Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RAMON GARCIA, as
head of the Asset Privatization Trust, RAUL
MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and
CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive
Secretary, respondents.
[G.R. No. 92047. July 25, 1990.]
DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS PRIVATIZATION TRUST
CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON
DEL ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND
BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE
UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
PROPERTIES IN JAPAN, respondents.
Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013.
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J :
p
I
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 other lots
being:
(1)The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi,
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo which has an area of
approximately 2,489.96 square meters, and is at
present the site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery;
(2)The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe,
with an area of around 764.72 square meters and
categorized as a commercial lot now being used as a
warehouse and parking lot for the consulate staff;
and
(3)The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2
Obanoyamacho, Shinohara, Nada-ku, Kobe, a
residential lot which is now vacant.
The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the
Japanese government for national development projects are part of the
indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and
property and their suffering during World War II.
The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550
million would be payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with
On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296
entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of reparations' 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.
Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the
government has been pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the
reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The property has
twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price at $225 million.
The first bidding was a failure since only one bidder qualified. The
second one, after postponements, has not yet materialized. The last
scheduled bidding on February 21, 1990 was restrained by his Court.
Later, the rules on bidding were changed such that the $225 million
floor price became merely a suggested floor price.
cdrep
The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues.
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the
Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047
adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the
Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino
citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are
resolved at the same time for the objective is the same to stop the
sale of the Roppongi property.
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues:
(1)Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be
alienated by the Philippine Government?; and
(2)Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have
the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi
property?
Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda in G.R. NO. 92047, apart from questioning the
authority of the government to alienate the Roppongi property assails
the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296 in making the property
available for the sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities. He also
questions the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization
or Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being
discriminatory against Filipino citizens and Filipino-owned entities by
denying them the right to be informed about the bidding requirements.
II
In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property
and the related lots were acquired as part of the reparations from the
Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine
government. Vice-President 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 (See infra).
The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under
"property intended for public service" in paragraph 2 of the above
provision. He states that being one of public dominion, no ownership
by any one can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and
related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic,
and consular quarters, buildings and other improvements" (Second
Year Reparations Schedule). The petitioner states that they continue to
be intended for a necessary service. They are held by the State in
anticipation of an opportune use. (Citing 3 Manresa 65-66). Hence, it
cannot be appropriated, is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in
more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor be the subject matter of
contracts (Citing Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20 [1915]).
Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the
petitioner avers that the same remains property of public dominion so
long as the government has not used it for other purposes nor adopted
any measure constituting a removal of its original purpose or use.
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. They also invoke Opinion No. 21, Series of 1988, dated
January 27, 1988 of the Secretary of Justice which used the lex situs in
explaining the inapplicability of Philippine law regarding a property
situated in Japan.
The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that
the Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to
become property of public dominion. It has become patrimonial
property because it has not been used for public service or for
diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article
IV
The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not dispute the fact
that the Roppongi site and the three related properties were acquired
through reparations agreements, that these were assigned to the
government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was
specifically designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the
Philippine Embassy.
The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is
expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations
Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind
both the Philippine government and the Japanese government.
The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the
Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Code
should apply.
It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all
people, should be the ones to insist that in the sale of extremely
valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law
should prevail. The Japanese law its coverage and effects, when
enacted, and exceptions to its provisions is not presented to the
Court. It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law
should apply without stating what that law provides. It is assumed on
faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.
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
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property
should not be sold:
The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It
was given to the Filipino people in reparation for the lives and
blood of Filipinos who died and suffered during the Japanese
military occupation, for the suffering of widows and orphans
who lost their loved ones and kindred, for the homes and other
properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The Tokyo
properties are a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the
Filipino people in the face of an invader; like the monuments of
Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do not expect
economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think
of selling these monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity
dictate that we keep our properties in Japan as memorials to
the countless Filipinos who died and suffered. Even if we should
become paupers we should not think of selling them. For it
would be as if we sold the lives and blood and tears of our
countrymen." (Rollo-G.R. No. 92013, p. 147).