In the United States, as almost everywhere else, the doctrine which imputes to the sovereign or to the government the ownership of all lands and makes such sovereign or government the original source of private titles, is well recognized (42 Am. Jur., 785). This doctrine, which was expressly affirmed in Lawrence vs. Garduo, G. R. No. 16542, and which underlies all titles in the Philippines, (See Ventura, Land Registration and Mortgages, 2nd ed., pp. 2-3) has been enshrined in our Constitution (article XIII). The doctrine regarding the course of all titles being the same here as in the United States, it would seem that if escheat lies against aliens holding lands in those states of the Union where common law prevails or where similar constitutional or statutory prohibitions exist, no cogent reason is perceived why similar proceedings may not be instituted in this jurisdiction. Escheat is an incident or attribute of sovereignty, and rests on the principle of the ultimate ownership by the state of all property within its jurisdiction. (30 C.J.S., 1164.) . . . America escheats belong universally to the state or some corporation thereof as the ultimate proprietor of land within its Jurisdiction. (19 Am. Jur., 382.) An escheat is nothing more or less than the reversion of property to the state, which takes place when the title fails. (Delany vs. State, 42 N. D., 630, 174 N.W., 290, quoted in footnote 6, 19 Am. Jur., 381.) As applied to the right of the state to lands purchased by an alien, it would more properly be termed a forfeiture at common law. (19 Am. Jur., 381.) In modern law escheat denotes a falling of the estate into the general property of the state because the tenant is an alien or because he has died intestate without lawful heirs to take his estate by succession, or because of some other disability to take or hold property imposed by law. (19 Am. Jur.,
Posted on: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:22:58 +0000