AUGUSTO J. D. CORTES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. O PO POE AND YU KIMTING, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

“On March 1, 1938, the plaintiff sold a house and lot
situated at Gandara street, Binondo, Manila, registered under his name
in the Registry of Deeds of Manila (Transfer Certificate of Title No.
49040) to the herein defendant O Po Poe, married to Yu Kimting, both
Chinese citizens for the price of P32,000.00; that by virtue of the said
sale, a new transfer certificate of title No. 5354 was issued to the
herein defendants; that at the time of the sale, neither of the parties
was aware that the same was prohibited by the Constitution the parties
having entered into the transaction in good faith, and that it was only
after the promulgation of the Krivenko decision that they learned for
the first time of such Constitutional prohibition; that at the time of
the sale in 1938 the property sold consisted of a lot and improvements
of strong materials, which improvements were totally destroyed in the
battle of liberation and that at the present time there stands on the
same lot a house of the ‘barong-barong type; that the assessed value of
the house and lot in 1938 was P10,000.00 and P14,016.00, respectively;
and that the plaintiff is willing and ready to return the purchase price
of P32,000.00, even without the improvements, upon reconveyance to him
of the property in question”

Alleging that under our Krivenko decision the defendants could not
lawfully continue owning the property because they are and were Chinese
citizens, the appellant filed this action in the Manila court of first
instance for reconveyance of the real estate he had sold in 1938. That
court absolved the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed in due time
and form.

In view of our decision in Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, G. R.
L-1411, promulgated September 29, 1953 and Caoile v. Yu Chiao, G.
R. L-4068, (Sept. 29, 1953), (copies of which will be given the
parties) we must hold that although the sale is null and void, the
plaintiff may not recover his land. The fact that both parties to the
contract did not know the law, does not alter the situation.

The appealed decision will be affirmed without costs.

Paras, C. J., Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador,
JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., no part.

Pablo, M., disidente: Disiento por las mismas razones
que expuse en mis disidencias en las causas de Rellosa contra Gaw
Chee Hun, G. R. No. L-1411, (Sept. 29, 1953), y Caoile contra Yu
Chiao Peng, G. R. No. L-4068, (Sept. 29, 1953).

Reyes, J., dissenting:
The sale in question being forbidden by the Constitution, the
vendor is entitled to a rescission. As I stated in my dissent in the
case of Dionisio Rellosa vs. Gaw Chee Hun, G. R. No. L-1411, the
in pari delicto rule does not apply to contracts forbidden by the
Constitution and therefore against public policy.