SECTION 8,

ARTICLE XII
1987
CONSTITUTION

Bigay, Donnabelle
Ongoco, Katrina Grace

Professor Lydia A. Bundac

 Section 8, Article XII

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.
Who is a natural-
born Filipino?

A natural-born citizen is someone who is

already a Filipino at the time of his birth and
does not have to do anything to acquire or
perfect his citizenship (Sec. 2, Art. IV).
Loss of citizenship

A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following

ways and/or events:
By naturalization in a foreign country
By express renunciation of citizenship
By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or
laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21 years of age or more
By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of
a foreign country
By cancellation of the certificates of naturalization
By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the
Philippine armed forces in time of war
In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of
the laws in force in her husbands country, she acquires his nationality.
Transfer of
Private Lands
The acquisition or transfer of private
land refers to either voluntary or
involuntary sale, devise or donation.
Involuntary sale includes sales on tax
delinquency, foreclosures, and
executions of judgment.
Transferrable land pertains to private
lands only
Statutory
Limitations

Statutory limitations are provided for in

the following relevant special laws on land
ownership by former natural-born Filipino
citizens:
1.BP Blg. 185
2.RA No. 8179
 RATIONALE OF THE LAW
The reasons for Section 8 are better explained by the whereas
clauses of Resolution No. 1 of the former Batasang Pambansa
proposing a 1981 amendment to the 1973 Constitution, to wit:
Whereas, many natural-born citizens of the Philippines
have migrated to foreign countries, particularly to Hawaii
and other states of the United States of America, where
they eventually acquired the citizenship of the countries
to which they migrated and as a consequence, lost their
Philippine citizenship;
Whereas, in spite of their new citizenship these former
Filipino citizens continue to maintain their filial links
with their relatives in the Philippines and feel a close
affinity to the Philippines and identity with our people;
 RATIONALE OF THE LAW
Whereas, thousands of these former Filipino natural-
born citizens expressed a desire to return to the
Philippines and reside here permanently so as to be
able to spend the remaining years of their lives in the
land of their birth and contribute in whatever way
they can towards the development of our country and
the well-being of our people;
Whereas, it is in the national interest to give
encouragement to this beautiful sentiment of our
blood-brothers and to make it possible for them to
bring to fruition their expressed desire
 BP 185, as amended by
RA 8179
These are the laws on land ownership by
Filipinos overseas.

BP 185 stipulates guidelines on land ownership

by former Filipinos for purposes of establishing
residence.

Section 10 of RA 8179 specifies entitlements and

conditions for land acquisition for investment
purposes.
QUALIFICATIONS OF FORMER
FILIPINOS
Both laws define former Filipinos as:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship,
2. Who lost said Philippine citizenship,
and
3. Who have the legal capacity to enter
into a contract under Philippine laws.
 Particulars Provision under BP 185 Provision under RA
(For establishing residence) 7042 as amended by
RA 8179
(For investment)

Size/Area of maximum of 1,000 sq. meters maximum of 5,000 sq.

Coverage for urban land meters for urban land

maximum of one (1) hectare maximum of three (3)

for rural land hectares for rural land

Land either of the spouses may avail either of the spouses

Acquisition for of the privilege
Both Spouses
in case both spouses wish to
acquire lands for this purpose,
the total area acquired should
not exceed the maximum
allowed
may avail of the privilege
in case both spouses
wish to acquire lands for
this purpose, the total
area acquired should not
exceed the maximum
allowed
 Particulars Provision under BP 185 Provision under RA 7042
(For establishing as amended by RA 8179
residence) (For investment)

Additional In case he/she already In case he/she already

Land owns urban or rural owns urban or rural
Acquisition lands for residential lands for business
purposes, he/she may purposes, he/she may
acquire additional acquire additional
urban or rural lands, urban or rural lands,
which when added to which when added to
those he/she presently those he/she presently
owns shall not exceed owns shall not exceed
the authorized the authorized
maximum area. maximum area.
 Particulars Provision under BP 185
(For establishing
residence)
Limits to A person may acquire not
Acquisition of more than two (2) lots
Land which should be situated in
different municipalities or
cities anywhere in the
Philippines, provided that
the total area of these lots
do not exceed 1,000 sq.
meters for urban land or
one (1) hectare for rural
land for use as residence.
An individual who has
already acquired urban land
shall be disqualified from
acquiring rural land and
vice versa.
Provision under RA 7042
as amended by RA 8179
(For investment)
A person may acquire not
more than two (2) lots which
should be situated in different
municipalities or cities
anywhere in the Philippines,
provided that the total area
of these lots do not exceed
5,000 sq. meters for urban
land or three (3) hectares
for rural land for business
purposes.
 Section 4 of Rule XII of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of
RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179
A transferee who has already acquired urban land
shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land and vice
versa.

However, if the transferee has disposed of his/her

urban land, he/she may still acquire rural land and
vice versa, provided that this will be used for business.

A transferee of residential land acquired under Batas

Pambansa Blg. 185 may still avail of the privilege
granted under this law.
 Particulars Provision under BP Provision under RA 7042 as
185 amended by RA 8179
(For establishing (For investment)
residence)

Use of Land The acquired land The land should be primarily,

should not be used directly, and actually used
for any purpose in the performance or
other than for conduct of the owners
residence business or commercial
activities in the broad areas
of agriculture, industry and
services including the lease
of land, but excluding the
buying and selling thereof
(Section 5 of Rule XII).
 Particulars Provision under BP 185
(For establishing residence)

Special In addition to the requirements provided for in other

Requirements laws for the registration of titles to lands, the
transferee should submit to the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the property
is located a sworn statement stating the
following:

date and place of birth

names and addresses of his/her parents, spouse,
and children, if any
area, location, and mode of acquisition of
landholdings in the Philippines, if any
his/her intention to reside permanently in the
Philippines
date he/she lost his/her Philippine citizenship and
the country of which he/she is presently a citizen
 Particulars Provision under RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179
(For investment)

Special In addition to the usual registration requirements

Requirements pertinent to the conveyance of real estate, the
transfer contemplated shall not be recorded unless
the transferee submits to the Registry of Deeds of
the province or city where the land is situated,
the following:

certification of business registration issued by the

Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer
Protection of the DTI

sworn statement stating information required

under Batas Pambansa 185
 Particulars Provision under RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179
(For investment)

Special certification from assessor of municipality

Requirements or province where the property is situated
that the subject land for transfer is an
urban or rural area
if an agricultural land is acquired, a
certification from the Department of
Agrarian Reform that the land is a
retained area of the transferor and an
affidavit of the transferee attesting that
his/her total landholding inclusive of the
land to be acquired does not exceed the
5-hectare limit provided under R.A. 6657,
is required
VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES
Violations through:
1. Misrepresentation in the sworn statement
2. Acquisition of land through fraudulent means
3. Failure to reside permanently in the land acquired within two
(2) years from its acquisition, except when such failure is caused
by force majeure shall be penalized by the following:
liability to prosecution under the applicable provisions of the
Revised Penal Code and subject to deportation in appropriate
cases
forfeiture of such lands and their improvements to the National
Government through escheat proceedings by the representative of
the Solicitor General
permanent disqualification from availment of the privilege under
this Act.
 Republic v. CA
G.R. No. 108998, August 24, 1994
Respondent spouses De Vega, both
natural-born Filipino citizens, bought 2
parcels of land as their residence in San
Pablo City.

They filed an application for registration

of title of the 2 parcels of land before the
RTC of San Pablo City 9 years after when
they were no longer Filipino citizens.
 Petitioners claim

Private respondents have not acquired

proprietary rights over the subject
properties before they acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization to justify
the registration thereof in their favour.

Petitioner seeks to defeat the respondents

application for registration of title on the
ground of foreign nationality.
WON a foreign national can apply for
registration of title over a parcel of land
which he acquired by purchase while still
a citizen of the Philippines, from a vendor
who has complied with the requirements
for registration under the Public Land Act
(CA 141)?
 RULING
Private respondents were undoubtedly natural-born
Filipino citizens at the time of the acquisition of the
properties and by virtue thereof, acquired vested
rights thereon by
1. Their possession in the concept of owner and
2. The prescribed period of time held by their
predecessors-in-interest under the Public Land
Act.
Private respondents have constructed a house of
strong materials on the contested property, now
occupied by respondent Lapias mother.
Even if the private respondents were
already Canadians when they applied for
registration of the properties in question,
there could be no legal impediment for the
registration thereof, considering that it is
undisputed that they were formerly
natural-born Filipino citizens.
The parcels of land sought to be registered
no longer form part of the public domain.

They are already private in character

since private respondents' predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous
and exclusive possession and occupation
thereof under claim of ownership prior to
June 12, 1945 or since 1937.
 Director of Lands v. Buyco
G.R. No. 91189, November 27, 1992

The Buyco brothers, Samuel and Edgar, became

naturalized American citizens on 1972 and 1975,
respectively. In 1967, they filed an application
for the registration of a parcel of land situated in
the province of Romblon, which they claim to
own and have acquired by inheritance and
donation inter vivos.
 Petitioners Claim
The Buyco brothers invokes their right to register subject
property on the ground that they have already acquired
proprietary rights over the land even before acquiring
American citizenship through naturalization because:

a) They have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted and

adverse possession of the land for more than 80 years; and
b) They validly acquired title and ownership over it
because they were then Filipino citizens, their father a
Filipino citizen himself and that inheritance, intestate
succession and donation inter vivos are all recognized
modes to transfer ownership
WON the Buyco brothers have acquired
an imperfect and incomplete title over the
parcel of land subject of the registration
proceedings in their own right as Filipino
citizens so as to entitle them to a
confirmation and registration of said lot in
their names.
 RULING
It is palpably obvious that at the time the
land registration case was filed, the Buyco
brothers did not have in their favor an
imperfect title over the land. This is because
they were not able to prove open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation thereof under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership
for at least thirty (30) years immediately
preceding the filing of the application.
Considering that the Buyco brothers
became American citizens before such
filing, it goes without saying that they had
acquired no vested right, consisting of an
imperfect title over the property before
they lost their Philippine citizenship.
QUESTIONS
ASKED
IN THE BAR
 1989 BAR EXAM QUESTION
Maria, a natural-born Filipino citizen, went to
the United States in 1965 to work as a nurse.
With her savings, she bought a parcel of
land consisting of 1,000 square meters in a
residential subdivision in Metro Manila. She
had the said property titled in her name in
1970. In July, 1972, Maria acquired
American citizenship by naturalization. Two
months later, she married her Canadian
boyfriend.
(1) Can Maria validly sell this parcel of
land to the younger sister of her husband
who is also a Canadian citizen?
No, Maria cannot validly sell the parcel
of land to the younger sister of her
husband who is a Canadian citizen.
Under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, as
a general rule, aliens cannot acquire private land
since pursuant to Section 2, in relation to Section 3,
Article XII, of the 1987 Constitution they are not
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, an alien can acquire public land by
hereditary succession.
Under Section 8, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution, a natural-born Philippine citizen who
lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of
private land.
The younger sister of the husband of
Maria is not acquiring the private land
by hereditary succession out by sale.
Neither is she a former natural-born
Philippine citizen who lost her
Philippine citizenship. Consequently,
neither of the exceptions found in the
above-mentioned provisions is applicable
to her.
(2) Supposing Maria's husband dies
and she decides to reside in the
Philippines permanently, can Maria buy
the parcel of land consisting of 400
square meters neighboring her own?
No, Maria cannot buy the adjoining
parcel of land. Under Section 2 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 185, a natural-born
Philippine citizen who lost his Philippine
citizenship may acquire only up to 1,000
square meters of private urban land.
Since Maria has previously acquired a
parcel of land with an area of 1,000
square meters, she can no longer
purchase any additional parcel of urban land.
 1995 BAR EXAM QUESTION
In June 1978 spouses Joel and Michelle purchased a
parcel of land, Lot No. 143 Cadastral Survey No. 38-D,
with an area of 600 Square meters for their residence in
Cainta Rizal, from Cecille who by herself and her
predecessor-in-interest had been in open, public, peaceful,
continuous and exclusive possession of the property under
a bona fide claim of ownership long before 12 June
1945.
At the time of purchase, the spouses Joel and Michelle
were then natural born Filipino citizens. In February
1987 the spouses filed an application for registration of
their title before the proper court. This time however
Joel and Michelle were no longer Filipino citizens.
 The government opposed their application for
registration alleging that they have not
acquired proprietary rights over the subject lot
because of their subsequent acquisition of
Canadian citizenship, and that unregistered
lands are presumed to be public lands under
the principle that lands of whatever
classification belong to the State under the
Regalian doctrine, hence, they still pertain to the
State.
How will you resolve the issues raised by
the applicants and the oppositor? Discuss
fully.
 The argument of the government that
unregistered lands are presumed to be
public lands is utterly unmeritorious.
Since the predecessors-in-interest of Joel and
Michelle had been in open, public, peaceful,
continuous and exclusive possession of the land
under a bona fide claim of ownership long before
June 12, 1945, their predecessors-in-interest had
acquired the land, because they were
conclusively presumed to have performed all
conditions essential to a government grant
(Republic vs. CA, GR No. 108998, August 24,
1994).
The land ceased to be a part of the public
domain. It is alienable and disposable land. Joel
and Michelle acquired the rights of their
predecessors-in-interest by virtue of the sale to
them. Joel and Michelle can have the land
registered in their names.
They were natural born Filipino citizens at
the time of their acquisition of the land.
In any event they were Filipino citizens at
the time of their acquisition of the land.
Their becoming Canadian citizens
subsequently is immaterial. Article XII,
Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution
presupposes that they purchased the land
after they lost Filipino citizenship. It does
not apply in this case at all.
1998 BAR EXAM QUESTION

III-1
Express your agreement or disagreement
with this following statement:
Anyone, whether individual, corporation
or association, qualified to acquire private
lands is also qualified to acquire public
lands in the Philippines?
I disagree. Under Section 7 Article XV of the Constitution, a
corporation or association which is sixty percent owned by Filipino
citizens can acquire private land, because it can lease public land
and can therefore hold public land. However, it cannot acquire
public land. Under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, private
corporations and associations can only lease and cannot acquire
public land.

Under Section 8, Article XII of the

Constitution, a natural-born Filipino citizen
who lost his Philippine citizenship may
acquire private land only and cannot acquire
public land.
2000 BAR EXAM QUESTION

XI
Andy Lim, an ethnic Chinese, became a
naturalized Filipino in 1935. But later he
lost his Filipino citizenship when he
became a citizen of Canada in 1971.
Wanting the best of both worlds, he
bought, in 1987, a residential lot in Forbes
Park and a commercial lot in Binondo. Are
these sales valid? Why?
No, the sales are not valid. Under Section
8, Article XII of the Constitution, only a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who lost his Philippine citizenship may
acquire private land. Since Andy Lim was
a former naturalized Filipino citizen, he is
not qualified to acquire private lands.
2009 BAR EXAM QUESTION

XI
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
[a] Aliens are absolutely prohibited from
owning private lands in the Philippines.
False. Under Section 7, Article XII of the
Constitution, aliens may acquire private
land by hereditary succession. Under
Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution,
natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who lost their Filipino citizenship may be
transferees of private land.
Will Sec. 8, Art. XII of the Constitution, BP
185 and RA No. 8179 apply to Filipino dual
citizens?
How do you apply the law to married
couples?
 What if before you became a naturalized
citizen of another country, you have already
acquired private lands in the Philippines, are
you still allowed to acquire additional private
lands thereafter?
Thank you for listening!