Document Text Contents
Page 1
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn1
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn2
Page 2
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn17
Page 10
and determination of which does not depent on the
form of the stature. Consideration must be given on
its nature, its object, and the consequences which
would result from construing it. Words of permissive
character may be given a mandatory significance IN
ORDER TO EFFECT THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT. On the other hand, the language of the
statute, however mandatory in form, may be deemed
directory whenever legislative purpose can best be
carried out by such construction, and legislative
intent does not require a mandatory construction.
ROMAN CATH. APOSTOLIC ADM. OF
DAVAO INC., vs. LAND REG. COM., et al.
-Mateo L. Rodis (Filipino & Davao Resident)
executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land with
TCT No. 2263 to Roman Catholic Adm. Of Davao
Inc., with Msgr. Clovis Thibault as incumbent on
October 4, 1954
-When presented to the Registry of Deeds of Davao,
the latter stated its resolution in the case of
Carmelite Nuns, requiring petitioners to file an
affidavit declaring 60% of the members of their
corporation as Filipino citizens
-The 2 cases (this case and that of Carmelite Nuns)
are NOT similar since the case of Carmelite Nuns
have 5 incorporators and that the property was
donated to it,
While in the case at bar, Roman Cath. Apostolic
Adm., is a Corporation Sole and the property sold to
it would be owned by the totality of the Catholic
Population in Davao not by the corporation itself.
-The Land Registration Commissioner ordered the
Registry of Deeds to DENY Registration of TCT
No. 2263 because there was no proof regarding the
60% Membership of Filipino citizens that is being
required.
** Petitioners contend that
1) Corporation Law and Canon Law states that
corporation sole are merely ADMINISTRATORS of
properties that they may acquire
2) Catholic Church is Composed of a) Clergy and b)
Lay Members (people)
3) Bureau of Census and Statistics show that more
than 80% of the population of the area are Catholic
which is more than enough to satisfy the 60%
requirement.
**Respondents contend that
1) Although Petitioner is not the owner of the
property,it still has the power to exercise right of
ownership over said land held in trust by it.
2) Conglomeration of persons CANNOT be
pointed out as the recipient nor can the masses
(people) be referred to as the beneficiary who
can exercise a right of ownership over said land.
-Sections 153, 155, 157 of Corporation Law states
that there is no room for doubt that bishops in a
Corporation Sole can act as ADMINISTRATORS
for the church and that such properties acquired
upon the death of the incumbent (bishop,
archbishop, etc.) will pass to his SUCCESSOR not
to his heirs.
-Roman Catholic Church has NO nationality and
framers of the constitution did not have in mind such
religious corporations when they came up with the
60% requirement of Filipino citizens being members
of corporations (Sec.159 and Sec. 13 of Public Act
1459)
-The nationality of the head of a diocese has no
bearing on his functions which are LIMITED to
ADMINISTRATOR of temporalities (properties
held in trust, temporarily for the people and the
church in this case) and that the Corporation Sole is
CANNOT considered as aliens since they have no
nationality at all.
-a Corporation Sole is only entitled to purchase,
convey, sell, lease, etc.and deal with real properties
and personal properties if it pursuant to the purpose
why such corporation was formed.
-Sec.159 states that corporation sole may only
purchase and hold real estate and personal properties
for its church, charitable, benevolent and educational
purposes. They hold properties in trust for their
locality or diocese.
RULING : LRC's decision (Land Reg. Com.) is
REVERSED and Registry of Deeds is ordered to
register deed of sale
Page 19
UNLIKE in the 1987 constitution, wherein
naincorporate na ung ruling sa case ni Morales v.
Enrile which provides the right against self
incrimination and right to counsel during custodial
investigation pero this time sinabi na “these rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel”
Therefore, ung waiver ng petitioner ng right to
counsel makes the extra judicial confessions
admissible as evidence under the 1973 Constitution.
Co vs. Electoral tribunal
Facts: The House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal declared that the
respondent Jose Ong Jr. is natural born
Filipino Citizen and a resident of Laoang,
Northern Samar for voting purposes. The
Congressional election for the 2nd district of
Northern Samar was held. Among the
candidates for the position of representative
are the petitioners; Sixto Balinquit and
Antonio Co and the private respondent.
Jose Ong Jr was proclaimed the duly lected
representative aof the 2nd district of
Northern Samar. Herein petitioners filed
election protests on the grounds that Jose
Ong Jr, is not a natural born citizen of the
Philippines and no a resident of the 2nd
district of Northern Samar.
Issue: WON Jose Ong Jr is a citizen of the
Philippines
Ruling:
Yes. In 1895, the private respondents
grandfather, Ong te, arrived in the
Philippines from China and established
residence in the municipality of Laoang,
Samar. The father of the private respondent,
Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905
but was brought to Samar in 1915. He filed
with the Court an application for
naturalization and was declared a Filipino
citizen. In 1984, Jose Ong Jr. married a
filipina named Desiree Lim. For the
elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong Jr
registered himself as a voter of Laoang,
Samar and voted there during those
elections. Under the 1973 Constitution,
those born of Filipino fathers and those born
of filipino mothers with an alien father were
placed on equal foooting. They were both
considered as natural born citixend.
Besides, private respondent did more than
merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has
established his life here in the Philippines.
Further, the intent of the framers of Art VI,
sec 1 is to make it both prospective and
retroactive. A remedy is therefore provided,
which is to treat equally all those born
before the 1973 Constitution and who
elected Philippine Citizenship either before
or after the effectivity of the Constitution.
The provision is curative in nature since it
was intended to correct an unfair position
which discriminates against Filipino women
smile emoticon
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn1
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn2
Page 2
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/122156.htm#_edn17
Page 10
and determination of which does not depent on the
form of the stature. Consideration must be given on
its nature, its object, and the consequences which
would result from construing it. Words of permissive
character may be given a mandatory significance IN
ORDER TO EFFECT THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT. On the other hand, the language of the
statute, however mandatory in form, may be deemed
directory whenever legislative purpose can best be
carried out by such construction, and legislative
intent does not require a mandatory construction.
ROMAN CATH. APOSTOLIC ADM. OF
DAVAO INC., vs. LAND REG. COM., et al.
-Mateo L. Rodis (Filipino & Davao Resident)
executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land with
TCT No. 2263 to Roman Catholic Adm. Of Davao
Inc., with Msgr. Clovis Thibault as incumbent on
October 4, 1954
-When presented to the Registry of Deeds of Davao,
the latter stated its resolution in the case of
Carmelite Nuns, requiring petitioners to file an
affidavit declaring 60% of the members of their
corporation as Filipino citizens
-The 2 cases (this case and that of Carmelite Nuns)
are NOT similar since the case of Carmelite Nuns
have 5 incorporators and that the property was
donated to it,
While in the case at bar, Roman Cath. Apostolic
Adm., is a Corporation Sole and the property sold to
it would be owned by the totality of the Catholic
Population in Davao not by the corporation itself.
-The Land Registration Commissioner ordered the
Registry of Deeds to DENY Registration of TCT
No. 2263 because there was no proof regarding the
60% Membership of Filipino citizens that is being
required.
** Petitioners contend that
1) Corporation Law and Canon Law states that
corporation sole are merely ADMINISTRATORS of
properties that they may acquire
2) Catholic Church is Composed of a) Clergy and b)
Lay Members (people)
3) Bureau of Census and Statistics show that more
than 80% of the population of the area are Catholic
which is more than enough to satisfy the 60%
requirement.
**Respondents contend that
1) Although Petitioner is not the owner of the
property,it still has the power to exercise right of
ownership over said land held in trust by it.
2) Conglomeration of persons CANNOT be
pointed out as the recipient nor can the masses
(people) be referred to as the beneficiary who
can exercise a right of ownership over said land.
-Sections 153, 155, 157 of Corporation Law states
that there is no room for doubt that bishops in a
Corporation Sole can act as ADMINISTRATORS
for the church and that such properties acquired
upon the death of the incumbent (bishop,
archbishop, etc.) will pass to his SUCCESSOR not
to his heirs.
-Roman Catholic Church has NO nationality and
framers of the constitution did not have in mind such
religious corporations when they came up with the
60% requirement of Filipino citizens being members
of corporations (Sec.159 and Sec. 13 of Public Act
1459)
-The nationality of the head of a diocese has no
bearing on his functions which are LIMITED to
ADMINISTRATOR of temporalities (properties
held in trust, temporarily for the people and the
church in this case) and that the Corporation Sole is
CANNOT considered as aliens since they have no
nationality at all.
-a Corporation Sole is only entitled to purchase,
convey, sell, lease, etc.and deal with real properties
and personal properties if it pursuant to the purpose
why such corporation was formed.
-Sec.159 states that corporation sole may only
purchase and hold real estate and personal properties
for its church, charitable, benevolent and educational
purposes. They hold properties in trust for their
locality or diocese.
RULING : LRC's decision (Land Reg. Com.) is
REVERSED and Registry of Deeds is ordered to
register deed of sale
Page 19
UNLIKE in the 1987 constitution, wherein
naincorporate na ung ruling sa case ni Morales v.
Enrile which provides the right against self
incrimination and right to counsel during custodial
investigation pero this time sinabi na “these rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel”
Therefore, ung waiver ng petitioner ng right to
counsel makes the extra judicial confessions
admissible as evidence under the 1973 Constitution.
Co vs. Electoral tribunal
Facts: The House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal declared that the
respondent Jose Ong Jr. is natural born
Filipino Citizen and a resident of Laoang,
Northern Samar for voting purposes. The
Congressional election for the 2nd district of
Northern Samar was held. Among the
candidates for the position of representative
are the petitioners; Sixto Balinquit and
Antonio Co and the private respondent.
Jose Ong Jr was proclaimed the duly lected
representative aof the 2nd district of
Northern Samar. Herein petitioners filed
election protests on the grounds that Jose
Ong Jr, is not a natural born citizen of the
Philippines and no a resident of the 2nd
district of Northern Samar.
Issue: WON Jose Ong Jr is a citizen of the
Philippines
Ruling:
Yes. In 1895, the private respondents
grandfather, Ong te, arrived in the
Philippines from China and established
residence in the municipality of Laoang,
Samar. The father of the private respondent,
Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905
but was brought to Samar in 1915. He filed
with the Court an application for
naturalization and was declared a Filipino
citizen. In 1984, Jose Ong Jr. married a
filipina named Desiree Lim. For the
elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong Jr
registered himself as a voter of Laoang,
Samar and voted there during those
elections. Under the 1973 Constitution,
those born of Filipino fathers and those born
of filipino mothers with an alien father were
placed on equal foooting. They were both
considered as natural born citixend.
Besides, private respondent did more than
merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has
established his life here in the Philippines.
Further, the intent of the framers of Art VI,
sec 1 is to make it both prospective and
retroactive. A remedy is therefore provided,
which is to treat equally all those born
before the 1973 Constitution and who
elected Philippine Citizenship either before
or after the effectivity of the Constitution.
The provision is curative in nature since it
was intended to correct an unfair position
which discriminates against Filipino women
smile emoticon
