8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-2207

TodayisWednesday,August19,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L2207January23,1951
TRINIDADGONZAGADECABAUATAN,LUCIOCABAUATAN,MARIACABAUATAN,CONSTANCIO
EUSEBIO,ANTONIOCABAUATAN,PRIMOCABAUATAN,CARMENCABAUATAN,EVANGELINONUESA
andTRINIDADCABAUATAN,plaintiffappellants,
vs.
UYHOO,BYSIAT,SIYHONGandTHEREGISTEROFDEEDSOFTHECITYOFMANILA,defendants
appellees.
PrimitivoP.Cammayoforappellants.
PastorL.deGuzmanforappellees.
BAUTISTAANGELO,J.:
ThisisanappealfromanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManiladismissingthecomplaintfiledbytheplaintiffs
againstthedefendantswithoutpronouncementastocosts.TheappealwastakentothisCourtbecauseitinvolves
onlyquestionsoflaw.
OnMarch18,1943,plaintiffssoldtoUyHoo,marriedtoBySiat,andSiyHong,awidow,allChinesecitizenstwo
parcels of residential land situated in the City of Manila, Philippines, which were formerly described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 63967, in the consideration of the sum of P13,000 in Japanese was notes. In view of said
transfer,theRegisterofDeedsoftheCityofManilacancelledTransferCertificateofTitleNo.63967andissuedin
lieuthereofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.69938inthenameofthepurchasers.OnNovember15,1947,thecase
of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, G. R. No. L630 was decided by this Court holding that a conveyance of a
residential land to aliens infringes Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution. As a result, on December 15, 1947,
plaintiffsdemandedfromthedefendantstorestoretothemthelandsabovereferredtoonthegroundthatthesale
theymadethereoftothedefendantswasnullandvoid,butthelatterrefusedtodoso.Hencetheplaintffsbrought
thisactiononJanuary14,1948,seekingtheanullmentofthesaleabovementioned.
OnJanuary27,1948,thedefendantsfiledamotiontodismissonthegroundthatthecomplaintdoesnotstatefacts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On February 10, 1948, the Court issued an order dismissing the case
stating,amongothers,thefollowing:
ToinsureeffectivelythepreservationoftheagriculturallandsdescribedintheConstitution,whichmayormay
notbeaccomplishediftheexerciseoftheactiontorecoversaidlandsistobelefttothewilloftheparties
concerned, and for the purpose of uniformity in the disposition of said lands which may be reverted to the
Government,asprovidedforinSec.121ofthePublicLandActastothelandsthatmaybeadjudgedbythe
courts to foreigners, against the constitutional prohibition, this case should be dismissed until the
correspondinglegislationhasbeenpassed,orapolicyonthematterdecidedbythecorrespondingbranchof
theGovernment.(Rec.onAppeal,p.23).
OnMarch10,1948,plaintiff'sfiledamotionforreconsiderationandthismotionhavingbeendenied,theyappealed
tothisCourtpurelyonquestionsoflaw.
ThequestionatissueiswhetherthedeedofsaleexecutedbytheplaintiffsinfavorofthedefendantsonMarch18,
1943, over the two parcels of land in question can be declared null and void in the light of the decision in the
Krivenkocase.
ItappearsthatthetwoparcelsofresidentiallandinquestionweresoldbytheplaintiffstothedefendantsonMarch
18, 1943, for the sum of P13,000 in Japanese war notes. The sale therefore took place during the Japanese
occupation.AtthattimetheConstitutionofthePhilippineswasnotinforce,itbeingpoliticalinnature.Onthispoint
thisCourtsaid:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jan1951/gr_l-2207_1951.html

1/2

8/21/2015

G.R. No. L-2207

NoobjectioncanbesetuptothelegalityofitsprovisionsinthelightofthepreceptsofourCommonwealth
Constitution,becausethelatterwasnotinforceduringtheperiodoftheJapanesemilitaryoccupation,aswe
havealreadystated.NormaysaidConstitutionbeappliedupontherevivalasthetimeofthereoccupationof
thePhilippinesbyvirtueoftheprincipleofpostliminium,because"aconstitutionshouldoperateprospectively
only,unlessthewordsemployedshowaclearintentionthatitshouldhavearetrospectiveeffect....(Peralta
vs.DirectorofPrisons[1945]42Off.Gaz.,p.198,208.)
TheConstitutionofthePhilippinesnotbeinginforcewhenthesaleinquestionwasaffected,itcannot,therefore,be
invokedbytheplaintiffsasagroundtohavesaidsalesetasideorrenderednullandvoid.Consequently,plaintiffs
cannotalsoinvokeintheirfavorthedoctrinelaiddownintheKrivenkocase.
Butthereisanotherreasonwhythiscasecannotbemaintained.ItappearsthatduringtheJapaneseoccupation,
theCommanderinChiefoftheImperialJapaneseForcesissuedaproclamationonJanuary3,1942,puttinginforce
inthePhilippinesallthelawsthatwereinforcepriortotheoutbreakofthewar,oneofthembeingtheCivilCodeof
Spain.Itisawellknownprinciplethatthelawsinforceatthetimeacontractisexecutedgovernitsinterpretation
andapplication.(U.S.vs.DiazCondeandR.Conde,42Phil.766,769).Thecontractinquestionwasexecutedon
March18,1943.Followingtheaboveprinciple,theCivilCode,therefore,shouldgovernitsvalidity.Andoneofits
articlesprovidesthat"whenbothpartiesareguilty,neitherofthemcanrecoverwhathemayhavegivenbyvirtueof
the contract, or enforce the performance of the undertaking of the other party". (Article 1306, paragraph [1]). We
can,therefore,saythateveniftheplaintiffscanstillinvoketheConstitution,orthedoctrineintheKrivenkocase,to
setasidethesaleinquestion,theyarenowpreventedfromdoingsoiftheirpurposeistorecoverthelandsthatthey
have voluntarily parted with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the
Constitution.Theycannotescapethisconclusionbecausetheyarepresumedtoknowthelaw.AsthisCourtwell
said:"Apartytoanillegalcontractcannotcomeintoacourtoflawandasktohavehisillegalobjectscarriedout.
The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement it leaves the parties where it finds them." The rule is
expressedinthemaxims:"Exdolomalononorituractio."and"Inparidelictoestconditiodefendentis."(Boughand
Boughvs.CantiverosandHanopol,40Phil.210,216).Thisandothermoralconsiderationsbartheplaintiffsfrom
maintainingthiscase.Theiraction,therefore,mustfallonitsownweight.
Wherefore,theorderappealedfromisaffirmed,withcostsagainstappellants.Soordered.
Moran,C.J.,Bengzon,Montemayor,ReyesandJugo,JJ.,concur.
Paras,FeriaandPadilla,JJ.,concurintheresult.

SeparateOpinions
TUASON,J.,concurringintheresult:
Iconcurinthisdecision,exceptinsofarasitmaygivetheinferencethattheactioncouldprosperunderdifferent
situations as to the date of the transaction. In this aspect of the decision, I reiterate my dissenting opinion in the
Krivenkocase.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jan1951/gr_l-2207_1951.html

2/2