Alexandra Krivenko vs Register of Deeds Manila (PIA)

No. L-630; 15 November 1947

Moran, CJ.

FACTS:

Petitioner Alexander Krivenko, alien, bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate in December
1941, the registration of which was interrupted by the war. In May 1945, he sought to accomplish
said registration but it was denied by the Register of Deeds of Manila and CFI Manila on the grounds
that being an alien, Krivenko cannot acquire land in the Philippines. Hence, this petition.

Note: Eventually, Krivenko filed a motion for withdrawal, however, at the time of the filing of the
motion, the case had already been deliberated and voted for and the majority decision was being
prepared. Likewise, DOJ also issued a new circular instructing all Register of Deed to accept all
transfers of residential lots to alien (which in essence, lets Krivenko win this case even after
withdrawal). That’s why the Supreme Court undertook to decide the case and discuss the issue which
is a constitutional question.

ISSUE: Whether an alien may own/acquire private agricultural lands including private residential
lots in the Philippines

RULING: NO.

Art. 8, Sec. 2 Constitution states that “Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural
land, shall not be alienated,” and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited
to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose of conserving agricultural resources in the hands
of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may transfer their
agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that Sec. 7 is included in Art. 8
which states:

“Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be

transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.”

This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural resources
my leak into the aliens’ hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public
agricultural lands to aliens if such lands may be freely alienation upon conversion to private
agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens. Sec. 7 is intended to insure the policy of
nationalization contained in section 2, therefore, both sections must be read together for they have
the same purpose and subject matter.

It must be noted that the persons against whom the prohibition is directed in Sec. 7 are the very same
persons who under Sec. 2 are disqualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. And the
subject matter of both provisions are the same, namely, the non-transferability of agricultural land
to aliens.
Further, if the term “private agricultural lands” is construed as not including residential lands or lands
not strictly agricultural, the result would be that “aliens may freely acquire, possess, buy and hold in
their names entire subdivisions, towns, factories, fisheries, schools, etc. This is obnoxious to the
conservative spirit of the Constitution.

WHEREFORE, under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands,
including residential lands. No costs.

NOTES:

Why are residential lands considered agricultural lands?

In determining whether a land is agricultural, the test is not only whether it is actually
agricultural, but also its susceptibility to cultivation for agricultural purposes. At the time the
Constitution was adopted, lands of the public domain were classified in our laws into
agricultural, mineral and timber, and that the term “public agricultural lands” was
construed as referring to those lands that were not timber or mineral, and that it must be
construed as including residential lands.

Likewise, in the Constitution, “public agricultural lands” has a broad and general meaning
where it embraces all other lands that are not timber nor mineral. Such lands include:
residential, commercial, industrial lands. In fact, CA 141 actually made such lands
disposable/alienable in favor of Filipinos, thus, it only reinforces and confirms their character
as public agricultural lands.

Modifications with respect to aliens acquiring lands in the Philippines

Before the Constitution (Public Land Act No. 2874):

 Aliens are allowed to acquire public agricultural lands for industrial or residential purposes
 Lands of public domain to be sold or leased to aliens for industrial or residential purposes

After the Constitution (Commonwealth Act No. 141):

 The right of aliens to acquire public agricultural lands are completely stricken out
 Lands of public domain for residential or industrial purposes may now only be leased
provided that such lease remains valid only when the land is used for the purpose referred to

Preserving the Philippines for the Filipinos

One of the fundamental principles of Art. 8 of the Constitution is that “lands, minerals, forests,
and other natural resources constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipino nation. They
should be preserved for those under the sovereign authority of that nation and for their
posterity.” If we do not nationalize our lands and natural resources, our independence will be
just a mockery, for what kind of independence are we going to have if a part of our country is
not in our hands but in those of foreigners?