EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-4068. September 29, 1953. ]
BERNABE B. CAOILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YU CHIAO PENG, Defendant-Appellee.
Alejo Mabanag for Appellant.
Quisumbing, Sycip, Quisumbing & Salazar for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONTRACTS; SALE OF LAND TO ALIEN. — A sale of real property to a Chinese citizen made in 1943 is null and void, having been entered into in violation of the Constitution, but said nullity notwithstanding, the vendor is prevented from maintaining action for recovery of the property, under the principle of pari delicto. (Cabauatan v. Uy Hoo, L-2207, January 23, 1951)
D E C I S I O N
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila holding that the sale in question is null and void, having been entered into in violation of the Constitution, but that, said nullity notwithstanding, plaintiff is prevented from maintaining the present action either under the principle of pari delicto or under the doctrine of estoppel which creates an illegal impediment to recover property sold to an alien.
On February 23, 1943, Bernabe B. Caoile sold a parcel of land, with the building erected thereon, situated in Caloocan, Rizal, and covered by transfer certificate of title No. 36882, to Yu Chiao Peng for the sum of P6,300. The deed of sale was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila and a transfer certificate of title was issued in the name of the vendee. Claiming that the sale made to the vendee, who is a Chinese citizen, was null and void because it has been executed in violation of the Constitution, the vendor instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of the sale and the reconveyance of the property in his favor upon reimbursing to the vendee the purchase price he received therefor.
Defendant set up as special defense that even assuming that the sale is null and void for the reason that it violates the Constitution, plaintiff cannot maintain the present action because he cannot avail himself of the incapacity of the defendant with whom he had contracted nor recover what he may have given under the contract in whose illegal execution he had participated, while on the other hand he is estopped to recover the property sold for the reason that he stood idle for more than five years and allowed defendant to make improvements thereon which greatly increased its value.
After trial, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court decided the case as set forth in the early part of this decision. From this judgment, plaintiff has appealed.
The only question involved in this appeal hinges on the validity of the sale under consideration as well as the right of the plaintiff to recover the land should it be maintained that the sale is null and void on the ground that it violates the Constitution.
We notice that both parties have taken the view that the law governing the validity of the sale is our present Constitution, which has been the subject of a ruling in the case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, * G. R. No. L-630, while in our opinion the law that should govern the transaction is Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, (sections 122, 123, 124) which expressly prohibits the transfer of agricultural lands to aliens in the same way as they are prohibited from doing so under our Constitution, it appearing that the sale was executed on February 23, 194 3. But we regard this consideration as of no moment in this appeal considering that the outcome of the case would be the same whether it be considered in the light of our Public Land Act or under our Constitution. In this respect, there can be no doubt that the sale is null and void.
The next question to be determined is whether plaintiff-appellant can maintain the present action of annulment and recover the property considering the effect of the law governing rescission of contracts; or, stated in another way, whether he can recover the property notwithstanding the share he had in the execution of the sale which is known to be tainted with invalidity. Our answer must of necessity be in the negative following the doctrine laid down in the case of Trinidad Gonzaga de Cabauatan, Et. Al. v. Uy Hoo Et. Al., 88 Phil., 103, wherein we made the following pronouncement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"We can, therefore, say that even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution, or the doctrine in the Krivenko case, to set aside the sale in question, they are now prevented from doing so if their purpose is to recover the lands that they have voluntarily parted with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They can not escape this conclusion because they are presumed to know the law. As this Court well said: ’A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out. The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.’ The rule is expressed in the maxims: ’Ex dolo malo non oritur actio’, and ’In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.’ (Bough and Bough v. Cantiveros and Hanopol, 40 Phil., 210, 216.)"
With the foregoing conclusion, we do not believe it necessary to discuss the other issues raised by appellant in his brief.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
REYES, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I concur in the result, it appearing that the sale in question took place when the Constitution was not in force.
PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
La venta hecha por Bernabe B. Caoile al ciudadano chino Yu Chiao Peng de una parcela de terreno por P6,300, es contraria a la disposicion constitucional que prohibe el traspaso a extranjeros de bienes inmuebles, y dicha venta es nula y de ningun valor (Krivenko contra Registrador de Titulos, 44 Off. Gaz., 471). El demandante pide que se declare nula la venta y que las partes devuelvan las cosas que habian recibido; esto es, que el vendedor devuelva el precio y el comprador el terreno. El demandado interpone la defensa fundada en el articulo 1306, regla 1. a , del Codigo Civil español, y la mayoria de este Tribunal acepta como buena la defensa.
No estoy conforme con tal criterio. El articulo citado dice que "cuando la culpa este de parte de ambos contratantes, ninguno de ellos podra repetir lo que hubiera dado a virtud del contrato."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Culpa es falta mas o menos grave, cometida a sabiendas y voluntariamente." (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española).
No existe ley que castiga la venta de un inmueble a un extranjero.
On February 23, 1943, Bernabe B. Caoile sold a parcel of land, with the building erected thereon, situated in Caloocan, Rizal, and covered by transfer certificate of title No. 36882, to Yu Chiao Peng for the sum of P6,300. The deed of sale was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila and a transfer certificate of title was issued in the name of the vendee. Claiming that the sale made to the vendee, who is a Chinese citizen, was null and void because it has been executed in violation of the Constitution, the vendor instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of the sale and the reconveyance of the property in his favor upon reimbursing to the vendee the purchase price he received therefor.
Defendant set up as special defense that even assuming that the sale is null and void for the reason that it violates the Constitution, plaintiff cannot maintain the present action because he cannot avail himself of the incapacity of the defendant with whom he had contracted nor recover what he may have given under the contract in whose illegal execution he had participated, while on the other hand he is estopped to recover the property sold for the reason that he stood idle for more than five years and allowed defendant to make improvements thereon which greatly increased its value.
After trial, at which both parties presented their evidence, the court decided the case as set forth in the early part of this decision. From this judgment, plaintiff has appealed.
The only question involved in this appeal hinges on the validity of the sale under consideration as well as the right of the plaintiff to recover the land should it be maintained that the sale is null and void on the ground that it violates the Constitution.
We notice that both parties have taken the view that the law governing the validity of the sale is our present Constitution, which has been the subject of a ruling in the case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, * G. R. No. L-630, while in our opinion the law that should govern the transaction is Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, (sections 122, 123, 124) which expressly prohibits the transfer of agricultural lands to aliens in the same way as they are prohibited from doing so under our Constitution, it appearing that the sale was executed on February 23, 194 3. But we regard this consideration as of no moment in this appeal considering that the outcome of the case would be the same whether it be considered in the light of our Public Land Act or under our Constitution. In this respect, there can be no doubt that the sale is null and void.
The next question to be determined is whether plaintiff-appellant can maintain the present action of annulment and recover the property considering the effect of the law governing rescission of contracts; or, stated in another way, whether he can recover the property notwithstanding the share he had in the execution of the sale which is known to be tainted with invalidity. Our answer must of necessity be in the negative following the doctrine laid down in the case of Trinidad Gonzaga de Cabauatan, Et. Al. v. Uy Hoo Et. Al., 88 Phil., 103, wherein we made the following pronouncement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"We can, therefore, say that even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution, or the doctrine in the Krivenko case, to set aside the sale in question, they are now prevented from doing so if their purpose is to recover the lands that they have voluntarily parted with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They can not escape this conclusion because they are presumed to know the law. As this Court well said: ’A party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out. The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.’ The rule is expressed in the maxims: ’Ex dolo malo non oritur actio’, and ’In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.’ (Bough and Bough v. Cantiveros and Hanopol, 40 Phil., 210, 216.)"
With the foregoing conclusion, we do not believe it necessary to discuss the other issues raised by appellant in his brief.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
REYES, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I concur in the result, it appearing that the sale in question took place when the Constitution was not in force.
PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
La venta hecha por Bernabe B. Caoile al ciudadano chino Yu Chiao Peng de una parcela de terreno por P6,300, es contraria a la disposicion constitucional que prohibe el traspaso a extranjeros de bienes inmuebles, y dicha venta es nula y de ningun valor (Krivenko contra Registrador de Titulos, 44 Off. Gaz., 471). El demandante pide que se declare nula la venta y que las partes devuelvan las cosas que habian recibido; esto es, que el vendedor devuelva el precio y el comprador el terreno. El demandado interpone la defensa fundada en el articulo 1306, regla 1. a , del Codigo Civil español, y la mayoria de este Tribunal acepta como buena la defensa.
No estoy conforme con tal criterio. El articulo citado dice que "cuando la culpa este de parte de ambos contratantes, ninguno de ellos podra repetir lo que hubiera dado a virtud del contrato."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Culpa es falta mas o menos grave, cometida a sabiendas y voluntariamente." (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española).
No existe ley que castiga la venta de un inmueble a un extranjero.
