a. TRINIDAD GONZAGA DE CABAUATAN, et al vs. UY HOO, et al.

G.R. No. L-2207, January 23, 1951

Facts:

On March 18, 1943, plaintiffs sold to Uy Hoo and Siy Hong, all Chinese
citizens 2 parcels of residential land. On Nov. 15, 1947 when the case of Krivenko vs.
Register of Deeds was decided by holding that a conveyance of a residential land to
aliens infringes Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution, plaintiffs demanded from
the defendants to restore to them the lands on the ground that the sale they made
thereof to the defendants was null and void, but the latter refused to do so. Hence
the plaintiffs brought an action seeking the anullment of the sale.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale can be declared null and void in the light of
the decision in the Krivenko case.

Ruling:

No. During the Japanese occupation, the Constitution of the Philippines was
not in force, it being political in nature. The Commonwealth Constitution, as well as
the doctrine of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, cannot be invoked as a ground to
have a sale of land made in 1943 set aside and rendered null and void.

Inasmuch as during the Japanese occupation the Civil Code of Spain

continued to be in force in the Philippines, it provides that "when both parties are
guilty, neither of them can recover what he may have given by virtue of the contract,
or enforce the performance of the undertaking of the other party". 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.