Salvador H.

Laurel
vs.
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. 92013 July 25, 1990

FACTS:

The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the
Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956.

The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year
Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector", through Reparations Contract No. 300
dated June 27, 1958. The Roppongi property consists of the land and building "for the Chancery of
the Philippine Embassy." As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter
was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs.
Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has
remained undeveloped since that time.

On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling non-Filipino
citizens or entities to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or
disposition. The four properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the
first "Whereas" clause.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and
jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property.

RULING:

It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her
own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the
Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.

Resolution No. 55 of the Senate dated June 8, 1989, asking for the deferment of the sale of
the Roppongi property does not withdraw the property from public domain much less authorize its
sale. It is a mere resolution; it is not a formal declaration abandoning the public character of the
Roppongi property. In fact, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is conducting hearings on
Senate Resolution No. 734 which raises serious policy considerations and calls for a fact-finding
investigation of the circumstances behind the decision to sell the Philippine government properties
in Japan.
 Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc.
vs.
Aproniano G. Castillo and Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.

G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935

FACTS:

Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber concession from the Government of the
Philippine Islands. It has operated a sawmill in the sitio of Maa, barrio of Tigatu, municipality of
Davao, Province of Davao. However, the land upon which the business was conducted belonged to
another person. On the land the sawmill company erected a building which housed the machinery
used by it. Some of the implements thus used were clearly personal property, the conflict
concerning machines which were placed and mounted on foundations of cement.

Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation in which after the lease agreement, all
buildings and improvements would pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include
machineries and accessories. In connection to this, petitioner had in it’s sawmill machineries and
other equipment wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the properties were personal in nature.

RULING:

The subject properties are personal in nature. Article 334, paragraph 5, of the Old Civil Code
provides that real property consists of (5) Machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements
intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade
being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade of
industry. Machinery which is movable in nature only becomes immovable when placed in a land by
the owner of the property or land but not when so placed by a tenant or any person having only a
temporary right, unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at bar, the
machinery is intended not by the owner of the land but by the saw mill company for use in
connection with its trade. In this sense, the machinery is not a real property.
 Francisco I. Chavez
vs.
public estates authority and amari coastal bay development corporation

G.R. No. 133250 July 9, 2002