Cabacug v. Lao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Natividad Cabacug, a natural-born Filipino citizen, was married to Te Ben Ting, a Chinese citizen, who died in 1946. In 1957, a free patent was issued to her for two parcels of land. In 1962, she sold these lands to defendants Placido Lao and Superla Revelo. Plaintiff offered to repurchase the lands, but defendants refused. Plaintiff deposited the repurchase price with the Clerk of Court and filed a complaint for repurchase with damages. Procedural History: The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the reconveyance of the lands and payment of damages representing the produce of the land. Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to their appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Defendants appealed the decision, primarily questioning the plaintiff's right to repurchase the land on the ground that she had allegedly lost her Filipino citizenship by marrying a foreigner and had not reacquired it.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, having married a Chinese national and not having formally repatriated, lost her Filipino citizenship and thus her right to repurchase land acquired through a free patent. Whether the defendants, as vendees, can raise the issue of the plaintiff's citizenship to defeat her right to repurchase.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ordering the reconveyance of the two parcels of land to the plaintiff and payment of damages. The appeal was found to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the plaintiff's right to repurchase and the issue of citizenship: The Court held that while the plaintiff, by marrying a Chinese national, did lose her Filipino citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63, she could have reacquired it by repatriation after her husband's death. However, the Court emphasized that the right to repurchase land acquired under a free patent is a statutory right granted by the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, Section 119). The Court found the defendants' plea that the plaintiff was not a Filipino to be a far-fetched and implausible argument. The Court stated that such a question of citizenship, if it could be raised at all, could only be set up by the government as the aggrieved party, not by the private vendees. The Court noted that repatriation could have been effected with ease and facility, and the defendants' attempt to negate the plaintiff's clear legal right through this plea was without merit. The Court reiterated that a holder of land acquired under a free patent is favorably situated, possessing a right to repurchase within five years, which should not be set at naught by such a plea. On the defendants' right to raise the issue of citizenship: The Court found that the defendants' conduct was not in consonance with good faith. They were aware that the plaintiff was the widow of a Chinese national since 1946, sixteen years prior to their purchase of the property. The Court suspected that the defendants harbored the intention of rendering nugatory the plaintiff's statutory right to repurchase. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendants should not expect an affirmative response to their plea, especially considering their dealings were marred by an absence of good faith and were indissolubly linked with the legal order. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, which acted correctly under the circumstances.
Main Doctrine
A plea that a vendor of land acquired through a free patent had lost her Filipino citizenship by marrying a foreigner, and thus could not exercise her right to repurchase, cannot be raised by the vendees, as such a question of citizenship, if it exists, can only be raised by the government.