Laurel v Garcia o The Roppongi property is classified under par. 2 of Art.
420
GR Nos. 92013 & 92047 | JULY 25, 1990
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Maniwa | Group 1
G.R. No. 92013
PETITONER: Salvador H. Laurel
RESPONDENTS: Ramon Garcia, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust;
Raul Manglapus, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and Catalino Macaraig, as
Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 92047
PETITIONER: Dionisio S. Ojeda
RESPONDENTS: Executive Secretary Macaraig Jr., Assets Privatization
Trust Chairman Ramon T. Garcia, Ambassador Ramon Del Rosario, et. al.,
as members of the Principal and Budding Committees on the
Utilization/Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan
TOPIC: Property Classification under the Civil Code By Ownership
Private Property
CASE SUMMARY: The President wants to sell an unused property
in Roppongi, Japan, acquired by the Philippine government under the
Reparations Agreement with Japan, intended for use by the
government sector. Petitioners seek to enjoin respondents from
proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the Roppongi property.
The Court ruled that the Roppongi property is of public dominion and
not a patrimonial property. As such, it is outside the commerce man
and it cannot be alienated. The fact that the Roppongi site has not
been used for a long time does not automatically convert it to
patrimonial property.
FACTS:
The subject Roppongi property in this case is one of the 4
properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government
under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan, as
part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for WW II.
The Roppongi property was acquired on June 27, 1958
expressly indicated for use by the government sector. It became
the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred
to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976. The Roppongi property has
remained undeveloped since that time.
Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch has
been pushing its decision to sell the reparations properties
starting with the Roppongi lot.
This case is a consolidation of 2 petitions seeking to enjoin
respondents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the
3179 sqm land at 306 Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan.
ISSUES:
WON the Roppongi property is of public dominion or patrimonial
WON the Roppongi property and others of its kind can be
alienated by the Philippine Government
WON the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the
authority and jurisdiction to sell the Roppongi property
RULING:
1st issue: The Roppongi property is of public dominion
o 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.
of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and
intended for some public service. There can be no doubt
that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown
that the property has become patrimonial.
o 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. A property
continues to be part of the public domain until there is a
formal declaration on the part of the government to
withdraw it from being such.
o An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi
property for public service and to make it patrimonial
property under Art. 422 of the Civil Code must be definite.
Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone. A
mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in
1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi propertys
original purpose.
2nd issue: The Roppongi property cannot by alienated
o 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.
o 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 appropriation.
3rd issue: The Executive branch does not have authority to
sell the Roppongi property
o Section 63 (c) of RA No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program or 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.
o RA 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 EO No. 299. Obviously, any property outside of the
commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds.
DISPOSITIVE:
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.
PROVISIONS:
NCC Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
NCC 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.
NCC Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated
in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
NCC Art. 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.