1. LAUREL VS GARCIA conflict with a domestic law on the same matters.

Hence,
G.R. No. 92013 the need to determine which law should apply.
July 25, 1990
In the instant case, none of the above elements
FACTS: exists.
1. The Roppongi case is one of the four properties
in Japan acquired by the Philippine government The issues are not concerned with validity of
under the Reparation Agreement entered into ownership or title. There is no question that the property
with Japan. belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of
2. The said property was acquired from the the respondent officials to validly dispose of property
Japanese government through Reparations belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures
Contract No. 300. It consists of the land and adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine
building for the Chancery of the Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
Embassy.
3. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of
Embassy until the latter was transferred to Justice sheds light on the relevance of the lex situs rule is
Nampeidai when the Roppongi building needed misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of
major repairs. the real properties procured through reparations nor the
4. The Executive branch of the government has existence in what body of the authority to sell them. In
been pushing its decision to sell the reparations discussing who are capable of acquiring the lots, the
properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which
property has twice been set for bidding at a should determine who can acquire the properties so that
minimum floor price of $225 million. the constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the
 The first bidding was a failure since only one public domain to Filipino citizens and entities wholly
bidder qualified. owned by Filipinos is inapplicable.
 The second one, after postponements, has
not yet materialized.
 The last scheduled bidding on February 21,
1990 was restrained by his Court.
5. Petitioner Laurel states that the Roppongi
property is classified as one of public
dominion, and not of private ownership under
Article 420 of the Civil Code
6. The respondents, for their part, refute the
petitioner's contention by saying that the subject
property is not governed by our Civil Code but
by the laws of Japan where the property is
located. They rely upon the rule of lex
situs which is used in determining the applicable
law regarding the acquisition, transfer and
devolution of the title to a property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the laws of Japan will apply in the case at

bar

RULING:

NO.

We see no reason why a conflict of law rule

should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A
conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a
dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such
that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the
formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect
of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a
conveyance, are to be determined; and (2) A foreign law
on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to