Lee vs.

Director of Lands
Facts:
1. in March 1936 Rafael, Carmen, etc all with the surname Danglasan sold to Lee Lion (a Chinese citizen a parcel of
land)
2. in 1948 the former owners filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action against the heirs of Lee Liong for
annulment of sale and recovery of land. [4] The plaintiffs assailed the validity of the sale because of the constitutional
prohibition against aliens acquiring ownership of private agricultural land, including residential, commercial or
industrial land.
RTC: denied
CA: denied
SC: the vendor also violated the constitutional prohibition and it does not necessarily follow that he has the right to
recover the title of which he has divested himself by his act in ignoring the prohibition in pari delicto
3. the former owners, in July 1968, filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action for recovery of the same
parcel of land.[6] Citing the case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She,[7] they submitted that the sale to Lee
Liong was null and void for being violative of the Constitution this was eventually denied
4. in 1993 the wives of the heirs of Lee Liong filed a petition for the reconstitution of the title of the lot this was
granted by the RTC
5. SG filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment in the reconstitution 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.
Petitioners also pointed out that they acquired ownership of the land through actual possession of the lot and their
consistent payment of taxes over the land for more than sixty years.
Issue: WON Lee Liong has the qualification to own land in the Philippines

Ruling:
The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution,[26] aliens could not acquire private agricultural lands, save in cases of
hereditary succession.[27] Thus, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in question. [28]
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 the public or private domain.
the proper party to assail the illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction.[29]
-

In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution
both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being
thus in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party.[30]
The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this case when the
Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the
Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action. Prescription never
lies against the State.

Although ownership of the land cannot revert to the original sellers, because of the doctrine ofpari delicto, the
Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State, subject to other defenses, as
hereafter set forth.[32]
In this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands
of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and

subsequently their heirs, petitioners herein. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not
dispute.
The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to
protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos.
-In this case there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to
acquire and own such land. If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or
transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is
rendered valid.
Moya vs. Commissioner of Immigration
FACTS:
1.
2.

Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8 February 1961.
In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the
Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a
pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping.
She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month.

3.

4.
5.
6.

On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1, 000.00 to undertake that said Lau
Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period
of stay in this country or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his
authorized representative might properly allow.
After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962.
On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged
Filipino citizen.
Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her
arrest and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action for
injunction.
At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung
could not write and speak either English or Tagalog, except for a few words. She could not name any Filipino
neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa.
She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court of First Instance of
Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction.
Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
HELD:
Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized,
becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the
same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine
citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any
of the disqualifications under said Section 4.
Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim
Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962.