Alexander A. Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds, City of Manila (G.R. No. L-630) was a landmark case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court, which further solidified the prohibition of the Philippine Constitution that aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands. The decision was promulgated on November 15, 1947. This was the outcome of the petition by Alexander Krivenko, a Russian citizen, who bought a residential land in Manila, Philippines in December 1941. However, he failed to register the same due to Japan's declaration of war. Later on in May 1945, he again sought the registration of the same land but the herein respondent, Register of Deeds, denied the application because as an alien, Krivenko was disqualified to own land pursuant to the laws of the Philippine jurisdiction. Krivenko brought the case to the Court of First Instance of Manila which sustained the refusal of the Register of Deeds of Manila. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, a new circular by the Department of Justice was released, instructing all registers of deeds to accept for registration all transfers of residential lots to aliens. With the effect of the circular swaying in his favor, Krivenko thereafter filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. However, the Supreme Court deemed it best to exercise its discretionary powers and denied Krivenko's appeal, in order to tackle the more pressing constitutional issue; and in the process, established itself as a landmark case with regard to foreign ownership of lands in the Philippines. Issues There are two material issues in this case. The first involves the substantive issue of whether or not a conveyance of a residential land to aliens infringes Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution. The above-mentioned provision of the 1935 Constitution provides, to wit: On the other hand, equally relevant is the procedural issue of whether or not Krivenko's Motion to Withdraw Appeal should be granted. It is the position of the Court that the granting the motion would result to Krivenko winning the case not by a decision on the merits but because of the circular of the Department of Justice. Ruling The Supreme Court deemed it wise to tackle the more important constitutional issue rather than merely give way to the procedural aspect of Krivenko's appeal. The Court convened for days as to what course of action to