Laurel V Garcia
Laurel V Garcia
Laurel V Garcia
420
GR Nos. 92013 & 92047 | JULY 25, 1990 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and
Gutierrez, Jr., J. intended for some public service. There can be no doubt
Maniwa | Group 1 that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown
that the property has become patrimonial.
G.R. No. 92013 o The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a
PETITONER: Salvador H. Laurel long time for actual Embassy service does not
RESPONDENTS: Ramon Garcia, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust; automatically convert it to patrimonial property. A property
Raul Manglapus, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and Catalino Macaraig, as continues to be part of the public domain until there is a
Executive Secretary
formal declaration on the part of the government to
G.R. No. 92047 withdraw it from being such.
PETITIONER: Dionisio S. Ojeda o An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi
RESPONDENTS: Executive Secretary Macaraig Jr., Assets Privatization property for public service and to make it patrimonial
Trust Chairman Ramon T. Garcia, Ambassador Ramon Del Rosario, et. al., property under Art. 422 of the Civil Code must be definite.
as members of the Principal and Budding Committees on the Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone. A
Utilization/Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in
1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi propertys
TOPIC: Property Classification under the Civil Code By Ownership original purpose.
Private Property 2nd issue: The Roppongi property cannot by alienated
o As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside
CASE SUMMARY: The President wants to sell an unused property the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership
in Roppongi, Japan, acquired by the Philippine government under the is a special collective ownership for general use and
Reparations Agreement with Japan, intended for use by the enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective
government sector. Petitioners seek to enjoin respondents from needs, and resides in the social group.
proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the Roppongi property. o The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person,
but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public
The Court ruled that the Roppongi property is of public dominion and welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.
not a patrimonial property. As such, it is outside the commerce man 3rd issue: The Executive branch does not have authority to
and it cannot be alienated. The fact that the Roppongi site has not sell the Roppongi property
been used for a long time does not automatically convert it to o Section 63 (c) of RA No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian
patrimonial property. Reform Program or CARP Law) which provides as one of
the sources of funds for its implementation, the proceeds of
FACTS: the disposition of the properties of the Government in
The subject Roppongi property in this case is one of the 4 foreign countries, did not withdraw the Roppongi property
properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government from being classified as one of public dominion when it
under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan, as mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section 63 (c) refers
part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for WW II. to properties which are alienable and not to those reserved
The Roppongi property was acquired on June 27, 1958 for public use or service.
expressly indicated for use by the government sector. It became o RA No. 6657, therefore, does not authorize the Executive
the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred Department to sell the Roppongi property. It merely
to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976. The Roppongi property has enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment
remained undeveloped since that time. (as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created
Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch has under EO No. 299. Obviously, any property outside of the
been pushing its decision to sell the reparations properties commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds.
starting with the Roppongi lot.
This case is a consolidation of 2 petitions seeking to enjoin DISPOSITIVE:
respondents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions
3179 sqm land at 306 Roppongi, Tokyo, Japan. are GRANTED. A writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the
respondents from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi
ISSUES: property in Tokyo, Japan.
WON the Roppongi property is of public dominion or patrimonial
WON the Roppongi property and others of its kind can be
PROVISIONS:
alienated by the Philippine Government
NCC Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
WON the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the NCC Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
authority and jurisdiction to sell the Roppongi property (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports
and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of
similar character;
RULING:
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are
1st issue: The Roppongi property is of public dominion intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.
o The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public NCC Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated
service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding NCC Art. 422. 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.
contract of procurement.