LAUREL V.

GARCIA
187 SCRA 797

FACTS:
The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the Philippines from
Japan pursuant to a Reparations Agreement. The property is where the Philippine Embassy was
once located, before it transferred to the Nampeidai property. It was decided that the
properties would be
available to sale or disposition. One of the first properties opened up for public auction was the
Roppongi property, despite numerous oppositions from different sectors.

HELD:
The Roppongi property was acquired together with the other properties through reparation
agreements. They were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi
property was specifically designated under the agreement to house the Philippine embassy.
It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become
patrimonial. The respondents have failed to do so.
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 payment, in
application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The
purpose is not to serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for the
common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.
The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service
doesnt automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if
the property is withdrawn from public use. A property continues to be part of the public domain,
not available for
private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the
government to withdraw it from being such.

Rabuco vs villegas
Facts
The constitutionality of RA No. 3120 was assailed by the city officials of the City of Manila contending that the
conversion of the lots in Malate area into disposable and alienable lands of the state and placing its
administration and disposal to the LTA to be subdivided into lots and selling it to bona fide occupants thereof
in installments constitutes a deprivation of the City of Manila of its property by providing for its sale without
the payment of just compensation.
Issue
Whether or not the properties in dispute may be disposed without paying just compensation to the City
ofManila?
Held

The court held that the assailed RA 3120 is constitutional. The lots in question are owned by the City of Manila
in its public and governmental capacity and are therefore public property over which Congress has absolute
control as distinguished from patrimonial property owned by it which cannot be deprived from the City without
just compensation and without due process. RA 3120 expressly provides that the properties are reserved for
the purpose of communal property and ordered its conversion into disposable and alienable lands of the
state to be sold to its bona fide occupants. It has been an established doctrine that the state reserves its rights
to classify its property under its legislative prerogative and the court cannot interfere on such power of the
state.

Macasiano vs Diokno

Respondent Municipality passed Ordinance No. 86 which authorized the closure of

J.Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets and the
establishment of a flea market thereon. This was passed pursuant to MMC Ordinance
No.2 and was approved by the Metropolitan Manila Authority on July 20, 1990.
On August 8, 1990, respondent municipality and Palanyag entered into a contract
agreement whereby the latter shall operate, maintain & manage the flea markets and/or
vending areas in the aforementioned streets with the obligation to remit dues to the
treasury of the municipal government of Paraaque.
On September 13, 1990 Brig. Gen. Macasiano ordered the destruction and confiscation
of stalls along G.G. Cruz & Gabriel Street in Baclaran. He also wrote a letter to Palanyag
ordering the destruction of the flea market.
Hence, respondent filed a joint petition praying for preliminary injunction. The trial court
upheld the assailed Ordinance and enjoined petitioner from enforcing his letter-order
against Palanyag.
Issue: Whether or not an ordinance or resolution issued by the municipal council of Paraaque
authorizing the lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid.

Held:
The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property f
o r p u b l i c u s e a n d patrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil Code). As to property for public
use, Article 424 of Civil Codeprovides that "property for public use, in the provinces,
cities and municipalities, consis ts of theprovincial roads, city streets, the squares, fountains,
public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities or
municipalities. All other property possessed by anyof them is patrimonial and shall be
governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws." In the present
case, thus, J. Gabrielle G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Gacia Extension andOpena streets are local roads
used for public service and are therefore considered public propertiesof the
municipality. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service
aredeemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, local government have

noauthority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unless

specific authority is vested upon them by Congress.

14. Republic vs Court of Appeals

REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS

281 SCRA 639

FACTS:
Morato has filed for patent over a parcel of land, of which was granted under the
condition that he would not encumber it for a period of 5 years from issuance of patent.

It

was then found out that he mortgaged and leased the lots. The government sought for the
revocation of the patent
issued.

The trial court and appellate court decided in favor of the respondents.

HELD:
Foreshore lands have been defined to be that part of the land which is between the high
and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides.

This is the strip of land that

lies between the high and low watermarks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to
the flow of the tide.

Foreshore lands may not anymore be the subject of issuance of free patents.

Under

property of public ownership or dominion are foreshore lands, as provided for in the Civil
Code.
It is to be noted that when the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the invaded
property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of public domain.

15. Province of Zamboanga write this version

FACTS: After the incorporation of the Municipality of Zamboanga as a chartered city, petitioner province
contends that facilities belonging to the latter and located within the City of Zamboanga will be acquired and paid
for by the said city.
However, respondent city avers that pursuant to RA No. 3039 providing for the transfer free of charge of all
buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of
Zamboanga to the said City.
ISSUE: Whether or not facilities which the province shall abandon will be acquired by the city upon just
compensation.
HELD: Yes, If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity, the property is
public and can be transferred free of charge. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then
it is patrimonial and can be expropriated upon payment of just compensation.

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al

L-24440, March 28, 1968

FACTS: After Zamboanga Province was divided into two (Zamboanga Del Norte and Zamboanga Del
Sur), Republic Act 3039 was passed providing that-"All buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located
within the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred free of charge in favor of the City of
Zamboanga."
Suit was brought alleging that this grant without just compensation was unconstitutional because it
deprived the province of property without due process. Included in the properties were the capital site
and capitol building, certain school sites, hospital and leprosarium sites, and high school playgrounds.
ISSUES:

1.

Are the properties mentioned, properties for public use or patrimonial property?

2.

Should the city pay for said properties?

HELD:

1.
If we follow the Civil Code classification, only the high school playgrounds are for
public use since it is the only one that is available to the general public, and all the rest are
patrimonial property since they are not devoted to public use but to public service. But if we
follow the law on Municipal Corporations, as long as the purpose is for a public service, the
property should be considered for PUBLIC USE.

2.
If the Civil Code classification is used, since almost all the properties involved
are patrimonial, the law would be unconstitutional since the province would be deprived of its
own property without just compensation. If the law on Municipal Corporations would be
followed, the properties would be of public dominion, and therefore NO COMPENSATION
would be required. It is the law on Municipal Corporations that should be
followed. Firstly, while the Civil Code may classify them as patrimonial, they should not be
regarded as ordinary private property. They should fall under the control of the State,
otherwise certain governmental activities would be impaired. Secondly, Art. 424, 2nd
paragraph itself says "without prejudice to the provisions of special laws."

16. Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (art 420) read full case.

The Public Estates Authority is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation
projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR insofar as
reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned.
PEA sought the transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of
the Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila
Bay to AMARI.
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid.
HELD:
No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as
private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom
Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private
corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the Amended JVA
also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of
Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the
public domain.

17. Chavez vs Nahtional Housing Authority ( bookmarked)

Hence, said lands are no longer intended for public use or service and shall form part of the
patrimonial properties of the State under Art. 422 of the Civil Code.84 As discussed a priori, the
lands were classified as patrimonial properties of the NHA ready for disposition when the titles
were registered in its name by the Register of Deeds.