property digests 11- 17

8/10/2019 Property Digests 11- 17

1/5

LAUREL V. GARCIA187 SCRA 797

FACTS:The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the Philippines fromJapan pursuant to a Reparations Agreement. The property is where the Philippine Embassy wasonce located, before it transferred to the Nampeidai property. It was decided that theproperties would beavailable to sale or disposition. One of the first properties opened up for public auction was theRoppongi property, despite numerous oppositions from different sectors.

HELD:The Roppongi property was acquired together with the other properties through reparationagreements. They were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi

property was specifically designated under the agreement to house the Philippine embassy.

It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become

patrimonial. The respondents have failed to do so.

As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot

be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and payment, in

application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. Thepurpose is not to serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for the

common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.

The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service

doesntautomatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if

the property is withdrawn from public use. A property continues to be part of the public domain,

not available for

private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the

government to withdraw it from being such.

Rabuco vs villegas

Facts

The constitutionality of RA No. 3120 was assailed by the city officials of the City of Manila contending that theconversion of the lots in Malate area into disposable and alienable lands of the state and placing itsadministration and disposal to the LTA to be subdivided into lots and selling it to bona fide occupants thereofin installments constitutes a deprivation of the City of Manila of its property by providing for its sale withoutthe payment of just compensation.Issue

Whether or not the properties in dispute may be disposed without paying just compensation to the City

ofManila?

Held


2/5

The court held that the assailed RA 3120 is constitutional. The lots in question are owned by the City of Manilain its public and governmental capacity and are therefore public property over which Congress has absolutecontrol as distinguished from patrimonial property owned by it which cannot be deprived from the City withoutjust compensation and without due process. RA 3120 expressly provides that the properties are reserved forthe purpose of communal property and ordered its conversion into disposable and alienable lands of thestate to be sold to its bona fide occupants. It has been an established doctrine that the state reserves its rights

to classify its property under its legislative prerogative and the court cannot interfere on such power of thestate.

Macasiano vs Diokno

Respondent Municipality passed Ordinance No. 86 which authorized the closure of

J.Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets and the

establishment of a flea market thereon. This was passed pursuant to MMC Ordinance

No.2 and was approved by the Metropolitan Manila Authority on July 20, 1990.

On August 8, 1990, respondent municipality and Palanyag entered into a contract

agreement whereby the latter shall operate, maintain & manage the flea markets and/or

vending areas in the aforementioned streets with the obligation to remit dues to the

treasury of the municipal government of Paraaque.

On September 13, 1990 Brig. Gen. Macasiano ordered the destruction and confiscation

of stalls along G.G. Cruz & Gabriel Street in Baclaran. He also wrote a letter to Palanyag

ordering the destruction of the flea market.

Hence, respondent filed a joint petition praying for preliminary injunction. The trial court

upheld the assailed Ordinance and enjoined petitioner from enforcing his letter-order

against Palanyag.

Issue: Whether or not an ordinance or resolution issued by the municipal council of Paraaque

authorizing the lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid.

Held:T h e p r o p e r t y o f p r o v i n c e s , c i t i e s a n d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s d i v i d e d i n t o p r o p e r t y f or pu bl ic us e an dpatr imonial property (Art. 423, Civi l Code). As to property for publicuse, Article 424 of Civil Codeprovides that "property for public use, in the provinces,cities and municipalities, consists of theprovincial roads, city streets, the squares, fountains,public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities ormunicipalities. All other property possessed by anyof them is patrimonial and shall begove rned b y th is Code , w ithout prej udic e to the prov isions of special laws." In the presentcase, thus, J. Gabrielle G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Gacia Extension andOpena streets are local roads

used for public service and are therefore considered public propertiesof themunicipality. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public servicearedeemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, local government have


3/5

noauthority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unlessspecific authority isvested upon them by Congress.

14. Republic vs Court of Appeals

REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS281 SCRA 639

FACTS:Morato has filed for patent over a parcel of land, of which was granted under the

condition that he would not encumber it for a period of 5 years from issuance of patent. It

was then found out that he mortgaged and leased the lots. The government sought for the

revocation of the patent

issued. The trial court and appellate court decided in favor of the respondents.

HELD:Foreshore lands have been defined to be that part of the land which is between the high

and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides. This is the strip of land that

lies between the high and low watermarks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to

the flow of the tide.

Foreshore lands may not anymore be the subject of issuance of free patents. Under

property of public ownership or dominion are foreshore lands, as provided for in the Civil

Code.

It is to be noted that when the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the invaded

property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of public domain.

15. Province of Zamboangawrite this version


4/5

FACTS: After the incorporation of the Municipality of Zamboanga as a chartered city, petitioner province

contends that facilities belonging to the latter and located within the City of Zamboanga will be acquired and paid

for by the said city.

However, respondent city avers that pursuant to RA No. 3039 providing for the transfer free of charge of all

buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of

Zamboanga to the said City.

ISSUE: Whether or not facilities which the province shall abandon will be acquired by the city upon just

compensation.

HELD: Yes, If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity, the property is

public and can be transferred free of charge. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then

it is patrimonial and can be expropriated upon payment of just compensation.

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al

L-24440, March 28, 1968

FACTS: After Zamboanga Province was divided into two (Zamboanga Del Norte and Zamboanga Del

Sur), Republic Act 3039 was passed providing that--

"All buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located

within the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred free of charge in favor of the City ofZamboanga."

Suit was brought alleging that this grant without just compensation was unconstitutional because itdeprived the province of property without due process. Included in the properties were the capital siteand capitol building, certain school sites, hospital and leprosarium sites, and high school playgrounds.

ISSUES:

1. Are the properties mentioned, properties for public use or patrimonial property?

2. Should the city pay for said properties?

HELD:

1. If we follow the Civil Code classification, only the high school playgrounds are for

public use since it is the only one that is available to the general public, and all the rest are

patrimonial property since they are not devoted to public use but to public service. But if we

follow the law on Municipal Corporations, as long as the purpose is for a public service, the

property should be considered for PUBLIC USE.


5/5

2. If the Civil Code classification is used, since almost all the properties involved

arepatrimonial, the law would be unconstitutional since the province would be deprived of its

own property without just compensation. If the law on Municipal Corporations would be

followed, the properties would be of public dominion, and therefore NO COMPENSATION

would be required. It is the law on Municipal Corporations that should be

followed. Firstly, while the Civil Code may classify them as patrimonial, they should not beregarded as ordinary private property. They should fall under the control of the State,

otherwise certain governmental activities would be impaired. Secondly,Art. 424, 2nd

paragraph itself says "without prejudice to the provisions of special laws."

16. Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (art 420) read full case.

The Public Estates Authority is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation

projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR insofar as

reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.PEA sought the transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of

the Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila

Bay to AMARI.

ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.

HELD:

No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as

private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from

acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom

Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the publicdomain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural

resources of the public domain. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private

corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being

contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from

acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the Amended JVA

also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of

Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987

Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the

public domain.

17. Chavez vs Nahtional Housing Authority ( bookmarked)

Hence, said lands are no longer intended for public use or service and shall form part of the

patrimonial properties of the State under Art. 422 of the Civil Code.84As discussed a priori, the

lands were classified as patrimonial properties of the NHA ready for disposition when the titles

were registered in its name by the Register of Deeds.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_164527_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_164527_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_164527_2007.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_164527_2007.html#fnt84

property digests 11- 17

Documents