[ G.R. No. L-7196. August 31, 1954 ] 95 Phil. 749
[ G.R. No. L-7196. August 31, 1954 ]
BENITO ARAMBULO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. €UA SO AND CUA PO CHOOH, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
Aftermath of our Krivenko decision[1] is this action whereby plaintiff seeks to recover landed property he sold to the alien defendants. The facts are simple:
Before the Pacific War, plaintiff, a Filipino, was the owner of two parcels of land at Narra Street, Manila, his title thereto being Transfer Certificate No. 59259 of the Manila Register of Deeds. On February 23, 1948 he sold the said parcels to the defendants, who are Chinese citizens. On January 28, 1948 he started these proceedings to revoke the sale and recover the properties, invoking the aforesaid Krivenko decision, the relevant portion of which declares that the Constitution forbids the sale of. urban lands to foreigners.
The Manila court of first instance dismissed the complaint, appllying our ruling on Cabauatan vs. Uy Hoo, 88 Phil., 103 that refused to annul a similar conveyance in March 1943 by Filipino citizens to Chinese aliens on two grounds, namely: (1) during the Japanese occupation the Constitutional prohibition was not in force; (2) even if it was binding then, the seller could not now recover, because the law should not help either party to an illegal transaction this appeal is planted mainly on the proposition that the Oabauatan ruling should be revised, it being erroneous because upon principle and authority, the violation of the Constitution requires reconveyance to the vendor. Appellant insists that the Constitution was obligatory even during the Japanese regime,: that it prohibits alien-vendees from owning and holding the property in question, thereby compelling recognition of the Filipino-vendor’s previous ownership.
There is much to be said in favor of appellant’s propositions. Indeed the Cabauatan opinion was not unanimous.
However the present issue is now settled. The Cabauatuan doctrine denying recovery has subsequently been affirmed and re-affirmed in Ricamara vs. Ngo Ki, 92 Phil., 1084; Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Hun, 49 Off. Gaz., (10) 4321, 93 Phil., 827; Caoile vs. Yu Chiao, 49 Off. Gaz., (10) 4345, 93 Phil., 861; Cortes vs. O. Po Poe L-2943, October 30, 1953; Talento and Talento vs. Makiki, et al., 93 Phil., 856.
Paras C. J., Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.