You are on page 1of 8

Property 1st Batch Janz

1. Francisco Chavez vs Public of their investigation in Senate Committee AMARI are as follows:
Estates Authority (July 2002) Report No. 560 dated September 16, 1997. 1. Whether the reliefs prayed for are moot
Among the conclusions of their report are: (1) and academic because of subsequent events;
the reclaimed lands PEA seeks to transfer to 2. Whether the petition should be dismissed
Facts: On February 4, 1977, then President AMARI under the JVA are lands of the public for failing to observe the principle of governing
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree domain which the government has not classified the heirarchy of courts;
No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084 tasked as alienable lands and therefore PEA cannot 3. Whether the petition should be dismissed
PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and alienate these lands; (2) the certificates of title for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies;
submerged areas," and "to develop, improve, covering the Freedom Islands are thus void, and 4. Whether petitioner has locus standi;
acquire, lease and sell any and all kinds of (3) the JVA itself is illegal. 5. Whether the constitutional right to
lands." On the same date, then President information includes information on on-going
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 On December 5, 1997, then President Fidel neogtiations BEFORE a final agreement;
transferring to PEA the "lands reclaimed in the V. Ramos issued Presidential Administrative 6. Whether the stipulations in the amended
foreshore and offshore of the Manila Bay" under Order No. 365 creating a Legal Task Force to joint venture agreement for the transfer to
the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and conduct a study on the legality of the JVA in view AMARI of certain lands, reclaimed and still to be
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP). of Senate Committee Report No. 560. The reclaimed violate the 1987 Constitution; and
members of the Legal Task Force were the 7. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the
On January 19, 1988, then President Secretary of Justice, the Chief Presidential Legal issue whether the amended JVA is grossly
Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No. Counsel, and the Government Corporate disadvantageous to the government
3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the Counsel. The Legal Task Force upheld the
parcels of land so reclaimed under the Manila- legality of the JVA, contrary to the conclusions Held: 1. We rule that the signing and of the
Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project reached by the Senate Committees. Amended JVA by PEA and AMARI and its
(MCCRRP) containing a total area of one million approval by the President cannot operate to
nine hundred fifteen thousand eight hundred On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez moot the petition and divest the Court of its
ninety four (1,915,894) square meters." ("Petitioner" for brevity) as a taxpayer, filed the jurisdiction.
Subsequently, on April 9, 1988, the Register of instant Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for
Deeds of the Municipality of Paraaque issued the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction PEA and AMARI have still to implement the
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7309, 7311, and Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner Amended JVA. The prayer to enjoin the signing
and 7312, in the name of PEA, covering the contends the government stands to lose billions of the Amended JVA on constitutional grounds
three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed necessarily includes preventing its
Islands" located at the southern portion of the lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA implementation if in the meantime PEA and
Manila-Cavite Coastal Road, Paraaque City. publicly disclose the terms of any renegotiation AMARI have signed one in violation of the
of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Constitution. Petitioner's principal basis in
PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through Section 7, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on assailing the renegotiation of the JVA is its
negotiation without public bidding. On April 28, the right of the people to information on matters violation of the Section 3, Article XII of the
1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in its of public concern. Constitution, which prohibits the government
Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. On from alienating lands of the public domain to
June 8, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos, Due to the approval of the Amended JVA by private corporations. The Amended JVA is not an
through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, the Office of the President, petitioner now prays ordinary commercial contract but one which
approved the JVA. that on "constitutional and statutory grounds the seeks to transfer title and ownership to 367.5
renegotiated contract be declared null and void." hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged
The Senate Committees reported the results areas of Manila Bay to a single private
Issue: The issues raised by petitioner, PEA and corporation.
1|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
statutory duty to make the public disclosure, and matters of transcendental public importance, the
Also, the instant petition is a case of first was even in breach of this legal duty, petitioner petitioner has the requisite locus standi.
impression being a wholly government owned had the right to seek direct judicial intervention.
corporation performing public as well as 5. The State policy of full transparency in all
proprietary functions. All previous decisions of The principle of exhaustion of administrative transactions involving public interest reinforces
the Court involving Section 3, Article XII of the remedies does not apply when the issue the people's right to information on matters of
1987 Constitution, or its counterpart provision in involved is a purely legal or constitutional public concern. This State policy is expressed in
the 1973 Constitution, covered agricultural lands question. The principal issue in the instant case Section 28, Article II of the Constitution, thus:
sold to private corporations which acquired the is the capacity of AMARI to acquire lands held Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by
lands from private parties. by PEA in view of the constitutional ban law, the State adopts and implements a policy of
prohibiting the alienation of lands of the public full public disclosure of all its transactions
Lastly, there is a need to resolve immediately domain to private corporations. We rule that the involving public interest."
the constitutional issue raised in this petition principle of exhaustion of administrative
because of the possible transfer at any time by remedies does not apply in the instant case. Contrary to AMARI's contention, the
PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional
of the reclaimed lands. Under the Amended JVA, The petitioner has standing to bring this Commission understood that the right to
PEA is obligated to transfer to AMARI the latter's taxpayer's suit because the petition seeks to information "contemplates inclusion of
seventy percent proportionate share in the compel PEA to comply with its constitutional negotiations leading to the consummation of the
reclaimed areas as the reclamation progresses, duties. There are two constitutional issues transaction." Certainly, a consummated contract
The Amended JVA even allows AMARI to involved here. First is the right of citizens to is not a requirement for the exercise of the right
mortgage at any time the entire reclaimed area information on matters of public concern. to information. Otherwise, the people can never
to raise financing for the reclamation project. Second is the application of a constitutional exercise the right if no contract is consummated,
provision intended to insure the equitable and if one is consummated, it may be too late for
2. The instant case, however, raises distribution of alienable lands of the public the public to expose its defects.
constitutional issues of transcendental domain among Filipino Citizens.
importance to the public. The Court can resolve The thrust of the second issue is to prevent PEA Requiring a consummated contract will keep
this case without determining any factual issue from alienating hundreds of hectares of the public in the dark until the contract, which
related to the case. Also, the instant case is a alienable lands of the public domain in violation may be grossly disadvantageous to the
petition for mandamus which falls under the of the Constitution, compelling PEA to comply government or even illegal, becomes a fait
original jurisdiction of the Court under Section 5, with a constitutional duty to the nation. accompli.
Article VIII of the Constitution. We resolve to
exercise primary jurisdiction over the instant 4. Ordinary taxpayers have a right to initiate However, the right to information does not
case. and prosecute actions questioning the validity of compel PEA to prepare lists, abstracts,
acts or orders of government agencies or summaries and the like relating to the
3. PEA was under a positive legal duty to instrumentalities, if the issues raised are of renegotiation of the JVA. 34 The right only
disclose to the public the terms and conditions 'paramount public interest,' and if they affords access to records, documents and
for the sale of its lands. The law obligated PEA 'immediately affect the social, economic and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect
make this public disclosure even without moral well being of the people.' and copy them. One who exercises the right
demand from petitioner or from anyone. PEA must copy the records, documents and papers
failed to make this public disclosure because the We rule that since the instant petition, at his expense. The exercise of the right is also
original JVA, like the Amended JVA, was the brought by a citizen, involves the enforcement of subject to reasonable regulations to protect the
result of a negotiated contract, not of a public constitutional rights to information and to the integrity of the public records and to minimize
bidding. Considering that PEA had an affirmative equitable diffusion of natural resources disruption to government operations, like rules
2|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
specifying when and how to conduct the Sec. 55. Any tract of land of the public corporations as his means would allow him. An
inspection and copying. domain which, being neither timber nor mineral individual could even hide his ownership of a
land, shall be classified as suitable for corporation by putting his nominees as
6. Article 339 of the Civil Code of 1889 residential purposes or for commercial, stockholders of the corporation. The corporation
defined property of public dominion as follows: industrial, or other productive purposes other is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the
"Art. 339. Property of public dominion is than agricultural purposes, and shall be open to constitutional limitation on acquisition by
1. That devoted to public use, such as disposition or concession, shall be disposed of individuals of alienable lands of the public
roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges under the provisions of this chapter, and not domain.
constructed by the State, riverbanks, shores, otherwise.
roadsteads, and that of a similar character; PD No. 1085, coupled with President
2. That belonging exclusively to the State The rationale behind this State policy is Aquino's actual issuance of a special patent
which, without being of general public use, is obvious. Government reclaimed, foreshore and covering the Freedom Islands, is equivalent to
employed in some public service, or in the marshy public lands for non-agricultural an official proclamation classifying the Freedom
development of the national wealth, such as purposes retain their inherent potential as areas Islands as alienable or disposable lands of the
walls, fortresses, and other works for the for public service. This is the reason the public domain. Being neither timber, mineral, nor
defense of the territory, and mines, until granted government prohibited the sale, and only national park lands, the reclaimed Freedom
to private individuals. allowed the lease, of these lands to private Islands necessarily fall under the classification of
parties. The State always reserved these lands agricultural lands of the public domain. Under
Property devoted to public use referred to for some future public service. the 1987 Constitution, agricultural lands of the
property open for use by the public. In contrast, public domain are the only natural resources
property devoted to public service referred to However, government reclaimed and marshy that the State may alienate to qualified private
property used for some specific public service lands, although subject to classification as parties. All other natural resources, such as the
and open only to those authorized to use the disposable public agricultural lands, could only seas or bays, are "waters . . . owned by the
property.Property of public dominion referred not be leased and not sold to private parties State" forming part of the public domain, and are
only to property devoted to public use, but also because of Act No. 2874. inalienable pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of
to property not so used but employed to develop the 1987 Constitution.
the national wealth. This class of property The 1987 Constitution continues the State
constituted property of public dominion although policy in the 1973 Constitution banning private In short, DENR is vested with the power to
employed for some economic or commercial corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable authorize the reclamation of areas under water,
activity to increase the national wealth. land of the public domain. Like the 1973 while PEA is vested with the power to undertake
Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows the physical reclamation of areas under water
"Art. 341. Property of public dominion, private corporations to hold alienable lands of whether directly or through private contractors.
when no longer devoted to public use or to the the public domain only through lease. As in the DENR is also empowered to classify lands of the
defense of the territory, shall become a part of 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the general law public domain into alienable or disposable lands
the private property of the State." This provision, governing the lease to private corporations of subject to the approval of the President. On the
however, was not self-executing. The legislature, reclaimed, foreshore and marshy alienable lands other hand, PEA is tasked to develop, sell or
or the executive department pursuant to law, of the public domain is still CA No. 141. lease the reclaimed alienable lands of the public
must declare the property no longer needed for domain.
public use or territorial defense before the Without the constitutional ban, individuals
government could lease or alienate the property who already acquired the maximum area of Clearly, the mere physical act of reclamation
to private parties. alienable lands of the public domain could easily by PEA of foreshore or submerged areas does
set up corporations to acquire more alienable not make the reclaimed lands alienable or
Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature public lands. An individual could own as many disposable lands of the public domain, much
3|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
less patrimonial lands of PEA. Likewise, the the additional 250 hectares still to be reclaimed, by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
mere transfer by the National Government of it also granted an option to AMARI to reclaim alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may
lands of the public domain to PEA does not another 350 hectares. The original JVA, a lease these lands to private corporations but
make the lands alienable or disposable lands of negotiated contract, enlarged the reclamation may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands
the public domain, much less patrimonial lands area to 750 hectares. The failure of public to private corporations.
of PEA. bidding on December 10, 1991, involving only
407.84 hectares, is not a valid justification for a 7. Considering that the Amended JVA is null
There is no express authority under either PD negotiated sale of 750 hectares, almost double and void ab initio, there is no necessity to rule
No. 1085 or EO No. 525 for PEA to sell its the area publicly auctioned. on this last issue. Besides, the Court is not the
reclaimed lands. PD No. 1085 merely trier of facts, and this last issue involves a
transferred "ownership and administration" of Jurisprudence holding that upon the grant of determination of factual matters.
lands reclaimed from Manila Bay to PEA, while the patent or issuance of the certificate of title
EO No. 525 declared that lands reclaimed by the alienable land of the public domain WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
PEA "shall belong to or be owned by PEA." automatically becomes private land cannot apply The Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal
PEA's charter, however, expressly tasks PEA "to to government units and entities like PEA. Bay Development Corporation are
develop, improve, acquire, administer, deal in, PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from implementing
subdivide, dispose, lease and sell any and all The grant of legislative authority to sell public the Amended Joint Venture Agreement which is
kinds of lands . . . owned, managed, controlled lands in accordance with Section 60 of CA No. hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio.
and/or operated by the government." 87 141 does not automatically convert alienable
(Emphasis supplied) There is, therefore, lands of the public domain into private or 2. Republic vs Naguiat
legislative authority granted to PEA to sell its patrimonial lands. The alienable lands of the G.R. No. 134209; January 24, 2006
lands, whether patrimonial or alienable lands of public domain must be transferred to qualified
the public domain. PEA may sell to private private parties, or to government entities not
parties its patrimonial properties in accordance tasked to dispose of public lands, before these FACTS:
with the PEA charter free from constitutional lands can become private or patrimonial lands. Celestina Naguiat filed an application for
limitations. The constitutional ban on private Otherwise, the constitutional ban will become registration of title to 4 parcels of land. The
corporations from acquiring alienable lands of illusory if Congress can declare lands of the applicant alleges that she is the owner of
the public domain does not apply to the sale of public domain as private or patrimonial lands in the said parcels of land having acquired
PEA's patrimonial lands. the hands of a government agency tasked to them by purchase from its previous owners
dispose of public lands. and their predecessors-in-interest who have
Moreover, under Section 79 of PD No. 1445, been in possession thereof for more than
otherwise known as the Government Auditing To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the thirty (30) years; and that to the best of her
Code, the government is required to sell public domain to be transferred to PEA as
knowledge, said lots suffer no mortgage or
valuable government property through public private lands will sanction a gross violation of
bidding. Section 79 of PD No. 1445 mandates the constitutional ban on private corporations encumbrance of whatever kind nor is there
that:... "In the event that the public auction fails, from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the any person having any interest, legal or
the property may be sold at a private sale at public domain. This scheme can even be applied equitable, or in possession thereof.
such price as may be fixed by the same to alienable agricultural lands of the public
committee or body concerned and approved by domain since PEA can "acquire . . . any and all Petitioner Republic opposed on the ground
the Commission." kinds of lands." that neither the applicant nor her
predecessors-in interest have been in open,
However, the original JVA dated April 25, The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands continuous, exclusive and notorious
1995 covered not only the Freedom Islands and comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered
4|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
possession and occupation of the lands in possession; occupation thereof in the Estebans wife, Magdalena, had become the
question since 12 June 1945 or prior concept of owner, however long, cannot administrator of all the properties inherited by
thereto, considering the fact that she has ripen into private ownership and be the Velazco sons from their father, Lino. After the
not established that the lands in question registered as title. death of Esteban and Magdalena, their son
Virgilio succeeded them in administering the
have been declassified from forest or timber
properties, including Lot 9864-A, which originally
zone to alienable and disposable property. belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Velazco. It was
this property that was sold by Eduardo Velazco
ISSUE: Note: The classification of public lands is a to Malabanan.
Did the areas in question cease to have the function of the Executive Branch of the
status of forest or other inalienable lands of Government specifically the Director of Among the evidence presented by Malabanan
the public domain? Lands (now Director of Lands Management during trial was a Certification dated 11 June
Bureau) 2001, issued by the Community Environment &
HELD: Natural Resources Office, Department of
No, the said areas are still classified as Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO-
DENR), which stated that the subject property
forest land.
was verified to be within the Alienable or
3. HEIRS OF MARIO Disposable land per Land Classification Map No.
Here, respondent never presented the
required certification from the proper
MALABANAN vs. REPUBLIC OF 3013 established under Project No. 20-A and
approved as such under FAO 4-1656 on March
government agency or official proclamation THE PHILIPPINES 15, 1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC
reclassifying the land applied for as GR No. 179987 approved the application for registration.
alienable and disposable. Matters of land April 29, 2009
classification or reclassification cannot be The Republic interposed an appeal to the Court
assumed. It calls for proof. Aside from tax FACTS: of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan had failed to
receipts, respondent submitted in evidence prove that the property belonged to the alienable
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan filed an and disposable land of the public domain, and
the survey map and technical descriptions
application for land registration before the RTC that the RTC had erred in finding that he had
of the lands, which, needless to state, been in possession of the property in the
of Cavite-Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land
provided no information respecting the situated in Silang Cavite, consisting of 71,324 manner and for the length of time required by
classification of the property. As the Court square meters. Malabanan claimed that he had law for confirmation of imperfect title. On 23
has held, however, these documents are not purchased the property from Eduardo Velazco, February 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed
sufficient to overcome the presumption that and that he and his predecessors-in-interest had the RTC ruling and dismissed the application of
the land sought to be registered forms part been in open, notorious, and continuous Malabanan.
of the public domain. adverse and peaceful possession of the land for
more than thirty (30) years. Velazco testified that
The issue of the respondent and her the property was originally belonged to a twenty- ISSUES:
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, two hectare property owned by his great-
grandfather, Lino Velazco. Lino had four sons 1. In order that an alienable and disposable land
exclusive and continuous possession of the of the public domain may be registered under
Benedicto, Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe
parcels of land in question is of little fourth being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
moment. For, unclassified land cannot be death, his four sons inherited the property and otherwise known as the Property Registration
acquired by adverse occupation or divided it among themselves. But by 1966, Decree, should the land be classified as
5|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
alienable and disposable as of June 12, 1945 or registrable title to, such lands based on the ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary
is it sufficient that such classification occur at length and quality of their possession. acquisitive prescription, a person acquires
any time prior to the filing of the applicant for ownership of a patrimonial property through
registration provided that it is established that (a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires possession for at least ten (10) years, in good
the applicant has been in open, continuous, possession since 12 June 1945 and does not faith and with just title. Under extraordinary
exclusive and notorious possession of the land require that the lands should have been acquisitive prescription, a persons uninterrupted
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June alienable and disposable during the entire period adverse possession of patrimonial property for
12, 1945 or earlier? of possession, the possessor is entitled to at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith
secure judicial confirmation of his title thereto as or just title, ripens into ownership.
2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the Property soon as it is declared alienable and disposable,
Registration Decree may a parcel of land subject to the timeframe imposed by Section 47 It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is
classified as alienable and disposable be of the Public Land Act. insufficient to establish that Malabanan has
deemed private land and therefore susceptible acquired ownership over the subject property
to acquisition by prescription in accordance with (b) The right to register granted under Section under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
the Civil Code? 48(b) of the Public Land Act is further confirmed There is no substantive evidence to establish
by Section 14(1) of the Property Registration that Malabanan or petitioners as his
3. May a parcel of land established as Decree. predecessors-in-interest have been in
agricultural in character either because of its use possession of the property since 12 June 1945
or because its slope is below that of forest lands (2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the or earlier. The earliest that petitioners can date
be registrable under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, consider that back their possession, according to their own
Property Registration Decree in relation to the under the Civil Code, prescription is recognized evidencethe Tax Declarations they presented
provisions of the Civil Code on acquisitive as a mode of acquiring ownership of patrimonial in particularis to the year 1948. Thus, they
prescription? property. However, public domain lands become cannot avail themselves of registration under
only patrimonial property not only with a Section 14(1) of the Property Registration
4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration of declaration that these are alienable or Decree.
the subject land in their names under Section disposable. There must also be an express
14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Property government manifestation that the property is Neither can petitioners properly invoke Section
Registration Decree or both? already patrimonial or no longer retained for 14(2) as basis for registration. While the subject
public service or the development of national property was declared as alienable or
HELD: wealth, under Article 422 of the Civil Code. And disposable in 1982, there is no competent
only when the property has become patrimonial evidence that is no longer intended for public
The Pertition is denied. can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of use service or for the development of the
property of the public dominion begin to run. national evidence, conformably with Article 422
(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the of the Civil Code. The classification of the
Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) of (a) Patrimonial property is private property of the subject property as alienable and disposable
the Public Land Act recognizes and confirms government. The person acquires ownership of land of the public domain does not change its
that those who by themselves or through their patrimonial property by prescription under the status as property of the public dominion under
predecessors in interest have been in open, Civil Code is entitled to secure registration Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, it is
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession thereof under Section 14(2) of the Property insusceptible to acquisition by prescription.
and occupation of alienable and disposable Registration Decree.
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, (b) There are two kinds of prescription by which
1945 have acquired ownership of, and patrimonial property may be acquired, one
6|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
Art. 420. The following things are property of As such, it is outside the commerce of men. (1) Those intended for public
public dominion: Therefore, it cannot be alienated. use, such as roads, canals,
Respondents aver that Japanese Law, and not rivers, torrents, ports and
(1) Those intended for public use, Philippine Law, shall apply to the case because bridges constructed by the
such as roads, canals, rivers, the property is located in Japan. They posit that State, banks shores roadsteads,
the principle of lex situs applies. and others of similar character;
torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks,
Issue: (2) Those which belong to the
shores, roadsteads, and others of
Whether or not the Roppongi Property has been State, without being for public
similar character; converted into patrimonial property or property use, and are intended for some
of private domain of the State. public service or for the
(2) Those which belong to the State, development of the national
without being for public use, and are wealth.
intended for some public service or Held:
for the development of the national NO. There can be no doubt that it is of public
dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the ART. 421. All other property of
wealth. (339a)
property has become patrimonial. This, the the State, which is not of the
respondents have failed to do. character stated in the
Art. 421. All other property of the State, preceding article, is patrimonial
which is not of the character stated in the property.
preceding article, is patrimonial As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot
property. (340a) is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
alienated. Its ownership is a special collective The Roppongi property is correctly classified
ownership for general use and enjoyment, an under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when Code as property belonging to the State and
application to the satisfaction of collective
no longer intended for public use or for needs, and resides in the social group. The intended for some public service.
public service, shall form part of the purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical
patrimonial property of the State person, but the citizens; it is intended for the Has the intention of the government regarding
common and public welfare and cannot be the the use of the property been changed because
object of appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa, the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it
66-69; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the become patrimonial?
4. Laurel vs Garcia Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition, Vol.
II, p. 26). The fact that the Roppongi site has not been
GR 92013 July 25, 1990. used for a long time for actual Embassy service
Facts: The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are: does not automatically convert it to patrimonial
Petitioners seek to stop the Philippine property. Any such conversion happens only if
Government to sell the Roppongi Property, the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu
which is located in Japan. It is one of the ART. 419. Property is either of public
dominion or of private ownership. Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA
properties given by the Japanese Government 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of
as reparations for damage done by the latter to the public domain, not available for private
the former during the war. ART. 420. The following things are
appropriation or ownership until there is a formal
Petitioner argues that under Philippine Law, the property of public dominion
declaration on the part of the government to
subject property is property of public dominion. withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director
of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]).
7|Page
Property 1st Batch Janz
The respondents enumerate various petition for declaratory relief filed by A positive act declaring land as alienable
pronouncements by concerned public officials respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et and disposable is required. In keeping with
insinuating a change of intention. We al, and ordered the survey of Boracay for the presumption of state ownership, the
emphasize, however, that an abandonment of titling purposes. Court has time and again emphasized that
the intention to use the Roppongi property for
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued there must be a positive act of the
public service and to make it patrimonial
property under Article 422 of the Civil Proclamation No. 1801 declaring Boracay government, such as an official
Code must be definite. Abandonment cannot be Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve. proclamation, declassifying inalienable
inferred from the non-use alone specially if the Claiming that Proc. No. 1801 precluded public land into disposable land for
non-use was attributable not to the government's them from filing an application for a judicial agricultural or other purposes.
own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack confirmation of imperfect title or survey of The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands
of financial support to repair and improve the land for titling purposes, respondents- of the public domain belong to the State,
property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, claimants filed a petition for declaratory that the State is the source of any asserted
166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a relief with the RTC in Kalibo, Aklan. right to ownership of land and charged with
certain and positive act based on correct legal The Republic, through the Office of the the conservation of such patrimony.
premises.
Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the
petition countering that Boracay Island was All lands not otherwise appearing to be
A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to
an unclassified land of the public domain. It clearly within private ownership are
Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the
Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the
formed part of the mass of lands classified presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all
failure by the government to repair the building as public forest, which was not available lands that have not been acquired from the
in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier for disposition pursuant to section 3(a) of government, either by purchase or by grant,
stated, there simply was a shortage of PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code. belong to the State as part of the inalienable
government funds. The recent Administrative public domain.
Orders authorizing a study of the status and ISSUE:
conditions of government properties in Japan Whether unclassified lands of the public
were merely directives for investigation but did domain are automatically deemed
not in any way signify a clear intention to agricultural land, therefore making these
dispose of the properties.
lands alienable.

HELD:
No. To prove that the land subject of an
5. Secretary of DENR vs Yap application for registration is alienable, the
GR No. 167707; Oct 8, 2008 applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive
FACTS: order, an administrative action, investigative
This petition is for a review on certiorari of reports of the Bureau of Lands
the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) investigators, and a legislative act or
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court statute.
(RTC) in Kalibo Aklan, which granted the
8|Page

You might also like