REPORT on NATIONAL ECONOMY and PATRIMONY

Sections 6 and 7 of Article XII of 1987 Constitution

Submitted by Reporters:
Bebanco, Jovelyn
Golea, Ma Consorcia
Natural Resources and Environmental Law
Set B; Saturday (1:00-4:00pm)

Submitted to:
Atty. Lydia Bundac

Article XII Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall
contribute to the common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations,
cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and
operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and
to intervene when the common good so demands.
Property is the ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to
the exclusion of others. The thing of which there may be ownership is called "property."
(Blacks Law Dictionary)
The import of the law is the limitation on the absolute enjoyment or use of property regardless of
being the rightful or lawful owner thereof

Art. 428 Civil Code

The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations
than those established by law.

Art 431 Civil Code

The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the
rights of a third person.

PD 1096, Section XX on Signs (including Non-mobile Billboards); against

the blockage of views by signs/signboards/billboards

Case Digest of TELEBAP vs COMELEC

Telecommunications And Broadcast Attorneys Of The Phils. Vs. COMELEC
289 SCRA 337; G.R. No. 132922; April 21, 1998
Facts: Petitioner are Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc.
(TELEBAP) and GMA Network. Telebap is an organization of lawyers of radio and television
broadcasting companies. Only GMA Network had the requisite standing to bring the
constitutional challenge as it can show that it may be affected by the enforcement of Section 92,
B.P. No. 881.
Petitioners challenge the validity of Section 92, B.P. No. 881 which provides:
Comelec Time- The Commission shall procure radio and television time to be known as the
Comelec Time which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within
the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this purpose, the franchise of all
radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby amended so as to provide radio or
television time, free of charge, during the period of campaign.
Petitioner contends that while Section 90 of the same law requires COMELEC to procure print
space in newspapers and magazines with payment, Section 92 provides that air time shall be
procured by COMELEC free of charge. Thus it contends that Section 92 singles out radio and
television stations to provide free air time.
Petitioners contends that the primary source of revenue of the radio and television stations is
the sale of air time to advertisers and to require these stations to provide free air time is to
authorize unjust taking of private property.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 denies radio and television broadcast companies the
equal protection of the laws.
Whether or not Section 92 of B.P. No. 881 constitutes taking of property without due process of
law and without just compensation.
Held: Petitioners argument is without merit. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television
stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated as there are
more individuals who want to broadcast that there are frequencies to assign. Radio and
television broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the airwaves and
frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely given
the temporary privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service. In granting the
privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio and television stations, the state
spends considerable public funds in licensing and supervising them.
The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to provide free air
time as against newspapers and magazines which require payment of just compensation for the
print space they may provide is likewise without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry
requires spending of public funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To require the

broadcast industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the
industry gets.
As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken
by
the
requirement
that
they
provide
air
time
to
the
COMELEC. (http://pinoycasedigest.blogspot.com/2012/10/telebap-vs-comelec-casedigest.html)

Article XII, Sec. 7 " SAVE IN CASES OF HEREDITARY SUCCESSION, NO PRIVATE LANDS
SHALL BE TRANSFERRED OR CONVEYED EXCEPT TO INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS
OR ASSOCIATIONS QUALIFIED TO ACQUIRE OR HOLD LANDS OF THE PIBLIC DIMAIN"
Private land - any land of private ownership. This includes both lands owned by private
individuals and lands which are patrimonial property of the State or of municipal corporations.
Qualified to Own Lands (a) Filipino citizens (b) Corporations or associations at least 60% of
whose capital is Filipino owned
Exceptions - Aliens, But Only By Hereditary Succession.

A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO HAS LOST HIS

PHILIPPINES CITIZENSHIP MAY BE TRANSFEREE OF PRIVATE LANDS, SUBJECT
TO LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY LAW (SEC.8,ART.XII)

Case 1. Cheesman vs Intermediate Appellate Court, 193 SCRA 93

FACTS: Petitioner, an American citizen,filed a case to annul the sale of a parcel of land
made by his wife on the ground that the property was conjugal and was sold without his
consent.

HELD: The Constitution prohibits the sale of land to aliens. He acquired no right
whatsoever over the property by virtue of its purchase. In attempting to acquire a right un
land,he violated the Constitution. The sale as to him was void.

Effect of Acquisition by Philippine Citizens

Case 2. Barsobia vs. Cuenco,113 SCRA 547

FACTS: Petitioner sold the land in dispute to a Chinese,who in turn sold it to respondent,
a Filipino. Later, petitioner sold one-half of the same land to another Filipino.

HELD: The sale of the land to the Chinese was void, because it was against the
Constitution. However, the land is in the hands of a Filipino. There would be no more
public policy to be served in allowing her to recover the land. Respondent is the rightful
owner of the land.

Case 3. De Castro vs. Teng Queen Tan, 129 SCRA 85

FACTS: Petitioner sold a piece of land to the Chinese father of respondents. Upon death
of their father, respondents made an extrajudicial settlement awarding the land to the
son who had become a naturalized Filipino citizen. Petitioner sued to recover the land on
the ground that the sale violated the Constitution.

HELD: Petitioner cannot have the sale annulled,since the land has become the property
of a naturalized Filipino citizen, who is qualified to own land.

C. Permissible Acquisition by Aliens

i. Corporation Sole

ii. Former Natural-Born Citizens

Case 3. Republic vs. IAC, 168 SCRA 165

FACTS: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lucena,as corporation sole, applied for the
judicial confirmation of title to four parcels of land which had been in the possession of
the Roman Catholic Church for more than 30 years. The government argued that under
the Constitution, corporations cannot acquire public land.

HELD: A corporation sole should not be treated as an ordinary corporation. The

constitutional provision is not applicable.

Case 4. Republic vs CA, 235 SCRA 567

FACTS: In 1978, respondents, who were then Filipino citizens, bought lots. Their
predecessors-in-interest had been in open possession since 1937. In 1987, respondents
applied for the registration of the lots in their names. By that time, they had become
naturalized Canadian citizens. The Republic of the Philippines opposed in the ground
that respondents were not Filipino citizens.

HELD: Since the predecessors-in-interest of respondents had been in possession of the

lots since 1937, the lots are already private in character. Even if respondents were no
longer Filipino citizens, as former natural- born Filipino citizens, they can be transferwes
of private land and can apply for registration.

Case 5. Republic vs CA, 235 SCRA 567

FACTS: In 1978, respondents, who were then Filipino citizens, bought lots. Their
predecessors-in-interest had been in open possession since 1937. In 1987, respondents
applied for the registration of the lots in their names. By that time, they had become
naturalized Canadian citizens. The Republic of the Philippines opposed in the ground
that respondents were not Filipino citizens.

HELD: Since the predecessors-in-interest of respondents had been in possession of the

lots since 1937, the lots are already private in character. Even if respondents were no
longer Filipino citizens, as former natural- born Filipino citizens, they can be transferwes
of private land and can apply for registration.

D. Permitted Conveyance of Rights to Aliens

i. USUFRUCT
ii. LEASE
Case 6. Palacios vs Ramirez,111 SCRA 704

FACTS: The testator constituted a usufruct over real properties of his estate in favor of a
foreigner. Appellants claimed that it was void for being violative of the constitutional
prohibition against acquisition of lands by aliens.

HELD: The constitutional provision which allows aliens to acquire private lands by
hereditary succession does not extend to testamentary succession. Otherwise,the
prohibition will be for naught. Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by
paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.
However, usufruct does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary, and it is vesting of
title to land in favor of aliens which is.prohibited by rhe Constitution.

Hereditary Succession
-

does not apply to testamentary dispositions:

Case 7: Ramirez vs Vda. De Ramirez,111 SCRA 704

FACTS: Ramirez, a Filipino national willed usufructuary rights over real property to an
Austrian national. This was challenged on the basis of Section 14(now 7).

HELD: The court a quo upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Wanda on the ground
that the Constitution covers not only succession by operation of law but also
testamentary succession. Its validity rests on the fact that "a usufruct, albeit a real right,
does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to the land in
favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the
Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to
testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and
meaningless. Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a
Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land. This opinion
notwithstanding, We uphold the usufruct in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a
real right, does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to
land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.

Case8. Llantino vs Co Liong Chong, 188 SCRA 592

FACTS: Defendant leased a parcel of land from plaintiff for 60 years. At that time,
defendant was still a Chinese citizen. Later on, he became a Filipino citizen. Plaintiff
claimed that the lease violated the Constitution.

HELD: A lease of land to an alien for a reasonable period in which a contract of lease
may be considered invalid if there are circumstances which indicate that it was used as a
scheme to circumvent the Constitution. Even if the contract is prohibited, it can no longer
be questioned because of the acquisition of the defendant of Filipino citizenship.

Natural Born Citizen to Foreign Citizen

RA 8179 (Foreign Investment Act)

-Urban Land- 5,000 square meters

-Rural Land- 3 hectares

***May be used for BUSINESS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

REMEDIES TO RECOVER PRIVATE LAND FROM DISQUALIFIED ALIEN:

Escheat Proceedings

Action for Reversion

An action for Recovery filed by the former Filipino owner, the pari delicto doctrine
having been abandoned, unless the land is sold to an American citizen prior to July 3,
1974 and the American citizen obtained title thereto.

QUESTION/S:

WHAT IS THE EFFECT ON THE SALE OF LAND TO A FOREIGNER WHO, LATER ON

ACQUIRE FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP?

ANSWER: " 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" (Halili vs CA,GR No. 113539, Mar. 12,
1998)

A couple, both natives of Bicol, went to the US to seek greener pastures. Two years
thereafter, they both acquired American citizenship. Upon reaching the age of 60, they
both decided to retire in the Philippines. Now that they're back in the Philippines,they
decided to buy a parcel of land in Pasay City to put up a mini grocery store. The land is
6,000 square meters. Can the couple validly own the said land?