Chavez v.

Public Estates Authority

G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002
Carpio, J.
FACTS: In 1973, the Government through the Commissioner of Public Highways and
the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) signed a
contract to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay. PD 1084 was
issued, creating Public Estates Authority (PEA), and PD 1085, transferring the
reclaimed lands under the MCCRRP to PEA.
In 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private
corporation to develop the Freedom Islands, and the JVA was approved by President
Ramos. However, PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through negotiation without
public bidding. A Legal Task Force was created to look into the issue. The said task
force upheld the legality of the JVA.
In 1998, Frank I. Chavez, as a taxpayer, filed a petition to compel PEA to disclose all
facts on its negotiations with AMARI, invoking the constitutional right of the people to
information on matters of public concern. He assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the
public domain as a blatant violation of the constitutional prohibiting in the sale of
alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations.
Despite the ongoing court petitions, PEA and AMARI signed an Amended Joint Venture
Agreement (Amended JVA) in 1999, and such was approved by President Estrada.
The Amended JVA seeks to convey to AMARI the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the
Freedom Islands.
ISSUE: Whether AMARI has the capacity to acquire the lands held by PEA.
HELD: No. Under the 1987 Constitution, private corporations such as AMARI cannot
acquire alienable land of the public domain. Reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom
Islands, which are covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable
14
lands of the public domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may
not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell
these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987
Constitution and existing laws. Thus, the Amended Joint Venture Agreement between
AMARI and PEA was null and void.
Chavez v. National Housing Authority
G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Velasco, Jr., J.
FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 161 approving and
directing the implementation of the Comprehensive and Integrated Metropolitan Manila
Waste Management Plan. Respondent National Housing Authority was ordered to
conduct feasibility studies and develop lowcost housing projects at the dumpsite and
absorb scavengers in NHA resettlement/lowcost housing projects, particularly in the
Smokey Mountain. It produced the Smokey Mountain Development Plan and
Reclamation of the Area Across R-10 or the Smoke Mountain Development and
Reclamation Project. The Project aimed to covert Smokey mountain dumpsite into a
habitable housing project, inclusive of the reclamation of the area. President Aquino
approved the said Project through MO 415. After President Aquinos term, President
Fidel Ramos, through Proclamation No. 39, authorized the NHA to enter into a Joint
Venture Agreement with R-II Builders, Inc. (RBI) for the implementation of the project.
Afterwards, President Ramos issued Proclamation No. 465 increasing the proposed
area for reclamation across R-10 from 40 hectares to 79 hectares. The petitioner
Francisco Chavez contended that the respondent NHA or respondent RBI has no
authority to reclaim foreshore and submerged land.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent NHA has the authority to reclaim foreshore and
submerged land.
HELD: Yes. The National Housing Authority (NHA) is a government agency not tasked
to dispose of public lands under its charter it is an end-user agency authorized by
law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The moment titles over reclaimed
lands based on the special patents are transferred to the National Housing Authority
(NHA) by the Register of Deeds, they are automatically converted to patrimonial
properties of the State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations,
60% of which are owned by Filipinos. The combined and collective effect of
Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 with Special Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598 is tantamount
to and can be considered to be an official declaration that the reclaimed lots are
alienable or disposable lands of the public domain. Even if it is conceded that there was
no explicit declaration that the lands are no longer needed for public use or public
service, there was however an implicit executive declaration that the reclaimed areas
are not necessary anymore for public use or public service when President Aquino
through MO 415 conveyed the same to the National Housing Authority (NHA) partly for
15
housing project and related commercial/industrial development intended for disposition
to and enjoyment of certain beneficiaries and not the public in general and partly as
enabling component to finance the project.
Manila International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006
Carpio, J.
FACTS: MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of
Paraaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAAs real estate tax delinquency was
estimated at P624 million. Thus, the City of Paraaque, through its City Treasurer,
issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The
Mayor of the City of Paraaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands
and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency. City of Paraaque
contends that Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax
exemption privileges of government-owned and-controlled corporations upon the
effectivity of the Local Government Code. However, MIAA avers that airport lands and
buildings are owned by the State, and thus, exempt from tax.
ISSUE: Whether or not airport lands and buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate
tax.
HELD: Yes. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to
perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government
instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. Unless
the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it
remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also
corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain,
police authority and the levying of fees and charges. The airport lands and buildings of
MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic
of the Philippines. Hence, the subject properties are not subject to tax.
MPF

Maneclang v. IAC

144 SCRA 553

DOCTRINE: Finding that subject body of water is a creek belonging to the public
domain,not susceptible to private appropriation, a factual determination binding on the
Supreme Court.

FACTS:

Maneclang filed a complaint for quieting of title over a certain fishpond located within
the four parcels of land belonging to them.

The trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding that the body of water traversing
the titled properties of petitioners is a creek constituting a tributary of a river; therefore
public in nature and not subject to private appropriation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a creek can be registered under the Torrens System -- NO

HELD:

A creek is a recess/arm extending from a river and participating in the ebb and flow of
the sea. It is a property belonging to the public domain, It is a property belonging to the
public domain. it is not susceptible to appropriation and acquisitive prescription. As a
public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any
individual.

Its nature as property of the public domain cannot be modified by the construction of
irrigation dikes by the National Irrigation Authority, or by its conversion into a fishpond.
Hence, a compromise agreement adjudicating the ownership of such property in favor
of an individual is null and void. The compromise agreement has no legal effect since it
is contrary to law and public policy.
AMDG

Chavez v. Public Estates Authority

384 SCRA 152

DOCTRINE: Until now, the only way the government can sell to private parties
government reclaimed and marshy disposable lands of the public domain is for the
legislature to pass a law authorizing such sale. However, there exists a constitutional
ban wherein private corporations are prohibited from acquiring alienable lands of the
public domain. These corporations may only lease the lands from a period granted by
the law.

FACTS:

The government, through the Commissioner of Public Highways, signed a contract with
CDCP

to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay under the MCCRRP.
Later on President Marcos signed PD No. 1084 and 1085 creating PEA and transferring
to PEA the reclaimed lands in the foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay. In addition,
a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between PEA and CDCP wherein the
latter acceded and transferred its rights and interest in favor of the former as regards
CDCPs reclaimed lands under MCCRRP. During Aquinos administration, special
patents as well as 3 TCTs (the lands were known as Freedom Islands) were issued in
favor of PEA.

PEA and AMARI, a private corporation, through negotiation but without conducting any
public bidding entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA for brevity) for the
development of the Freedom Islands. A year later, Senate President Maceda described
such JVA during his privileged speech as the grandmother of all scams.
Consequently, a joint investigation was conducted and the report concluded that the
JVA is illegal because what PEA seeks to do is to transfer ownership of the reclaimed
lands which are public lands hence inalienable to AMARI. However, the Legal Task
formed by Pres. Ramos upheld the legality of the JVA.

Phillipine Daily Inquirer and Today published reports that Pres. Ramos ordered that
renegotiations regarding the JVA be again made. Such JVA (now called Amended JVA)
was later on approved by Pres. Estrada. Petitioner Chavez prays that the Amended JVA
be declared null and void for it violating the Constitutional and statutory provisions.
ISSUE:

Whether or not AMARI, a private corporation may acquire the reclaimed lands? NO

HELD:

In this case, the SC traced back the laws governing reclaimed lands as regards its
alienability. The previous Constitutions including the 1987 Constitution has adopted the
Regalian Doctrine wherein it states that all public lands and waters are owned by the
State. The court discussed and emphasized also CA No. 141 which states that the only
way the government can sell to private parties government reclaimed and marshy
disposable lands of the public domain is for the legislature to pass a law authorizing
such sale. In addition, the Constitution has established that private corporations (such
as AMARI) cannot acquire the reclaimed lands however; these corporations are allowed
to lease them. This rule is absolute.

Applying these provisions to the case, the reclaimed lands are classified as public
property and in order for PEA to sell these lands; there must be a legislative act granting
such right to sell. In addition, even if there exist an express provision in favor of PEA,
such would still subject of the constitutional ban as regards private corporation acquiring
reclaimed alienable lands.

As mentioned and established already, these reclaimed lands are considered

inalienable public property. PD No. 1085 granting PEA the power to oversee the
Freedom Islands did not in any way convert the lands into alienable or disposable lands.
The issuance of special patents by Pres. Aquino as well as the TCTs also did not
convert it into private lands. It must be noted that the registration of public lands under
Torrens system cannot convert it into private property.
VCL IV

MIAA v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 155650

DOCTRINE: The term ports includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands
and Buildings constitute a port constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the
Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and
thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

FACTS:

Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport Complex in Paraaque City. As operator of the international airport, MIAA
administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA Complex.

The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land including the
runways and buildings (Airport Lands and Buildings) then under the Bureau of Air
Transportation. The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the land
transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless
specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.

OGCC (Office of the Government Corporate Counsel) issued Opinion No. 061, in which
it said that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption for real estate
tax granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA charter.

Therefore, MIAA was held to be delinquent in paying its taxes. The City of Paraaque
Levied upon the properties of MIAA, and posted invitations for public biddings of MIAAs
properties. MIAA filed with CA an action for prohibition / injunction. The City of
Paraaque averred that Section 193 of the Local Government code expressly withdrew
tax exemptions from government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).

CA dismissed the petition for filing beyond the 60 day reglementary period

ISSUE:

Whether properties of the MIAA are subject to real estate taxes. -- NO

HELD:

In the first place, MIAA is not a GOCC, it is an instrumentality of the government. MIAA
is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its
governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only
difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers. As operator of the international
airport, MIAA administers the land, improvements and equipment within the NAIA
Complex. The MIAA Charter transferred to MIAA approximately 600 hectares of land,
including the runways and buildings (Airport Lands and Buildings) then under the
Bureau of Air Transportation. The MIAA Charter further provides that no portion of the
land transferred to MIAA shall be disposed of through sale or any other mode unless
specifically approved by the President of the Philippines.

Furthermore, Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and
therefore

owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. Article 419 of the Civil Code
provides, The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and
therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

ARTICLE 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. (Emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the
preceding article, is patrimonial property.

ARTICLE 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or
for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the
Civil Code, like roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the
State, are owned by the State. The term ports includes seaports and airports. The
MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a port constructed by the State. Under
Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of
public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by
the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the
MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the
character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation
by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for
public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public
indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public
who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The
tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the
maintenance of public roads.

The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property
whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of
public dominion as one intended for public use. Even if the government collects toll
fees, the road is still intended for public use if anyone can use the road under the
same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation
on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions
for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road.

The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA
charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of
MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport
for public use. Such fees are often termed users tax. This means taxing those among
the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including
those who never use the particular public facility.

A users tax is more equitable a principle of taxation mandated in the 1987

Constitution.

The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA, which its Charter calls the principal airport
of the Philippines for both international and domestic air traffic, are properties of public
dominion because they are intended for public use. As properties of public dominion,
they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

Being a property of public dominion, the properties of MIAA are beyond the commerce
of man.
MRAM

Villarico v. Court of Appeals

309 SCRA 193

DOCTRINE: Private persons cannot own forest lands. Possession thereof, no matter
how long, does not ripen into a registrable title.

FACTS:

Spouses Villarico filed an application for confirmation of title over a parcel of land in
Meycauayan, Bulacan. The applicants alleged that 1)they are the absolute owners of
the property having bought the same from Segundo Villarico and Mercedes Cardenas,
2) they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open, adverse and
continuous possession thereof for more than 30 years, 3) they are not aware of any
mortgage or encumbrance thereon nor of any person having an estate or interest
therein, and 4) the land involved is not within the forest zone or government reservation.

Marcos Camargo opposed the application for the registration of the land claiming that
he is the real owner thereof. The Government interposed its opposition, through the
Director of Forestry, averring that the land in question is part of the public domain, within
the unclassified area in Meycauayan, Bulacan hence, it is not available for private
appropriation.

The trial court dismissed the case saying that a certificate of title is void when it covers
property of the public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title
thus issued on non-disposable lots, even in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value, should be cancelled.

ISSUE:

W/N the property in question can be registered by the applicant or by the oppositor or
by their respective predecessors-in-interest?

HELD:

The Supreme Court Held in the negative. Since there is no showing that a
declassification has been made by the Director of Forestry declaring the land in
question as disposable or alienable, the land remains to be part of the public domain as
a forest land. Considering this, possession of the land in question by the applicants
and/or their predecessors-in-interest even for more than 30 years does not convert the
land into private property capable of private appropriation.
The SC stated that forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. Its possession, no
matter how long it is, does not ripen into a registrable title. Furthermore, it must be
noted that the adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title or
confirmation of an imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the
public domain.
RGGM

Dacanay Jr. v. Asistio Jr.

208 SCRA 404

DOCTRINE: A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of
men. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through a
contract.

FACTS:

This is a petition for mandamus to the non-action of the city government of Caloocan in
accordance with the decision of the RTC to evict the occupants of a flea market located
in the streets of Caloocan.

January 5, 1979 Metropolitan Manila Commission enacted an ordinance allowing the

use of streets for the purpose of flea markets subject to several conditions.

1987 Mayor Martinez caused the demolition of the flea markets and the stall owners
filed a case against such action.

RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the streets in questions are of public
dominion, hence outside the commerce of man.

After the decision came out, there was a change in the city administration and current
mayor (Asistio) did not pursue the action of the previous mayor and left the flea markets
in the streets as is.

Dacanay filed a petition for mandamus to remove the stalls in their street.

ISSUE:

May public streets be leased or licensed to market stallholders by virtue of a city

ordinance or resolution of Metropolitan Manila Commission? -- NO

HELD:

A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man. Being
outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other contract. Any
executive order or city resolution cannot change the nature of the public street because
it is going to be contrary to the general law.
MCSS

Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles

66 SCRA 431

FACTS:

A portion of land, sought to be registered, was declared, through law, an abandoned

road. The lot was awarded to the petitioner for being the highest bidder.

The Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the
ground that the property sought to be registered being a public road intended for public
use is considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man.

ISSUE:

WON the portion of land is susceptible to registration by a private individual. -- YES

HELD:

Revised Charter of Cebu, under section 31, provides that, the City Council shall have
the power to close any city road, street or alley, etc, withdrawn from public servitude,
may be used or conveyed for any purpose.

It is undoubtedly clear that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city road or street.
Such power is discretionary and will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the
courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. It follows that such withdrawn
portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract.