot No. 398 to the State. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision[7] dated 12 July 2002, reversing the trial courts decision and declaring private respondents as the absolute and lawful owners of Lot No. 398. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution[8] dated 9 May 2003. Hence, this petition for review.

The Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court ordered the reversion of Lot No. 398 to the State. The trial court held that private respondents could not have acquired a valid title over Lot No. 398 because the sale of the lot to their predecessor-in-interest Lee Liong was null and void. Being an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value did not cure Lee Liongs disqualification as an alien who is prohibited from acquiring land under the Constitution. The trial court further held that prescription cannot be invoked against the State as regards an action for reversion or reconveyance of land to the State.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the State is not barred by prescription. However, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ordering the reversion of Lot No. 398 to the State. Although the sale of Lot No. 398 to Lee Liong violated the constitutional prohibition on aliens acquiring land, the Court of Appeals noted that Lot No. 398 had already been acquired by private respondents through succession. The transfer of Lot No. 398 to private respondents, who are Filipino citizens qualified to acquire lands, can no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer. The flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is deemed valid considering that the objective of the constitutional proscription against alien ownership of lands, that is to keep our lands in Filipino hands, has been achieved. The Issue Petitioner raises the lone issue that: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE APPEALED DECISION AND DECLARED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THE ABSOLUTE AND LAWFUL OWNERS AND POSSESSORS OF LOT NO. 398 OF ROXAS CITY CADASTRE CONSIDERING THAT LEE LIONG, WHO IS AN ALIEN, AND THUS, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED TO OWN REAL PROPERTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, ACQUIRED NO RIGHT OR TITLE OVER SUBJECT LOT WHICH HE COULD HAVE TRANSMITTED BY SUCCESSION TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST.

The Ruling of the Court The petition is without merit. Petitioner argues that since the sale of Lot No. 398 to Lee Liong was void, Lot No. 398 never became part of the deceased Lee Liongs estate. Hence, Lot No. 398 could not be transmitted by succession to Lee Liongs surviving heirs and eventually to private respondents.

We do not subscribe to petitioners position. The circumstances of this case are similar to the case of De Castro v. Teng Queen Tan,[9] wherein a residential lot was sold to a Chinese citizen. Upon the death of the alien vendee, his heirs entered into an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased and the subject land was transferred to a son who was a naturalized Filipino. Subsequently, the vendor of the lot filed a suit for annulment of sale for alleged violation of the Constitution prohibiting the sale of land to aliens. Independently of the doctrine of in pari delicto, the Court sustained the sale, holding that while the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land has since become the property of a naturalized Filipino citizen who is constitutionally qualified to own land. Similarly, in this case, upon the death of the original vendee who was a Chinese citizen, his widow and two sons extrajudicially settled his estate, including Lot No. 398. When the two sons died, Lot No. 398 was transferred by succession to their respective spouses, herein private respondents who are Filipino citizens. We now discuss whether reversion proceedings is still viable considering that Lot No. 398 has already been transfered to Filipino citizens. In the reconstitution case of Lee v. Republic of the Philippines[10] involving Lot No. 398, this Court explained that the OSG may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of lands which were sold to aliens disqualified from acquiring lands under the Constitution. However, in the case of Lot No. 398, the fact that it was already transferred to Filipinos militates against escheat proceedings, thus: Although ownership of the land cannot revert to the original sellers, because of the doctrine of pari delicto, the Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State, subject to other defenses, as hereafter set forth. In this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subsequently their heirs, petitioners herein [Elizabeth Lee and Pacita Yu Lee]. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not dispute. The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, however, there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. 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. Thus, the subsequent transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no longer be impugned on the basis of invalidity of the initial transfer. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.[11] (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the reversion proceedings was initiated only after almost 40 years from the promulgation of the case of Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting,[12] where the Court held that the sale of Lot No. 398 was null and void for violating the constitutional prohibition on the sale of land to an alien. If petitioner had commenced reversion proceedings when Lot No. 398 was still in the hands of the original vendee who was an alien disqualified to hold title thereto, then reversion of the land to the State would undoubtedly be allowed. However, this is not the case here. When petitioner instituted the action for reversion of title in 1995, Lot No. 398 had already been transferred by succession to private respondents who are Filipino citizens. Since Lot No. 398 has already been transferred to Filipino citizens, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured.[13] As held in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority:[14] Thus, the Court has ruled consistently that where a Filipino citizen sells land to an alien who later sells the land to a Filipino, the invalidity of the first transfer is corrected by the subsequent sale to a citizen. Similarly, where the alien who buys the land subsequently acquires Philippine citizenship, the sale was validated since the purpose of the constitutional ban to limit land ownership to Filipinos has been achieved. In short, the law disregards the constitutional disqualification of the buyer to hold land if the land is subsequently transferred to a qualified party, or the buyer himself becomes a qualified party.[15] (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, since Lot No. 398 has already been transferred to private respondents who are Filipino citizens, the prior invalid sale to Lee Liong can no longer be assailed. Hence, reversion proceedings will no longer prosper since the land is now in the hands of Filipino citizens. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 12 July 2002 and the Resolution dated 9 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53890. SO ORDERED.