Title
Philippine National Oil Co. vs. Keppel Philippines Holdings, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 202050
Decision Date
Jul 25, 2016
Keppel’s 1976 lease with option to purchase upheld as constitutional; option valid as binding offer upon acceptance, but compliance with 60% Filipino ownership remanded for verification under Gamboa ruling.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202050)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • 1976 Lease Agreement and Option
    • Keppel Philippines Holdings, Inc. (Keppel) and Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (Lusteveco) entered into a 25-year lease (6 August 1976) over 11 hectares in Bauan, Batangas, for P2.1 million; rental fees were convertible into Keppel equity.
    • Under paragraph 5, Keppel had a “firm and absolute” option to purchase for P4.09 million at the end of 25 years if it then qualified (≥ 60% Filipino-owned); if unqualified, the lease auto-renewed another 25 years, with an option exercisable up to the 30th year at a nominal P100.
    • Paragraph 6 prohibited Lusteveco from selling or assigning its rights during the lease without Keppel’s prior written consent.
  • Assignment to PNOC
    • In 1979, Lusteveco’s assets (including lease-option rights) were transferred to PNOC Dockyard & Engineering Corp. (PDEC) and eventually to PNOC; Keppel consented to annotate the Agreement on PNOC’s title.
    • The Agreement was recorded as Entry No. 65340 on PNOC’s Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50724.
  • Keppel’s Exercise and Litigation
    • December 2000: Keppel attained ≥ 60% Filipino shareholding, notified PNOC of its intent to exercise the purchase option; PNOC delayed.
    • 26 September 2003: Keppel sued PNOC for specific performance; PNOC countered, alleging constitutional circumvention, lack of option consideration, and absence of privity.
    • 12 January 2006: RTC of Batangas City ruled for Keppel, ordering PNOC to execute a deed of sale upon payment of P4.09 million.
    • 19 December 2011 & 14 May 2012: CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto and denied reconsideration.
    • PNOC elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 (G.R. No. 202050).

Issues:

  • Did the Agreement’s terms constitute a virtual sale designed to circumvent the constitutional ban on alien land ownership?
  • Is the option to purchase supported by a separate, valuable consideration as required by Article 1479 of the Civil Code?
  • If decided for Keppel, does Keppel meet the 60% Filipino-owned capital requirement per the Constitution and Gamboa v. Teves?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.