Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 157 views

    Cheesman V IAC

    Uploaded by

    scribduser1000
    Thomas Cheesman, an American, was married to Criselda Cheesman, a Filipina. During their marriage, a property was deeded to Criselda alone, with Thomas' knowledge but without objection. Later, Criselda sold the property to another person without Thomas' consent. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, as the Philippine Constitution prohibits the sale of land to aliens like Thomas, so he had no interest or rights over the property that would allow him to question its sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Cheesman V IAC

    Uploaded by

    scribduser1000
    157 views1 page
    Thomas Cheesman, an American, was married to Criselda Cheesman, a Filipina. During their marriage, a property was deeded to Criselda alone, with Thomas' knowledge but without objection. Later, Criselda sold the property to another person without Thomas' consent. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, as the Philippine Constitution prohibits the sale of land to aliens like Thomas, so he had no interest or rights over the property that would allow him to question its sale.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    26. Cheesman v IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Thomas Cheesman, an American, was married to Criselda Cheesman, a Filipina. During their marriage, a property was deeded to Criselda alone, with Thomas' knowledge but without objection. Later, Criselda sold the property to another person without Thomas' consent. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, as the Philippine Constitution prohibits the sale of land to aliens like Thomas, so he had no interest or rights over the property that would allow him to question its sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Cheesman V IAC

    Uploaded by

    scribduser1000
    Thomas Cheesman, an American, was married to Criselda Cheesman, a Filipina. During their marriage, a property was deeded to Criselda alone, with Thomas' knowledge but without objection. Later, Criselda sold the property to another person without Thomas' consent. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was valid, as the Philippine Constitution prohibits the sale of land to aliens like Thomas, so he had no interest or rights over the property that would allow him to question its sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CHEESMAN v IAC

    January 21, 1991 | Narvasa, J

    DOCTRINE: Alien husbands do not have a substantial interest and right over land and cannot have a decisive
    vote as to its transfer or disposition.

    SUMMARY: Thomas Cheesman and Criselda Cheesman got married. During their marriage, a Deed of Sale
    and Transfer of Possessory Rights was executed in favor of Criselda, married to Thomas. Criselda then sold the
    property to Estelita Padilla, without the consent of Thomas. SC ruled that that Thomas did not have a right over
    the property and cannot question its sale because the Constitution prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land.

    FACTS:
    Thomas Cheesman (American) and Criselda P. Cheesman were married on December 4, 1970 but have
    been separated since February 15,1981.
    June 4, 1974 (during their marriage) "Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory Rights" was executed
    by Armando Altares conveying a parcel of unregistered land in favor of "Criselda P. Cheesman
    married to Thomas CheesmanThomas Cheesman, although aware of the deed, did not object to
    the transfer being made only to his wife.
    Tax declarations purchased were issued in the name only of Criselda (Thomas did not object) and Criselda
    assumed exclusive management and administration of said property, leasing it to tenants
    July 1, 1981 - Criselda sold the property to Estelita M. Padilla, without the knowledge or consent of
    Thomas. The deed described Criselda as being" . . . of legal age, married to an American citizen,. . ."
    July 31, 1981 Thomas wanted to annul the sale on the ground that the transaction had been executed
    without his knowledge and consent.
    Defendants argue that the property sold was paraphernal, having been purchased by Criselda with funds
    exclusively belonging to her; Thomas, being an American, was disqualified to have any interest or right of
    ownership in the land; and Estelita Padilla was a buyer in good faith.
    TC declared the sale void ab initio and ordered the delivery of the property to Thomas as administrator
    of the conjugal partnership property but judgement was set aside because Estelita Padilla was found to
    engage in fraud.
    IAC sale valid even without consent

    ISSUE: W/N Criselda can dispose of the lot without the consent of her American husband YES

    RULING:

    The fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land.


    o Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary
    succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations,
    or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain."
    Thomas acquired no right whatever over the property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to
    acquire a right or interest in land, vicariously and clandestinely, he knowingly violated the Constitution; the
    sale as to him was null and void.
    He had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by
    his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of
    conjugal property.
    Court did not decide on: Even if it were a fact that said wife had used conjugal funds to make the
    acquisition, he may recover from his wife any share of the money used for the purchase or charge her
    with unauthorized disposition or expenditure of conjugal funds

    DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED

    You might also like