524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Republic

*
G.R. No. 128195. October 3, 2001.

ELIZABETH LEE and** PACITA YU LEE, HON. JUDGE

JOSE D. ALOVERA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 17, Roxas City, THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF
LANDS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND
REGISTRATION**
AUTHORITY and THE HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, respondents.

Land Titles; Reconstitution; Words and Phrases; The

reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the
original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to a piece of

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

** Neither the judge nor the Court of Appeals is a proper party as petitioner or
respondent (Rule 45, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Court).

525

OL. 366, OCTOBER 3, 2001 525

Lee vs. Republic

land.The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes

restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or
destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of
land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after
observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced
in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred.
 Same; Sales; In Pari Delicto; Prescription; 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; Prescription never lies against the State.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. However, the proper party to assail the
illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction.
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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.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, however, 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. Thus, the
subsequent transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no
longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial
transfer. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our
lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Republic

Same; Reconstitution; Reconstitution of the original certificate

of title must be based on an owners duplicate, secondary evidence
thereof, or other valid sources of title to be reconstituted, and where
reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description
approved by the Land Registration Authority, the order of
reconstitution is void for lack of factual support.Incidentally, it
must be mentioned that reconstitution of the original certificate of
title must be based on an owners duplicate, secondary evidence
thereof, or other valid sources of the title to be reconstituted. In
this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical
description approved by the Land Registration Authority. This
renders the order of reconstitution void for lack of factual support.
A judgment with absolutely nothing to support it is void.
Same; Same; A proceeding for reconstitution of title does not
pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or
destroyed titleany change in the ownership of the property must
be the subject of a separate suit.As earlier mentioned, a
reconstitution of title is the reissuance of a new certificate of title
lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not
pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or
destroyed title. Any change in the ownership of the property must
be the subject of a separate suit. Thus, although petitioners are in
possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to
thresh out the issue of ownership of the land.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Patrocinio S. Palanog for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

PARDO, J.:

The case under consideration

1
is a petition for review on
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying
that of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, in
Reconstitution Case No. R

________________

1 In CAG.R. SP No. 36274, promulgated on April 30, 1996. Salas, J.,

ponente, CaizaresNye and CarpioMorales, JJ., concurring.

527

VOL. 366, OCTOBER 3, 2001 527

Lee vs. Republic
2
1928, pertaining to Lot 398, Capiz Cadastre, covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 3389.
 Sometime in March 1936, Rafael, Carmen, Francisco,
Jr., Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose,
Loreto, Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy, all surnamed Dinglasan
sold to Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with
an approximate area of 1,631 square meters, designated as
Lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
3389, situated at 3the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia
Street, Roxas City.
However, in 1948, the former owners filed with the
Court of First Instance, Capiz an action against the heirs
4
of
Lee Liong for annulment of sale and recovery of land. 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. Rebuffed in the
trial court and the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs appealed to
the Supreme Court. On June 27, 1956, the Supreme Court
ruled thus:

. . . granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to
the vendee, it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the title
remained in the vendor, who had also violated the constitutional
prohibition, or that he (vendor) has the right to recover the title of
which he has divested himself by his act in ignoring the
prohibition. In such contingency another principle of law sets in to
bar the equally guilty vendor from recovering the title which he
5
had voluntarily conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto.

On July 1, 1968, the same former owners Rafael A.

Dinglasan, together with Francisco, Carmen, Ramon,
Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto,
Rizal, Jimmy, and Jesse Dinglasan filed with the Court of
First Instance,6 Capiz an action for recovery of the same
parcel of land. Citing the case of Philippine

________________

2 Dated June 10, 1994.

3 Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, 99 Phil. 427, 429 [1956].
4 Ibid., at p. 432.
5 Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, supra, Note 3, p. 431.
6 Civil Case No. V3064.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Republic

7
 7
Banking Corporation v. Lui She, they submitted that the
sale to Lee Liong was null and void for being violative of
the Constitution. On September 23, 1968, the heirs of Lee
Liong filed with the trial court 8a motion to dismiss the case
on the ground of res judicata. On October 10, 1968,9 and
November 9, 1968, the trial court denied the motion. The
heirs of Lee Liong elevated the case to the Supreme Court
by petition for certiorari. On April 22, 1977, the Supreme
Court annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it
to dismiss10
the case, holding that the suit was barred by res
judicata.
On September 7, 1993, Elizabeth ManuelLee and Pacita
Yu Lee filed with the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City a
petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 of the
Capiz Cadastre, formerly covered by Original Certificate of 11
Title No. 3389 of the Register of Deeds of Roxas City.
Petitioners alleged that they were the widows of the
deceased Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting, who were the
heirs of Lee Liong, the owner of the lot. Lee Liong died
intestate in February 1944. On June 30, 1947, Lee Liongs
widow, Ang Chia, and his two sons, Lee Bun Ting and Lee
Bing Ho, executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate
of Lee Liong,
12
adjudicating to themselves the subject parcel
of land. Petitioner Elizabeth Lee acquired her share in
Lot No. 398 through an extrajudicial settlement and
donation executed in her favor by her deceased husband
Lee Bing Hoo. Petitioner Pacita Yu Lee acquired her share
in the same lot by succession from her deceased husband
Lee Bun Ting, 13
as evidenced by a deed of extrajudicial
settlement.
Previously, on December 9, 1948, the Register of Deeds,
Capiz, Salvador Villaluz, issued a certification that a
transfer certificate

_______________

7 21 SCRA 52 [1967].
8 Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen, 76 SCRA 416, 420 [1977].
9 Ibid., at pp. 421422.
10 Ibid., at p. 425.
11 Comment, Rollo, pp. 148160, at p. 149; Memorandum, Solicitor
General, Rollo, pp. 199211, at pp. 199200.
12 CA Decision, Rollo, p. 82.
13 Ibid.

529

VOL. 366, OCTOBER 3, 2001 529

 Lee vs. Republic

of title14 over the property was issued in the name of Lee

Liong. However, the records of the Register of Deeds,
Roxas City were burned during the war. Thus, as
heretofore stated, on September 7, 1968, petitioners filed a
petition for reconstitution of title.
On June 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City,
Branch 17, ordered the reconstitution of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong on 15
the basis of an approved plan and technical description.
The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads
thus:

WHEREFORE, in reiteration, the Register of Deeds for the City

of Roxas is ordered to reconstitute the lost or destroyed certificate
of title in the name of Lee Liong, deceased, of Roxas City, with all
the conditions stated in paragraph 2 of this decision. This decision
shall become final after the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt
by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of LRA of a
notice of such judgment without any appeal having been filed by
any of such officials.
SO ORDERED.
Given at Roxas City, Philippines,
June 10, 1994.
JOSE O. ALOVERA
16
Judge

On August 18, 1994, the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial

Court, Roxas
17
City, Branch 17 issued an Entry of
Judgment.
On January 25, 1995, the Solicitor General filed with
the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment
in Reconstitution Case No. 1928, alleging that the Regional
18
Trial Court, Roxas City had no jurisdiction over the case.
The Solicitor General contended

_______________

14 Petition, Annex E (Annex 2), Rollo, p. 66.

15 In Reconstitution Case No. R1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City,
Branch 17, Judge Jose O. Alovera, presiding.
16 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 3637.
17 Petition, Annex B, Rollo, p. 38.
18 Docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 36274. CA Rollo, pp. 111. On February
17, 1995, the Republic filed an amended complaint, impleading the

530
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lee vs. Republic

that the petitioners were not the proper parties in the

reconstitution of title, since their predecessorininterest
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.
On April 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated 19
its
decision declaring the judgment of reconstitution void.
On May 24, 1996, Elizabeth ManuelLee and Pacita Yu
Lee filed with the Court 20 of Appeals a motion for
reconsideration of the decision. On21February 18, 1997, the
Court of Appeals denied22 the motion.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners submitted that the Solicitor General was
estopped from seeking annulment of the judgment of
reconstitution after failing to object during the
reconstitution proceedings before the trial court, despite
due notice. Petitioners alleged that the Solicitor General
merely acted on the request of private and politically
powerful individuals who wished to capitalize on the prime
location of the subject land.
Petitioners emphasized that the ownership of the land
had been settled in two previous cases of the Supreme
Court, where the Court ruled in favor of their predecessor
ininterest, Lee Liong. 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.
On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that
the decision in the reconstitution case was void; otherwise,
it would amount to circumventing the constitutional
proscription against aliens acquiring ownership of private
or public agricultural lands.

_______________

Administrator, Land Registration Authority, as plaintiff (Docketed as

CAG.R. SP No. 36517, CA Rollo, pp. 5765).
19 CA Decision, CA Rollo, pp. 148157.
20 Petition, Annex H, Rollo, pp. 90100.
21 Rollo, p. 117.
22 Filed on April 3, 1997, Rollo, pp. 1235. On July 12, 1999, we gave
due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 182183). The case was considered
submitted for decision on December 13, 1999 upon the filing of petitioners
memorandum (Rollo, pp. 216226).
 531

VOL. 366, OCTOBER 3, 2001 531

Lee vs. Republic

We grant the petition.

The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes
restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or
destroyed instrument
23
attesting the title of a person to a
piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is
to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law,
the title reproduced in exactly the same 24
way it has been
when the loss or destruction occurred.
In this case, petitioners sought a reconstitution of title
in the name of Lee Liong, alleging that the transfer
certificate of title issued to him was lost or destroyed
during World War II. All the documents recorded and
issued by the Register of Deeds, Capiz, which include the
transfer certificate of title issued in the name of Lee Liong,
were all destroyed during the war. The fact that the
original of the transfer certificate of title was not in the
files of the Office of the Register of Deeds did not imply 25
that a transfer certificate of title had not been issued. In
the trial court proceedings, petitioners presented evidence
proving the sale of the land from the Dinglasans to Lee
Liong and the latters subsequent possession of the
property in the concept of owner. Thus, the trial court, after
examining all the evidence before it, ordered the
reconstitution of title in the name of Lee Liong.
However, there is a question as to whether Lee Liong
has the qualification to own land in the Philippines.
The sale of the land in question was consummated
sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity 26
of the 1935
Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, aliens could
not acquire private agricultural
27
lands, save in cases of
hereditary succession. Thus, Lee

_______________

23 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 110, 118 [1999]; Rivera v.

Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 57; 244 SCRA 218 [1995].
24 Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 23; Heirs of Pinote v.
Dulay, 187 SCRA 12, 1920 [1990].
25 Alipoon v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 591, 597; 305 SCRA 118 [1999].
26 Article XIII, Section 5, 1935 Constitution.
27 Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 [1947]; Halili v. Court of
Appeals, 350 Phil. 906, 914915; 287 SCRA 465 [1998].
 532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Republic

Liong, a Chinese28 citizen, was disqualified to acquire the

land in question.
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.
However, the proper party to assail the illegality of 29
the
transaction was not the parties to the transaction. 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
30
the courts will not afford protection to either party. 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
31
such action. Prescription never lies against the State.
Although ownership of the land cannot revert to the
original sellers, because of the doctrine of pari delicto, the
Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or
escheat of the land to32the State, subject to other defenses,
as hereafter set forth.
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.

_______________

28 Ong Ching Po v. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 341, 346 [1994].

29 Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen, supra, Note 8: Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting,
supra, Note 3.
30 Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap, 96 Phil. 447, 451 [1955].
31 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95533, November 20, 2000,
345 SCRA 63, citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 606, 624; 295
SCRA 296 (1998); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 721, 734 (1989);
De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 898, 905; 286 SCRA 230 [1998].
32 Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827 [1953].
 533

VOL. 366, OCTOBER 3, 2001 533

Lee vs. Republic

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 nonFilipinos. In this
case, however, 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 33
and the title of the
transferee is rendered valid. Thus, the subsequent
transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no longer
be impugned
34
on the basis of the invalidity of the initial
transfer. The objective of the constitutional provision to
keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
Incidentally, it must be mentioned that reconstitution of
the original certificate of title must be based on an owners
duplicate, secondary evidence thereof, 35or other valid
sources of the title to be reconstituted. In this case,
reconstitution was based on the plan and technical 36
description approved by the Land Registration Authority.
This renders the 37
order of reconstitution void for lack of
factual support. 38A judgment with absolutely nothing to
support it is void.
As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of title is the re
issuance of a new certificate of 39
title lost or destroyed in its
original form and condition. It does not pass upon the
ownership
40
of the land covered by the lost or destroyed
title. Any change in the ownership of the

_______________

33 United Church Board of World Ministries v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA

446, 451452 [1988].
34 Halili v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 27, at p. 917.
35 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 7 [2000].
36 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 3637.
37 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 35.
38 Yangco v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 29 Phil. 183, 191 [1915].
39 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 35, at p. 23
[2000], citing Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217, 230; 294
SCRA 714 [1998]; Stilianopulos v. The City of Legaspi, 316 SCRA 523, 538
[1999].
40 Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 39.
 534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Republic
41
property must be the subject of a separate suit. Thus,
although petitioners are in possession of the land, a
separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of
ownership of the land.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
36274. In lieu thereof, the Court sets aside the order of
reconstitution of title in Reconstitution Case No. R1928,
Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, and dismisses the
petition, without prejudice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno and Ynares

Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., On official leave.

Judgment reversed and set aside, order of reconstitution

set aside. Petition dismissed.

Notes.The fact that the title to the lot was lost does
not mean that the lot ceased to be a registered land before
the reconstitution of its title. (Rivera vs. Court of Appeals,
244 SCRA 218 [1995])
Reconstitution of title under R.A. No. 26 is an action in
rem which means that it is one directed not only against
particular persons but against the thing itself. (Republic vs.
Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 551 [1995])

o0o

________________

41 Bunagan v. CFI of Cebu, Branch VI, 97 SCRA 72, 76 [1980].

535

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.