Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 168557

February 16, 2007

FELS ENERGY, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS and
THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF BATANGAS, Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 170628

February 16, 2007

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
LOCAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF BATANGAS, LAURO C. ANDAYA, in his
capacity as the Assessor of the Province of Batangas, and the PROVINCE OF BATANGAS
represented by its Provincial Assessor, Respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us are two consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 168557 and G.R. No. 170628, which
were filed by petitioners FELS Energy, Inc. (FELS) and National Power Corporation (NPC),
respectively. The first is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the August 25, 2004 Decision 1 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and its Resolution 2 dated June 20, 2005; the
second, also a petition for review on certiorari, challenges the February 9, 2005 Decision 3 and
November 23, 2005 Resolution4 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. Both petitions were dismissed
on the ground of prescription.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
On January 18, 1993, NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy, Inc. over 3x30 MW
diesel engine power barges moored at Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract,
denominated as an Energy Conversion Agreement5 (Agreement), was for a period of five years.
Article 10 reads:
10.1 RESPONSIBILITY. NAPOCOR shall be responsible for the payment of (a) all taxes, import
duties, fees, charges and other levies imposed by the National Government of the Republic of the
Philippines or any agency or instrumentality thereof to which POLAR may be or become subject to
or in relation to the performance of their obligations under this agreement (other than (i) taxes
imposed or calculated on the basis of the net income of POLAR and Personal Income Taxes of its
employees and (ii) construction permit fees, environmental permit fees and other similar fees and

charges) and (b) all real estate taxes and assessments, rates and other charges in respect of the
Power Barges.6
Subsequently, Polar Energy, Inc. assigned its rights under the Agreement to FELS. The NPC initially
opposed the assignment of rights, citing paragraph 17.2 of Article 17 of the Agreement.
On August 7, 1995, FELS received an assessment of real property taxes on the power barges from
Provincial Assessor Lauro C. Andaya of Batangas City. The assessed tax, which likewise covered
those due for 1994, amounted to P56,184,088.40 per annum. FELS referred the matter to NPC,
reminding it of its obligation under the Agreement to pay all real estate taxes. It then gave NPC the
full power and authority to represent it in any conference regarding the real property assessment of
the Provincial Assessor.
In a letter7 dated September 7, 1995, NPC sought reconsideration of the Provincial Assessors
decision to assess real property taxes on the power barges. However, the motion was denied on
September 22, 1995, and the Provincial Assessor advised NPC to pay the assessment. 8 This
prompted NPC to file a petition with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) for the setting
aside of the assessment and the declaration of the barges as non-taxable items; it also prayed that
should LBAA find the barges to be taxable, the Provincial Assessor be directed to make the
necessary corrections.9
In its Answer to the petition, the Provincial Assessor averred that the barges were real property for
purposes of taxation under Section 199(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160.
Before the case was decided by the LBAA, NPC filed a Manifestation, informing the LBAA that the
Department of Finance (DOF) had rendered an opinion10 dated May 20, 1996, where it is clearly
stated that power barges are not real property subject to real property assessment.
On August 26, 1996, the LBAA rendered a Resolution11 denying the petition. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. FELS is hereby ordered to pay the real estate tax in the
amount ofP56,184,088.40, for the year 1994.
SO ORDERED.12
The LBAA ruled that the power plant facilities, while they may be classified as movable or personal
property, are nevertheless considered real property for taxation purposes because they are installed
at a specific location with a character of permanency. The LBAA also pointed out that the owner of
the bargesFELS, a private corporationis the one being taxed, not NPC. A mere agreement making
NPC responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments will not justify the
exemption of FELS; such a privilege can only be granted to NPC and cannot be extended to FELS.
Finally, the LBAA also ruled that the petition was filed out of time.
Aggrieved, FELS appealed the LBAAs ruling to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA).
On August 28, 1996, the Provincial Treasurer of Batangas City issued a Notice of Levy and Warrant
by Distraint13over the power barges, seeking to collect real property taxes amounting
to P232,602,125.91 as of July 31, 1996. The notice and warrant was officially served to FELS on
November 8, 1996. It then filed a Motion to Lift Levy dated November 14, 1996, praying that the
Provincial Assessor be further restrained by the CBAA from enforcing the disputed assessment
during the pendency of the appeal.

On November 15, 1996, the CBAA issued an Order14 lifting the levy and distraint on the properties of
FELS in order not to preempt and render ineffectual, nugatory and illusory any resolution or
judgment which the Board would issue.
Meantime, the NPC filed a Motion for Intervention15 dated August 7, 1998 in the proceedings before
the CBAA. This was approved by the CBAA in an Order16 dated September 22, 1998.
During the pendency of the case, both FELS and NPC filed several motions to admit bond to
guarantee the payment of real property taxes assessed by the Provincial Assessor (in the event that
the judgment be unfavorable to them). The bonds were duly approved by the CBAA.
On April 6, 2000, the CBAA rendered a Decision17 finding the power barges exempt from real
property tax. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the Province of
Batangas is hereby reversed. Respondent-appellee Provincial Assessor of the Province of Batangas
is hereby ordered to drop subject property under ARP/Tax Declaration No. 018-00958 from the List
of Taxable Properties in the Assessment Roll. The Provincial Treasurer of Batangas is hereby
directed to act accordingly.
SO ORDERED.18
Ruling in favor of FELS and NPC, the CBAA reasoned that the power barges belong to NPC; since
they are actually, directly and exclusively used by it, the power barges are covered by the
exemptions under Section 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160.19 As to the other jurisdictional issue, the CBAA
ruled that prescription did not preclude the NPC from pursuing its claim for tax exemption in
accordance with Section 206 of R.A. No. 7160. The Provincial Assessor filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was opposed by FELS and NPC.
In a complete volte face, the CBAA issued a Resolution20 on July 31, 2001 reversing its earlier
decision. The fallo of the resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the resolution of this Board that:
(a) The decision of the Board dated 6 April 2000 is hereby reversed.
(b) The petition of FELS, as well as the intervention of NPC, is dismissed.
(c) The resolution of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Batangas is hereby affirmed,
(d) The real property tax assessment on FELS by the Provincial Assessor of Batangas is
likewise hereby affirmed.
SO ORDERED.21
FELS and NPC filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were timely opposed by the
Provincial Assessor. The CBAA denied the said motions in a Resolution 22 dated October 19, 2001.
Dissatisfied, FELS filed a petition for review before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67490.
Meanwhile, NPC filed a separate petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67491.

On January 17, 2002, NPC filed a Manifestation/Motion for Consolidation in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490
praying for the consolidation of its petition with CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. In a Resolution 23 dated
February 12, 2002, the appellate court directed NPC to re-file its motion for consolidation with CAG.R. SP No. 67491, since it is the ponente of the latter petition who should resolve the request for
reconsideration.
NPC failed to comply with the aforesaid resolution. On August 25, 2004, the Twelfth Division of the
appellate court rendered judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 denying the petition on the ground of
prescription. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed Resolutions
dated July 31, 2001 and October 19, 2001 of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.24
On September 20, 2004, FELS timely filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the
appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490.
Thereafter, NPC filed a petition for review dated October 19, 2004 before this Court, docketed as
G.R. No. 165113, assailing the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490. The petition
was, however, denied in this Courts Resolution25 of November 8, 2004, for NPCs failure to
sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision. NPC filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution 26 dated January 19,
2005.
Meantime, the appellate court dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. It held that the right
to question the assessment of the Provincial Assessor had already prescribed upon the failure of
FELS to appeal the disputed assessment to the LBAA within the period prescribed by law. Since
FELS had lost the right to question the assessment, the right of the Provincial Government to collect
the tax was already absolute.
NPC filed a motion for reconsideration dated March 8, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the February
5, 2005 ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The motion was denied in a Resolution 27 dated
November 23, 2005.
The motion for reconsideration filed by FELS in CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 had been earlier denied for
lack of merit in a Resolution28 dated June 20, 2005.
On August 3, 2005, FELS filed the petition docketed as G.R. No. 168557 before this Court, raising
the following issues:
A.
Whether power barges, which are floating and movable, are personal properties and therefore, not
subject to real property tax.
B.
Assuming that the subject power barges are real properties, whether they are exempt from real
estate tax under Section 234 of the Local Government Code ("LGC").

C.
Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are subject to real estate tax, whether or not it
should be NPC which should be made to pay the same under the law.
D.
Assuming arguendo that the subject power barges are real properties, whether or not the same is
subject to depreciation just like any other personal properties.
E.
Whether the right of the petitioner to question the patently null and void real property tax assessment
on the petitioners personal properties is imprescriptible.29
On January 13, 2006, NPC filed its own petition for review before this Court (G.R. No. 170628),
indicating the following errors committed by the CA:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL TO THE LBAA
WAS FILED OUT OF TIME.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE POWER BARGES
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REAL PROPERTY TAXES.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ON
THE POWER BARGES WAS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.30
Considering that the factual antecedents of both cases are similar, the Court ordered the
consolidation of the two cases in a Resolution31 dated March 8, 2006.
1awphi1.net

In an earlier Resolution dated February 1, 2006, the Court had required the parties to submit their
respective Memoranda within 30 days from notice. Almost a year passed but the parties had not
submitted their respective memoranda. Considering that taxesthe lifeblood of our economyare
involved in the present controversy, the Court was prompted to dispense with the said pleadings,
with the end view of advancing the interests of justice and avoiding further delay.
In both petitions, FELS and NPC maintain that the appeal before the LBAA was not time-barred.
FELS argues that when NPC moved to have the assessment reconsidered on September 7, 1995,
the running of the period to file an appeal with the LBAA was tolled. For its part, NPC posits that the
60-day period for appealing to the LBAA should be reckoned from its receipt of the denial of its
motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners contentions are bereft of merit.

Section 226 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:
SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Any owner or person having legal interest in
the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the
assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of
assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition
under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and
such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.
We note that the notice of assessment which the Provincial Assessor sent to FELS on August 7,
1995, contained the following statement:
If you are not satisfied with this assessment, you may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt
hereof, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province by filing a petition under oath on
the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of ARP/Tax Declaration and such affidavits
or documents submitted in support of the appeal.32
Instead of appealing to the Board of Assessment Appeals (as stated in the notice), NPC opted to file
a motion for reconsideration of the Provincial Assessors decision, a remedy not sanctioned by law.
The remedy of appeal to the LBAA is available from an adverse ruling or action of the provincial, city
or municipal assessor in the assessment of the property. It follows then that the determination made
by the respondent Provincial Assessor with regard to the taxability of the subject real properties falls
within its power to assess properties for taxation purposes subject to appeal before the LBAA. 33
We fully agree with the rationalization of the CA in both CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and CA-G.R. SP No.
67491. The two divisions of the appellate court cited the case of Callanta v. Office of the
Ombudsman,34 where we ruled that under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160, 35 the last action of the local
assessor on a particular assessment shall be the notice of assessment; it is this last action which
gives the owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The procedure likewise does not
permit the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor.
The pertinent holding of the Court in Callanta is as follows:
x x x [T]he same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals
before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices
of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city
assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption
in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where
values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon
the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off
cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be
prevented and excised from our system.36
For its part, the appellate court declared in CA-G.R. SP No. 67491:
x x x. The Court announces: Henceforth, whenever the local assessor sends a notice to the owner or
lawful possessor of real property of its revised assessed value, the former shall no longer have any
jurisdiction to entertain any request for a review or readjustment. The appropriate forum where the
aggrieved party may bring his appeal is the LBAA as provided by law. It follows ineluctably that the
60-day period for making the appeal to the LBAA runs without interruption. This is what We held in
SP 67490 and reaffirm today in SP 67491.37

To reiterate, if the taxpayer fails to appeal in due course, the right of the local government to collect
the taxes due with respect to the taxpayers property becomes absolute upon the expiration of the
period to appeal.38 It also bears stressing that the taxpayers failure to question the assessment in
the LBAA renders the assessment of the local assessor final, executory and demandable, thus,
precluding the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment, or from invoking any
defense that would reopen the question of its liability on the merits.39
In fine, the LBAA acted correctly when it dismissed the petitioners appeal for having been filed out of
time; the CBAA and the appellate court were likewise correct in affirming the dismissal. Elementary
is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the period therefor is both mandatory and
jurisdictional, and failure in this regard renders the decision final and executory.40
In the Comment filed by the Provincial Assessor, it is asserted that the instant petition is barred by
res judicata; that the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 165113 (where there was a final
determination on the issue of prescription), effectively precludes the claims herein; and that the filing
of the instant petition after an adverse judgment in G.R. No. 165113 constitutes forum shopping.
FELS maintains that the argument of the Provincial Assessor is completely misplaced since it was
not a party to the erroneous petition which the NPC filed in G.R. No. 165113. It avers that it did not
participate in the aforesaid proceeding, and the Supreme Court never acquired jurisdiction over it. As
to the issue of forum shopping, petitioner claims that no forum shopping could have been committed
since the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not present.
We do not agree.
Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds
embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it
to the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the
individual of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A
conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals
and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the
public tranquility and happiness.41 As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court
of Appeals:42
x x x An existing final judgment or decree rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a
court of competent jurisdiction acting upon a matter within its authority is conclusive on the rights
of the parties and their privies. This ruling holds in all other actions or suits, in the same or any other
judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction, touching on the points or matters in issue in the first suit.
xxx
Courts will simply refuse to reopen what has been decided. They will not allow the same parties or
their privies to litigate anew a question once it has been considered and decided with finality.
Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The effective and efficient
administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should
not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same
parties.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements: (1) the
former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and
the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. The application of the
doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of
parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of
interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not
implead the latter.43
To recall, FELS gave NPC the full power and authority to represent it in any proceeding regarding
real property assessment. Therefore, when petitioner NPC filed its petition for review docketed as
G.R. No. 165113, it did so not only on its behalf but also on behalf of FELS. Moreover, the assailed
decision in the earlier petition for review filed in this Court was the decision of the appellate court in
CA-G.R. SP No. 67490, in which FELS was the petitioner. Thus, the decision in G.R. No. 165116 is
binding on petitioner FELS under the principle of privity of interest. In fine, FELS and NPC are
substantially "identical parties" as to warrant the application of res judicata. FELSs argument that it
is not bound by the erroneous petition filed by NPC is thus unavailing.
On the issue of forum shopping, we rule for the Provincial Assessor. Forum shopping exists when,
as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable
judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action or certiorari. There is also
forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same
cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. 44
Petitioner FELS alleges that there is no forum shopping since the elements of res judicata are not
present in the cases at bar; however, as already discussed, res judicata may be properly applied
herein. Petitioners engaged in forum shopping when they filed G.R. Nos. 168557 and 170628 after
the petition for review in G.R. No. 165116. Indeed, petitioners went from one court to another trying
to get a favorable decision from one of the tribunals which allowed them to pursue their cases.
It must be stressed that an important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the
vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim
substantially the same reliefs.45 The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be
allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints
constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks
havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets
of the courts.46
Thus, there is forum shopping when there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would
amount to res judicata in the other.47
Having found that the elements of res judicata and forum shopping are present in the consolidated
cases, a discussion of the other issues is no longer necessary. Nevertheless, for the peace and
contentment of petitioners, we shall shed light on the merits of the case.
As found by the appellate court, the CBAA and LBAA power barges are real property and are thus
subject to real property tax. This is also the inevitable conclusion, considering that G.R. No. 165113
was dismissed for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error. Tax assessments by tax examiners
are presumed correct and made in good faith, with the taxpayer having the burden of proving

otherwise.48 Besides, factual findings of administrative bodies, which have acquired expertise in their
field, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court; we will not assume to interfere with the
sensible exercise of the judgment of men especially trained in appraising property. Where the judicial
mind is left in doubt, it is a sound policy to leave the assessment undisturbed. 49 We find no reason to
depart from this rule in this case.
In Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al. v. The City of New York, et al., 50 a power
company brought an action to review property tax assessment. On the citys motion to dismiss, the
Supreme Court of New York held that the barges on which were mounted gas turbine power plants
designated to generate electrical power, the fuel oil barges which supplied fuel oil to the power plant
barges, and the accessory equipment mounted on the barges were subject to real property taxation.
Moreover, Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that "[d]ocks and structures which, though
floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast"
are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized as immovable property by
destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an
industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly
to meet the needs of said industry or work.51
Petitioners maintain nevertheless that the power barges are exempt from real estate tax under
Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160 because they are actually, directly and exclusively used by
petitioner NPC, a government- owned and controlled corporation engaged in the supply, generation,
and transmission of electric power.
We affirm the findings of the LBAA and CBAA that the owner of the taxable properties is petitioner
FELS, which in fine, is the entity being taxed by the local government. As stipulated under Section
2.11, Article 2 of the Agreement:
OWNERSHIP OF POWER BARGES. POLAR shall own the Power Barges and all the fixtures,
fittings, machinery and equipment on the Site used in connection with the Power Barges which have
been supplied by it at its own cost. POLAR shall operate, manage and maintain the Power Barges
for the purpose of converting Fuel of NAPOCOR into electricity.52
It follows then that FELS cannot escape liability from the payment of realty taxes by invoking its
exemption in Section 234 (c) of R.A. No. 7160, which reads:
SECTION 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. The following are exempted from payment of
the real property tax:
xxx
(c) All machineries and equipment that are actually, directly and exclusively used by local water
districts and government-owned or controlled corporations engaged in the supply and distribution of
water and/or generation and transmission of electric power; x x x
Indeed, the law states that the machinery must be actually, directly and exclusively used by the
government owned or controlled corporation; nevertheless, petitioner FELS still cannot find solace in
this provision because Section 5.5, Article 5 of the Agreement provides:

OPERATION. POLAR undertakes that until the end of the Lease Period, subject to the supply of the
necessary Fuel pursuant to Article 6 and to the other provisions hereof, it will operate the Power
Barges to convert such Fuel into electricity in accordance with Part A of Article 7. 53
It is a basic rule that obligations arising from a contract have the force of law between the parties.
Not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the parties to the
contract are bound by its terms and conditions.54
Time and again, the Supreme Court has stated that taxation is the rule and exemption is the
exception.55 The law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and the entity that would seek to be
thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be
misinterpreted.56 Thus, applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax exemptions, and
the rule that doubts should be resolved in favor of provincial corporations, we hold that FELS is
considered a taxable entity.
The mere undertaking of petitioner NPC under Section 10.1 of the Agreement, that it shall be
responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, does not justify the exemption.
The privilege granted to petitioner NPC cannot be extended to FELS. The covenant is between
FELS and NPC and does not bind a third person not privy thereto, in this case, the Province of
Batangas.
It must be pointed out that the protracted and circuitous litigation has seriously resulted in the local
governments deprivation of revenues. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited
in its magnitude, acknowledging in its very nature no perimeter so that security against its abuse is
to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency
who are to pay for it.57 The right of local government units to collect taxes due must always be upheld
to avoid severe tax erosion. This consideration is consistent with the State policy to guarantee the
autonomy of local governments58 and the objective of the Local Government Code that they enjoy
genuine and meaningful local autonomy to empower them to achieve their fullest development as
self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the attainment of national goals. 59
In conclusion, we reiterate that the power to tax is the most potent instrument to raise the needed
revenues to finance and support myriad activities of the local government units for the delivery of
basic services essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the enhancement of peace,
progress, and prosperity of the people.60
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED and the assailed Decisions and Resolutions AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Asscociate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

ATT E S TATI O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R TI F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-40411

August 7, 1935

DAVAO SAW MILL CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
APRONIANO G. CASTILLO and DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC., defendants-appellees.
Arsenio Suazo and Jose L. Palma Gil and Pablo Lorenzo and Delfin Joven for appellant.
J.W. Ferrier for appellees.
MALCOLM, J.:
The issue in this case, as announced in the opening sentence of the decision in the trial court and as
set forth by counsel for the parties on appeal, involves the determination of the nature of the
properties described in the complaint. The trial judge found that those properties were personal in
nature, and as a consequence absolved the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the
plaintiff.
The Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the
Philippine Islands. It has operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu, municipality of
Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business was conducted belonged to
another person. On the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery
used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning

machines which were placed and mounted on foundations of cement. In the contract of lease
between the sawmill company and the owner of the land there appeared the following provision:
That on the expiration of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and buildings
introduced and erected by the party of the second part shall pass to the exclusive ownership
of the party of the first part without any obligation on its part to pay any amount for said
improvements and buildings; also, in the event the party of the second part should leave or
abandon the land leased before the time herein stipulated, the improvements and buildings
shall likewise pass to the ownership of the party of the first part as though the time agreed
upon had expired: Provided, however, That the machineries and accessories are not
included in the improvements which will pass to the party of the first part on the expiration or
abandonment of the land leased.
In another action, wherein the Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw,
Mill Co., Inc., was the defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in that action
against the defendant in that action; a writ of execution issued thereon, and the properties now in
question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff. No third party claim was filed for such
properties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record made by the plaintiff herein.
Indeed the bidder, which was the plaintiff in that action, and the defendant herein having
consummated the sale, proceeded to take possession of the machinery and other properties
described in the corresponding certificates of sale executed in its favor by the sheriff of Davao.
As connecting up with the facts, it should further be explained that the Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., has
on a number of occasions treated the machinery as personal property by executing chattel
mortgages in favor of third persons. One of such persons is the appellee by assignment from the
original mortgages.
Article 334, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Civil Code, is in point. According to the Code, real property
consists of
1. Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhering to the soil;
xxx

xxx

xxx

5. Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any

building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and
which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of industry.
Appellant emphasizes the first paragraph, and appellees the last mentioned paragraph. We entertain
no doubt that the trial judge and appellees are right in their appreciation of the legal doctrines flowing
from the facts.
In the first place, it must again be pointed out that the appellant should have registered its protest
before or at the time of the sale of this property. It must further be pointed out that while not
conclusive, the characterization of the property as chattels by the appellant is indicative of intention
and impresses upon the property the character determined by the parties. In this connection the

decision of this court in the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Yorkvs. Jaramillo ( [1923], 44 Phil.,
630), whether obiter dicta or not, furnishes the key to such a situation.
It is, however not necessary to spend overly must time in the resolution of this appeal on side issues.
It is machinery which is involved; moreover, machinery not intended by the owner of any building or
land for use in connection therewith, but intended by a lessee for use in a building erected on the
land by the latter to be returned to the lessee on the expiration or abandonment of the lease.
A similar question arose in Puerto Rico, and on appeal being taken to the United States Supreme
Court, it was held that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes immobilized when
placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a
usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of
the owner. In the opinion written by Chief Justice White, whose knowledge of the Civil Law is well
known, it was in part said:
To determine this question involves fixing the nature and character of the property from the
point of view of the rights of Valdes and its nature and character from the point of view of
Nevers & Callaghan as a judgment creditor of the Altagracia Company and the rights derived
by them from the execution levied on the machinery placed by the corporation in the plant.
Following the Code Napoleon, the Porto Rican Code treats as immovable (real) property, not
only land and buildings, but also attributes immovability in some cases to property of a
movable nature, that is, personal property, because of the destination to which it is applied.
"Things," says section 334 of the Porto Rican Code, "may be immovable either by their own
nature or by their destination or the object to which they are applicable." Numerous
illustrations are given in the fifth subdivision of section 335, which is as follows: "Machinery,
vessels, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenements for the industrial
or works that they may carry on in any building or upon any land and which tend directly to
meet the needs of the said industry or works." (See also Code Nap., articles 516, 518 et seq.
to and inclusive of article 534, recapitulating the things which, though in themselves
movable, may be immobilized.) So far as the subject-matter with which we are dealing
machinery placed in the plant it is plain, both under the provisions of the Porto Rican Law
and of the Code Napoleon, that machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes
immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant. Such result would
not be accomplished, therefore, by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or a
usufructuary or any person having only a temporary right. (Demolombe, Tit. 9, No. 203;
Aubry et Rau, Tit. 2, p. 12, Section 164; Laurent, Tit. 5, No. 447; and decisions quoted in
Fuzier-Herman ed. Code Napoleon under articles 522 et seq.) The distinction rests, as
pointed out by Demolombe, upon the fact that one only having a temporary right to the
possession or enjoyment of property is not presumed by the law to have applied movable
property belonging to him so as to deprive him of it by causing it by an act of immobilization
to become the property of another. It follows that abstractly speaking the machinery put by
the Altagracia Company in the plant belonging to Sanchez did not lose its character of
movable property and become immovable by destination. But in the concrete immobilization
took place because of the express provisions of the lease under which the Altagracia held,
since the lease in substance required the putting in of improved machinery, deprived the
tenant of any right to charge against the lessor the cost such machinery, and it was expressly

stipulated that the machinery so put in should become a part of the plant belonging to the
owner without compensation to the lessee. Under such conditions the tenant in putting in the
machinery was acting but as the agent of the owner in compliance with the obligations
resting upon him, and the immobilization of the machinery which resulted arose in legal
effect from the act of the owner in giving by contract a permanent destination to the
machinery.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The machinery levied upon by Nevers & Callaghan, that is, that which was placed in the
plant by the Altagracia Company, being, as regards Nevers & Callaghan, movable property, it
follows that they had the right to levy on it under the execution upon the judgment in their
favor, and the exercise of that right did not in a legal sense conflict with the claim of Valdes,
since as to him the property was a part of the realty which, as the result of his obligations
under the lease, he could not, for the purpose of collecting his debt, proceed separately
against. (Valdes vs. Central Altagracia [192], 225 U.S., 58.)
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, the costs of
this instance to be paid by the appellant.

G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner,
vs.
RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary
of Foreign Affairs, and CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents.
G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990
DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN
RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL ROSARIO, et al., as members of the
PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF
PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN JAPAN, respondents.
Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives
and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land
at 306 Roppongi, 5-Chome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. We
granted the prayer for a temporary restraining order effective February 20, 1990. One of the
petitioners (in G.R. No. 92047) likewise prayes for a writ of mandamus to compel the
respondents to fully disclose to the public the basis of their decision to push through with
the sale of the Roppongi property inspire of strong public opposition and to explain the

proceedings which effectively prevent the participation of Filipino citizens and entities in the
bidding process.
The oral arguments in G.R. No. 92013, Laurel v. Garcia, et al. were heard by the Court on
March 13, 1990. After G.R. No. 92047, Ojeda v. Secretary Macaraig, et al. was filed, the
respondents were required to file a comment by the Court's resolution dated February 22,
1990. The two petitions were consolidated on March 27, 1990 when the memoranda of the
parties in the Laurel case were deliberated upon.
The Court could not act on these cases immediately because the respondents filed a motion
for an extension of thirty (30) days to file comment in G.R. No. 92047, followed by a second
motion for an extension of another thirty (30) days which we granted on May 8, 1990, a third
motion for extension of time granted on May 24, 1990 and a fourth motion for extension of
time which we granted on June 5, 1990 but calling the attention of the respondents to the
length of time the petitions have been pending. After the comment was filed, the petitioner in
G.R. No. 92047 asked for thirty (30) days to file a reply. We noted his motion and resolved to
decide the two (2) cases.
I
The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the
Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9,
1956, the other lots being:
(1) The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo which has an area
of approximately 2,489.96 square meters, and is at present the site of the Philippine Embassy
Chancery;
(2) The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe, with an area of around 764.72
square meters and categorized as a commercial lot now being used as a warehouse and
parking lot for the consulate staff; and
(3) The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2 Obanoyama-cho, Shinohara, Nada-ku, Kobe, a
residential lot which is now vacant.
The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese government
for national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for
their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.
The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550 million would be
payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with annual schedules of procurements to be
fixed by the Philippine and Japanese governments (Article 2, Reparations Agreement). Rep.
Act No. 1789, the Reparations Law, prescribes the national policy on procurement and
utilization of reparations and development loans. The procurements are divided into those for
use by the government sector and those for private parties in projects as the then National
Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made

available by sale to Filipino citizens or to one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities
in national development projects.
The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year
Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector", through Reparations Contract
No. 300 dated June 27, 1958. The Roppongi property consists of the land and building "for
the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy" (Annex M-D to Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 503).
As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to
Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the
failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained
undeveloped since that time.
A proposal was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino by former Philippine Ambassador
to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a
Japanese firm - Kajima Corporation which shall construct two (2) buildings in Roppongi
and one (1) building in Nampeidai and renovate the present Philippine Chancery in
Nampeidai. The consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign
corporation of one (1) of the buildings to be constructed in Roppongi and the two (2)
buildings in Nampeidai. The other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the Philippine
Embassy Chancery. At the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildings shall be
occupied and used by the Philippine government. No change of ownership or title shall
occur. (See Annex "B" to Reply to Comment) The Philippine government retains the title all
throughout the lease period and thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably
on this proposal which is pending approval and ratification between the parties. Instead, on
August 11, 1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of
Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through Administrative Order
No. 3, followed by Administrative Orders Numbered 3-A, B, C and D.
On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens
or entities to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or
disposition. The four properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned
in the first "Whereas" clause.
Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been
pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the
Roppongi lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price of $225
million. The first bidding was a failure since only one bidder qualified. The second one, after
postponements, has not yet materialized. The last scheduled bidding on February 21, 1990
was restrained by his Court. Later, the rules on bidding were changed such that the $225
million floor price became merely a suggested floor price.
The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues. The petitioner in G.R.
No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in
G.R. No. 92047 adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the Philippine
government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. These

petitions have been consolidated and are resolved at the same time for the objective is the
same - to stop the sale of the Roppongi property.
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues:
(1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine
Government?; and
(2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to
sell the Roppongi property?
Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda in G.R. No. 92047, apart from questioning the authority of the
government to alienate the Roppongi property assails the constitutionality of Executive
Order No. 296 in making the property available for sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities.
He also questions the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or Disposition
of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being discriminatory against Filipino
citizens and Filipino-owned entities by denying them the right to be informed about the
bidding requirements.
II
In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property and the related lots
were acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for diplomatic and
consular use by the Philippine government. Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi
property is classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership under Article
420 of the Civil Code (See infra).
The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended for public
service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public dominion,
no ownership by any one can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and related
properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and consular quarters, buildings
and other improvements" (Second Year Reparations Schedule). The petitioner states that
they continue to be intended for a necessary service. They are held by the State in
anticipation of an opportune use. (Citing 3 Manresa 65-66). Hence, it cannot be appropriated,
is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor
be the subject matter of contracts (Citing Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20 [1915]).
Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the petitioner avers that the
same remains property of public dominion so long as the government has not used it for
other purposes nor adopted any measure constituting a removal of its original purpose or
use.
The respondents, for their part, refute the petitioner's contention by saying that the subject
property is not governed by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is
located. They rely upon the rule of lex situs which is used in determining the applicable law
regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to a property. They also invoke
Opinion No. 21, Series of 1988, dated January 27, 1988 of the Secretary of Justice which used

the lex situs in explaining the inapplicability of Philippine law regarding a property situated in
Japan.
The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Code is
applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of public dominion. It has
become patrimonial property because it has not been used for public service or for
diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article 422, Civil Code) and
because the intention by the Executive Department and the Congress to convert it to private
use has been manifested by overt acts, such as, among others: (1) the transfer of the
Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai (2) the issuance of administrative orders for the possibility
of alienating the four government properties in Japan; (3) the issuance of Executive Order
No. 296; (4) the enactment by the Congress of Rep. Act No. 6657 [the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law] on June 10, 1988 which contains a provision stating that funds may be
taken from the sale of Philippine properties in foreign countries; (5) the holding of the public
bidding of the Roppongi property but which failed; (6) the deferment by the Senate in
Resolution No. 55 of the bidding to a future date; thus an acknowledgment by the Senate of
the government's intention to remove the Roppongi property from the public service
purpose; and (7) the resolution of this Court dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. Bidding
Committee, et al., G.R. No. 87478 which sought to enjoin the second bidding of the Roppongi
property scheduled on March 30, 1989.
III
In G.R. No. 94047, petitioner Ojeda once more asks this Court to rule on the constitutionality
of Executive Order No. 296. He had earlier filed a petition in G.R. No. 87478 which the Court
dismissed on August 1, 1989. He now avers that the executive order contravenes the
constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the national patrimony stated in the
Preamble of the 1987 Constitution. It also allegedly violates:
(1) The reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain
to Filipino citizens. (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII, Constitution; Sections 22 and 23 of
Commonwealth Act 141).
itc-asl

(2) The preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony (Section 10, Article VI, Constitution);
(3) The protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade
practices;
(4) The guarantee of the right of the people to information on all matters of public concern
(Section 7, Article III, Constitution);
(5) The prohibition against the sale to non-Filipino citizens or entities not wholly owned by
Filipino citizens of capital goods received by the Philippines under the Reparations Act
(Sections 2 and 12 of Rep. Act No. 1789); and

(6) The declaration of the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving
public interest (Section 28, Article III, Constitution).
Petitioner Ojeda warns that the use of public funds in the execution of an unconstitutional
executive order is a misapplication of public funds He states that since the details of the
bidding for the Roppongi property were never publicly disclosed until February 15, 1990 (or a
few days before the scheduled bidding), the bidding guidelines are available only in Tokyo,
and the accomplishment of requirements and the selection of qualified bidders should be
done in Tokyo, interested Filipino citizens or entities owned by them did not have the chance
to comply with Purchase Offer Requirements on the Roppongi. Worse, the Roppongi shall be
sold for a minimum price of $225 million from which price capital gains tax under Japanese
law of about 50 to 70% of the floor price would still be deducted.
IV
The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not dispute the fact that the Roppongi site
and the three related properties were through reparations agreements, that these were
assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was specifically
designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the Philippine Embassy.
The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is
dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of
procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government.
There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the
property has become patrimonial. This, the respondents have failed to do.
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 enjoyment,
an application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The
purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the
common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa,
66-69; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition,
Vol. II, p. 26).
The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are:
ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports
and bridges constructed by the State, banks shores roadsteads, and others of
similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are
intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.
ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in
the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil
Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service.
Has the intention of the government regarding the use of the property been changed because
the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it become patrimonial?
The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service
does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only
if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66
SCRA 481 [1975]). 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 (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]).
The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned public officials
insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, however, that an abandonment of the
intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property
under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be inferred from the
non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own
deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the
property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must
be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.
A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the
Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the
building in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage
of government funds. The recent Administrative Orders authorizing a study of the status and
conditions of government properties in Japan were merely directives for investigation but did
not in any way signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties.
Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", does not have a
provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan
for the government sector. The executive order does not declare that the properties lost their
public character. It merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to
Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. It merely eliminates the restriction
under Rep. Act No. 1789 that reparations goods may be sold only to Filipino citizens and one
hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities. The text of Executive Order No. 296
provides:
Section 1. The provisions of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended, and of other
laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the above-mentioned properties can be

made available for sale, lease or any other manner of disposition to nonFilipino citizens or to entities owned by non-Filipino citizens.
Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong premise or assumption that the Roppongi and
the three other properties were earlier converted into alienable real properties. As earlier
stated, Rep. Act No. 1789 differentiates the procurements for the government sector and the
private sector (Sections 2 and 12, Rep. Act No. 1789). Only the private sector properties can
be sold to end-users who must be Filipinos or entities owned by Filipinos. It is this nationality
provision which was amended by Executive Order No. 296.
Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 (the CARP Law) which provides as one of the sources of
funds for its implementation, the proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the
Government in foreign countries, did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being
classified as one of public dominion when it mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section
63 (c) refers to properties which are alienable and not to those reserved for public use or
service. Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the
Roppongi property. It merely enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (as
and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Executive Order No. 299.
Obviously any property outside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of
funds.
The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the Roppongi property by
insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Code should apply.
It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones
to insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not
Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when enacted,
and exceptions to its provision is not presented to the Court It is simply asserted that
the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should apply without stating what that law provides. It is
a ed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.
We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law situation
exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or
ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the
formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the
interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined (See Salonga, Private
International Law, 1981 ed., pp. 377-383); and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need
to determine which law should apply.
In the instant case, none of the above elements exists.
The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the
property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to
validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted
to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.

The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice sheds light on the relevance of
the lex situsrule is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of the real
properties procured through reparations nor the existence in what body of the authority to
sell them. In discussing who are capableof acquiring the lots, the Secretary merely explains
that it is the foreign law which should determine who can acquire the properties so that the
constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens and
entities wholly owned by Filipinos is inapplicable. We see no point in belaboring whether or
not this opinion is correct. Why should we discuss who can acquire the Roppongi lot when
there is no showing that it can be sold?
The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino of the recommendation by
the investigating committee to sell the Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least,
conditioned on a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property. Moreover, the
approval does not have the force and effect of law since the President already lost her
legislative powers. The Congress had already convened for more than a year.
Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the Roppongi property is no longer of
public dominion, there is another obstacle to its sale by the respondents.
There is no law authorizing its conveyance.
Section 79 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides
Section 79 (f ) Conveyances and contracts to which the Government is a party.
In cases in which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a
party to any deed or other instrument conveying the title to real estate or to
any other property the value of which is in excess of one hundred thousand
pesos, the respective Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary
papers which, together with the proper recommendations, shall be submitted
to the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the same. Such deed,
instrument, or contract shall be executed and signed by the President of the
Philippines on behalf of the Government of the Philippines unless the
Government of the Philippines unless the authority therefor be expressly
vested by law in another officer. (Emphasis supplied)
The requirement has been retained in Section 48, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Executive Order No. 292).
SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real
property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of
conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following:
(1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested
by law in another officer.

(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the
name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or
instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality.
(Emphasis supplied)
It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her
own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by
the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.
Resolution No. 55 of the Senate dated June 8, 1989, asking for the deferment of the sale of
the Roppongi property does not withdraw the property from public domain much less
authorize its sale. It is a mere resolution; it is not a formal declaration abandoning the public
character of the Roppongi property. In fact, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is
conducting hearings on Senate Resolution No. 734 which raises serious policy
considerations and calls for a fact-finding investigation of the circumstances behind the
decision to sell the Philippine government properties in Japan.
The resolution of this Court in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., supra, did not pass upon
the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. Contrary to respondents' assertion, we did
not uphold the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property. The Court stated that
the constitutionality of the executive order was not the real issue and that resolving the
constitutional question was "neither necessary nor finally determinative of the case." The
Court noted that "[W]hat petitioner ultimately questions is the use of the proceeds of the
disposition of the Roppongi property." In emphasizing that "the decision of the Executive to
dispose of the Roppongi property to finance the CARP ... cannot be questioned" in view of
Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Court did not acknowledge the fact that the property
became alienable nor did it indicate that the President was authorized to dispose of the
Roppongi property. The resolution should be read to mean that in case the Roppongi
property is re-classified to be patrimonial and alienable by authority of law, the proceeds of a
sale may be used for national economic development projects including the CARP.
Moreover, the sale in 1989 did not materialize. The petitions before us question the proposed
1990 sale of the Roppongi property. We are resolving the issues raised in these petitions, not
the issues raised in 1989.
Having declared a need for a law or formal declaration to withdraw the Roppongi property
from public domain to make it alienable and a need for legislative authority to allow the sale
of the property, we see no compelling reason to tackle the constitutional issues raised by
petitioner Ojeda.
The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions unless these questions are
properly raised in appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for the determination
of the case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional
question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some
other ground such as the application of a statute or general law (Siler v. Louisville and

Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, [1909], Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496
[1941]).
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property should not be sold:
The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It was given to the
Filipino people in reparation for the lives and blood of Filipinos who died and
suffered during the Japanese military occupation, for the suffering of widows
and orphans who lost their loved ones and kindred, for the homes and other
properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The Tokyo properties are
a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the Filipino people in the face of an
invader; like the monuments of Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do
not expect economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think of
selling these monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity dictate that we
keep our properties in Japan as memorials to the countless Filipinos who died
and suffered. Even if we should become paupers we should not think of selling
them. For it would be as if we sold the lives and blood and tears of our
countrymen. (Rollo- G.R. No. 92013, p.147)
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 also states:
Roppongi is no ordinary property. It is one ceded by the Japanese government
in atonement for its past belligerence for the valiant sacrifice of life and limb
and for deaths, physical dislocation and economic devastation the whole
Filipino people endured in World War II.
It is for what it stands for, and for what it could never bring back to life, that its
significance today remains undimmed, inspire of the lapse of 45 years since
the war ended, inspire of the passage of 32 years since the property passed on
to the Philippine government.
Roppongi is a reminder that cannot should not be dissipated ... (Rollo92047, p. 9)
It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated
prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all
Filipinos veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties
will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and Congress must
concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on conversion and
disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of
prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the
Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is
made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

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 Agreement. The property is where the Philippine Embassy was
once located, before it transferred to the Nampeidai property. It was decided that the
properties would be
available to sale or 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 acquired together with the other properties through reparation
agreements. 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. The
purpose 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
doesnt automatically 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.

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 127316. October 12, 2000]

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BOARD

OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
APPEALS OF MANILA and the CITY ASSESSOR OF
MANILA, respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

The Light Rail Transit Authority and the Metro Transit Organization function as
service-oriented business entities, which provide valuable transportation facilities to the
paying public. In the absence, however, of any express grant of exemption in their favor,
they are subject to the payment of real property taxes.
The Case

In the Petition for Review before us, the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA)
challenges the November 15, 1996 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR
SP No. 38137, which disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated October 15, 1994)
of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against
the petitioner."[2]
The affirmed ruling of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) upheld the
June 26, 1992 Resolution of the Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila, which had
declared petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminals as improvements subject to
real property taxes.
The Facts

The undisputed facts are quoted by the Court of Appeals (CA) from the CBAA
ruling, as follows:[3]

"1. The LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation created and

organized under Executive Order No. 603, dated July 12, 1980 'x x x primarily
responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance and/or lease of light rail
transit system in the Philippines, giving due regard to the [reasonable requirements] of
the public transportation of the country' (LRTA vs. The Hon. Commission on Audit,
GR No. No. 88365);
"2. x x x [B]y reason of x x x Executive Order 603, LRTA acquired real properties x x
x constructed structural improvements, such as buildings, carriageways, passenger
terminal stations, and installed various kinds of machinery and equipment and
facilities for the purpose of its operations;
"3. x x x [F]or x x x an effective maintenance, operation and management, it entered
into a Contract of Management with the Meralco Transit Organization (METRO) in
which the latter undertook to manage, operate and maintain the Light Rail Transit
System owned by the LRTA subject to the specific stipulations contained in said
agreement, including payments of a management fee and real property taxes (Add'l
Exhibit "I", Records)
"4. That it commenced its operations in 1984, and that sometime that year,
Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Manila assessed the real properties of

[petitioner], consisting of lands, buildings, carriageways and passenger terminal

stations, machinery and equipment which he considered real propert[y] under the Real
Property Tax Code, to commence with the year 1985;
"5. That [petitioner] paid its real property taxes on all its real property holdings,
except the carriageways and passenger terminal stations including the land where it is
constructed on the ground that the same are not real properties under the Real
Property Tax Code, and if the same are real propert[y], these x x x are for public
use/purpose, therefore, exempt from realty taxation, which claim was denied by the
Respondent-Appellee City Assessor of Manila; and
"6. x x x [Petitioner], aggrieved by the action of the Respondent-Appellee City
Assessor, filed an appeal with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of Manila x x
x.Appellee, herein, after due hearing, in its resolution dated June 26, 1992, denied
[petitioner's] appeal, and declared that carriageways and passenger terminal stations
are improvements, therefore, are real propert[y] under the Code, and not exempt from
the payment of real property tax.
"A motion for reconsideration filed by [petitioner] was likewise denied."
The CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that petitioner's carriageways and passenger terminal
stations constituted real property or improvements thereon and, as such, were taxable
under the Real Property Tax Code. The appellate court emphasized that such pieces of
property did not fall under any of the exemptions listed in Section 40 of the
aforementioned law. The reason was that they were not owned by the government or
any government-owned corporation which, as such, was exempt from the payment of
real property taxes. True, the government owned the real property upon which the
carriageways and terminal stations were built. However, they were still taxable, because
beneficial use had been transferred to petitioner, a taxable entity.
The CA debunked the argument of petitioner that carriageways and terminals were
intended for public use. The former agreed, instead, with the CBAA. The CBAA had
concluded that since petitioner was not engaged in purely governmental or public
service, the latter's endeavors were proprietary.Indeed, petitioner was deemed as a
profit-oriented endeavor, serving as it did, only the paying public.
Hence, this Petition.[4]

The Issues

In its Memorandum,[5] petitioner urges the Court to resolve the following matters:
"I

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the carriageways and
terminal stations of petitioner are not improvements for purposes of the Real
Property Tax Code.
"II

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that being attached to
national roads owned by the national government, subject carriageways and
terminal stations should be considered property of the national government.
"III

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that payment of charges or
fares in the operation of the light rail transit system does not alter the nature of the
subject carriageways and terminal stations as devoted for public use.
"IV

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the view advanced by
the Department of Finance, which takes charge of the overall collection of taxes,
that subject carriageways and terminal stations are not subject to realty taxes.
"V

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that payment of the
realty taxes assessed is not warranted and should the legality of the questioned
assessment be upheld, the amount of the realty taxes assessed would far exceed
the annual earnings of petitioner, a government corporation."
The foregoing all point to one main issue: whether petitioner's carriageways and
passenger terminal stations are subject to real property taxes.
The Court's Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

Main Issue:
May Real Property Taxes be Assessed and Collected?

The Real Property Tax Code,[6] the law in force at the time of the assailed
assessment in 1984, mandated that "there shall be levied, assessed and collected in all
provinces, cities and municipalities an annual ad valorem tax on real property such as
lands, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to real property
not hereinafter specifically exempted."[7]
Petitioner does not dispute that its subject carriageways and stations may be
considered real property under Article 415 of the Civil Code. However, it resolutely
argues that the same are improvements, not of its properties, but of the governmentowned national roads to which they are immovably attached. They are thus not taxable
as improvements under the Real Property Tax Code. In essence, it contends that to
impose a tax on the carriageways and terminal stations would be to impose taxes on
public roads.
The argument does not persuade. We quote with approval the solicitor general's
astute comment on this matter:

"There is no point in clarifying the concept of industrial accession to determine the

nature of the property when what is fundamentally important for purposes of tax
classification is to determine the character of the property subject [to] tax. The
character of tax as a property tax must be determined by its incidents, and form the
natural and legal effect thereof. It is irrelevant to associate the carriageways and/or the
passenger terminals as accessory improvements when the view of taxability is focused
on the character of the property. The latter situation is not a novel issue as it has
already been resolved by this Honorable Court in the case of City of Manila vs. IAC
(GR No. 71159, November 15, 1989) wherein it was held:
'The New Civil Code divides the properties into property for public and patrimonial
property (Art. 423), and further enumerates the property for public use as provincial
road, city streets, municipal streets, squares, fountains, public waters, public works
for public service paid for by said [provinces], cities or municipalities; all other
property is patrimonial without prejudice to provisions of special laws. (Art. 424,
Province of Zamboanga v. City of Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 [1968])
xxx

'...while the following are corporate or proprietary property in character, viz:

'municipal water works, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments,
wharves, ferries and fisheries.' Maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and
airports, among others, are also recognized as municipal or city activities of a
proprietary character (Dept. of Treasury v. City of Evansville; 60 NE 2nd 952)'
"The foregoing enumeration in law does not specify or include carriageway or
passenger terminals as inclusive of properties strictly for public use to exempt
petitioner's properties from taxes. Precisely, the properties of petitioner are not
exclusively considered as public roads being improvements placed upon the public
road, and this separability nature of the structure in itself physically distinguishes it
from a public road. Considering further that carriageways or passenger terminals are
elevated structures which are not freely accessible to the public, viz-a-viz roads which
are public improvements openly utilized by the public, the former are entirely
different from the latter.
"The character of petitioner's property, be it an improvements as otherwise
distinguished by petitioner, needs no further classification when the law already
classified it as patrimonial property that can be subject to tax. This is in line with the
old ruling that if the public works is not for such free public service, it is not within
the purview of the first paragraph of Art. 424 if the New Civil Code." [8]
Though the creation of the LRTA was impelled by public service -- to provide mass
transportation to alleviate the traffic and transportation situation in Metro Manila -- its
operation undeniably partakes of ordinary business. Petitioner is clothed with corporate
status and corporate powers in the furtherance of its proprietary objectives. [9] Indeed, it
operates much like any private corporation engaged in the mass transport
industry. Given that it is engaged in a service-oriented commercial endeavor, its
carriageways and terminal stations are patrimonial property subject to tax,
notwithstanding its claim of being a government-owned or controlled corporation.
True, petitioner's carriageways and terminal stations are anchored, at certain points,
on public roads. However, it must be emphasized that these structures do not form part
of such roads, since the former have been constructed over the latter in such a way that
the flow of vehicular traffic would not be impeded. These carriageways and terminal
stations serve a function different from that of the public roads. The former are part and
parcel of the light rail transit (LRT) system which, unlike the latter, are not open to use
by the general public. The carriageways are accessible only to the LRT trains, while the

terminal stations have been built for the convenience of LRTA itself and its customers
who pay the required fare.
Basis of Assessment Is Actual Use of Real Property

Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property is classified for assessment
purposes on the basis of actual use, [10] which is defined as "the purpose for which the
property is principally or predominantly utilized by the person in possession of the
property."[11]
Petitioner argues that it merely operates and maintains the LRT system, and that
the actual users of the carriageways and terminal stations are the commuting public. It
adds that the public-use character of the LRT is not negated by the fact that revenue is
obtained from the latter's operations.
We do not agree. Unlike public roads which are open for use by everyone, the LRT
is accessible only to those who pay the required fare. It is thus apparent that petitioner
does not exist solely for public service, and that the LRT carriageways and terminal
stations are not exclusively for public use.Although petitioner is a public utility, it is
nonetheless profit-earning. It actually uses those carriageways and terminal stations in
its public utility business and earns money therefrom.
Petitioner Not Exempt from Payment of Real Property Taxes

In any event, there is another legal justification for upholding the assailed CA
Decision. Under the Real Property Tax Code, real property "owned by the Republic of
the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions and any government-owned or
controlled corporation so exempt by its charter, provided, however, that this exemption
shall not apply to real property of the abovenamed entities the beneficial use of which
has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person." [12]
Executive Order No. 603, the charter of petitioner, does not provide for any real
estate tax exemption in its favor. Its exemption is limited to direct and indirect taxes,
duties or fees in connection with the importation of equipment not locally available, as
the following provision shows:

"ARTICLE 4
TAX AND DUTY EXEMPTIONS

Sec. 8. Equipment, Machineries, Spare Parts and Other Accessories and Materials. The importation of equipment, machineries, spare parts, accessories and other
materials, including supplies and services, used directly in the operations of the Light
Rails Transit System, not obtainable locally on favorable terms, out of any funds of
the authority including, as stated in Section 7 above, proceeds from foreign loans
credits or indebtedness, shall likewise be exempted from all direct and indirect taxes,
customs duties, fees, imposts, tariff duties, compensating taxes, wharfage fees and
other charges and restrictions, the provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding."
Even granting that the national government indeed owns the carriageways and
terminal stations, the exemption would not apply because their beneficial use has been
granted to petitioner, a taxable entity.
Taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. Any claim for tax exemption is
strictly construed against the claimant. [13] LRTA has not shown its eligibility for
exemption; hence, it is subject to the tax.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-24440

June 30, 1969

THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,defendants-appellants.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Professing respect for the principles enunciated by this Court in its decision of 28 March 1968, in
Case G. R. No. L-24440, entitled Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, et
al., 1 the appellant City seeks reconsideration of our decision in so far as the latter declares that
Republic Act 3039 is unconstitutional and void in so far as the same seeks to deprive the Province of
Zamboanga del Norte of its share in the 26 lots situated within the City of Zamboanga, and
hereinafter enumerated, without just compensation, for the reason that said 26 lots are patrimonial
property of the old Province of Zamboanga. Said 26 lots are declared in the main decision to be the
following:

5577
13198
5569
5558
5559
5560
5561
5563
5566
5568
5574
5575
5576
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5584
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
7379

TCT Number
..........................
.........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

177
127-D
169
175
188
183
186
191
176
179
196
181-A
181-B
182
197
195
159-B
194
190
184
187
189
192
193
185
4147

Lot Number
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
.......................
.......................
..........................
..........................
..........................
.........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

Use
Mydro, Magay
San Roque
Burleigh2
Vacant
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

The movant City contends that the 26 lots aforestated were not patrimonial property of the former
Province of Zamboanga, for the reason that said 26 lots have always been used for public purposes,
such as school sites, playgrounds and athletic fields for schools.
To bolster its contention, the City of Zamboanga submitted photographs, plans and a sworn
certification of its City Engineer to the effect that:
(a) Twenty-one lots (Nos. 17, 177, 179, 181-A, 181-B, 182 to 197) are part and parcel of the
Zamboanga Trade School;
(b) Three lots (Nos. 169, 175 and 176) are part and parcel of the Zamboanga Normal
College;
(c) Lot No. 127-D is the Pasonanca Elementary School;
(d) Lot No. 4147 is the Bolong Elementary School;
(e) Lot No. 159-B is part and parcel of the Baliwasan Elementary School.
Appellant City of Zamboanga, therefore, prays that the main decision be partly reconsidered and that
all title to, and ownership of, the 26 lots be declared to have been validly vested in said City free of
charge by Republic Act No. 3039.
The motion for reconsideration is vigorously opposed by plaintiff-appellee Province of Zamboanga
del Norte, which contends that the evidence sought to be filed by the appellant City is not newly
discovered evidence and is, therefore, inadmissible at this stage of the proceedings. Alternatively,
the appellee Province of Zamboanga contends that the 26 lots are vacant, or that the buildings
existing thereon were constructed in bad faith; and that the said Province has additional evidence to
show that most of these properties are not actually devoted to public use or governmental
purposes.
1awphil.nt

Considering that both contending parties are actually subdivisions of one entity, the Republic of the
Philippines, so that public interest is involved and demands that the issues presented be determined
speedily without regard to technicalities, the Court resolved that, in the interest of justice and equity,
its main decision and that of the court below be reconsidered and set aside, in so far as they affect
the twenty-six lots heretofore enumerated, and the monetary indemnities awarded. Instead, the
records are ordered remanded to the court of origin for a new trial, wherein the parties shall be given
opportunity to adduce and submit any evidence in their possession to show whether or not the 26
lots aforesaid were or were not actually devoted to public use or governmental purposes prior to the
enactment of Republic Act No. 3039. Thereafter, the Court of First Instance shall decide the issues
anew, taking into account the evidence submitted by the parties and the principles of law laid down
by this Supreme Court in its main decision of the present case, dated 28 March 1968.