Natural Resources

QUIZ 7 September 11 2012 1. FALSE. Li Seng and Son Inc was a Chinese Corporation 2. FALSE .In Ong Ching Ro vs Chinese Citizen can own real property in the country provided that the genuine and due execution of the deed of sale has been established. 3. ____ Erlinda is a native from 4. TRUE In Frenzel vs Catito, it was held that the sale of 3 parcels of land in favour of the petitioner who is a foreinger is illegal itself. Its transaction is void for it violates the constitution 5. TRUE the constitutional prohibition on aliens ownership of lands of the public or private domain... valid if subsequently transfer to a Filipino. 6. FALSE . In Miller vs Miller , it was held that implied trust was created and resulted by operation of law in view of petitioners marriage to respondent. 7. As provided for in BP 185 as amended by RA 8179, any natural born citizen who has lost his Filipino citizenship and who has legally capacitated to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be transferred of private land up to maximum area of ____ sq.meters in urban areas and in rural a total of ___ hectares to be used by him in business purposes. 8. ____ (TF) as held in Republic vs CA for purposes of transfer/ acquisition of a parcel of residentrial land. It is not significant whether P.R. application title must be approved. somewhere in davao. Suddenly their relationship became sour and eventually separated from one another. Alfred, the alien, filed a case praying that Ederlina should be ordered to execute the corresponding deeds of transfer and/or conveyances in his favor over those real and personal properties he bought and placed in the name of Ederlina. In this case the RTC ruled Alfred had no cause of action against Ederlina for the recovery of the same because as an alien, he was disqualified from acquiring and owning lands in the Philippines. So the issue here is : Whether or not Alfred Frenzel can recover the real properties he bought and placed under the name of Ederlina or even to recover the money spent in buying the properties? SC ruled in negative. Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, they have also been disqualified from acquiring private lands. A contract that violates the Constitution and the law, is null and void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. The said transactions are void ab initio because they were entered into in violation of the Constitution. Thus, to allow the petitioner to recover the properties or the money used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of public policy. So class always understand that when you become lawyers, I know kailangan nyo protectahan ang Filipino but always be make the transaction fair. Paano? Idea lang ha kung sakaling makahiwalay sila, gawan mu nalng ng pre-signed document ang foreigner to protect him. In that process masafe ang foreigner kasi may document sya na pwede nyang ibenta sa Filipino. Gets mo? So from 500,000 thousand, raised your attorneys fee to 800,000 thousand. Always understand that you loyalty is not in ur country man but it is the law. He cannot recover the sale applying Pari delicto. Alam naman nya ni Alfred. As a matter of fact 3 times na silang nagbuy ng property. That agreement is contrary to public policy. Further Apply also the principle of unjust enrichment in this case. Kahit sabihin natin that she was unjustly enhriched hindi parin sya makaclaim! MULLER VS MULLER The issue in this case is WON Muller respondent entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property. The money was paraphernal, as the same was from the proceeds of his inheritance. SC ruled that , It would be an indirect contravention of the constitutional prohibition. To allow reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed to own, thus it is likewise prescribed by law. Also it would be impossible as the parties are both in pari delicto. Apperently here class, the CA made that pronouncement that there was an implied trust that was made. Explicit ang prohibition not even trust dili pwede. Do you agree with this? What is later on Muller wants to sell the property? Can he do so? No parin . What if she dies? Well pwede nah.

Lecture ONG CHING PO vs CA The issue here is WON the sale is valid considering that the sale was made to accommodate the Chinese to acquire land in the Philippines. The herein land was name in the wife of his brother who is a Filipina. SC ruled that the sale was valid and the sale was not made in order to circumvent the constitution. When a foreigner and a Filipina come to you and asking you to come FRENZLE VS CATITO This is a davao case involving a property in Bajada. Its a typical love story, a love story that gone wrong. Bakit? The foreigner is still married and si Miss Catito has also a valid existing marriage. (Mistress Wallpaper) During their relationship they acquire real properties one of these properties involves a beach resort

Natural Resources
How did the supreme court rule on the Issue that the was still part of the public domain. They were applying under CA 141, how did the SC ruled . remember in this case, there was a provision that public domain can only be owned by filipino Kasi hindi pa ito private property. Paano ki-address ng SC that issue? Bahala kayo class basahin nyo ang fulltext.

LEE vs REPUBLIC This case involves the case of reconstitution of title. Ang Title dito ay nawala. The issue in this case, Whether the reconstitution is valid. Sc ruled that YES yes yoh!, the reconstitution is valid. RATIONALE: The purchase of Lee Liong was made after the 1935 Constitution and was therefore, a prohibited transaction since said Constitution prohibited alien ownership over private agricultural lands except in cases of hereditary succession. In this case, 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 their heirs and it is undisputed that the current owners are Filipino citizens. The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling into the hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, there would be no more public policy violated since the lands are now in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. Always remember class that pag naa sa alien and transfer to a Filipino VALID na. Basically if you are the lawyer of Mr __ what are your defense? Always undertstand class that in a case of reconstitution you cannot question the validity of the title by a collateral attack. So number 5 is true? Sections 7 Article XII of the Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit: Sec. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Always remember intestate sucesseion not testamentary ha. Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.- BP 185 ito ung provided by law Reading session: BP185 , RA 8179, and RA 7019 Question: Foreigner, nagpanaturalized. Subsequently tinangal nya ang kanyang Filipino citizenship. Anung mangyari? It will be back to the ownership of the state. No. 8 and9 are: 5000 SQMETERS and 3 Hectares. Ano may reklamo kayo sa law. REPUBLIC vs __