Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    The petitioner sold land to the respondent, a Chinese citizen, in 1944. The petitioner claimed the sale was void under the Philippine Constitution, which prohibited aliens from acquiring private agricultural lands. The Court held that (1) the sale was unconstitutional as the respondent was an alien, but (2) the petitioner could not invalidate the sale to recover the land, as both parties knew the sale violated the Constitution when they entered into it. The "in pari delicto" doctrine bars recovery from an illegal contract where both parties were equally at fault. Therefore, while the sale was unconstitutional, the petitioner was not entitled to annul it and recover the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    115 views1 page
    The petitioner sold land to the respondent, a Chinese citizen, in 1944. The petitioner claimed the sale was void under the Philippine Constitution, which prohibited aliens from acquiring private agricultural lands. The Court held that (1) the sale was unconstitutional as the respondent was an alien, but (2) the petitioner could not invalidate the sale to recover the land, as both parties knew the sale violated the Constitution when they entered into it. The "in pari delicto" doctrine bars recovery from an illegal contract where both parties were equally at fault. Therefore, while the sale was unconstitutional, the petitioner was not entitled to annul it and recover the land.

    Original Description:

    Rellosa v. chun

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner sold land to the respondent, a Chinese citizen, in 1944. The petitioner claimed the sale was void under the Philippine Constitution, which prohibited aliens from acquiring private agricultural lands. The Court held that (1) the sale was unconstitutional as the respondent was an alien, but (2) the petitioner could not invalidate the sale to recover the land, as both parties knew the sale violated the Constitution when they entered into it. The "in pari delicto" doctrine bars recovery from an illegal contract where both parties were equally at fault. Therefore, while the sale was unconstitutional, the petitioner was not entitled to annul it and recover the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    115 views1 page

    Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun

    Uploaded by

    May Angelica Teneza
    The petitioner sold land to the respondent, a Chinese citizen, in 1944. The petitioner claimed the sale was void under the Philippine Constitution, which prohibited aliens from acquiring private agricultural lands. The Court held that (1) the sale was unconstitutional as the respondent was an alien, but (2) the petitioner could not invalidate the sale to recover the land, as both parties knew the sale violated the Constitution when they entered into it. The "in pari delicto" doctrine bars recovery from an illegal contract where both parties were equally at fault. Therefore, while the sale was unconstitutional, the petitioner was not entitled to annul it and recover the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    RELLOSA v.

    GAW CHEE HUN


    G.R. No. L-1411. September 29, 1953

    DOCTRINE:
    The “In Pari Delicto” doctrine provides that the proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at
    law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the
    property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation.

    FACTS:

    On February 2, 1944, Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together with the house
    erected thereon, situated in the City of Manila, Philippines, for the sum of P25,000. The vendor remained in
    possession of the property under a contract of lease entered into on the same date between the same
    parties.

    Alleging that the sale was executed subject to the condition that the vendee, being a Chinese citizen, would
    obtain the approval of the Japanese Military Administration in accordance with (seirei) No. 6 issued on April
    2, 1943, by the Japanese authorities, and said approval has not been obtained, and that, even if said
    requirement were met, the sale would at all events be void under article XIII, section 5, of our Constitution.

    The vendor instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of
    the sale

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether the sale was void because it is against the constitution
    2. Whether the petitioner have the sale declared null and void and recover the property considering the
    effect of the law governing rescission of contracts
    HELD:

    1) Yes, the court held that under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands,
    including residential lands. This matter has been once more submitted to the court for deliberation, but the
    ruling was reaffirmed. This ruling fully disposes of the question touching on the validity of the sale of the
    property herein involved.

    2) No, even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution to set aside the sale in question, they are now
    prevented from doing so if their purpose is to recover the lands that they have voluntarily parted with,
    because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They
    cannot escape this conclusion because they are presumed to know the law.

    You might also like