PROPERTY STUDY GUIDE

I. PROPERTIES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO OWNERSHIP

(Arts. 419-425)

1. PUBLIC DOMINION PROPERTIES [ Arts. 419 420; 423 -424 ]

1.1 What are the 3 Things Deemed as Properties of Public Dominion? (Art. 420)
1.2 What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the State,
and specify these properties which ones may be owned by the State (Art. 420)
1.3 What are the Public Dominion Properties which may be owned by the Local
Govt. [province, city, municipality] and specify these properties? (Arts. 424)
1.4

State the Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion

1.5

If a private person or entity is able to have a portion of the beach or

foreshore, included in the transfer certificate of registration, will this mean
that the said property is now considered patrimonial or private property?
o

1.6

RP v. Lat Vda. De Castillo et al, GR 69002, June 30, 1988 Clarisse

Arnaez

A private estate adjoining a body of water (lake, river, stream, or sea, or

pond, lagoon) is inundated with water or flooded, and submerged for some
time. If later the water receded and the land is again uncovered and
recovered, who will own the land the original private estate owner or the
State?
See:

i.
ii.

1.7

Govt. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112 - Jessiel Diamante

Govt. v. Colegio de San Jose, 53 Phil. 423 - Romeo Alcala

Reporters please read the full text of the case and coordinate with
each other to explain the difference in the Supreme Court rulings.

A private estate owner constructed canal/s on his land and nearby residents
are allowed use thereof. Later, the landowner closed access to the canal by
the public and converted it into a fishpond. Complaint was filed to have the
landowner open the canal and allow use and access by the public. What is
the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue?
Study and compare the rulings of the SC in these case:
i.)
Santos v. Moreno, L-15829, Dec. 4, 1967 Norlainie Omar

ii.)

Mercado v. Mun. Pres. of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592 CK Ramoga

Reporters please read the full text of the case and coordinate with
each other to explain the difference in the Supreme Court rulings.

READ
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

also these CASES:

Maneclang et al., v. IAC, G.R. 66575, Sept. 30, 1986
R.P v. Lat Vda. De Castillo, et al., GR 69002, June 30 1988
Chavez v. PEA, 415 SCRA 403, 2003
Hilario v. City of Manila, L-19570, April 27, 1967
Tufexis v. Olaguera, 32 Phil. 654
Govt. v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112
City of Manila v. Garcia, L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967
Villarico v. CA, 309 SCRA 193, 1999
MIAA v. CA, 495 SCRA 591, 2006
Bureau of Forestry et al v. CA, G.R 37995, Aug. 31, 1987
RP v. CA, GR No.40402, March 16, 1987
Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 508 SCRA 498 (2006)

2. PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY or PROPERTIES OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

a) Study SC Jurisprudence about the 3 Kinds of Properties of Private Ownership:
(Arts. 421 425)
i.

ii.

PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of the STATE,

o

Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 Trisha Paulino

I encourage everyone to read the brilliant dissent of Justice Feliciano

(one of the most respected SC Justices in his time)

PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of LOCAL GOVTS.

o
o

iii.

City of Baguio v. NAWASA, G.R. No. L-12032, August 31, 1959 Roy
Diamante
Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, L-24440,
March 28, 1968 Michelle Alejandrino
PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of PRIVATE PERSON or Entity.

b.) Can public dominion properties be later converted to, or withdrawn from
public use and form part of the patrimonial property of the State and Local
Govt.?

1. Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. Of Lands, L-12958, May 30, 1960 Report: Halila Sudagar
2. Municipality of Oas v. Roa, 7 Phil. 20
3. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, L-40474, Aug. 29, 1975
Report: Aubrey Bonilla
4. Municipality of Hinunang v. Director of Lands, 24 Phils. 125
5. Chavez v. NHA et al, G.R No. 164527, Aug. 15, 2007
6. Dacanay v. Asistio, Jr. 208 SCRA 404
7. Salas v. Jarencio, L-29788, Aug. 30, 1972
8. Harty v. Mun. of Victoria, 13 Phil. 152
c.) If a political subd. or local govt. has an unpaid debt to a private person or
entity, can the latter levy against the properties of the Local Govt.? What are
the limitations if any?
o
o

Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 - Report: Saniel,

Jay
Mun. of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, et al., L-3485, June 30, 1950
Report: Pagaduan, Jonathan

Reporters please read the full text of the case and coordinate with
each other to explain the difference in the Supreme Court rulings.

NOTA BENE: Graded Q & A will be based on the cases above. Please read and know
the legal principles involved.