Laurel v Garcia (1990)
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
I. FACTS:
This is a petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin, the Executive
Secretary and Principal and Bidding Committees on the
Utilization/Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in
Japan, with the bidding for sale of a land with building in
Ropponggi, Tokyo, Japan.
This is a consolidated case:
Laurel v Garcia
Ojeda v Secretary Macaraig
The subject property is 1 of 4 properties Japan gave to
Philippines under the Reparations Agreement, as an
indemnification for WW2 losses. The Agreement classifies
procurements (properties) into Government sector and private
(sold to PH citizens or to 100% PH-owned citizens). Ropponggi
was classified under Government Sector.
The property, acquired 1958, was supposedly for “the
Chancery of the Philippine Embassy), but the Embasy was
later transferred to Nampeidai in 1976 because Roppongi
needed major repairs. Ropponggi was never repaired because
PH Govt failed to provide necessary funds.
A proposal was presented to Pres. Cory Aquino to make the
property subject to lease to a Japanese firm, which will
construct the Ropponggi building and renovate the Nampeidai
one, in lieu of lease payments. PH Govt will retain title
throughout and after the lease agreement.
1987. EO 296 was issued inviting nonPH citizens to bid for
certain lots, including the Ropponggi lot.
Petitioners Argument
Ojeda assails the constitutionality of EO 296 for making the
property available to nonPH
Laurel asserts that the lot cannot be sold since it is one of
public dominion (Art420), therefore no ownership can be
attached to it. Non-use will not affect the classification, since it
remains of public dominion as long as govt will not use it for
other purposes
Respondents Argument
They claim property is not governed by PH Civil Code(CC) but
by Japan laws. Assuming CC is applicable, property became
patrimonial because it has not been used for public service or
for diplomatic purposes for over 13years. Intention of Exec
Dept and Congress is to convert it to private use, as
manifested by over acts:
1 transfer of PH Embassy to Nampeidai
2 issuance of EO 296
3 enactment of CARP Law containing provision that funds can
be taken from sale of PH properties in foreign countries
4 Holding of public bidding over the property (but it failed)
5 deferment of Senate of bidding to future date, thus
acknowledging Exec’s intention
II. ISSUE
WON Ropponggi is classified as public dominion or it has
become patrimonial
III. RULING
Ropponggi is a property of public dominion, under Art 420 (2).
The nature of the property is expressly stated in the
Reparations Agreement. It is of public dominion unless it is
convincingly shown that property has become patrimonial. The
respondents failed to do so.
1) Abandonment, to make it patrimonial under art422, must be
definite
Non-use for a long time does not automatically convert it to
patrimonial property, as this happens only if the property is
withdrawn from public use, therefore until there is a formal
declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it. Even
the failure to repair is not abandonment since the reason was
shortage of govt. funds.
2) EO 296 does not have a provision expressly authorizing the
sale
EO did not declare an “authority to sell” and is based on a
wrong premise that the properties were already converted.
3) CARP Law did not withdraw the properties from public
domain
Sec63(c) merely enumerates possible sources of future
funding. It also follows that any property outside the commerce
of man, such as this property, cannot be tapped.
4) Japan Laws not presented
Japan laws cannot be used since it was not presented. No
conflict of law also exists in the situation since dispute is not
over the ownership of an immovable. Rule of lex situs does not
apply.
5) Assuming Roppongi is no longer of public dominion, there is
still an obstacle to its sale
There is no law authorizing its conveyance. And such
conveyance requires executive and legislative concurrence.
Sec 79(f).RAC1917. Conveyance and contracts to which the
government is a party requires that these be “submitted to
Congress for approval”
Sec48, Book 1. Admin Code 1987. “Whenever real property of
the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed”
presupposes conveyance already authorized and approved by
a law enacted by Congress.

IV. DISPOSITIVE

Petition denied.

V. DISSENTING

Feliciano
1) As to conversion
Art 422. Civil code does not address the question of who has
authority to effect conversion, nor refers to any procedure for
the same.

The only requirement which is legitimately imposable is that

the intent to convert must be reasonably clear from a
consideration of the acts or acts of the Executive Department
or of the Legislative Department which are said to have
effected such conversion.

The cumulative effect of the executive acts here involved was

to convert property. These executive acts, in their totality if not
each individual act, make crystal clear the intent of the
Executive Department to effect such conversion, such as:

a) AO No. 3created a committee to study the disposition

/utilization of Govt property in Japan
b) EO 296 is more than sufficient to indicate an intention to
convert the property.
c) Non-use, conjoined with the other factors here listed, was
legally effective to convert the lot

2) As to legal authority for the sale

Act 3038 (An act authorizing the secretary of agriculture and
natural resources to sell or lease land of the private domain of
the government of the Philippine islands, 1922) provides
standing legislative authorization for disposition of the property
which has been converted into patrimonial property.