LAUREL V. GARCIA 187 SCRA 797
FACTS: The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the Philippines from Japan pursuant to a Reparations Reparations Agreement. The property is where the Philippine Embassy Embassy was once located, before it transferred to the Nampeida Nampeidaii property. It was decided that the properties would be available to sale or disposition. disposition. One of the first properties opened up for public auction was the Roppongi property, despite numerous oppositions from different sectors.
HELD: The Roppongi property was wa s acquired together toget her with the other properties propert ies through reparation agreements. They were assigned to the the government sector and that the Roppongi Roppongi property was specifically designated under the agreement agreement to house house the Philippine Philippine embassy. It is i s of public dominion unless it is i s convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. The respondents respondents have failed failed to do so. As property property of public public dominion dominion,, the the Roppongi Roppongi lot is outside 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. The purpose is not to serve serve the State as the juridical juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriat appropriation. ion. The fact that the Roppongi Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual actual Embassy service doesn’t automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn withdrawn from public use. A property continues to be part part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation 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 the conversion conversio n of the lots in Malate area into disposable and alienable lands of the state and placing its administration and disposal to the LTA to be subdivided into lots and selling it to bona fide occupants thereof in installments constitutes a deprivation of the City of Manila of its property by providing for its sale without the payment of just compensa compensation. tion. Issue
Whether or not the properties in dispute may be disposed without paying just compensation to the City ofManila? Held
The court held that t he assailed RA 3120 is constitutional. The lots in q uestion are owned by the City of Manila in its public and governmental capacity and are therefore public property over which Congress has absolute control as distinguished from patrimonial property owned by it which cannot be deprived from the City without just compensation and without due process. RA 3120 expressly provides that the properties are reserved for the purpose of communal property and ordered its conversion into disposable and alienable lands of the state 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 the state.
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 Parañaque. 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 Parañaque authorizing the lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid.
Held: The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property f or pu bl ic us e an dpatrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil Code). As to property for public use, 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 or municipalities. All other property possessed by anyof them is patrimonial and shall be gove rne d b y th is C ode , w itho ut prej udic e to the prov isio ns of special laws." In the present case, 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 the municipality. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service aredeemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, local government have
noauthority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority isvested upon them by Congress.
14. Republic vs Court of Appeals
REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS 281 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 Zamboanga – write this version
FACTS: After the incorporation of the Municipality of Zamboanga as a chartered city, petitioner province contends that facilities belonging to the latter and l ocated 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 of Zamboanga." Suit was brought alleging that this grant without just compensation was unconstitutional because it deprived the province of property without due process. Included in the properties were the capital site and 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.
2. If the Civil Code classification is used, since almost all the properties involved are patrimonial , 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 be regarded 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 public domain. 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.84 As 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.””
