Ronquillo, Ian Emmanuel C.
JD-B
Case No. 28
G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947
ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner-appellant,
vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA, respondent and appellee
FACTS:
Alexander A. Kriventor is an alien or foreigner, bought a residential lot from the
Magdalena Estate, Inc., in December of 1941, the registration of which was interrupted by the
war. In May, 1945, he sought to accomplish said registration but was denied by the register of
deeds of Manila on the ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction.
Krivenko then brought the case to the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila and
that court rendered judgment sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds, from which
Krivenko appealed to this Court.
Article XIII, Section 1, of the Constitution (Conservation and utilization of natural resources)
makes mention of only agricultural, timber and mineral lands with reference to lands of public
domain. The term "public agricultural lands" was interpreted as referring to those lands that
were not timber or mineral and including residential lands; as defined in the Act of Congress of
July 1, 1902 (Philippine Bill). This definition has been followed in long line of decisions of this
Court.
When words have been long used in a technical sense and have been judicially interpreted to
have a certain meaning, the rule of construction requires that the words used in such statute
should be interpreted according to the sense in which they have been so previously used,
although the sense may vary from strict literal meaning of the words.
Soon after the Constitution was adopted, the National Assembly revised the Public Land Law
and passed Commonwealth Act No. 141, and sections 58, 59 and 60 thereof permit the sale of
residential lots to Filipino citizens or to associations or corporations controlled by such citizens,
which is equivalent to a solemn declaration that residential lots are considered as agricultural
lands, for, under the Constitution, only agricultural lands may be alienated. This simply means
that the term "public agricultural lands" has both a broad and a particular meaning. Under its
broad or general meaning, as used in the Constitution, it embraces all lands that are neither
timber nor mineral. This broad meaning is particularized in section 9 of Commonwealth Act No.
141 which classifies "public agricultural lands" for purposes of alienation or disposition. The fact
that these lands are made alienable or disposable under Commonwealth Act No. 141, in favor
of Filipino citizens, is a conclusive indication of their character as public agricultural lands under
said statute and under the Constitution. Such land may only be leased, but not sold, to aliens,
and the lease granted shall only be valid while the land is used for the purposes referred to. The
exclusion of sale in the new Act is undoubtedly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation,
and this again is another legislative construction that the term "public agricultural land"
includes land for residence purposes.
If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be interpreted as not including residential lots or
lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that aliens may freely acquire and possess
large amounts of properties; this is obnoxious to the conservative spirit of the Constitution.
Finally on June 14, 1947, the Congress approved Republic Act No. 133 which allows mortgage of
"private real property" of any kind in favor of aliens but with a qualification consisting of
expressly prohibiting aliens to bid or take part in any sale of such real property as a
consequence of the mortgage.
ISSUE: Whether or not an alien (foreigner) under our Constitution may acquire residential land.
RULING:
NO. Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the exception of
public agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural lands,
their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving
agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino
citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to
prevent this result that Section 5 which states that “save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines”, is
included in Article XIII that is intended to insure the policy of nationalization contained in
Section 1.
This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural
resources may leak into aliens' hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of
public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so alienated upon their
becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens. It must be noticed that the
persons against whom the prohibition is directed in section 5 are the very same persons who
under section 1 and the subject matter of both sections is the same. It is a rule of statutory
construction that "a word or phrase repeated in a statute will bear the same meaning
throughout the statute, unless a different intention appears."
For all the foregoing, we hold that under the Constitution aliens may not acquire private or
public agricultural lands, including residential lands, and, accordingly, judgment is affirmed,
without costs.
