The document discusses two petitions seeking to prevent the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government. It summarizes the key facts and issues, including that the property is public land intended for embassy use. It finds that the government has not taken the necessary steps to reclassify the property as non-public, and that legislative authority is needed to authorize its sale. Selling the property would require withdrawing it from public use through a clear legal act of abandonment, which did not occur. The executive order cited did not properly reclassify the land and its sale is beyond the authority of the executive branch without new legislation.
The document discusses two petitions seeking to prevent the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government. It summarizes the key facts and issues, including that the property is public land intended for embassy use. It finds that the government has not taken the necessary steps to reclassify the property as non-public, and that legislative authority is needed to authorize its sale. Selling the property would require withdrawing it from public use through a clear legal act of abandonment, which did not occur. The executive order cited did not properly reclassify the land and its sale is beyond the authority of the executive branch without new legislation.
The document discusses two petitions seeking to prevent the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government. It summarizes the key facts and issues, including that the property is public land intended for embassy use. It finds that the government has not taken the necessary steps to reclassify the property as non-public, and that legislative authority is needed to authorize its sale. Selling the property would require withdrawing it from public use through a clear legal act of abandonment, which did not occur. The executive order cited did not properly reclassify the land and its sale is beyond the authority of the executive branch without new legislation.
92013) regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of
Ojeda v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 92047) the title to a property. ROPPONGI PROPERTY ISSUES: FACTS: 1. Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be These 2 petitions for prohibition seek to enjoin alienated by the Philippine Government? respondents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306 NO. There can be no doubt that the property is of Roppongi, 5-Chrome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan. The public dominion and the respondents have failed to latter case also, prays for a writ of mandamus to fully show that it has become patrimonial. disclose to the public the basis of their decision to push through with the sale of the Roppongi property. The property is correctly classified under Art 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and The Roppongi case is one of the 4 properties in intended for some public service. The fact that it has not Japan acquired by the Philippine government under been used for actual Embassy service does not the Reparation Agreement entered into with Japan. automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Such The other three (3) properties include Nampeidai conversion happens only if property is withdrawn from Property (present site of the Philippine Embassy public use, through an abandonment of the intention to Chancery), Kobe Commercial Property use the Roppongi property for public service and to (commercial lot being used as a warehouse and make it patrimonial property. Abandonment must be a parking lot for consulate staff) and Kobe certain and positive act based on correct legal premises. Residential Property (resident lot which is now vacant). The EO does not declare that the properties lost their public character, merely intending the properties to be The Reparations Agreement provides that made available to foreigners and not to Filipinos alone, reparations valued at $550M would be payable in 20 in case of sale, lease or other disposition. Furthermore, it years in accordance with annual schedules of is based on the wrong premise that the Japan properties procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and can be sold to end-users, when in fact it cannot. Japanese governments. The procurements are to be divided into government sector and those for private Neither does the CARP Law re-classify the properties parties in projects, the latter shall be made available into patrimonial properties, merely stating that sources of only to Filipino citizens or to 100% Filipino-owned funds for its implementation be sourced from proceeds entities in national development projects. of the disposition of the Government in foreign countries, but not that the Roppongi property be withdrawn from The Roppongi property was acquired under the being classified as a property of public dominion. heading Government Sector for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was CONFLICT OF LAW transferred to Nampeida due to the need for major Furthermore, the respondents argument that the repairs. However, the Roppongi property has Japanese law and not our Civil Code shall apply is remained underdeveloped since that time. incorrect. There is no conflict of law in this situation. A conflict of law arises only when: Although there was a proposal to lease the property a. There is a dispute over the title or ownership of with the provision to have buildings built at the an immovable, such that the capacity to take and expense of the lessee, the same was not acted transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, favorably upon by the government. Instead, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the President Aquino issued EO No. 296 entitling non- interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations determined. capital goods and services in the event of sale, b. A foreign law on land ownership and its lease or dispositions. Thereafter, amidst the conveyance is asserted to conflict with a oppositions by various sectors, the Executive branch domestic law on the same matters. of the government pushed for the sale of reparation properties, starting with the Roppongi Hence, the need to determine which law should apply. lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a Both elements does not exist in the case. The issues minimum floor price of $225M. The first was a are not concerned with the validity of ownership or title. failure, while the second has been postponed and There is no question that the property belongs to the later restrained by the SC. Philippines. The issue is the authority of the government officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the Amongst the arguments of the respondents is that state and the validity of the procedures adopted to effect the subject property is not governed by our Civil the sale, which should be governed by Philippine law Code, but rather by the laws of Japan where the The rule of lex situs does not apply. property is located. They relied upon the rule of lex situs which is used in determining the applicable law 2. Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property?
NO. A law or a 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 is needed. None has been enacted for this purpose.
G.R. No. 129609. November 29, 2001. RODIL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CARMEN BONDOC, TERESITA BONDOC-ESTO, DIVISORIA FOOTWEAR and CHUA HUAY SOON, respondents. G.R. No. 135537. November 29, 2001. RODIL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. IDES O’RACCA BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.
Horace Butler v. James Aiken, Warden, Central Correctional Institute, Travis Medlock, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 864 F.2d 24, 4th Cir. (1988)