Register of Deeds of Manila v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. L-11964, 28 April 1962, (04 SCRA 1146)

 

The Court reminded us that the constitutional prohibition under consideration has for its purpose the preservation of patrimony of the nation.

In the examination of Section 25 of Republic Act 337, specifically paragraphs (c) and (d), the Court found that case before them does not fall under anyone of them. Paragraph (c) of Section 25 of Republic Act 337 allows commercial banks to purchase and hold properties conveyed to it in satisfaction of “debts” previously contracted “in the course of its dealings”.

In this case, such property was not conveyed in satisfaction of a debt from the business’s ordinary course, but due to a “civil liability” arising from the criminal offense of qualified theft. Likewise, paragraph (d) of Section 25 of Republic Act 337 is not applicable.

The Court held that in no sense that the transfer in questions can be considered a sale made by virtue of judgement, decree, mortgage, or trust deed. In the same manner, it cannot be said that the property in questions was purchased by appellants to secure debts due to it, considering that the term debt employed in the provisions of the law can logically refer only to such debts as may become payable to appellant bank as a result of a banking transaction. Conclusively, it is not the Court’s duty to determine the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the Constitution. It is only their sworn duty to enforce it free from qualifications and distinctions that tend to render futile the constitutional intent.