Case Digest (G.R. No. L-630) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila (G.R. No. L-630, November 15, 1947), petitioner Alexander A. Krivenko, a Russian alien, contracted in December 1941 to purchase a residential lot from Magdalena Estate, Inc., but formal registration was interrupted by World War II. In May 1945 he sought to enroll his title with the Register of Deeds of Manila, who denied registration on the ground that, under the 1935 Constitution, aliens are disqualified from acquiring land. Krivenko filed a *consulta* with the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which affirmed the register’s refusal. Thereafter Krivenko appealed to this Court. While the appeal was pending—after briefs had been filed and the case had been voted—a Department of Justice circular directed registers of deeds to record transfers of residential lots to aliens. Krivenko then moved to withdraw his appeal, with the Solicitor General’s concurrence. Despite that motion, and in deference Case Digest (G.R. No. L-630) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Transaction
- In December 1941, Alexander A. Krivenko, an alien, purchased a residential lot from Magdalena Estate, Inc. in Manila.
- World War II interrupted registration; after liberation, in May 1945, the lot was presented for registration.
- The Register of Deeds of Manila denied registration, citing the constitutional ban on alien land ownership.
- Judicial Proceedings and Procedural Events
- Krivenko filed a consulta with the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila; that court upheld the Register’s refusal.
- He appealed to the Supreme Court; briefs were filed, and the case was voted upon.
- While pending, Krivenko moved to withdraw the appeal; the Solicitor General concurred.
- During deliberations, the Department of Justice issued Circular No. 128, directing registers of deeds to accept transfers of residential lots to aliens.
- The Supreme Court, by a divided vote and under Rule 56(2), denied the motion to withdraw and proceeded to decide on the merits.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether, after appellee’s brief has been filed and the case voted, the Supreme Court should grant the withdrawal of appeal, per Rule 52(4) and Rule 56(2).
- Constitutional Issue
- Whether Article XIII, Section 1 and Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution prohibit an alien from acquiring residential land (public or private).
- Statutory and Policy Issue
- How do Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the revised Public Land Law) and prior Public Land Acts interpret “agricultural land,” especially as to residential lots?
- What legislative and executive constructions shed light on the scope of the constitutional prohibition?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)