Laurel Vs Garcia

#15
Laurel v. Garcia
G.R. No. 92013 | July 25, 1990
DOCTRINE: As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It
cannot be alienated. It was classified under par. 2 of Art. 420 as property belonging to the State
and intended for some public service. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long
time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. A
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 to withdraw it from
being such. An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and
to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 must be definite.
FACTS:
These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives
and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the Ropponggi lot scheduled on
February 21, 1990. The subject property in the case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan
acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan
in 1956. The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese
government for national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people
for their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.
By virtue of R.A. No. 1789 (Reparations Law), the procurements are divided into those for
use by the government sector and those for private parties in projects as the then National
Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made available
by sale to Filipino citizens or to 100% Filipino-owned entities in national development projects.
The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government and listed under the heading
"Government Sector" in 1958. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the
latter was transferred to Nampeidai in 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs.
Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has
remained undeveloped since that time.
A proposal was presented to President Cory Aquino by former Philippine

Ambassador to Japan, Carlos Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease
agreement with a Japanese firm Kajima Corporation. At the end of the lease period, all the
leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Philippine government. No change of
ownership or title shall occur. The Philippine government retains the title all throughout the lease
period and thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably on this proposal which is
pending approval and ratification between the parties.
In 1987, President Aquino issued E.O No. 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to
avail of reparations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The 4
properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first "Whereas"
clause. Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been
pushing its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The property
has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price at $225 million.
In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property and the related lots
were acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for diplomatic and
consular use by the Philippine government. Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi
property is classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership under Article 420 of
the Civil Code. The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended
for public service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public
dominion, no ownership by anyone can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and
related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and consular quarters,
buildings and other improvements" and thus, they continue to be intended for a necessary service.
They are held by the State in anticipation of an opportune use. Hence, it cannot be appropriated,
is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor be
the subject matter of contracts. Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the
petitioner avers that the same remains property of public dominion so long as the government has
not used it for other purposes nor adopted any measure constituting a removal of its original
purpose or use. For respondents’ part, they contend that the subject property is governed by the
laws of Japan because that is where the property is located and even if for the sake of argument it
is governed by the Civil Code, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of public
dominion. It has become patrimonial property because it has not been used for public service or
for diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article 422, Civil Code) and
because the intention by the Executive Department and the Congress to convert it to private
use has been manifested by overt acts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Raponggi is a patrimonial property, thus, can be alienated.
HELD:
No. Article 420 of the Civil Code provides that:
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.
In the case at bar, the Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article
420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service. As
property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an
application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is
not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and
public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation. 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.
The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy
service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens
only if the property is withdrawn from public use. A 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 to withdraw it from being such. An abandonment of the intention to use
the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of
the Civil Code must be definite. Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially
if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a
lack of financial support to repair and improve the property. It must be a certain and positive act
based on correct legal premises. A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976
is not relinquishment of the Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the failure by the
government to repair the building in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier stated, there
simply was a shortage of government funds.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of

prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the
Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is
made PERMANENT.

Laurel Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laurel Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Laurel Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#15

A proposal was presented to President Cory Aquino by former Philippine

The following things are property of public dominion:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of

You might also like