Rare Periodicals

Supreme Court Decisions, Benluy vs. Republic of the Philippines - Justice Montemayor.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text

tion for relief of the appellants was therefol'e warranted. As far as the record of this case is concerned, there seems to be no ground for doubting the regularity of the sale of the estate in favor of UJhman in 1!:126. The appellants do not question ahd they even indirectly a.dmit that since 1926 when the estate was sold to Lohman, the latter had taken po1session and had held it until 1948 when he sold it to petitioner-appellee Moldero. It was not shown that the heirs of Franz Vogel ever opposed or objected to the sale of t,b.e estate of their father by the special administrator to Lohman. It is not explained why since 1926 up to the present time, a period of about twenty-seven years, appellants had allowed the said hacienda to be occupied and enjoyed by Lohman and later by Moldero. However, the two other children of Franz Vogel named Florencio and Luisa were not included in the petition for relief or in this appeal. On the contrary, Luisa made an affiaavit CExhibit 2) saying that as daughter and heir of Franz Vogel she acknowledges the sale of the h~cienda to Lohman whom she recognizes as the registered owner, and that she renounces all claim over the estate. These facts 2.lld ci.rcumstances do not favor the contention of the appellants. However, should they believe that they have a good cause of actioli and feel that they can prove that the sales made to Lohman and to Moldero were .illegal and void, they could file a separate and i'1de.. pendent actii:m as suggested by the trial court. But there is one point raised by appellants, which tho not decisive, merits consideration, were it only for the correction of the record and for the guidance of petitioners under Sec. 112 and other sections of the Land Registration Act. Appellants contend that tho trial court had no jurisdiction over the petition of appellee Moldero because said petition was not filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. The contention is correct. The petition should have been filed in the original case in w!J.ich the decree of registration of August 24, 1917 was entered, and it shol!I<~ ~{lr the s_aroe; title. The appellee, however, answers that the reason for not filing the petition in the original i·cgistration case was that the records of said case have been lost, presumably during the last Pacific War. The explanation is satisfactory, but at least th~ petition could and should have been entitled in said original case, this to make it clear that the present petition invoking the provisio.ns of the Land Registration Act, particularly Sec. 112 thereof, is not an ordinary civil action. CCavan vs. Mislizenus, 48 Phil. 632), In view of the foregoing, and with the understanding that pcti. tioner-appellce Moldero will be directed to entitle his original petition and his motions, in the original registration case where the decree of registration of Hacienda San Fernando was entered, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tu<Uon, Reyes, Jugo, Angelo; Labrador_ concur. XI In th matter of the petition for naturalization of Lconcio Ho Benluy, petitivner-appellant, w. Republic of the PhilipZ1ines, oppositor. a']>l)ellec, G. R. No. L.5522, Dec. 21, 1953. 1. NATURALIZATION: APPLICANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF THE REVISED ELECTION CODE. - A foreigner who violates Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits foreigners from actively participating in any election is forever barred from becoming a Filipino citizen. DECISION Rulace.n, not only persu~dlng some voters connected with his buslne8s but also contributing to the campaign fund of the Liberal Party. Said the trial court on this point: , "To prove_ that the applicant is a strong believer in our constitution'" and in what is called 'free enterprise·,' this witness emphasized this affirmation by stating that the applicant even went to the extent of taking active part during the election, so much so that he <applicant) gave financial contribution to be spent in the election campaign to this witness who, during the • el~ctions of 19~7 and 194?•. w~s t~e Campaign Mans~r of the, Liberal Party m the mumc1pahty of Obando, Bulacan; that the applicant, aside from giving financial help during the said elections of 1947 and 1!:149 which amounted to P200.00 1 and !"500.00 on two occassions, went with the witness to Obontlo to talk personally with his sub-agents in said- municipality, and due to this intervention of the applicant said sub. agents supported the party of Mr. Anastacio." This evidence about the part played by the applicant in the past elections alerted the representative of the Solicitor General and after th(. trial he filed a strong written opposition to the granting of the application, resulting W'l the trial court denying the application for naturalization. Benluy is now appealing from that decision. Considering the circumstances · under which the evidence of applicant's political activities was presented, namely, that it did not come from the opposition or any other party but himself and through his own witness, we were at the beginning inclined not to attach much importance to that phase of his 1·esidence in the Philippines and jlSSociation with the Filipinos. ,He was never prosecuted for that violation of the Election Code and even if the Government were now inclined to prosecute him, the offense has already prescribed. Furthermore, as already stated, in all other respects the applicant has established h!S qualifications and the absence of any disqualifications. However, the law is clear. Section 56 of the Revised Election Code reads - "Section 56. Active intervention of foreigners. - No lo~ reigner shall aid any candidate, directly or indirectly, or take part in or to influence in any manner any election." Under section 183 of the same Code, the violation ic; considered a serious election offense and under section 185 it is penalized with imprisonment of not less than one year and one day but not more than five years and in case cif a foreigner, shall in ilddition be sen-4 tenced to deportation for not less than five years but not more than ten years, to be enforced after the prison term has been served. These provisions of the Revised Election Code may not be taken lightl)', much less igr.orcd. They were intended to discourage foreigners from taking active part in or othe1·wise interfering with our, elections, under penalty not only of imprisonment but also deportation. ~ It might well be that as already stated, the evidence about this violation of the election law was given by hia own witness who in all likelihood gave it in good faith and in all friendship to the applicant to bolster Ute latter's application for naturaJization, without realizing that fly said declaration he was forever closing · the door to Benluy's ever becoming a Filipino citizen. But the law must be applied and enforced. It is merely a piece of bad luck for him. From the standpoint of the Government however, it was fortunate that said evidence was brought up, thereby preventing the granting of Philippine citizenship to a foreigner who tho even in his ignorance of the law and at the instance of his Filipino friend, violated one of the important provisions of our election law. The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs. MONTEMAYOR, J.: , PUJras, C.J., Pablo, Bengson, Padilla, Tuason, Reye:J, Jugo, Th; appellant LEONCIO HO BENLUY, a Chinese citizen, filed Bautista. Angelo, and Labrador, concur. an application for naturalization in )~51. There.was no opposition, to tht:. application on the part ·of the Government. At the hearing the applicant presented evidence in support of his application, including XII !:~d~~~r:;t~~a:~t:,e~s~~~c:~~ 0\~i~~e:n::~:;i~~ci;~n~~y Ap::::a:i~ha~ Victoriano Capio, petitioner.appellee, vs. Fernando Capio, op. he possessed all the qualifications for Philippine citizenship and none µasitor.uppdiont, G. R. No. L-S76l, Dec. 21, .195;3. of the disqualifications, and the trial court •so found. The exception 1 . LAND REGISTRATION; WHEN JUDGMENT THEREOP BEis that Atty. Anastacio, one of his witnesses, in his endea.vor, even COMES FINAL AND INCONTROVERTIBLE. - In numf!rous enthusiasm to prove that the applicant had identified himself with the Filipinos, helped them when asked and was very congenial and friendly, said that Benlu_y even took part in two electoral campaigns in decisions, some of the latest being Afallo a11d Pinaroc v. Rosaura, 60 Phil. 622 and Valmonte v. Na.hie, G. R. No. L-2842, December 29, 1949, 47 0. G. 2917, we have hclrl that the ajudication .:iCland THE L.A.WYEHS JOURNAL 79

Date

1954

Rights