ESTELITA F. ENRIQUEZ, JULIETA F. ENRIQUEZ, ROMEO F. ENRIQUEZ, TITA E. VELASCO, DERTICIO F. ENRIQUEZ, ROSITA RUSTE VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ AND POLICARPIO ENRIQUEZ HEREIN REPRESENTED BY …

Enriquez versus Heirs of Florencio Enriquez

The Case

This is a case about land, citizenship, and the limits of what an alien may own in the Philippines. The plaintiffs, the surviving children of Faustino Enriquez, sued the heirs of their elder brother Florencio to be declared the true and absolute owners of three agricultural lots in Zamboanga City, and to have a free patent and the certificate of title issued to Florencio's heirs declared void. The case matters because it tests two things at once: whether a sale of land to a Chinese citizen in 1948 could ever transfer ownership, and whether a notarized affidavit can prove a fact when the affiant is alive and denies signing it. The Supreme Court's answer to both questions is no.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and cancellation of the certificate of title, declaration of ownership, and injunctive relief before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 14. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on July 27, 2009. It declared the plaintiffs the true and absolute owners of the three lots, declared the free patent and the original certificate of title issued under it null and void, made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent, and declared the pending ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 4, academic. The defendants moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on October 5, 2009. The defendants then brought the matter to the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Supreme Court reversed.

Facts

Faustino Enriquez, a Chinese citizen, allegedly bought three agricultural parcels of land from one Ong Yok in 1948 for five thousand pesos. Wishing to divide the land among his children, Faustino placed the name of his eldest son, Florencio, as the vendee in the deed of sale, because Florencio was the eldest and a Filipino citizen. In 1952, Florencio executed a deed of sale over the properties in favor of his siblings, the plaintiffs. In 1956, Florencio executed an affidavit to correct the omission of one sister's name from that deed. Faustino died in 1956, and Florencio administered the properties until his death in 1987, after which the plaintiffs took over.

In 1997, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued a free patent over one of the lots to Florencio, and an original certificate of title was issued in the name of his heirs. The heirs also applied for free patents over the other two lots, which remained pending. In 2002, the plaintiffs learned of the title when one of the heirs showed it to Abelardo Enriquez and claimed the properties. The plaintiffs then filed this complaint, insisting that the land had been privately owned since 1931 and was never part of the public domain.

The defendants countered that Florencio himself had cultivated and owned the properties, that he applied for the free patent, and that the plaintiffs' claim rested on documents that were never proven genuine. At trial, the plaintiffs' own witness, Joaquin Enriquez, admitted that their father Faustino was a Chinese citizen. The surviving affiant of the rectification affidavit, Florencio's widow Nora, denied signing it and said the name written on it was not her real name.

Issues

• Whether or not the deed of sale was admissible as evidence.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the plaintiffs the true and absolute owners of the three lots.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring the free patent and the original certificate of title in the name of the defendants void.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provides:

Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.

This is the provision that bars Faustino, a Chinese citizen, from acquiring the lots in 1948, and it is the foundation of the entire ruling.

Section 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provides:

All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.

The Court quotes this to show that the right to acquire public lands is reserved to Filipino citizens, which is why the free patent issued to Florencio's heirs carries weight.

Section 103 of Presidential Decree Number 1529 provides:

Certificate of title pursuant to patents. Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyances.

This governs how a patent ripens into a registered title, which is the title the Court upholds.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the deed of sale deserved scant consideration because it was unsigned. As for the rectification affidavit, the Court held that a notarized affidavit does not automatically become a public document, and affidavits are at best hearsay unless the affiants are placed on the witness stand. Here the surviving affiant denied signing it, no notary testified, and no competent witness proved the signatures, so the affidavit was inadmissible.

On the second issue, the Court held that the plaintiffs could not be declared owners. The sale to Faustino in 1948 was void because he was a Chinese citizen disqualified from acquiring land. The Court applied its earlier ruling in Ting Ho versus Teng Gui, where a Chinese father was held never to have owned the land in light of the constitutional proscription. The Court added that there was no proof that Ong Yok had ever privately owned the lots, and that in any event Faustino's alienage barred the acquisition regardless.

On the third issue, the Court held that the free patent and the certificate of title in the name of Florencio's heirs must be upheld. The grant of the patent and the issuance of the title show that the grantee possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to acquire alienable public land, and these issuances bear the presumption of regularity absent evidence to the contrary.

Doctrine

An alien is disqualified from acquiring private agricultural land in the Philippines, and a sale to him is void and against public policy. He never becomes the owner, and no subsequent deed from his nominal trustee can cure the defect. A free patent issued by the government, and the certificate of title issued pursuant to it, carry the presumption of regularity and will be upheld absent evidence to the contrary. Finally, a notarized affidavit is not automatically a public document; it remains hearsay unless the affiant is presented, and its genuineness and due execution must be proved.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the trial court's decision, and upheld the free patent and certificate of title in the name of the heirs of Florencio Enriquez.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an alien cannot own Philippine agricultural land, so a sale to him is void and he never becomes owner. Examiners use this case to test the constitutional land-ownership restriction alongside the rule that a notarized affidavit still needs its affiant in court.