You are on page 1of 3

LAUREL V GARCIA, G.R. NO.

92013 & 92047, JULY 25, 1990


SALAS V. JARENCIO, 46 SCRA 734
Facts: The subject property in this case is one of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by the
Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan, the Facts:
Roppongi property. The said property was acquired from the Japanese government through Municipal Board of Manila adopted a resolution requiring the Pres. to consider the feasibility
Reparations Contract No. 300. It consists of the land and building for the Chancery of the of declaring an area to be a patrimonial property of Manila for the purpose of reselling these
Philippine Embassy. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the lots to the actual occupants. RA 4118 was passed declaring the area as an
latter was transferred to Nampeidai when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. alienable/disposable land of the State, to be placed under the Land Tenure
President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of Philippine Administration(Land Authority). Gov. Yap of Land Authority wrote letter to Mayor of Manila
government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan. The President issued EO 296 entitling for the proposed subdivision plan of w/c Manila accepted. But due to unknown reasons,
non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations' capital goods and services in the Manila decided to go against their agreement and prayed that RA 4118 be not
event of sale, lease or disposition. implemented and that it is unconstitutional.
Respondent Judge Jarencio declared that RA 4118 is unconstitutional and invalid, thus the
Issues: Whether or not the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and petition for review.
jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property.
Issue:
Ruling: It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his Is RA 4118 valid?
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. It is indeed true Held:
that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated prices fetched VALID! Manila has not shown any evidence that it acquired said land as private or
by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos, patrimonial property. Further, RA 4118 was intended to implement the social justice policy
veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties will of the Constitution and the Land for the Landless program. The RA was never intended to
eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and Congress must expropriate the property involved but confirmed its character as communal land of the State
concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on conversion and and to make it available for disposition by the Natl Govt through the Land Authority.
disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed.
PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA V. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, 22 SCRA CHAVEZ V PEA
1334
Facts: From the time of Marcos until Estrada, portions of Manila Bay were being reclaimed.
Facts A law was passed creating the Public Estate Authority which was granted with the power to
transfer reclaimed lands. Now in this case, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement
Prior to the incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of Zamboanga was the with AMARI, a private corporation. Under the Joint Venture Agreement between AMARI
provincial capital of Zamboanga Province. By virtue of Commonwealth Act 39, section 50 and PEA, several hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands and several
providing that the buildings and other properties that the Province will abandon in view of its portions of submerged areas of Manila Bay were going to be transferred to AMARI .
conversion as Zamboanga City shall be paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be
fixed by the Auditor General, the said properties consisting of 50 lots were identified and ISSUE:
the price were fixed thereof. An allotment for its payment was authorized by the BIR Whether or not the stipulations in the Amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of lands,
Commissioner. In June 17, 1961, RA 3039 was approved and it amended section 50 of the reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution
Commonwealth Act 39 providing that all buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the
Province of Zamboanga and located in the City of Zamboanga are transferred free of
charge in favor of the City of Zamboanga. The Province of Zamboanga del Norte filed a
complaint for declaratory relief with preliminary injunction contending that the RA 3039 is RULING: YES!
unconstitutional as it deprives the Province of its properties without just compensation and
due process. Under the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended), reclaimed lands are classified as
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain Section 3 of the Constitution: Alienable
Issue lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease The
Whether or not RA 3039 is unconstitutional? 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. PEA may
Held lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these
lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine
The court held that to resolve the issue it is important to identify the nature of the properties citizens, subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws.
in dispute. The properties that are devoted for public purpose are owned by the province in Clearly, the Amended JVA violates glaringly Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987
its governmental capacity. Those that are not devoted for public use remain as patrimonial Constitution. Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts whose object or purpose is
property of the Province. The RA 3039 is held valid in so far as the properties that are contrary to law, or whose object is outside the commerce of men, are inexistent and void
devoted for public use or owned by the province in its governmental capacity and thus must from the beginning. The Court must perform its duty to defend and uphold the Constitution,
retain its public purpose. Hence these governmental properties need not be paid by the City and therefore declares the Amended JVA null and void ab initio.
of Zamboanga.

With respect to the patrimonial properties from the 50 lots in dispute, the RA 3039 cannot
be applied in order to deprive the province of its own patrimonial properties that are not
devoted for public use. Hence the City of Zamboanga shall pay just compensation to the
Province of Zamboanga for these patrimonial properties
NHA VS. GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH
SALVADOR H. LAUREL, VS. RAMON GARCIA, ET AL.
Facts: Respondent Church applied to purchase lots from a Resettlement Project in Cavite.
Petitioner approved the respondents application. Respondents then proceeded to possess FACTS: The subject Roppongi property is one of the four properties in Japan acquired by
the land and made improvements. The Respondents received the letter from the petitioner the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on 9
duly approving the sale of the subject lots but in a price not declared to them by the NHA May 1956, the other lots being the Nampeidai Property (site of Philippine Embassy
Field Office. Petitioner returned the check stating that the amount was insufficient Chancery), the Kobe Commercial Property (Commercial lot used as warehouse and
considering that the price of the properties had changed. The Church made demands to the parking lot of consulate staff), and the Kobe Residential Property (a vacant residential lot).
petitioner but the latter refused to accept the payment. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to
Nampeidai when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our
The Church instituted a complaint for specific performance and the trial court ruled that government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped
there was a valid contract of sale between the parties and ordered that the petitioners since that time.
reimburse the respondent Church the overpayment made for the lots. NHA appealed the During the incumbency of President Aquino, a proposal was made by former Philippine
case and the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision that there was a valid Ambassador to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to lease the subject property to Kajima
contract of sale but held that the petitioner sell the lots at the price approved by the NHA. Corporation, a Japanese firm, in exchange of the construction of 2 buildings in Roppongi, 1
building in Nampeidai, and the renovation of the Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The
Issue: WON there was a valid contract of sale President issued EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of reparations'
capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. Amidst opposition by
Ruling: There was no contract at all. various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been pushing, with great
The offer of the NHA to sell the subject property was not accepted by the respondent. Thus, vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot.
the alleged contract involved in this case should be more accurately denominated as
inexistent. There being no concurrence of the offer and acceptance, it did not pass the ISSUE: 1.Whether or not the Roppongi property and others of its kind can be alienated by
stage of generation to the point of perfection. As such, it is without force and effect from the the Philippine government.
very beginning or from its incipiency, as if it had never been entered into, and hence, 2. Whether there was a conflict of law between the Japanese law on property (as
cannot be validated either by lapse of time or ratification. Equity cannot give validity to a the real property is situated there) and Philippine law.
void contract, and this rule should apply with equal force to inexistent contracts.
RULING:
The Church, despite knowledge that its intended contract of sale with the NHA had not 1. No. The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out.
been perfected, proceeded to introduce improvements on the disputed land. On the other It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of
hand, the NHA knowingly granted the Church temporary use of the subject properties and procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government.
did not prevent the Church from making improvements thereon. Thus, the Church and the There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion and is outside the commerce of man.
NHA, who both acted in bad faith, shall be treated as if they were both in good faith. And the 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
The case was remanded back to the trial court to access the value of the improvements to withdraw it from being such.
made on the land and fix the terms of the lease if the parties so agree. It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her
own sole will. Any such conveyances must be authorized and approved by a law enacted
by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.

2. No. A conflict of law rule cannot 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 conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the
need to determine which law should apply. In the present case, none of the above elements
exists. In the instant case, none of the above elements exists.