[ G.R. No. L-5836. April 29, 1953 ] G.R. No. L-5836
[ G.R. No. L-5836. April 29, 1953 ]
CRISPIN RICAMARA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. NGO KI ALIAS GO SIN SIM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
In the year 1943 CRISPIN RICAMARA and ROMAN RICAMARA were the owners pro indiviso of lot No. 1400 in the cadastral survey of Santa Cruz, Marinduqe, with an area of 138 sq. m. In October and November, 1943, Crispin and Roman respectively sold their undivided one-half shares of the lot to Ngo Ki alias Go Sin Sim, a chinese citizen. The two deeds of sale are marked Exhibits “A” and “B”, respectively. On March 3, 1949, Ngo Ki sold the whole lot to Placido Gonzales Yao, a Pilipino citizen as shown by a deed of sale (Exhibit “C”). On March 17, 1949 Crispin Ricamara in his own behalf and as attorney in fact of the heirs of Roman Ricamara initiated this case in the Court of First Instance of Marinduque agains Ngo Ki and the latter’s vendee Placido Gonzales Yao to annul the three sales, invoking the prohibition contained in the Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. 5) as interpreted by this Court in the case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 44 O.G. 471. The trial court, holding that the Commonwealth Constitution was suspended during the Japanese occupation during which time the sales were made to Ngo Ki, said that since there was then no prohibition against the sale of lands to foreigners, said sales, including the last one to Placido Gonzales Yao were not null and void, and so dismissed the complaint. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals which appeal was later taken to this Tribunal.
The legal point invoked here has already been passed upon by this Court. In the case of Peralta v. Director of Prisons (1945), 42 O.G. p. 198), we held that the Commonwealth Constitution was not in force during the period of Japanese military occupation; and in the mere recent case of Trinidad Gonzaga de Cabauatan, et al. v. Uy Hoo, et al., G. R. No. L-2207, promulgated on January 23, 1951, wherein the validity of the sale of two lots to a foreigner during the Japanese military occupation was involved, we reiterated the same doctrine that:
“The Constitution of the Philippines not being in force when the sale in question was effected, it cannot, therefore, be invoked. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot invoke in their favor the doctrine laid down in the Krivenko case.”
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur. Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, and Padilla, JJ., no part.