2. LEE VS.

RP-DIRECTOR OF LANDS | Citizenship |pia

1936 March – Lee Liong, Chinese citizen, acquired 1,631 sq. m. of land, covered by OCT No. 3389 and located at cor. Of Roxas Ave. and Pavia St., Roxas
City, from Dinglasan family (Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy
1948 - former owners filed with CFI an annulment of sale and recovery of land against the heirs of Lee Liong
- assailed the validity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring ownership of private agriculture land,
including residential, commercial or industrial land.
CFI and CA – ruled against the Dinglasans
SC - principle of pari delicto set in, the guilty vendor, who ignored the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring ownership of the
private agricultural land, is barred from recovering the title from the vendee, even if the sale was null and void and cannot give title to
the vendee
1968 July 1 – same Dinglasans filed with the CFI an action for recovery of the same parcel of land, submitting that the sale was void being violative of
the Constitution
1968 Sept. 23 – heirs of Lee Liong filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata
1968 Oct. 10 - trial court denied the motion
1968 Nov. 9
1977 Apr. 22 - SC annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it to dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata
1944 Feb. – Lee Liong died intestate

1947 June 30 – Lee Liong’s widow, Ang Chia, and his 2 sons, Lee Bun Ting and Lee Bing Ho, executed an extra judicial settlement of the estate of Lee
Liong, adjudicating to themselves the subject parcel of land
1948 Dec. 9 - Register of Deeds, Capiz, Salvador Villaluz, issued a certification that a TCT over the property was issued in the name of Lee Liong
Records of the Register of Deeds were burned during the World War II, hence the petition for reconstitution.
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS COURTS
1993 Sept. 7 Petition for reconstitution of Lot No. 398 (formerly
covered by OCT No. 33989) was filed with RTC,
Roxas City by Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu
Lee, widows of Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting who
were heirs of Lee Liong

1994 June 10 RTC, Roxas City, ordered the

reconstitution of the lost or destroyed
certificate of title in the name of Lee
Liong on the basis of an approved plan
and technical description. Clerk of Court
issued an Entry of Judgment on 1994
1995 Jan. 25 Sol Gen filed with the CA a petition for Aug. 18.
annulment of judgment in
Reconstitution Case No. 1928:
- RTC had no jurisdiction over the
case
- Petitioners were not the proper
parties in the reconstitution of title,
since their predecessor-in-interest
Lee Liong did not acquire title to the
lot because he was a Chinese citizen
and was constitutionally not
qualified to own the subject land.
CA declared the judgment of
1996 April 30
reconstitution void
1996 May 24 Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed MR
with the CA
1997 Feb. 18 CA denied the MR

Petition for Review on Certiorari with the SC:

Decision in the reconstitution case
- Solicitor General was estopped from seeking
was void; otherwise it would amount
annulment of the judgement of reconstitution
to circumventing the constitutional
after failing to object during the reconstitution
proscription against aliens acquiring
proceedings before the trial court, despite due
ownership of private or public
notice.
agricultural lands
- The ownership of the land had been settled in 2
previous cases of the SC, where the Court ruled
in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Lee
Liong.
- They acquired ownership of the land through
actual possession of the lot and their consistent
payment of taxes over the land for more than 60
years.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Lee Liong was qualified to own the acquired land.
2. W/N Petitioners were qualified to own the land acquired by Lee Liong.
3. W/N SolGen is estopped from seeking annulment of judgment of reconstitution.
4. W/N the reconstitution was valid.
5. W/N ownership of the land may be decided in the action for reconstitution of title.

1. NO. 2. YES 3. NO 4. NO 5. NO
Under the 1935 Petitioners are Filipino Prescription never against Reconstitution of the A reconstitution of the title
Constitution (sale was in citizens. The original vendee, the State. While it took the original certificate of title is the reissuance of a new
March 1936), aliens could Lee Liong, has since died and Republic more than 60 must be based on an certificate of title lost or
not acquire private the land has been inherited years to assert itself, it is not owner’s duplicate, destroyed in its original
agricultural lands, save in by his heirs and subsequently barred from initiating an secondary evidence form and condition. It does
cases of hereditary their heirs, herein petitioners. action for annulment of thereof, or other valid not pass upon the

succession. Thus, Lee Liong,
a Chinese citizen, was
disqualified to acquire the
land in question.
The fact that the Court did
not annul the sale of the
land to an alien did not
validate the transaction, for
it was still contrary to the
constitutional proscription
against aliens acquiring
lands of public or private
domain.
As such, there would be no
more public policy violated
since the land is in the hands
of Filipinos qualified to
acquire such land. “If the land
is invalidly transferred to an
alien who subsequently
becomes a citizen or transfers
it to a citizen, the flaw in the
original transactions 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 the invalidity of the
initial transfer.
2. LEE VS. RP-DIRECTOR OF LANDS | Citizenship |pia
judgment of reconstitution sources of the title to be ownership of the land
of title, as was done by the reconstituted. covered by the lost or
Sol Gen. destroyed title. Any
In this case, reconstitution change in the ownership of
The proper party to assail was based on the plan and the property must be the
the illegality of the technical description subject of a separate suit.
transaction was not the approved by the Land Thus, a;though petitioners
parties to the transaction. Registration Authority. This are in possession of the
“In sales of real estate to renders the order of land, a separate
aliens incapable of holding reconstitution void for lack proceedings is necessary
title thereto by virtue of the of factual support. A to thresh out the issue of
provisions of the judgment with absolute ownership of the land.
Constitution both the nothing to support it is void.
vendor and the vendee are
deemed to have the
committed the
constitutional violation and
being this in pari delicto the
courts will not afford
protection to either party.
The property to assail the
sale is the Solicitor General.
This was done in this case
when the Sol Gen initiated
an action for annulment of
judgment of reconstitution
of title.
Although ownership of the
land cannot revert to the
original sellers, because of
the doctrine of pari delicto,
the Sol Gen may initiate an
action for reversion or
escheat of the land to the
State, subject to other
defenses. (But escheat
proceedings cannot be
availed of as the land was
already in the hands of
Filipinos.)