Laurel v. Garcia
-
Upload
marrieldetorres -
Category
Documents
-
view
238 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Laurel v. Garcia
LAUREL V. GARCIA
JUSTICE GUTIERREZ, JR.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
TOPIC: Roppongi property in Japan
Consolidated case for the prohibition of the sale of the Roppongi property in Japan.
A Temporary Restraining Order was granted to stop the bidding of the aforementioned property.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year Schedule of the Reparations Agreement by the Philippines and Japan.
It was the site of the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy until it was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
On August 11, 1986, Pres. Corazon Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of the Philippine Government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through AO No. 3 followed by AO Nos. 3-A, B, C, D.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
The Roppongi lot was set for bidding twice with a minimum floor price of $225 million. The first bidding was a failure and the second one did not materialize and the third bidding was restrained by the Court.
Later on the rules on bidding were changed and the $225 million became merely the suggested floor price.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Roppongi property may be considered as part of the State’s patrimonial property, thus, may be alienated.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property cannot be alienated because it is categorized as a property of public dominion and under Article 422 such property retains its character until formally declared otherwise.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
It is true that the Chancery left the Roppongi property 13 years earlier but such does not mean that the land is already part of the State’s patrimonial property, an express declaration is needed.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
The order of President Corazon Aquino to study the lands in Japan cannot be considered as a declaration that such lands are transferred to the classification of patrimonial properties.
LAUREL V. GARCIA
Among all other contentions, it is also to be considered that these properties were given to us as somehow payments for the lost lives of those who fought in World War II. Such value cannot be compensated enough by any monetary value.