Consequently, it is now settled that where a Filipino vendor transfers or assigns a residential or commercial lot to an alien in violation of the KRIVENKO doctrine, although such transfer or assignment is void ab initio, he has now a perfect right to institute an action for recovery or re-conveyance of the property against the alien, or it may be in the nature of a petition for reversion within the meaning of sec. 5 of Rule 92.17
We are satisfied, however, that aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they decide to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
In view of the foregoing, there is NO NEED to amend the Charter insofar as the National Economy and Patrimony is concerned. The Consti-tution has enough built-in provisions to meet the demands of time - that of Globalization and a Nationalistic Economy. To allow 100% foreign equity ownership and alien landholding for the sole purpose of making the Con-stitution attuned to the exigencies of world economic policies would render nugatory the spirit of the Constitution." It should be emphatically stated that the provisions of our Constitution which limit to Filipinos the rights to develop our natural resources and to operate the public utilities of the Philippines is one of the bulwarks of our national integrity. The Filipino people decided to include it in our Constitution in order that it may have the stability and permanency that its importance requires. It is written in our Constitution so that it may neither be the subject of barter nor be impaired in the give and take politics. With our natural resources, our sources of power of energy, our public lands, and our public utilities, the material basis of the nation's existence, in the hands of aliens over whom the Philippine government has no control, the Filipinos may soon find themselves deprived of their patri-mony and living as it were, in a house that no longer belongs them."18 The Constitution is flexible enough. To bend it more would be a virtual maneuver of the same.
* LLB. 2000, Article Editor, UB Law Journal
1Quintessential Constitution" by lsagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 Edition, p. 13.
2Taņada, et al. vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997.
3 ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 The Lawyers Review, June 30, 1997, p.21.
6 Sec. 10, Art XII.
7 Sec. 12, Art. XII.
8 Sec. 19, Art. II.
9 Sec. 13, Art. XII.
10 Ibid.
11 III Records of the Constitutional Commission, p.252.
12 Sec. 2, Art. II., 1987 Philippine Constitution.
13 Judge Jorge R. Coquia, The Parity Rights Amendment, 46 SCRA 261.
14 Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 461.
15 Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704.
16 Herrera vs. Luy Kim Guan, 1 SCRA 406.
17 Philippine Banking Corp. vs. Lui She, September 12,1967.
18 Sinco, Vicente G. quoted from the Congress Record, House of Representative, Vol. 1 No. 26 p. 561.