Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    2

    Uploaded by

    AlyssaOgao-ogao
    The respondent, an American citizen, purchased a parcel of private agricultural land in 1954. The Republic claimed that upon the expiration of the Parity Amendment in 1974, any rights acquired by US citizens would cease. The Court examined the Parity Amendment and found that it only established exceptions for public lands and utilities, not private agricultural lands. As the land was private agricultural and the amendment's privileges did not extend past 1974, the respondent's ownership rights would expire on that date. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the respondent could not own private agricultural land under the Parity Amendment and any other rights would end in 1974.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2

    Uploaded by

    AlyssaOgao-ogao
    127 views2 pages
    The respondent, an American citizen, purchased a parcel of private agricultural land in 1954. The Republic claimed that upon the expiration of the Parity Amendment in 1974, any rights acquired by US citizens would cease. The Court examined the Parity Amendment and found that it only established exceptions for public lands and utilities, not private agricultural lands. As the land was private agricultural and the amendment's privileges did not extend past 1974, the respondent's ownership rights would expire on that date. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the respondent could not own private agricultural land under the Parity Amendment and any other rights would end in 1974.

    Original Description:

    DIGESTS ON PROPERTY, SALES AND LAND TITLES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent, an American citizen, purchased a parcel of private agricultural land in 1954. The Republic claimed that upon the expiration of the Parity Amendment in 1974, any rights acquired by US citizens would cease. The Court examined the Parity Amendment and found that it only established exceptions for public lands and utilities, not private agricultural lands. As the land was private agricultural and the amendment's privileges did not extend past 1974, the respondent's ownership rights would expire on that date. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the respondent could not own private agricultural land under the Parity Amendment and any other rights would end in 1974.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views2 pages

    2

    Uploaded by

    AlyssaOgao-ogao
    The respondent, an American citizen, purchased a parcel of private agricultural land in 1954. The Republic claimed that upon the expiration of the Parity Amendment in 1974, any rights acquired by US citizens would cease. The Court examined the Parity Amendment and found that it only established exceptions for public lands and utilities, not private agricultural lands. As the land was private agricultural and the amendment's privileges did not extend past 1974, the respondent's ownership rights would expire on that date. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the respondent could not own private agricultural land under the Parity Amendment and any other rights would end in 1974.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE DIGEST 3: LAND TITLES AND DEEDS (CITIZENSHIP)

    REPUBLIC VS QUASHA, G.R. No. L-30299 August 17, 1972

    FACTS OF THE CASE: Respondent, William H. Quasha, an American citizen, had acquired by purchase on 26 November 1954 a parcel of land
    with the permanent improvements thereon, in Forbes Park, Municipality of Makati, with an area of 2,616 sq. m. more or less, and covered by a T.
    C. T. He filed a petition in the CFI of Rizal averring the acquisition of said real estate. The Republic claimed that upon expiration of the Parity
    Amendment on 3 July 1974, rights acquired by citizens of the United States of America shall cease and be of no further force and effect . Such
    claims necessarily affect the rights and interest of the plaintiff, for which reason plaintiff Quasha sought a declaration of his rights under the
    Parity Amendment, said plaintiff contending that the ownership of properties during the effectivity of the Parity Amendment continues
    notwithstanding the termination and effectivity of the Amendment.
    The Solicitor General contended that the land acquired by plaintiff constituted private agricultural land and that the acquisition violated
    section 5, Article XIII, of the Constitution of the Philippines, which prohibits the transfer of private agricultural land to non-Filipinos, except by
    hereditary succession; and assuming that Quasha's acquisition was valid, any and all rights by him so acquired "will expire ipso facto and ipso
    jure at the end of the day on 3 July 1974, if he continued to hold the property until then, and will be subject to escheat or reversion proceedings" by
    the Republic.
    The CFI of Rizal held that acquisition by the plaintiff the private agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title in his name
    was valid, and that plaintiff has a right to continue in ownership of the said property even beyond July 3, 1974.

    ISSUE: Whether or not by virtue of the so-called Parity Amendment to the Philippine Constitution respondent Quasha could validly acquire
    ownership of the private residential land in Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, which is concededly classified private agricultural land. NO

    RULING: "Parity Amendment" provides that: Notwithstanding the provision of section one, Article Thirteen, and section eight, Article Fourteen,
    of the foregoing Constitution, during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into by the President of the Philippines with the President of
    the United States on the fourth of July, nineteen hundred and forty-six, pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered Seven hundred
    and thirty-three, but in no case to extend beyond the third of July, nineteen hundred and seventy-four, the disposition, exploitation, development,
    and utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
    forces and sources of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of public utilities , shall, if open to any
    person, be open to citizens of the United states and to all forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the
    United States in the same manner as to, and under the same conditions imposed upon, citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations
    owned or controlled by citizens of the Philippines.

    Examination of the "Parity Amendment", as ratified, reveals that it only establishes an express exception to two (2) provisions of our
    Constitution, to wit: (a) Section 1, Article XIII, re disposition, exploitation, development and utilization of agricultural, timber and mineral lands
    of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines; and (b) Section 8, Article XIV, regarding operation of public utilities. As
    originally drafted by the framers of the Constitution, the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands of the public domain, and other
    natural resources of the Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved to Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them: but the
    "Parity Amendment" expressly extended the privilege to citizens of the United States of America and/or to business enterprises owned or
    controlled by them. Thus, whether from the Philippine or the American side, the intention was to secure parity for United States citizens, only
    in two matters: (1) exploitation, development and utilization of public lands, and other natural resources of the Philippines; and (2) the operation of
    public utilities.

    It is easy to see that all exceptional rights conferred upon United States citizens and business entities owned or controlled by them, under the
    Amendment, are subject to one and the same resolutory term or period: they are to last "during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered
    into on 4 July 1946", "but in no case to extend beyond the, third of July, 1974". None of the privileges conferred by the "Parity Amendment" are
    excepted from this resolutory period.

    Hence, the Court ruled that the provisions of the "Parity Amendment" prescribing that the disposition and exploitation, etc. of agricultural lands
    of the public domain are in no case to extend beyond the third of July 1974. This limitation already existed when Quasha in 1954 purchased the
    Forbes Park property, and the acquisition was subject to it. Further, the decision of the CFI of Rizal was reversed and declared that, under the
    "Parity Amendment" to our Constitution, citizens of the United States and corporations and business enterprises owned or controlled by
    them cannot acquire and own, save in cases of hereditary succession, private agricultural lands in the Philippines and that all other rights acquired
    by them under said amendment will expire on 3 July 1974.

    You might also like