The sale of land from Dionisio to Gaw is null and void because Gaw, a Chinese citizen, did not obtain the required approval from the Japanese authorities to purchase private land as an alien. However, Dionisio cannot recover the property under the legal doctrine of in pari delicto, which means both parties are equally at fault. There are two ways the situation can be remedied - an action for reversion or escheat to the state - both of which would confiscate the land in favor of the state due to the parties violating the constitutional prohibition.
The sale of land from Dionisio to Gaw is null and void because Gaw, a Chinese citizen, did not obtain the required approval from the Japanese authorities to purchase private land as an alien. However, Dionisio cannot recover the property under the legal doctrine of in pari delicto, which means both parties are equally at fault. There are two ways the situation can be remedied - an action for reversion or escheat to the state - both of which would confiscate the land in favor of the state due to the parties violating the constitutional prohibition.
The sale of land from Dionisio to Gaw is null and void because Gaw, a Chinese citizen, did not obtain the required approval from the Japanese authorities to purchase private land as an alien. However, Dionisio cannot recover the property under the legal doctrine of in pari delicto, which means both parties are equally at fault. There are two ways the situation can be remedied - an action for reversion or escheat to the state - both of which would confiscate the land in favor of the state due to the parties violating the constitutional prohibition.
HELD: Yes it is null and void but because of in pari delicto, petitioner cannot
DIONISIO RELLOSA, Petitioner recover.
vs. GAW CHEE HUN, Respondent. In Pari Delicto Doctrine: The proposition is universal that no action arises, in FACTS: equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific 1) Feb 2, 1944: Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the together with the house erected thereon, for the sum of P25,000. money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation. The rule has sometimes Dionisio remained in possession of the property under a contract of lease been laid down as though it were equally universal, that where the parties are in entered into on the same date between the same parties. pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the 2) Condition of the sale: Gaw Chee Hun, being a Chinese citizen, would other. (In short: both parties are equally guilty.) obtain the approval of the Japanese Military Administration and said approval has not been obtained (Japanese authorities prohibit an alien The contract is illegal not because it is against public policy but because it is from acquiring any private land not agricultural in nature during the against the Constitution. It cannot be contended that to apply the doctrine of pari occupation unless the necessary approval is obtained from the Director delicto would be tantamount to contravening the constitutional prohibition in General of the Japanese Military Administration). And even if said that it would allow an alien to remain in the illegal possession of the land, requirement were met, the sale would at all events be void under article because in this case the remedy is lodged elsewhere. To adopt the contrary view XIII, section 5, of our Constitution. (No alien can acquire land) would be merely to benefit petitioner and not to enhance public interest. 3) Dionisio instituted the present action seeking the annulment of the sale as well as the lease covering the land and the house above mentioned, There are at present two ways by which this situation may be remedied, to wit, and Gaw be ordered to return to Dionisio the duplicate of the title (1) action for reversion, and (2) escheat to the state. An action for reversion is covering the property. slightly different from escheat proceeding, but in its effects they are the same. They only differ in procedure. In essence, both remedies will confiscate the land DEFENSE: The sale was absolute and unconditional and was in every respect valid in favor of the State because both parties are guilty of contravening the and binding between the parties, it being not contrary to law, morals and public Constitutional prohibition. order, and that Dionisio is guilty of estoppel in that, by having executed a deed of lease over the property, he thereby recognized the title of Gaw Chee Hun to that By following either of these remedies, we can enforce the fundamental policy of property. our Constitution regarding our natural resources without doing violence to the principle of pari delicto. LC: sale and lease valid In view of the foregoing, we hold that the sale in question is null and void, but ISSUE: Is the sale null and void? plaintiff is barred from taking the present action under the principle of pari delicto.
Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival Guides