Cheesman vs Intermediate Appelate Court

G.R. No. 74833             January 21, 1991

NARVASA, J.

Parties of the Case:

THOMAS C. CHEESMAN (petitioner)

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ESTELITA PADILLA (respondents)

Keyword: american citizen, lack of consent of foreigner spouse of the sale of Philippine property, prohibition of barring foreigners to own property in the philippines

Summary: petitioner (an American citizen) and Criselda Cheesman acquired a parcel of land that was later registered in the latter’s name. Criselda subsequently sold the land to a third person without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner then sought the nullification of the sale as he did not give his consent thereto. The Court held that assuming that it was his (petitioner’s) intention that the lot in question be purchased by him and his wife, he acquired no right whatever over the property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right or interest in land, vicariously and clandestinely, he knowingly violated the Constitution; thus, the sale as to him was null and void.

Facts: Thomas Cheesman and Criselda P. Cheesman were married on December 4, 1970 but have been separated since February 15,1981.1

On June 4, 1974, a "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory Rights" was executed by Armando Altares conveying a parcel of unregistered land and the house thereon (at No. 7 Neptune Street, Gordon Heights, Olongapo City) in favor of "Criselda P. Cheesman, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to Thomas Cheesman, and residing at Lot No. 1, Blk. 8, Filtration Road, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City . . ." Thomas Cheesman, although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer being made only to his wife.

Thereafter—and again with the knowledge of Thomas Cheesman and also without any protest by him—tax declarations for the property purchased were issued in the name only of Criselda Cheesman and Criselda assumed exclusive management and administration of said property, leasing it to tenants.

On July 1, 1981, Criselda Cheesman sold the property to Estelita M. Padilla, without the knowledge or consent of Thomas Cheesman. The deed described Criselda as being " . . . of legal age, married to an American citizen,. . ."

Thirty days later, or on July 31, 1981, Thomas Cheesman brought suit in the Court of First Instance at Olongapo City against his wife, Criselda, and Estelita Padilla, praying for the annulment of the sale on the ground that the transaction had been executed without his knowledge and consent. An answer was filed in the names of both defendants, alleging that (1) the property sold was paraphernal, having been purchased by Criselda with funds exclusively belonging to her ("her own separate money"); (2) Thomas Cheesman, being an American, was disqualified to have any interest or right of ownership in the land; and (3) Estelita Padilla was a buyer in good faith.

CFI: Declared that the sale executed by Criselda Cheesman in favor of Padilla is void ab initio  and ordering the delivery of the property to thomas cheesman as administrator of the conjugal partnership property.

Trial Court’s summary judgment: the sale between Criselda Cheesman and Padilla is valid. Thomas Cheesman’s complaint is dismissed and is ordered to immediately turn over the possession of the hous and lot to Padilla.

IAC: Found all of Thomas Cheesman’s contention to be without merit. IAC affirmed summary judgment having found no reversible error.

Issue: Whether or not Thomas Cheesman has a right over the alleged conjugal property sold by his Filipino Wife without his consent despiite him being an American Citizen.

Held: No.

Ratio: the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Petitioner Thomas Cheesman was, of course, charged with knowledge of this prohibition. Thus, assuming that it was his intention that the lot in question be purchased by him and his wife, he acquired no right whatever over the property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right or interest in land, vicariously and clandestinely, he knowingly violated the Constitution; the sale as to him was null and void. In any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit him to have.

As already observed, the finding that his wife had used her own money to purchase the property cannot, and will not, at this stage of the proceedings be reviewed and overturned. But even if it were a fact that said wife had used conjugal funds to make the acquisition, the considerations just set out militate, on high constitutional grounds, against his recovering and holding the property so acquired or any part thereof. And whether in such an event, he may recover from his wife any share of the money used for the purchase or charge her with unauthorized disposition or expenditure of conjugal funds is not now inquired into; that would be, in the premises, a purely academic exercise. An equally decisive consideration is that Estelita Padilla is a purchaser in good faith, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court having found that Cheesman's own conduct had led her to believe the property to be exclusive property of the latter's wife, freely disposable by her without his consent or intervention. An innocent buyer for value, she is entitled to the protection of the law in her purchase, particularly as against Cheesman, who would assert rights to the property denied him by both letter and spirit of the Constitution itself.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.