Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8179 (An Act Amending the Foreign Investments Act of 1991) states: Sec. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution. — Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other purposes. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.

"xxx.

Former Filipinos have the limited right to own
public agricultural lands in the Philippines

We next deal with the ownership of lands by aliens.

Properties accumulated by a married couple may either be real or personal. While the RTC awarded herein all personal properties in favor of Angelita pursuant to the "Matrimonial Property Agreement" executed in Germany, it ignored that such agreement was governed by the national law of the contracting parties; and that the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments should be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.[15]

Angelita did not allege and prove the German law that allowed her to enter into and adopt the regime of complete separation of property through the "Matrimonial Property Agreement." In the absence of such allegation and proof, the German law was presumed to be the same as that of the Philippines.

In this connection, we further point out Article 77 of the Family Code declares that marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be made in writing and signed by the parties prior to the celebration of the marriage. Assuming that the relevant German law was similar to the Philippine law, the "Matrimonial Property Agreement," being entered into by the parties in 1991, or a few years after the celebration of their marriage on August 30, 1988, could not be enforced for being in contravention of a mandatory law.[16]

Also, with the parties being married on August 30, 1988, the provisions of the Family Code should govern. Pursuant to Article 75 of the Family Code, the property relations between the spouses were governed by the absolute community of property. This would then entitle Georg to half of the personal properties of the community property.

As to the real properties of the parties, several factual considerations were apparently overlooked, or were not established.

Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states that: "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." It seems clear, however, that the lower courts were too quick to pronounce that Georg, being a German citizen, was automatically disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines. Without disputing the inherent validity of the pronouncement, we nonetheless opine that the lower courts missed to take note of the fact that Angelita, in view of her having admitted that she herself had been a German citizen, suffered the same disqualification as Georg. Consequently, the lower courts' pronouncement awarding all real properties in favor of Angelita could be devoid of legal basis as to her.

At best, an alien could have enjoyed a limited right to own lands. Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law." Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8179 (An Act Amending the Foreign Investments Act of 1991) also states:

Sec. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution. — Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other purposes. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.

In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for business or other purposes which when added to those already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.

A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two (2) lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That the total land area thereof shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land for use by him for business or other purposes. A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land area and vice versa.

As the foregoing indicates, Angelita did not have any unlimited right to own lands. On the other hand, the records were not clear on whether or not she had owned real property as allowed by law. It was imperative for the lower courts to determine so. Hence, remand for further proceedings is called for.

It is true that Angelita stated in her petition that she had meanwhile re-acquired Filipino citizenship.[17] This statement remained unsubstantiated, but the impact thereof would be far reaching if the statement was true, for there would then be no need to determine whether or not Angelita had complied with Section 5 of R.A. No. 8179. Thus, the remand of the case will enable the parties to adduce evidence on this aspect of the case, particularly to provide factual basis to determine whether or not Angelita had validly re-acquired her Filipino citizenship; and, if she had, to ascertain what would be the extent of her ownership of the real assets pertaining to the marriage. If the remand should establish that she had remained a foreigner, it must next be determined whether or not she complied with the limits defined or set by R.A. No. 8179 regarding her land ownership. The trial court shall award her the real property that complied with the limits of the law, and inform the Office of the Solicitor General for purposes of a proper disposition of any excess land whose ownership violated the law.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 202039, August 14, 2019

ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL, PETITIONER, VS. GEORG KEPPEL, RESPONDENT.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65677