Il loro amore non aveva ultimo lungo
Pabaroti, an Italian national, met Becky, a Filipina, and courted her.
In 1995, Pabaroti decided to build a residential house where he and Becky would to stay whenever he would be vacationing in the country. Pabaroti financially assisted Becky in procuring the lot in Bohol.
On the said property, they constructed their love nest, which was funded by Pabaroti. Upon completion, they maintained a common-law relationship and lived there whenever Pabaroti was on vacation in the Philippines twice a year.
Years later, Pabaroti and Becky executed a contract of lease, a memorandum of agreement, and a special power of attorney to define their respective rights over the house and lot.
The lease contract stipulated, among others, that Pabaroti as the lessee, would rent the lot, registered in the name of Becky, for a period of 50 years, to be automatically renewed for another 50 years upon its expiration, for the amount of P10,000 for the whole term of the lease contract; and that Becky as the lessor, was prohibited from selling, donating, or encumbering the said lot without the written consent of Pabaroti.
They further agreed that in the event the common-law relationship terminates, or when Becky marries another, or enters into another common-law relationship with another, Becky shall be obliged to execute a deed of absolute sale over the said parcel of land and residential building, in favor of whomsoever Pabaroti may so desire, and be further obliged to turn over the entire consideration of the said sale to Pabaroti, or if the law shall allow, Pabaroti shall retain ownership of the said land.
Initially, their relationship was harmonious, but it turned sour after 16 years of living together. Both charged each other with infidelity. Il loro amore non aveva ultimo lungo—their love did not last long.
They could not agree who should leave the property. In the end, Pabaroti sent formal letters to Becky demanding that she vacate the property, but these were unheeded.
Pabaroti thereafter filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction against Becky before the MCTC.
Q: What is an unlawful detainer suit?
A: Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.
The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.
Q: Is the lease contract by Pabaroti and Becky valid?
A: No, it is void.
Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, natural resources shall not be alienated, except with respect to public agricultural lands and in such cases, the alienation is limited to Filipino citizens.
Concomitantly, Section 5 thereof states that, 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.
The prohibition on the transfer of lands to aliens was adopted in the present 1987 Constitution, under Sections 2, 3 and 7 of Article XII thereof. Agricultural lands, whether public or private, include residential, commercial and industrial lands. The purpose of prohibiting the transfer of lands to foreigners is to uphold the conservation of our national patrimony and ensure that agricultural resources remain in the hands of Filipino citizens.
The prohibition, however, is not limited to the sale of lands to foreigners. It also covers leases of lands amounting to the transfer of all or substantially all the rights of dominion. In the landmark decision by the Supreme Court, the Court struck down a lease contract of a parcel of land in favor of a foreigner for a period of 99 years with an option to buy the land for 50 years. Where a scheme to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against the transfer of lands to aliens is readily revealed as the purpose for the contracts, then the illicit purpose becomes the illegal cause rendering the contracts void.
Thus, if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also of the right to dispose of it—rights which constitute ownership.
If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.
As can be gleaned from the contract, the lease in favor of Pabaroti was for a period of 50 years, automatically extended for another 50 years upon the expiration of the original period.
Moreover, it strictly prohibited Becky from selling, donating, or encumbering her land to anyone without the written consent of Pabaroti.
For a measly consideration, Pabaroti would be able to absolutely occupy the land of Becky for 100 years, and she is powerless to dispose the same. The terms of lease practically deprived Becky of her property rights and effectively transferred the same to Pabaroti.
Worse, the dominion of Pabaroti over the land had been firmly cemented by the terms of the MOA as it reinforced Pabaroti’s property rights over the land because, first, it brazenly dictated that ownership of the land and the residential building resided with him.
Second, Becky was expressly prohibited from transferring the same without Pabaroti’s conformity. Third, Pabaroti would permanently reside in the residential building. Fourth, Pabaroti may capriciously dispose Becky’s property once their common-law relationship is terminated. Lastly, Becky shall be compelled to transfer the land to Pabaroti if a law would be passed allowing foreigners to own real properties in the Philippines.
To be sure, the title of Becky over the land became an empty and useless vessel, visible only in paper, and was only meant as a dummy to fulfill a foreigner’s desire to own land within our soils. It is disturbing how these documents were methodically formulated to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against land ownership by foreigners.
The said contracts attempted to guise themselves as a lease, but a closer scrutiny of the same revealed that they were intended to transfer the dominion of a land to a foreigner in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
Even if Becky voluntary executed the same, no amount of consent from the parties could legalize an unconstitutional agreement. The lease contract and the MOA do not deserve an iota of validity and must be rightfully struck down as null and void for being repugnant to the fundamental law. These void documents cannot be the source of rights and must be treated as mere scraps of paper.
Q: When will a lease of a private land to a foreigner be deemed valid?
A: A lease contract in favor of aliens for a reasonable period was valid as long as it did not have any scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition, such as depriving the lessors of their right to dispose of the land.
Aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution.
Q: Given the foregoing, will Pabaroti’s unlawful detainer suit prosper?
A: No. A void or inexistent contract may be defined as one which lacks, absolutely either in fact or in law, one or some of the elements which are essential for its validity. It is one which has no force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had never been entered into; it produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone. Quod nullum est nullum producit effectum.
Courts may declare lease contracts even in a summary action for unlawful detainer because, precisely, void contracts do not produce legal effect and cannot be the source of any rights. To emphasize, void contracts may not be invoked as a valid action or defense in any court proceeding, including an ejectment suit.
Pabaroti therefore has no cause of action for unlawful detainer against Becky. He cannot be considered a lessor because, the lease contract and the MOA, from which Pabaroti purportedly drew his right of possession, were found to be null and void for being unconstitutional.
A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. Hence, as void contracts could not be the source of rights, Pabaroti had no possessory right over the subject land.
A person who does not have any right over a property from the beginning cannot eject another person possessing the same. Consequently, Pabaroti’s complaint for unlawful detainer must be dismissed for failure to prove his cause of action.
(Source: Fullido vs. Grilli, G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean, Lyceum of the Philippines University; Chairperson of the Philippine Association of Law Schools; and founder of Mawis Law Office
