Laurel v.

Garcia
G.R. No. 92013, ]uly 25, 1990, 187 SCRA 797
Gutierrez, ].
FACTS: In vew of the Reparatons Agreement between the Phppnes and
|apan, four propertes ocated n |apan were gven to the Phppnes. One of
these propertes s the Roppong property. The sad property was formery
the ocaton of the Chancery of the Phppne Embassy unt t was
transferred to Nampeda on |uy 22, 1976. The Roppong property has
remaned abandoned from the tme of the transfer due to ack of funds to
deveop the sad property. Consequenty, Admnstratve orders were ssued
by the Presdent authorzng the study of the condton of the propertes of
the Phppnes n |apan. Subsequenty, Executve Order 296 was ssued by
Presdent Aquno aowng non-Fpnos to buy or ease some of the
propertes of the Phppnes ocated n |apan, ncudng Roppong.

Pettoners now contend that the Roppong property cannot be aenated as t
s cassfed as pubc domnon and not of prvate ownershp because t s a
property ntended for pubc servce under paragraph 2, artce 420 of the
Cv Code. On the other hand, respondents aver that t has aready become
part of the patrmona property of the State whch can be aenated because
t has not been used for pubc servce for over 13 years. They further
contend that EO 296 converted the sub|ect property to patrmona property.
lSSUE: Whether or not the Roppong property st forms part of the pubc
domnon hence cannot be dsposed nor aenated.
HELD: Yes. The respondents faed to convncngy show that the property
has aready become patrmona. The fact that the Roppong ste has not
been used for a ong tme for actua Embassy servce does not automatcay
convert t to patrmona property. Under Art. 422 of the Cv Code, there
must be a defnte and a forma decaraton on the part of the government to
wthdraw t from beng pubc. Abandonment must be a certan and a postve
act based on correct ega premses. The mere transfer of the embassy to
Nampeda s not a renqushment of the propertys orgna purpose.
The Admnstratve orders authorzng the study of the condtons of
government propertes n |apan were merey drectves for nvestgaton but
dd not n any way sgnfy a cear ntenton to dspose of the propertes.
Lkewse, EO 296 dd not decare that the propertes ost ther pubc
character; t merey made them avaabe to foregners n case of sae, ease
or other dsposton. Thus, snce there s no aw authorzng ts conveyance,
the Roppong property st remans part of the naenabe propertes of the
State.
#12
Rabuco v. Villegas
!