December 12, 2000

DAR OPINION NO. 45-00

MS. CONCEPCION A. NEREZ

121 Sycamore Avenue

San Mateo, California 94402

Dear Ms. Nerez:

This refers to your letter dated 15 September 1999 requesting to be informed on the following issues:

1)        Does the Philippine government have parity rights with the U. S. government granting U.S. citizens the right to own lands that are planted with coconuts and bananas for export?

2)        How many hectares are you allowed to own and how much is the share of the owner if you have paid for coconut seedlings and banana suckers?

You stated that you have a four-hectare property bought after the war in the name of your husband, Manuel M. Nerez, Sr.; that subject property was planted with coconuts and bananas with Original Certificate of Title No. V-9021 issued by the Director of Lands in Manila and registered at the Register of Deeds in Cotabato; that your husband is a naturalized Filipino-American citizen who served in the US Army during World War II; and, that you also have a small residential lot in Cotabato which is less than half an acre.

In relation to the first issue, please be informed that as originally drafted by the framers of the 1935 Constitution, the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved to Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them, but the "Parity Amendment" expressly extended the privilege to citizens of the United States of America and/or to business enterprises owned or controlled by them. Section 127 of Commonwealth Act 141 (the Public Land Act of 1936) prescribes:

"Sec. 127.     During the existence and continuance of the Commonwealth, and before the Republic of the Philippines is established, citizens and corporations of the United States shall enjoy the same rights granted to citizens and corporations of the Philippines under this Act."

The right of United States citizens and corporations to acquire and exploit private or public lands and other natural resources of the Philippines was intended to expire when the Commonwealth ended on 04 July 1946. Thereafter, public and private agricultural lands and natural resources of the Philippines were or became exclusively reserved by our Constitution for Filipino citizens. This situation lasted until the "Parity Amendment", ratified in November, 1946, once more reopened to United States citizens and business enterprises owned or controlled by them the lands of the public domain, the natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of the public utilities, exclusively, but not the acquisition or exploitation of  private agricultural lands, about which not a word is found in the Parity Amendment (Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 160).

Moreover, even assuming that the acquisition by United States citizens of private agricultural lands in the Philippines was valid and constitutional, their rights expire on 3 July 1974. All these rights conferred upon United States citizens and business entities; owned or controlled by them under the Amendment, were subject to one and the same resolutory condition or period: they are to last "during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into on 04 July 1946", "but in no case to extend beyond the third of July 1974." None of the privileges conferred by the "Parity Amendment" are excepted from this resolutory period (supra).

Referring to the second issue, Section 8 of Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, quote:

"SEC. 8.        Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law." (emphasis and emphasis supplied)

Relative thereto, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 dated 16 March 1982 further provides:

"any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has the capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence . . . In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed maximum areas herein authorized."

It could be inferred from the aforequoted provisions of law and the Constitution that only Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may only be a transferee or retain a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. This is in consonance with Section 1, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution which provides that the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and its increments in line with the State's social justice ideals to equitably diffuse wealth and to reduce social, economic and political inequalities.

Otherwise stated, the right to own agricultural lands and exercise the privileges appurtenant thereto are reserved only to Filipino citizens.

We hope to have clarified the matters with you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) FEDERICO A. POBLETE

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning