This document discusses several court cases related to the ownership and classification of public and private property held by local government entities in the Philippines. It addresses whether certain lands were considered patrimonial property that could be owned privately or public property held in trust for citizens. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that a city could declare a abandoned street as patrimonial property and sell it since it was no longer needed for public use. In another case, the court found that lands reclaimed from foreshore areas belonged to the state as public domain unless expressly granted to another entity.
This document discusses several court cases related to the ownership and classification of public and private property held by local government entities in the Philippines. It addresses whether certain lands were considered patrimonial property that could be owned privately or public property held in trust for citizens. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that a city could declare a abandoned street as patrimonial property and sell it since it was no longer needed for public use. In another case, the court found that lands reclaimed from foreshore areas belonged to the state as public domain unless expressly granted to another entity.
Original Title
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334
This document discusses several court cases related to the ownership and classification of public and private property held by local government entities in the Philippines. It addresses whether certain lands were considered patrimonial property that could be owned privately or public property held in trust for citizens. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that a city could declare a abandoned street as patrimonial property and sell it since it was no longer needed for public use. In another case, the court found that lands reclaimed from foreshore areas belonged to the state as public domain unless expressly granted to another entity.
This document discusses several court cases related to the ownership and classification of public and private property held by local government entities in the Philippines. It addresses whether certain lands were considered patrimonial property that could be owned privately or public property held in trust for citizens. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that a city could declare a abandoned street as patrimonial property and sell it since it was no longer needed for public use. In another case, the court found that lands reclaimed from foreshore areas belonged to the state as public domain unless expressly granted to another entity.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 8
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City
of Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334
Prior to the incorporation as a chartered city 50 providing that the buildings and other properties that the Province will abandon RA 3039 was approved 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. 26 lots are patrimonial property of the old Province of Zamboanga, the movant City of Zamboanga contends that the said lots are not patrimonial property of the former Province of Zamboanga ZC: 26 lots aforestated were not partrimonial property of the former Province of Zamboanga, for the reason that said 26 lots have always been used for public purposes, such as school sites, playground and athletic fields for schools. ZdN: 26 lots are vacant, or that the building existing thereon were constructed in bad faith
Whether or not RA 3039 is unconstitutional? the issue it is important to identify the nature of the properties in dispute. Public Dominion - Free Patrimonial Property- Just Compensation Instead, the records of the case should be remanded to the court of origin for new trial, in order to determine whether or not the 26 lots were or were not actually devoted to public use or governmental purposes prior to the enactment of Republic Act 3039.
Conflicting Public Property Definitions: Civil Code: free and for the indiscriminate use by anyone Municipal Corp law: properties which are devoted to public service
It is the law on Municipal Corporations that should be followed.
PRELUDE:
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.
Salas v. Jarencio The municipal Board of Manila requested the President of the Philippines to have the lot declared as patrimonial property of the City so that it could be sold by the City to the actual occupants of the lot. Congress enacted Republic Act 4118 and its disposal was given to a national government entity, the Land Tenure Administration. (To the state)
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the National Government in giving the disposal of the lot in question to the Land Tenure Administration can be lawfully done.
HELD: Yes. There being no proof that the lot had been acquired by the City with its own funds, the presumption is that it was given to it by the State IN TRUST for the benefit of the inhabitants. Residual control remained in the State, and therefore the STATE can lawfully dispose of the lot. Thus, Republic Act 4118 is valid and constitutional and this is so even if the City of Manila will receive NO COMPENSATION from the State.
POLITICAL LAW; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; POWER OF THE CITY OF MANILA AS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN PRIVATE CAPACITY. The City of Manila could validly acquire property in its corporate or private capacity, following the accepted doctrine on the dual character public and private of a municipal corporation. And when it acquires property in its private capacity, it acts like an ordinary person capable of entering into contracts or making transactions for the transmission of title or other real rights. When it comes to acquisition of land, it must have done so under any of the modes established by law for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IF THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT LAND WAS ACQUIRED WITH PRIVATE FUNDS, PRESUMPTION IS THAT STATE IS SOURCE. In the absence of a title deed to any land claimed by the City of Manila as its own, showing that it was acquired with its private or corporate funds, the presumption is that such land came from the State upon the creation of the municipality. 3. ID.; ID.; CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN ITS POSSESSION. Originally the municipality owned no patrimonial property except those that were granted by the State not for its public but for private use. Other properties it owns are acquired in the course of the exercise of its corporate powers as a juridical entity to which category a municipal corporation pertains. 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCEPT OF LEGUA COMUNAL EXPLAINED. Comunal lands or "legua comunal" came into existence when a town or pueblo was established in this country under the laws of Spain. The municipalities of the Philippines were not entitled, as a matter of right, to any part of the public domain for use as communal lands. It might be granted by the Government for communal purposes, upon proper petition, but, until granted, no right therein passed to the municipalities, and. in any event, the ultimate title remained in the Sovereign. Cebu Oxygen vs Judge Bercilles
Municipal Corporation Patrimonial Property Discretionary Power In 1968, a terminal portion of a street in Cebu was excluded in the citys development plan hence the council declared it as abandoned and was subsequently opened for public bidding. Cebu Oxygen was the highest bidder @P10,800.00. Cebu Oxygen applied for the lands registration before CFI Cebu but the provincial fiscal denied it, so did the court later, alleging that the road is part of the public domain hence beyond the commerce of man. ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Oxygen can validly own said land. HELD: Yes. Under Cebus Charter (RA 3857), the city council may close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. Since that portion of the city street subject of Cebu Oxygens application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract. Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
____
Petitioner applied for registration of title over a portion of M. Gorces Street in Cebu City. Said portion was declared an abandoned road by the City Council of Cebu the same not being included in the Cebu Development Plan, and later, by authority of the City Council, was sold by the Acting Mayor to petitioner who was the highest bidder at a public bidding. The trial court dismissed petitioner's application on motion of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal on the ground that the property sought to be registered being a public road intended of public use is considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of men. On petition for review, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court's order the directed the latter to proceed with the hearing of petition's application for registration of title. SYLLABUS 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; STREETS; POWER OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO WITHDRAW PORTION OF STREET FROM PUBLIC USE. Where a portion of the city street is withdrawn from public use by the city council, which under the city charter is empowered to close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square, the property thus withdraw from public servitude become patrimonial property and be used or conveyed for any purpose for which any real property belonging to the city may be lawfully used or conveyed. 2. PROPERTY; PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY BE CONVERTED INTO PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY. Under Article 422 of the Civil Code, "property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY 384 SCRA 152
FACTS: President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA, which was tasked with the development, improvement, and acquisition, lease, and sale of all kinds of lands. The then president also transferred to PEA the foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project.
Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of land an d then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the development of the Freedom Islands. These two entered into a joint venture in t he absence of any public bidding.
Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was conducted and it was concluded that the lands that PEA was conveying to AMARI were lands of the public domain; the certificates of title over the Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted Ramos to form an investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.
Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to los e billions by the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He also asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening between the parties.
ISSUE: W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of th e lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
HELD: The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain.
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all natural resources are owned by the State and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be alienated.
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay. Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs to be incurred.
The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequentl y owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi- public use.