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

Dinglasan, together with Francisco, Carmen,

SUPREME COURT Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Rizal, Jimmy, and Jesse
Dinglasan filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action for recovery of the same parcel
Manila of land.6 Citing the case of the Philippines Banking Corporation v. Lui She,7 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 a motion to dismiss the case on the ground
of res judicata.8 On October 10, 1968, and November 9, 1968, the trial court denied the
G.R. No. 128195           October 3, 2001 motion.9 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
ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YU LEE, HON. JUDGE JOSE D. ALOVERA,* Presiding dismiss the case, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata.10
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Roxas City, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
ROXAS CITY, petitioners, On September 7, 1993, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the regional Trial
vs. Court, Roxas City a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 of the Capiz Cadastre,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE formerly covered by Original Certificate of title No. 3389 of the register of Deeds of Roxas
ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, and THE HON. COURT OF City.11 Petitioners alleged that they were the windows of the deceased Lee Bing Hoo and Lee
APPEALS,* respondents. 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 Liong's widow, Ang Chia, and his two sons, Lee Bun
PARDO, J.: Ting and Lee Bing Ho, executed an extra judicial settlement of the state of Lee Liong,
adjudicating to themselves the subject parcel of land. 12 Petitioner Elizabeth Lee acquired her
The case under consideration is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the court of share in lot No. 398 through an extra-judicial settlement and donation executed in her favor by
appeals nullifying that of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, in Reconstitution Case No. R- her deceased husband Lee Bong Hoo. Petitioner Pacita Yu Lee acquired her share in the same
1928,2 pertaining to lot 398, Capiz Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389. lot by succession from her deceased husband Lee Bun Ting, as evidenced by a deed of extra-
judicial settlement.13
Sometime in March 1936, Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion,
Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, Rizal, and Jimmy, alll surnamed Dinglasan sold to Lee Liong, A Previously, on December 9, 1948, the Register of Deeds, Capiz Salvador Villaluz, issued a
Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with an approximate area of 1,631 square meters, designed as certification that a transfer certificate of title over the property was issued in the name of Lee
lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389, situated at the corner of Roxas Liong.14 However, the records of the Register of Deeds, Roxas City were burned during the war.
Avenue and Pavia Street, Roxas City.3 Thus, as heretofore stated, on September 7, 1968, petitioners filed a petition for reconstitution of
title.
1âwphi1.nêt

However, in 1948, the former owners filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action
against the heirs of Lee Liong for annulment of sale and recovery of land. 4 The plaintiffs assailed On June 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17, ordered the reconstitution of
the validity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong on the basis of an approved plan
ownership of private agricultural land, including residential, commercial, or industrial land. and technical description.15 The dispositive portion of the trial Court's decision reads thus:
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: "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 Lee Liong, deceased, of
"granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to the vendee, it does not Roxas City, with all the conditions stated in paragraph 2 of this decision. This decision
necessarily follow therefrom that title remained in the vendor, who had also violated the shall become final after the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt by the Register of
constitutional prohibition, or that he (vendor) has the right to recover the title of which he Deeds and by the Commissioner of LRA of a notice of such judgment without any appeal
has divested himself by his in ignoring the prohibition. In such contingency another having been filed by any of such officials.
principle of law sets in to bar the equally guilty vendor from recovering the title which he
had voluntarily conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto."5 "SO ORDERED.
 "Given at Roxas City, Philippines, We grant the petition.

"June 10, 1994. 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 23. The purpose of
the reconstruction of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title
"JOSE O. ALOVERA
reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred. 24
"Judge”
In this case, petitioners sought a reconstitution of title in the name of Lee Liong, alleging that the
transfer of certificate of title issued to him was lost or destroyed during World War II. All the
documents recorded and issued by the Register of Deed, Capiz, which include the transfer
On August 18, 1994, the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17 issued an certificate of title issued in the name of Lee Liong, were all destroyed during the war. The fact
Entry of Judgement.17 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 that a transfer certificate of title had not been issued. 25 In the trial court
On January 25, 1995, the Solicitor General filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for proceeding, petitioners presented evidence proving the sale of the land from the Dinglasans to
annulment of judgement in Reconstitution Case No. 1928, alleging that the Regional Trial Court, Lee Liong and the latter's subsequent possessions of the of the property in the concept of owner.
Roxas City had no jurisdiction over the case.18 The Solicitor General contended that the Thus, the trial court after examining all the evidence before it, ordered the reconstruction of title
petitioners were not the proper parties in the reconstitution of title, since their predecessor-in- in the name of Lee Liong.
interest 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. However, there is a question as to whether Lee Liong as the qualification to own land in the
Philippines.
On April 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision declaring the judgement of
reconstitution void.19 The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, 26 aliens could not acquire
On May 24, 1996, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the Court of Appeals a private agricultural lands, save in cases of hereditary succession. 27 Thus, Lee Liong, a chinese
motion for reconsideration of the decision. 20 On February 18, 19976, the Court of appeals denied citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in question. 28
the motion.21
The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not validate the
Hence this petition. 22 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
Petitioners submitted that the Solicitor General was estopped from seeking annulment of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction. 29 "In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of
judgement of reconstitution after failing to object during the reconstitution proceedings before the holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution both the vendor and the vendee
trial court, despite due notice. Petitioners alleged that the Solicitor General merely acted on the are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being thus in pari delicto the
request of private and politically powerful individuals who wished to capitalize on the prime courts will not afford protection to either party."30 The proper party to assail the sale is the
location of the subject land. 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 against
Petitioners emphasized that the ownership of the land had been settled in two previous cases of
the State.31
the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, 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. 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 to
the State, subject to other defenses, as hereafter set forth. 32
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.
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.

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. 33 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.34 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 owner's duplicate, secondary evidence thereof, or other valid sources of the title be
reconstituted.35 In this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description
approved by the Land Registration Authority.36 This renders the order of reconstitution void for
lack of factual support.37 A judgment with absolute nothing to support it is void. 38

As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of the title is the reissuance of a new certificate of title lost
or destroyed in its original form and condition.39 It does not pass upon the ownership of the land
covered by the lost or destroyed title. 40 Any change in the ownership of the property must be the
subject of a separate suit.41 Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate
proceedings 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

CA-G. R. SP No. 36274. In lieu thereof, the Court sets aside the order of reconstitution of title in
Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, and dismisses the petition,
without prejudice. 1âwphi1.nêt

No Cost.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Kapunan, on official leave.