Cases Doctrines

Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Bercilles G.R. No.
L-40474 August 29,

1975
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."
So, pwede na ibaligya (appropriation..
Laurel vs. Garcia G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

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.
There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is
convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial.
This, the respondents have failed to do.
Binalay v. Manalo,
No, Manolo does not own Lot 821 by way of accretion to the submerged portion of the property to
which it is adjacent
Article 420 of the Civil Code states:
The following things are property of public dominion:
(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;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some
public service or for the development of the national wealth.
Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code requires the
concurrence of three (3) requisites: (a) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and
imperceptible; (b) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and (c) that the
land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers (or the sea coast).
Macasiano vs. Diokno G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992
Article 424 lays down the basic principle that properties of public domain
devoted to public use and made available to the public in general are outside
the commerce of man and cannot be disposed or leased by the local
government unit to private persons.
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334
Properties that are devoted for public use or owned by the province in its governmental capacity
need not be paid by the City of Zamboanga.
However, as to patrimonial properties, the City of Zamboanga shall pay just compensation to the
Province of Zamboanga. RA 3039 cannot be applied because it would deprive the province of
Zamboanga of its own patrimonial properties that are not devoted for public use.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS,

petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF
APPEALS, JOSEFINA L. MORATO, SPOUSES NENITA CO and ANTONIO
QUILATAN AND THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF QUEZON PROVINCE,
respondents.
Even if only part of the property has been

sold or alienated within the prohibited period of five years from the issuance
of the patent, such alienation
is a sufficient cause for the reversion of the whole estate to the State. As a
condition for the grant of a free
patent to an applicant, the law requires that the land should not be
encumbered, sold or alienated within
five years from the issuance of the patent. The sale or the alienation of part
of the homestead violates that
condition.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002
The constitution provides two official acts needed before a land of public domain be transferred
or be available for disposition:
1. A classification that these lands are alienable or disposable and open to disposition
2. A declaration that these lands are not needed for public service
The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain. The transfer (as embodied in a joint venture
agreement) to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the
Freedom Islands, is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.
Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to Amari ownership of
290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for
being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.

Cases Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Bercilles G.R. No.

L-40474 August 29,

So, pwede na ibaligya (appropriation..

Laurel vs. Garcia G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS,

Even if only part of the property has been

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

You might also like