Laurel v. Garcia G.R. No.

92013, July 25, 1990, 187 concession from the Government of the Philippine
SCRA 797 Islands. However, the land upon which the business was
conducted belonged to another person. On the land the
FACTS: In view of the Reparations Agreement between sawmill company erected a building which housed the
the Philippines and Japan, four properties located in machinery used by it. Some of the implements thus used
Japan were given to the Philippines. One of these were clearly personal property, the conflict concerning
properties is the Roppongi property. The said property machines which were placed and mounted on
was formerly the location of the Chancery of the foundations of cement. In the contract of lease between
Philippine Embassy until it was transferred to Nampeidai the sawmill company and the owner of the land there
on July 22, 1976. The Roppongi property has remained appeared the following provision: That on the expiration
abandoned from the time of the transfer due to lack of of the period agreed upon, all the improvements and
funds to develop the said property. Consequently, buildings introduced and erected by the party of the
Administrative orders were issued by the President second part shall pass to the exclusive ownership of the
authorizing the study of the condition of the properties of lessor without any obligation on its part to pay any
the Philippines in Japan. Subsequently, Executive Order amount for said improvements and buildings; which do
296 was issued by President Aquino allowing non- not include the machineries and accessories in the
Filipinos to buy or lease some of the properties of the improvements.
Philippines located in Japan, including Roppongi.
Petitioners now contend that the Roppongi property In another action wherein the Davao Light & Power Co.,
cannot be alienated as it is classified as public dominion Inc., was the plaintiff and the Davao, Saw, Mill Co., Inc.,
and not of private ownership because it is a property was the defendant, a judgment was rendered in favor of
intended for public service under paragraph 2, article the plaintiff in that action against the defendant; a writ of
420 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, respondents execution issued thereon, and the properties now in
aver that it has already become part of the patrimonial question were levied upon as personalty by the sheriff.
property of the State which can be alienated because it No third party claim was filed for such properties at the
has not been used for public service for over 13 years. time of the sales thereof as is borne out by the record
They further contend that EO 296 converted the subject made by the plaintiff herein
property to patrimonial property.
It must be noted also that on number of occasion, Davao
ISSUE: Whether or not the Roppongi property still forms Sawmill treated the machinery as personal property by
part of the public dominion hence cannot be disposed executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons.
nor alienated. One of such is the appellee by assignment from the
original mortgages.
HELD: Yes. The respondents failed to convincingly show
that the property has already become patrimonial. The The lower court rendered decision in favor of the
fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long defendants herein. Hence, this instant appeal.
time for actual Embassy service does not automatically
convert it to patrimonial property. Under Art. 422 of the Issue:
Civil Code, there must be a definite and a formal Whether or not the machineries and equipments were
declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it personal in nature.
from being public. Abandonment must be a certain and a
positive act based on correct legal premises. The mere
transfer of the embassy to Nampeidai is not a Ruling/Rationale:
relinquishment of the propertys original purpose. The Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
Administrative orders authorizing the study of the lower court.
conditions of government properties in Japan were
merely directives for investigation but did not in any way Machinery which is movable in its nature only becomes
signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties. immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the
Likewise, EO 296 did not declare that the properties lost property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, a
their public character; it merely made them available to usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary
foreigners in case of sale, lease or other disposition. right, unless such person acted as the agent of the
Thus, since there is no law authorizing its conveyance, owner.
the Roppongi property still remains part of the
inalienable properties of the State.
Francisco Chavez vs Public Estates Authority (July
Davao Sawmill v. Castillo 2002)
DAVAO SAW MILL vs. APRONIANO G. CASTILLO and
DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. G.R. No. L-40411
August 7, 1935 FACTS:
Facts:
Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc., is the holder of a lumber
The Public Estates Authority (PEA) is the central Held: No. Amari cannot claim good faith because even
implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation before Amari signed the Amended JVA on March 30,
projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling 1999, petitioner had already filed the instant case on
functions of the DENR (Department of Environmental April 27, 1998 questioning precisely the qualification of
and Natural Resources) insofar as reclaimed or about to Amari to acquire the Freedom Islands. Even before the
be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned. filing of this petition, two Senate Committees had already
approved on September 16, 1997 Senate Committee
PEA sought the transfer to the Amari Coastal Bay and Report No. 560 which concluded that the Freedom
Development Corporation, a private corporation, of the Islands are inalienable lands of the public domain. Thus,
ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands. Amari signed the Amended JVA knowing and assuming
PEA also sought to have 290.156 hectares of all the attendant risks, including the annulment of the
submerged areas of Manila Bay to Amari. Amended JVA. Amari has also not paid to PEA the full
reimbursement cost incurred by PEA in reclaiming the
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid. Freedom Islands. Moreover, Amari does not claim to
have even initiated the reclamation of the 592.15
HELD: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the hectares of submerged areas covered in the Amended
public domain to be transferred to Amari as private lands JVA, or to have started to construct any permanent
will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on infrastructure on the Freedom Islands. In short, Amari
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable does not claim to have introduced any physical
land of the public domain. improvement or development on the reclamation project
that is the subject of the Amended JVA.PEA cannot
claim that it is similarly situated as the Bases
The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of
Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) which under
reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
R.A. No. 7227 is tasked to sell portions of the Metro
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
Manila military camps and other military reservations is
alienable lands of the public domain. The 592.15
incorrect. PEA took the place of DENR as the
hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain
government agency charged with leasing or selling
inalienable natural resources of the public domain. The
reclaimed lands of the public domain. The reclaimed
transfer (as embodied in a joint venture agreement) to
lands being leased or sold by PEA are not private lands,
AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34
in the same manner that DENR, when it disposes of
hectares of the Freedom Islands, is void for being
other alienable lands, does not dispose of private lands
contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
but alienable lands of the public domain. Only when
which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any
qualified private parties acquire these lands will the
kind of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore,
lands become private lands. In the hands of the
since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to
government agency tasked and authorized to dispose of
Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged
alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, these
areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
lands are still public, not private lands. To allow vast
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be
which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other
transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross
than agricultural lands of the public domain.
violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public
Francisco I. Chavez vs. Public Estate Authority and domain. PEA will simply turn around and transfer several
Amari Coastal BayDevelopment Corporation G.R. hundreds of hectares of these reclaimed and still to be
No. 133250. May 6, 2003 reclaimed lands to a single private corporation in only
Carpio, J. one transaction. This scheme will effectively nullify the
constitutional ban in Section 3, Article XII of the1987
Doctrine: In the hands of the government agency tasked Constitution.
and authorized to dispose of alienable or disposable
lands of the public domain, these lands are still public,
not private lands.
Issue : Whether or not the July 9, 2002 ruling of the
Supreme Court should be reversed.