REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESREPRESENTEDBYTHEBOARDOF

LIQUIDATORS

VS

HON.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTANDCITYOFZAMBOANGA

NO.L73831;FEBRUARY27,1987

(RULE91:ESCHEAT)

Rule91,Section1

Whenanbywhompetitionfiled.Whenapersondiesintestate,seizedofrealpropertyin
thePhilippines,leavingnoheirorpersonbylawentitledtothesame,theSolicitorGeneral
orhisrepresentativeinbehalfoftheRepublicofthePhilippines,mayfileapetitioninthe
CourtofFirstInstanceoftheprovincewherethedeceasedlastresidedorinwhichhehad
estate,ifheresidedoutofthePhilippines,settingforththefacts,andprayingthatthe
estateofthedeceasedbedeclaredescheated.

CivilLaw;LandRegistration;PublicLands;Escheat;PhilippinePropertyActof
1946;InadvertenceoftheAmericangovernmentinomittingtotransfertheland
totheRepublicofthePhilippines,notfatal;PurposeoftheAct.ltisclear,andthe
respondentCityofZamboangadoesnotdenyit,thattherewasmereinadvertenceonthe
partoftheAmericangovernmentinomittingtotransferthedisputedlandtotheRepublic
of the Philippines. The obvious purpose of the Act was to turn over to the Philippine
governmentallenemypropertiessituatedinitsterritorythathadbeenseizedandwere
beingheldforthetimebeingbytheUnitedStates,whichwasthenexercisingsovereignty
overthePhilippines.ThetransferofsuchenemypropertiestothePhilippineRepublicwas
oneoftheactsbywhichtheUnitedStatesacknowledgedtheelevationofthiscountrytothe
statusofasovereignstateonJuly4,1946.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Presumptionisthattransferofenemyproperties
tothePhilippineGovernmentwaseffectedbytheUnitedStates;Presumptionof
regularity of official functions.While it is true that there are no records of such
transfer,wemaypresumethatsuchtransferwasmade.Thelackofsuchrecordsdoesnot
meanthatitwasnotmadeasthiswouldruncountertothemandateofthePhilippine
Property Act of 1946, which, to repeat, intended to vest title in the Philippines enemy
propertiesfoundinitsterritory.ItwouldbemorereasonabletosupposethatthePresident
oftheUnitedStates,orthepersonactingunderhisauthority,compliedwithratherthan
neglected(andsoviolated)thisrequirementofSection3ofthesaidAct,ifonlyonthebasis
ofthepresumptionoftheregularityofofficialfunctions.Intheextreme,wecanevensay
thatthissectionlegallyeffectedthetransfer,tobeevidencedlaterbytheformalityofthe
correspondingdeed,andthatthelackofsuchdeeddoesnotmeanthatnotransferwas
made.Otherwise,wewouldhavetofacethedubiousconclusionthatthesaidpropertyis
stillownedandsostillsubjecttodispositionbytheUnitedStates.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Rulethatordinaryrealpropertiestheownersof
whichmaybepresumeddeadandleftnoheirs,maybeescheatedinfavorofthe
politicalsubdivisionswherethepropertiesarelocated;Exception;Ruledoesnot
cover properties taken from enemy nationals as a result of World War ll and
required to be transferred to the Republic of the Philippines by the United
States.Weholdthatwhereitcomestoordinaryrealpropertiestheownersofwhichmay
bepresumeddeadandleftnoheirs,thesamemaybeescheated,conformablytoRule91of
theRulesofCourt,infavorofthepoliticalsubdivisionsinwhichtheyarelocated.Thesaid
Rule,however,doesnotcoverpropertiestakenfromenemynationalsasaresultofWorld
WarII andrequired tobetransferredtothe Republicof thePhilippinesbytheUnited
StatesinaccordancewithitsownenactmentcommonlyknownasthePhilippineProperty
Act of 1946. Such properties, including the land in dispute, belong to the Philippine
governmentnotbyvirtueoftheescheatproceedingsbutonthestrengthofthetransfer
authorizedandrequiredbythesaidAct.
FACTS:

The property in dispute was among the lands taken over by the United States
GovernmentunderthePhilippinePropertyActof1946enactedbytheAmericanCongress.It
wasregisteredin1930underTransferCertificateofTitleNo.9509oftheRegisterofDeedsof
ZamboangainthenameofKantiroKoyama,aJapanesenational,whohasnotbeenheardfrom
sincetheendofWorldWarII.1UnderthesaidAct,thelandwassupposedtobetransferredtothe
RepublicofthePhilippines,pursuanttoitsSection3readingasfollows:

AllpropertyvestedinortransferredtothePresidentoftheUnitedStates,the
AlienPropertyCustodian,oranysuchofficeroragencyasthePresidentofthe
United States may designate under the Trading with the Enemy act, as
amended,whichwaslocatedinthePhilippinesatthetimeofsuchvesting,orthe
proceeds thereof, and which shall remain after the satisfaction of any claim
payable under the Trading with the Enemy Act, costs and expenses of
administration as may by law be charged against such property or proceeds,
shallbetransferredbythepresidentoftheUnitedStatestotheRepublicofthe
Philippines.

The transferwasnevermade,however, andthepropertyremainedregisteredinthe

nameofKoyama.Nevertheless,thelothassince1978beencoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.
42644 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines with the Board of Liquidators as
administrator.2

Earlier,in1976,theRepublicofthePhilippineshadfiledescheatproceedingsagainst
thesaidproperty,claimingthattheregisteredowneroftheland"hadbeenabsentforthepast
tenyearsormoreandhe,therefore,maybepresumeddeadforthepurposeofappointinghis
successor."Italsoallegedthatsinceheleftnoheirsorpersonsentitledtotheaforementioned
property,theStateshouldinheritthesameinaccordancewithRule91oftheRulesofCourt.3

After the required publications, hearing was held at which the City of
Zamboangadidnotappearandnoclaimoroppositionwasfiledbyanyparty.The
Solicitor General allowed the appearance of the Board of Liquidators as
 administratorofthedisputedlandandtheCityFiscalofZamboangaCitydidnot
object.4Finally,thetrialcourtdeclaredtheproperty

...escheatedtotheStateinfavoroftheCityofZamboangawherethepropertyis
located forthe benefitofpublic schoolsand public charitableinstitutionsand
centersintheCityofZamboanga.

Notsatisfied with thedecision, thepetitionerelevatedthesameto theIntermediate

AppellateCourt,whereitwasaffirmed.TherespondentcourtheldthattheCityofZamboanga
whichhadlaterintervenedwithleaveofcourtwasentitledtothepropertyinquestion
undertheprovisionofSection3,Rule91oftheRulesofCourt.

Insoruling,therespondentcourtrejectedthepositiontakenbythepetitionerwhichit
asks us now to consider as its justification for the reversal of the appealed decision. That
position, simply stated, is that there was a mere oversight on the part of the American
government which prevented the formality of a transfer of the property to the Philippine
government.ThatneglectshouldnotdivesttheRepublicofthepropertywhichunderthespirit
and intendment of the Philippine Property Act of 1946 should belong to it as successorin
interestoftheUnitedStates.5

Oversight or not, says the respondent court, the fact is that the property was not
transferred as required by the said law. Hence, it was properly escheated to the City of
Zamboanga,ontheunrebuttedpresumptionthattheregisteredownerwasalreadydead,and
there being no heirs or other claimants to the land in question. Moreover, the Board of
Liquidatorshadnopersonalitytoclaimthelandbecauseithadtheauthoritytoadministeronly
thosepropertiesthathadbeentransferredbytheU.S.AlienPropertyCustodiantotheRepublic
ofthePhilippines.6

ISSUE:

WONthesubjectlandshouldbeadjudgedinfavorofthepetitionerRP.

HELD:

Yes.Itisclear,andtherespondentCityofZamboangadoesnotdenyit,thattherewas
mereinadvertenceonthepartoftheAmericangovernmentinomittingtotransferthedisputed
landtotheRepublicofthePhilippines.TheobviouspurposeoftheActwastoturnovertothe
Philippinegovernmentallenemypropertiessituatedinitsterritorythathadbeenseizedand
werebeingheldforthetimebeingbytheUnitedStates,whichwasthenexercisingsovereignty
overthePhilippines.ThetransferofsuchenemypropertiestothePhilippineRepublicwasone
oftheactsbywhichtheUnitedStatesacknowledgedtheelevationofthiscountrytothestatus
ofasovereignstateonJuly4,1946.

Whileitistruethattherearenorecordsofsuchtransfer,wemaypresumethatsuch
transferwasmade.Thelackofsuchrecordsdoesnotmeanthatitwasnotmadeasthiswould
runcountertothemandateofthePhilippinePropertyActof1946,which,torepeat,intendedto
vesttitleinthePhilippinesenemypropertiesfoundinitsterritory.Itwouldbemorereasonable
tosupposethatthePresidentoftheUnitedStates,orthepersonactingunderhisauthority,
compliedwith,ratherthanneglected(andsoviolated)thisrequirementofSection3ofthesaid
Act,ifonlyonthebasisofthepresumptionoftheregularityofofficialfunctions.Intheextreme,
we can even say that this sectionlegally effected the transfer, to beevidenced laterby the
formality of the corresponding deed, and that the lack of such deed does not mean that no
transfer was made. Otherwise, we would have to face the dubious conclusion that the said
propertyisstillownedandsostillsubjecttodispositionbytheUnitedStates.

Weholdthatwhereitcomestoordinaryrealpropertiestheownersofwhichmaybe
presumeddeadandleftnoheirs,thesamemaybeescheated,conformablytoRule91ofthe
RulesofCourt,infavorofthepoliticalsubdivisionsinwhichtheyarelocated.ThesaidRule,
however,doesnotcoverpropertiestakenfromenemynationalsasaresultofWorldWarIIand
requiredtobetransferredtotheRepublicofthePhilippinesbytheUnitedStatesinaccordance
with its own enactment commonly known as the Philippine Property Act of 1946. Such
properties,includingthelandindispute,belongtothePhilippinegovernmentnotbyvirtueof
theescheatproceedingsbutonthestrengthofthetransferauthorizedandrequiredbythesaid
Act.