Property digests

7/17/2019 Property digests

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-digests-568f7853b8447 1/30

1

13. US vs Carlos

September 1, 1911

FACTS:

Ignacio Carlos has been a consumer o electricit! urnishe" b! the #anila $lectric %ailroa" an"

&ight Compan! or a buil"ing containing theresi"ence o the accuse" an" 3 other resi"ences.

'elieving that more light is consume" than (hat is sho(n in the meter installe", the compan!

installe"an a""itional meter on the pole outsi"e Carlos)s house to compare the actual

consumption. The! oun" out that Carlos use" a *umper. Further, a *umper (as oun" in a "ra(er

o a small cabinet in the room o the "een"ant)s house (here the meter (as installe". In the

absence o an! e+planation or hispossession o sai" "evice, the presumption raise" (as that

Carlos (as the o(ner o the "evice (hose onl! use (as to "elect the lo( o electricit!,causing

loss to the #eralco o over --- ilo(atts o current. Accuse" o thet, Carlos)s "eense (as that

electricit! (as an unno(n orce, not a lui", an" being intangible, coul" not be the ob*ect othet.

ISSU$:

/hether the court erre" in "eclaring that electricit! can be the ob*ect o thet.

0$&:

/hile electric current is not a lui", still, its maniestations an" eects lie those o gas ma! be

seen an" elt. The true test o (hat ma! be stolenis not (hether it is corporeal or incorporeal, but

(hether, being possesse" o value, a person other than the o(ner ma! appropriate the same.

$lectricit!,lie gas, is a valuable merchan"ise an" ma! thus be stolen. 2See also U.S. v.

Tambunting, 1 4hil. 356.The court urther rule" that electricit!, the same as gas, is a valuable

article o merchan"ise, bought an" sol" lie other personal propert! an" is capableo

appropriation b! another. It is also susceptible o being severe" rom a mass or larger 7uantit!

an" o being transporte" rom place to place. 0ence, noerror (as committe" b! the trial court in

hol"ing that electricit! is a sub*ect o larcen!

1. &uis #arcos &aurel vs 0on. 8eus Abrogar

% o. 1;;-<5=anuar! 13, --9

FACTS

&aurel (as charge" (ith Thet un"er Art. 3-> o the %4C or allege"l! taing, stealing, an"

using 4&T?s international long "istance calls b! con"ucting International Simple %esale 2IS%6 @

a metho" o outing an" completing international longB"istance calls using lines, cables,

antennae, an"or air (ave re7uenc! (hich connect "irectl! to the local"omestic e+change

acilities o the countr! (here the call is "estine"D. 4&T allege" that this service (as stolen

rom them using their o(n e7uipment an" cause" "amage to them amounting to 4-,3<-,5;1.9.

4&T alleges that the international calls an" business o provi"ing telecommunication ortelephone service are personal properties capable o appropriation an" can be ob*ects o thet.

ISSU$

/E &aurel?s act constitutes Thet



3

/hat constitutes Thet is the use o the 4&T?s communications acilities (ithout 4&T?s

consent. The thet lies in the unla(ul taing o the telephone services businesses.

The Amen"e" Inormation shoul" be amen"e" to sho( that the propert! sub*ect o the thet (ere

services an" business o the oen"e" part!.

1;. #UICI4A&ITJ EF CAKIT$ K. %E=AS @ .%. E. 9-59

Facts:

The municipal council o Cavite b! %esolution o. 1-, lease" to %o*as some <- or >- s7uare

meters o 4laHa Sole"a", on con"ition that she pa! rent 7uarterl! in a"vance accor"ing to the

sche"ule i+e" in Er"inance o. 3, series o 19-3 an" that she obligate hersel to vacate sai"

lan" (ithin 5- "a!s subse7uent to notiication to that eect. Upon such notiication, ho(ever,

she reuse" to vacate the lan", orcing the municipalit! to ile a complaint beore the CFI to or"er

her to vacate the lan". Ater a hearing o the case, the CFI "ismisse" the complaint.

Issues:

216 Is the contract vali"L

26 I in the negative, (hat are the obligations o the partiesL

0el": 216 o. Article 1<1 o the El" Civil Co"e, prescribes that ever!thing (hich is not

outsi"e the commerce o man ma! be the ob*ect o a contract, an" plaHas an" streets are outsi"e

o this commerce. Communal things that cannot be sol" because the! are b! their ver! nature

outsi"e o commerce are those or public use, such as the plaHas, streets, common lan"s, rivers,

ountains, etc.

26 %o*as must restore an" "eliver possession o the lan" "escribe" in the complaint to the

municipalit! o Cavite, (hich in its turn must restore to her all the sums it ma! have receive"

rom her in the nature o rentals *ust as soon as she restores the lan" improperl! lease".

15. #aneclang v. Interme"iate Appellate Court

Facts:

A"riano #aneclang in this case ile" a complaint or

7uieting o titleover a certain ishpon" locate" (ithin the parcels o lan" belonging to them

situate" in 4angasinan but the trial court"ismisse" it b! sa!ing that the bo"! o (ater is a

cree constitutinga tributar! to Agno %iver

thereore public in nature an" notsub*ect to private appropriation.

o

The! appeale" it to the IAC (hich airme" theaorementione" "ecision. 0ence, this revie( on

certiorari.



0o(ever, ater having been ase" to comment to the case thereon,the! manieste" their lac o

interest an" the parties to the case 2thecomplainant an" the a(ar"ee in the public bi""ing #aHa6

"eci"e" toamicabl! settle the case sa!ing that *u"gment be ren"ere" an" that thecourt

recogniHe the o(nership o the petitioners over the lan"the bo"! o (ater oun" (ithin their

title" properties.

o

The! sa! that there (oul" be no beneit since the IA alrea"! constructe" a "ie an" no (ater

no( gets in an" out o thelan".

Issue:

/hether or not the ishpon" is public in nature.

%atio:

Jes.

A cree is "eine" as a recess or arm e+ten"ing rom a river an"participating in the ebb an" lo(

o the sea.

It is a propert! belonging to the public "omain an" isnot susceptible to private appropriation

an"ac7uisitive prescription.

The mere construction o the "ies b! IA nor its conversionto a ishpon" altere" or change" the

nature o the cree aspropert! o the public "omain.

The compromise agreement is null an" voi" an" o no legal eect because it is contrar! to la(

an" public polic!

1>. IACIE K. I%$CTE% EF &AS A KA&$%IAE

1-> SC%A 33;

FACTS

Faustino Ignacio ile" an application to register a parcel o lan" 2mangrove6 (hich he allege" he

ac7uire" b! right o accretion since it a"*oins a parcel o lan" o(ne" b! the Ignacio. 0is

application is oppose" b! the irector o &an"s, &aureano Kaleriano, conten"ing that sai" lan"



;

orms part o the public "omain. The Trial Court "ismisse" the application hol"ing that sai" lan"

orme" part o the public "omain. Thus the case at bar.

ISSU$:

/hether or not the lan" orms part o the public "omain

0$&: J$S

1. The la( on accretion cite" b! Ignacio in inapplicable in the present case because it reers to

accretion or "eposits on the bans o rivers (hile this reers to action in the #anila 'a!, (hich is

hel" to be part o the sea

. Although it is provi"e" or b! the &a( o /aters that lan"s a""e" to shores b! accretions

cause" b! actions o the sea orm part o the pubic "omain (hen the! are no longer necessar! or

purposes o public utilit!, onl! the e+ecutive an" the legislative "epartments have the authorit!

an" the po(er to mae the "eclaration that an! sai" lan" is no longer necessar! or public use.

Until such "eclaration is ma"e b! sai" "epartments, the lot in 7uestion orms part o the public

"omain, not available or private appropriation or o(nership.

19. #acasiano vs iono % 9<<5 2August 1-, 1996

4oste" on Ectober 19, -1

11 SC%A 5

.%. o. 9<<5

August 1-, 199

Facts:

%espon"ent #unicipalit! passe" Er"inance o. >5 (hich authoriHe" the closure o =.abriel,

.. CruH, 'a!anihan, &t. arcia $+tension an" Epena Streets an" the establishment o a lea

maret thereon. This (as passe" pursuant to ##C Er"inance o. an" (as approve" b! the

#etropolitan #anila Authorit! on =ul! -, 199-.

En August >, 199-, respon"ent municipalit! an" 4alan!ag entere" into a contract agreement

(hereb! the latter shall operate, maintain manage the lea marets an"or ven"ing areas in the

aorementione" streets (ith the obligation to remit "ues to the treasur! o the municipal

government o 4araMa7ue.

En September 13, 199- 'rig. en. #acasiano or"ere" the "estruction an" coniscation o stalls

along .. CruH abriel Street in 'aclaran. 0e also (rote a letter to 4alan!ag or"ering the"estruction o the lea maret.

0ence, respon"ent ile" a *oint petition pra!ing or preliminar! in*unction. The trial court uphel"

the assaile" Er"inance an" en*oine" petitioner rom enorcing his letterBor"er against 4alan!ag.

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/macasiano-vs-diokno/

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/macasiano-vs-diokno/



5

Issues:

/E an or"inanceresolution issue" b! the municipal council o 4araMa7ue authoriHing the lease

use o public streetsthoroughares as sites or the lea maret is vali".

0el":

o.

=. abriel, .. CruH, 'a!anihan, &t. arcia $+tension an" Epena Streets are local roa"s use"

or public service an" are thereore consi"ere" public properties o respon"ent municipalit!.

4roperties o the local government "evote" to public service are "eeme" public an" are un"er the

absolute control o Congress. 0ence, local governments have no authorit! to controlregulate the

use o public properties unless speciic authorit! is veste" upon them b! Congress.

Sec. 1-, Chapter II o the &C shoul" be rea" an" interprete" in accor"ance (ith basic principles

alrea"! establishe" b! la(.

The closure shoul" be or the sole purpose o (ith"ra(ing the roa" or other public propert! rom

public use (hen circumstances sho( that such propert! is no longer inten"e"necessar! or

public useservice. Ence (ith"ra(n, the propert! then becomes patrimonial propert! o the &U

concerne" an" onl! then can sai" &U use the propert! as an ob*ect o an or"inar! contract.

%oa"s an" streets available to the public an" or"inaril! use" or vehicular traic are still

consi"ere" public propert! "evote" to public use. The &U has no po(er to use it or another

purpose or to "ispose o or lease it to private persons.

Also, the "ispute" or"inance cannot be vali"l! implemente" because it can)t be consi"ere"

approve" b! the #etropolitan #anila Authorit! "ue to nonBcompliance (ith the con"itions it

impose" or the approval o sai" or"inance.

The po(ers o an &U are not absolute, but sub*ect to the limitations lai" "o(n b! the

Constitution an" la(s such as the Civil Co"e. $ver! &U has the s(orn obligation to enact

measures that (ill enhance the public health, saet! convenience, maintain peace or"er an"

promiote the general prosperit! o the inhanbitants p the local units.

As in the acana! case, the general public have the right to "eman" the "emolition o the

illegall! constructe" stalls in public roa"s streets. The oicials o the respon"ent municipalit!

have the correspon"ing "ut! arising rom public oice to clear the cit! streets an" restore themto their speciic public purpose.

The or"inance is voi" an" illegal or lac o basis in authorit! in la(s applicable "uring its time.

-. C$'U ENJ$ A AC$TJ&$$ CE. K. '$%CI&&$S55 SC%A 31

In 195>, a terminal portion o a street in Cebu (as e+clu"e" in the cit!)s "evelopment plan hence

the council "eclare" it as aban"one" an" (as subse7uentl! opene" or public bi""ing. Cebu

E+!gen Acet!lene Co., Inc. (as the highest bi""er at 41-,>--.--. Cebu E+!gen applie" orthe lan")s registration beore CFI Cebu but the provincial iscal oppose" it, so "i" the court later

through =u"ge 4ascual 'ercilles, as it (as rule" that the roa" is part o the public "omain hence

be!on" the commerce o man.

ISSU$: /hether or not Cebu E+!gen can vali"l! o(n sai" lan".



>

SC.Amongst the arguments o the respon"ents is that the sub*ect propert! is not governe" b!

ourCivil Co"e, but rather b! the la(s o =apan (here the propert! is locate". The! relie" upon

therule o

le+ situs

(hich is use" in "etermining the applicable la( regar"ing the ac7uisition,transer an" "evolution

o the title to a propert!.

Issues: Can the %oppongi propert! an" others o its in" be alienate" b! the 4hilippine

overnmentL

oes the Chie $+ecutive, her oicers an" agents, have the authorit! an" *uris"iction, to sell the

%oppongi propert!L

0el": o. The %oppongi propert! (as ac7uire" together (ith the other properties through

reparation agreements. The! (ere assigne" to the government sector an" that the %oppongi

propert! (as speciicall! "esignate" un"er the agreement to house the 4hilippine embass!. It is

o public "ominion unless it is convincingl! sho(n that the propert! has become patrimonial.

The respon"ents have aile" to "o so.

As propert! o public "ominion, the %oppongi lot is outsi"e the commerce o man. It cannot be

alienate". Its o(nership is a special collective o(nership or general use an" pa!ment, in

application to the satisaction o collective nee"s, an" resi"es in the social group. The purpose is

not to serve the State as the *uri"ical person but the citiHens it is inten"e" or the common an"

public (elare an" cannot be the ob*ect o appropriation.

The act that the %oppongi site has not been use" or a long time or actual $mbass! service

"oesn)t automaticall! convert it to patrimonial propert!. An! such conversion happens onl! i the

propert! is (ith"ra(n rom public use. A propert! continues to be part o the public "omain, not

available or private appropriation or o(nership until there is a ormal "eclaration on the part o

the government to (ith"ra( it rom being such.

. #IAA v. Court o Appeals

Facts:

The #anila International Airport Authorit! 2#IAA6 operates the ino! A7uinoInternational

Airport 2AIA6 Comple+ in 4araMa7ue Cit! un"er $+ecutive Er"er o. 9-3

2#IAACharter6, as amen"e". As such operator, it a"ministers the lan", improvements an"e7uip

ment (ithin the AIA Comple+. In #arch 199<, the Eice o the overnment

CorporateCounsel 2ECC6 issue" Epinion o. -51 to the eect that the &ocal overnment

Co"e o 1991 2&C6 (ith"re( the e+emption rom real estate ta+ grante" to #IAA un"er

Section 1o its Charter. Thus, #IAA pai" some o the real estate ta+ alrea"! "ue. In =une --1,

it receive"Final otices o %eal $state Ta+ elin7uenc! rom the Cit! o 4araMa7ue or theta+able!ears 199 to --1. The Cit! Treasurer subse7uentl! issue" notices o lev! an" (arrants

o lev! on the airport lan"s an" buil"ings.At the instance o #IAA, the ECC issue" Epinion

o. 1< clari!ing Epinion o. -51,pointing out that Sec. -5 o the &C re7uires persons

e+empt rom real estate ta+ to sho(proo o e+emption. Accor"ing to the ECC, Sec. 1 o the

#IAA Charter is the proo that#IAA is e+empt rom real estate ta+. #IAA, thus, ile" a petition

(ith the Court o Appealsseeing to restrain the Cit! o 4araMa7ue rom imposing real estate ta+



9

on, lev!ing against,an" auctioning or public sale the airport lan"s an" buil"ings, but this (as

"ismisse" orhaving been ile" out o time.0ence, #IAA ile" this petition or revie(, pointing

out that it is e+empt rom realestate ta+ un"er Sec. 1 o its charter an" Sec. 3 o the &C. It

invoes the principle thatthe government cannot ta+ itsel as a *ustiication or e+emption, since

the airport lan"s an"buil"ings, being "evote" to public use an" public service, are o(ne" b! the

%epublic o the4hilippines. En the other han", the Cit! o 4araMa7ue invoes Sec. 193 o the

&C, (hiche+pressl! (ith"re( the ta+ e+emption privileges o governmentB

o(ne" an" controlle"corporations 2ECC6 upon the eectivit! o the &C.It asserts that an

international airport is not among the e+ceptions mentione" in thesai" la(. #ean(hile, the Cit!

o 4araMa7ue poste" an" publishe" notices announcing thepublic auction sale o the airport lan"s

an" buil"ings. In the aternoon beore the sche"ule"public auction, #IAA applie" (ith the Court

or the issuance o a T%E to restrain the auctionsale. The Court issue" a T%E on the "a! o the

auction sale, ho(ever, the same (asreceive" onl! b! the Cit! o 4araMa7ue three hours ater the

sale.

Issue:

/hether or not the airport lan"s an" buil"ings o #IAA are e+empt rom real estateta+L

0el":

The airport lan"s an" buil"ings o #IAA are e+empt rom real estate ta+ impose" b!local

governments. Sec. 32a6 o the &C e+empts rom real estate ta+ an! real propert!o(ne" b!

the %epublic o the 4hilippines. This e+emption shoul" be rea" in relation

(ith Sec.1332o6 o the &C, (hich provi"es that the e+ercise o the ta+ing po(ers o localgover

nments shall not e+ten" to the lev! o ta+es, ees or charges o an! in" on theationalovernment, its agencies an" instrumentalities.

3. 40I&I44I$ 4E%TS AUT0E%ITJ v. CITJ EF I&EI&E .%. o. 1-9<91, 1 =ul! --3,

First ivision 2AHcuna, =.6

The e+emption o public propert! rom ta+ation "oes not e+ten" to improvements ma"e thereon

b! homestea"ers or occupants at their o(n e+pense, it also hel" the ta+abilit! o the (arehouse

in this case, it being a mere improvement built on an allege" propert! o public "ominion.

4etitioner 4hilippine 4orts Authorit! 244A6 is asing the court on 4etition or %evie( onCertiorari to set asi"e the ruling or"ering it to pa! real propert! an" business ta+es to respon"ent

Cit! o Iloilo. The Cit! o Iloilo ile" an action or recover! o sum o mone! against 44A,

seeing to collect real propert! ta+es as (ell as business ta+es, compute" rom the last 7uarter o

19> to the ourth 7uarter o 19>>. It (as allege" that the 44A is engage" in the business o

arrastre services, steve"oring services, leasing o real estate, an" a registere" o(ner o a

(harehouse (hich is use" in the operation o its business. From these, 44A (as allege" to be

obligate" to pa! business ta+es an" real propert! ta+es. The %egional Trial Court 2%TC6 o Iloilo

hel" 44A liable or the pa!ment o real propert! ta+es an" or business ta+es. 0o(ever, it hel"

that the Cit! o Iloilo ma! not collect business ta+es on 44A)s arrastre an" steve"oring services,

as these orm part o 44A)s governmental unctions.

The ollo(ing issues (ere raise" on appeal: /hether or not the %TC erre" in "ecreeing a

propert! o public "ominion 2port acilit!6 as sub*ect to realt! ta+es *ust because the mentione"

propert! is being a"ministere" b! (hat it perceives to be a ta+able government corporation.

/hether or not the petitioner is sub*ect to business ta+es or leasing to private entities real estate

(ithout consi"ering that the petitioner is not engage" in business. The Cit! countere" b! stating



1-

in its Comment that 44A change" its theor! o the case on appeal citing that the allegation

regar"ing the sub*ect propert! as public "ominion (hich (as never raise" "uring trial nor in its

memoran"um ile" (ith the lo(er court.

ISSU$S: 1. /hether or not a part! can change its theor! o the case on appeal.

. /hether or not improvements intro"uce" b! 44A on public properties are e+empte" rom ta+.

0$&: As a rule, a part! (ho "eliberatel! a"opts a certain theor! upon (hich the case is trie"

an" "eci"e" b! the lo(er court (ill not be permitte" to change theor! on appeal. 4oints o la(,

theories, issues an" arguments not brought to the attention o the lo(er court nee" not be, an"

or"inaril! (ill not be, consi"ere" b! a revie(ing court, as these cannot be raise" or the irst time

at such late stage. 0o(ever, there is an e+ception to the rule as enunciate" in &ianga &umber Co.

vs. &ianga Timber Co. Inc., <5 SC%A 19<, (here the court sai" In the interest o *ustice an"

(ithin the soun" "iscretion o the appellate court, a part! ma! change theor! on appeal onl!

(hen the actual bases thereo (oul" not re7uire presentation o an! urther evi"ence b! thea"verse part! in or"er to enable it to properl! meet the issue raise" in the ne( theor!.D 'ut this

e+ception is not applicable in this case. It must be emphasiHe" that the enumeration o properties

o public "ominion un"er Article - o the e( Civil Co"e speciicall! states portsD

constructe" b! the State. Thus, in or"er to consi"er the port in this case as alling un"er the sai"

classiication, the act that the port (as constructe" b! the State must irst be establishe" b!

suicient evi"ence. 0ere, there (as no proo a""uce" to establish that the port (as constructe"

b! the State, hence, the court cannot *ust automaticall! conclu"e that the propert! is o public

"ominion. It is also note" that the 44A aile" to raise the issue o o(nership "uring the preBtrial.

The pretrial is primaril! inten"e" to mae certain that all issues necessar! to the "isposition o

the case are properl! raise". Conse7uentl!, the "etermination o issues at a preBtrial conerence bars the consi"eration o other 7uestions on appeal. In the case at bar, the act that the issue o

o(nership is outsi"e o (hat has been "elimite" "uring the preBtrial urther *ustiies the

"isallo(ance o 44A)s ne( theor!. 0ence, 44A ma! not be permitte" to change its theor! on

appeal. ranting that the petitioner)s present theor! is allo(e", the court still oun" its

contentions untenable. It must be stresse" that (hat is being ta+e" in the present case is 44A)s

(arehouse, (hich, although locate" (ithin the port is "istinct rom the port itsel. Consi"ering

the (arehouse)s separable nature as an improvement upon the port, an" the act that it is not open

or use b! ever!one an" reel! accessible to the public, it is not part o the port as state" in

Article - o the Civil Co"e. In the same (a! that it (as rule" that the e+emption o public

propert! rom ta+ation "oes not e+ten" to improvements ma"e thereon b! homestea"ers or

occupants at their o(n e+pense. Also, it (as hel" that the ta+abilit! o the (arehouse in this case,

it being a mere improvement built on an allege" propert! o public "ominion. As regar"s the

secon" issue raise" b! 44A regar"ing the lease o its propert! to private persons, the Court rule"

that its o(n a"mission that it leases out to private persons or convenience an" not necessaril! as

part o its governmental unction o a"ministering port operations is an a"mission that the act

(as a corporate po(er, (hich, is actuall! e+pressl! state" as so in its charter. An! income or

proit generate" b! an entit!, even o a corporation organiHe" (ithout an! intention o realiHing

proit in the con"uct o its activities, is sub*ect to ta+ 2CI% vs. CA, 39 SC%A 3<6. /hat

matters is the establishe" act that it lease" out it)s buil"ing to private entities rom (hich itregularl! earne" substantial income. Thus, in the absence o an! proo o e+emption thererom,

44A is "eclare" liable or the assesse" business ta+es. The petition is "enie".



11

. 40I&I44I$ FIS0$%I$S $K$&E4#$T AUT0E%ITJ vs. C$T%A& 'EA% EF

ASS$SS#$T A44$A&SB %eal 4ropert! Ta+

FACTS:

4etitioner o(ne" the Iloilo Fishing 4ort Comple+ (hich (as on reclaime" lan" an" consiste" o

a brea(ater, lan"ing 7ua!, (ater an" uel oil suppl! s!stem, rerigeration buil"ing, maret hall

an" a municipal she". 4etitioner then lease" portions o the IF4C to private irms engage" in the

ishing business. Iloilo cit! then assesse" the entire IF4C or %eal 4ropert! Ta+.

ISSU$:

Is the entiret! o the IF4C sub*ect to the %eal 4ropert! Ta+L

0$&:

E. The %eal 4ropert! Ta+ liabilit! o the IF4C is onl! on portions lease" out to private entities.

4FA is not a ECC but is actuall! an instrumentalit! o the national government e+empt rom

%eal 4ropert! Ta+. iven this, it (ill onl! be sub*ect to %eal 4ropert! Ta+ on the portions o the

IF4C (hich is lease" to private entities. It is not a ECC since a ECC must satis! t(o

re7uirements: 2i6 capital stoc "ivi"e" into shares an" 2ii6 authoriHe" to "istribute

"ivi"en"sproits. 4FA "oes have capital stoc but the same is not "ivi"e" into shares an"

neither is it a nonBstoc corporation because it "oes not have members.

2ote: This (as the same "ecision reache" in #IAA vs. 4arana7ue 2=ul! -, --56 an" again in

#IAA vs. 4asa! 2April , --96 (here the propert! in 7uestion (as the airport premises. In

those cases, the Court a""itionall! provi"e" that other e+amples o government instrumentalities

veste" (ith corporate po(ers or (hat are no( as government corporate entitiesD are 4hilippine

4orts Authorit!, 'S4 an" Universit! o the 4hilippines.6

;.

C&ASS$S EF CE%4E%ATIES%$4U'&IC EF T0$ 40I&I44I$S v. CITJ EF

4A%AARU$

.%. o. 1911-9 =ul! 1>, -1

#$E8A,

=

This is a petition or revie( on certiorari assailing the Er"er



1

o the %egional Trial Court, 'ranch 19;,4arana7ue Cit! 2%TC6, (hich rule" that petitioner

4hilippine %eclamation Authorit! 24%A6 is a governmentBo(ne" an" controlle" corporation

2ECC6, a ta+able entit!, an", thereore, not e+empt rom pa!mento real propert! ta+es.

The 4ublic $states Authorit! 24$A6 is a government corporation create" b! virtue o 4.. o.

1-> toprovi"e a coor"inate", economical an" eicient reclamation o lan"s, an" the

a"ministration an"operation o lan"s belonging to, manage" an"or operate" b!, the government

(ith the ob*ect oma+imiHing their utiliHation an" hastening their "evelopment consistent (ith

public interest.

'! virtue o its man"ate, 4%A reclaime" several portions o the oreshore an" oshore areas o

#anila 'a!,inclu"ing those locate" in 4araMa7ue Cit!. 4araMa7ue Cit! Treasurer

issue" /arrants o &ev! on 4%A)s

reclaime" properties base" on the assessment or "elin7uent real propert! or ta+ !ears --1 an"

--. 4%A asserte" that:

It is not a ECC un"er the A"ministrative Co"e, nor is it a ECC un"er Section 15, Article NII

o the 19><Constitution because it is not re7uire" to meet the test o economic viabilit!.

It is a government instrumentalit! veste" (ith corporate po(ers an" perorming an essential

publicservice. Although it has a capital stoc "ivi"e" into shares, it ma! not be classiie" as a

stoc corporationbecause it lacs the secon" re7uisite o a stoc corporation: to "istribute

"ivi"en"s an" allotment osurplus an" proits to its stochol"ers.

It ma! not be classiie" as a nonBstoc corporation because it has no members an" it is not

organiHe" orcharitable, religious, e"ucational, proessional, cultural, recreational, raternal,

literar!, scientiic, social,civil service, or similar purposes, lie tra"e, in"ustr!, agriculture an"

lie chambers as provi"e" in Section>> o the Corporation Co"e.

It (as not create" to compete in the maret place as there (as no competing reclamation

compan!operate" b! the private sector. Also, (hile 4%A is veste" (ith corporate po(ers un"er



13

4.. o. 1->, suchcircumstance "oes not mae it a corporation but merel! an incorporate"

instrumentalit! an" that themere act that an incorporate" instrumentalit! o the ational

overnment hol"s title to real propert!"oes not mae sai" instrumentalit! a ECC.Cit!

o 4araMa7ue 2respon"ent6 argue" that:

4%A since its creation consistentl! represente" itsel to be a ECC. 4%A)s ver! o(n charter

24.. o. 1->6

"eclare" it to be a ECC an" that it has entere" into several thousan"s o contracts (here

itrepresente" itsel to be a ECC. In act, 4%A a"mitte" in its original an" amen"e" petitions

an" preBtrialbrie ile" (ith the %TC o 4araMa7ue Cit! that it (as a ECC.

It argues that 4%A is a stoc corporation (ith an authoriHe" capital stoc "ivi"e" into 3 million

no parvalue shares, out o (hich million shares have been subscribe" an" ull! pai" up. Section

193 o the &Co 1991 has (ith"ra(n ta+ e+emption privileges grante" to or presentl! en*o!e"

b! all persons, (hethernatural or *uri"ical, inclu"ing ECCs.

ISSU$:

/hether or not petitioner is an incorporate" instrumentalit! o the national government an" is,thereore, e+emptrom pa!ment o real propert! ta+ un"er sections 32a6 an" 1332o6 o

%epublic Act <15- or the &ocalovernment Co"e visBBvis #anila International Airport

Authorit! v. Court o Appeals.

0$&:

Jes it is a overnment Instrumentalit!. 0o(ever, it is not a ECC. /hen the la( vests in a

governmentinstrumentalit! corporate po(ers, the instrumentalit! "oes not necessaril! become a

corporation. Unless thegovernment instrumentalit! is organiHe" as a stoc or nonBstoc

corporation, it remains a government instrumentalit! e+ercising not onl! governmental but also

corporate po(ers.

5. .%. o. 1933

April 15, -1

=$A TA, %ES$&&$% C. AACITE, CA%&E &EI&E $S4I$A an"AISJ A&IAE

#AAEIS, represente" in this act b! their Attorne!BinBFact,

#A. /I&0$&#IA $. TE'IAS 4etitioners



1

B versus

@

%$4U'&IC EF T0$ 40I&I44I$S

%espon"ent.

Facts:

En =une 1, --1, the petitioners ile" (ith the %egional Trial Court 2%TC6 o aic,

Cavite

, an application orlan" registration covering a parcel o lan" i"entiie" as &ot 99<, Ca"B;9B

o In"ang Ca"astre, situate"in

'aranga!

'anco", In"ang,

Cavite

an" (ith an area o 5,9- s7uare meters.

3V

The petitioners allege" that the!ac7uire" the sub*ect propert! rom regonio at"ula pursuant

to a ee" o Absolute Sale "ate" April ;, 1995 an" the!an" their pre"ecessorsBinBinterest have

been in open, continuous an" e+clusive possession o the sub*ect propert! in theconcept o an

o(ner or more than 3- !ears. %TC issue" a "ecision granting petitioners application. CA rule"

that thepetitioners aile" to prove that the! an" their pre"ecessorsBinBinterest have been in

possession o the sub*ect propert! orthe re7uisite perio" o 3- !ears.Issue:/hether the

petitioners have proven themselves 7ualiie" to the beneits un"er the relevant la(s

on theconirmation o imperect or incomplete titles.

4ropert! ac7uisition b! prescription conirmation o incomplete or imperect titles

re7uirements

. 0el": There must be an e+press "eclaration b! the Statethat the public "ominion propert! is no

longer inten"e" or public service or the "evelopment o the national (ealth or that the propert!

has beenconverte" into patrimonial. /ithout such e+press "eclaration, the propert!, even i

classiie" as alienable or "isposable, remains propert! o thepublic "ominion, pursuant to Article

-26, an" thus incapable o ac7uisition b! prescription. It is onl! (hen such alienable

an" "isposable lan"sare e+pressl! "eclare" b! the State to be no longer inten"e" or publicservice or or the "evelopment o the national (ealth that the perio" oac7uisitive prescription

can begin to run. Such "eclaration shall be in the orm o a la( "ul! enacte" b! Congress or a

4resi"ential 4roclamation incases (here the 4resi"ent is "ul! authoriHe" b! la(.For one to

invoe the provisions o Section 126 an" set up ac7uisitive prescription against the State, it

is primor"ial that the status o the propert!as patrimonial be irst establishe". Furthermore, the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/193443.htm#_ftn3








1;

perio" o possession prece"ing the classiication o the propert! as patrimonial cannot

beconsi"ere" in "etermining the completion o the prescriptive perio".A"verse, continuous,

open, public possession in the concept o an o(ner is a conclusion o la( an" the bur"en to

prove it b! clear, positive an"convincing evi"ence is on the applicant. A claim o o(nership (ill

not proper on the basis o ta+ "eclarations i unaccompanie" b! proo o actualpossession.The

counting o the thirt! 23-6B!ear prescriptive perio" or purposes o ac7uiring o(nership o a

public lan" un"er Section 126 can onl! start romthe issuance o A%CE Conversion Er"er.

'eore the propert! (as "eclare" patrimonial b! virtue o such conversion or"er, it cannot be

ac7uire"b! prescription.

=ean Tan, et al. vs. %epublic o the 4hilippines

.%. o. 1933, April 15, -1

. /ill, e+trinsic vali"it!. The state o being orgetul "oes not necessaril! mae a person mentall!

unsoun" so as to ren"er him unit to e+ecute a /ill.

Forgetulness is not e7uivalent to being o unsoun" min". 'esi"es, Article <99 o the e( Civil

Co"e states: To be o soun"

min", it is notnecessar! that the testator be in ull possession o all his reasoning aculties, or that

his min" be (holl! unbroen, unimpaire", or unshattere" b!

"isease, in*ur! or other causeD. It shall be suicient i the testator (as able at the time o

maing the (ill to no( the nature o the estate to be"ispose" o, the proper ob*ects o

his bount!, an" the character o the testamentar! act. 'are allegations o "uress or inluence o

ear or threats,un"ue an" improper inluence an" pressure, rau" an" tricer! cannot be use" as

basis to "en! the probate o a (ill.

'altaHar, et. al. vs. &a+a

<. I$A&S vs 4SA&#S

% 19->>, 9 Ect -14etitioners: I$A&S et al%espon"ents: 4SA&# et al

FACTS:

4SA&# is a ECC create" b! virtue o the $4I%A la(. Sai" la( man"ate" 4SA&# to manage

privatiHationo 4C. /hen 4SA&# commence" the privatiHation an invitation to bi" (as

publishe" an" the highestbi""er OB/ater (as i"entiie". The sale to OB/ater (as sought to be

en*oine" b! petitioners (hoconten" that 4SA&# gravel! abuse" its "iscretion (hen, in the

con"uct o the bi""ing it violate" the

people)s ri

ght to inormation (ithout having previousl! release" to the public critical inormation aboutthe

sale.

ISSU$S:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/193443.htm








15

1.

Can the bi" "ocuments, etc. use" in the onBgoing negotiation or the privatiHation an" sale

oAngat h!"ro plant be accesse" via the right to inormationL.

Is the "ut! to "isclose inormation the same (ith the "ut! to permit access to inormation

onmatters o public concernL

0$&:

1.

Jes. The court reiterate" that the constitutional right to inormation inclu"es oicial

inormationon onBgoing negotiations beore a inal contract. The inormation, ho(ever, must

constitute"einite propositions b! the government an" shoul" not cover recogniHe" e+ceptions

lieprivilege" inormation, militar! an" "iplomatic secrets an" similar matters aecting

nationalsecurit! an" public or"er..

o. Unlie the "isclosure o inormation (hich is man"ator! un"er the Constitution, the other

aspect o the people)s

right to no( re7uires a "eman" or re7uest or one to gain access to"ocuments an" paper o the

particular agenc!. #oreover, the "ut! to "isclose covers onl!transactions involving public

interest, (hile the "ut! to allo( access has a broa"er scope oinormation (hich embraces not

onl! transactions involving public interest, but an! mattercontaine" in oicial communications

an" public "ocuments o the government agenc!.

>. /EE%I$ SC0EE&, IC. an" #IU$&A =I#$$8B=AKI$%, vs.

A%'CEST%UCTIE CE., IC., .%. o. 1;<>;, Februar! 15, --<

FACTS EF T0$ CAS$

:/oo"ri"ge is the usuructuar! o a parcel o lan" covere" b! Transer Certiicate o Title2TCT6

o. TB3539- in the name o spouses $rnesto T. #atugas an" Filomena U. #atugas. ItscoB

petitioner, #iguela =imeneH@=avier, is the registere" o(ner o the a"*acent lot un"er TCT o.TB

33-5>>. En the other han", A%' is the o(ner an" "eveloper o Sol"iers 0ills Sub"ivision

in'acoor, Cavite, (hich is compose" o our phases. 4hase I o the sub"ivision (as

alrea"!accessible rom the #arcos AlvareH Avenue. To provi"e the same accessibilit! to the

resi"ents o 4hase II o the sub"ivision, A%' constructe" the "ispute" roa" to lin thet(o phases.As oun" b! the appellate court, petitioners) properties sit right in the mi""le o

severalestates: 4hase I o Sol"iers 0ills Sub"ivision in the north, a cree in the east an" reen

Kalle!Sub"ivision the arther east, a roa" (ithin Sol"iers 0ills Sub"ivision IK (hich lea"s to

the#arcos AlvareH Avenue in the (est an" 4hase III o Sol"iers 0ills Sub"ivision in the

south.Initiall!, petitioners oere" to pa! A%' 4;-,--- as in"emnit! or the use o the roa".

A"amant,A%' reuse" the oer an" ence" the perimeter o the roa" ronting the properties o



1<

petitioners.'! "oing so, A%' eectivel! cut o petitioners) access to an" rom the public

high(a!.4etitioners argue that the conteste" roa" lot is a propert! o public "ominion pursuant

toArticle - o the Civil Co"e. Speciicall!, petitioners point out that the "ispute" roa"

lot allsun"er the categor! others o similar characterD (hich is the last clause o Article -

216.0ence, it is a propert! o public "ominion (hich can be use" b! the general public (ithout

nee"or compensation. Conse7uentl!, it is (rong or A%' to e+clu"e petitioners rom using the

roa"lot or to mae them pa! or the use o the same.4etitioners also assert that their initial oer

o 4;-,--- shoul" be suicient compensationor the right o (a!. Further, the! shoul" not be

hel" accountable or the increase in the value o the propert! since the "ela! (as attributable

to the stubborn reusal o A%' to accept their oer.

ISSU$:

/hether the oer o 4;-,--- is a suicient compensation or the right o (a!

%U&I EF T0$ CEU%T:

9. The 4ublic $states Authorit! 24$A6 is the central implementing agenc! tase" to un"ertae

reclamation pro*ects nation(i"e. It too over the leasing an" selling unctions o the $%

2epartment o $nvironmental an" atural %esources6 insoar as reclaime" or about to be

reclaime" oreshore lan"s are concerne".

4$A sought the transer to the Amari Coastal 'a! an" evelopment Corporation, a private

corporation, o the o(nership o <<.3 hectares o the Free"om Islan"s. 4$A also sought to have

9-.1;5 hectares o submerge" areas o #anila 'a! to Amari.

ISSU$: /hether or not the transer is vali".

0$&: o. To allo( vast areas o reclaime" lan"s o the public "omain to be transerre" to

Amari as private lan"s (ill sanction a gross violation o the constitutional ban on private

corporations rom ac7uiring an! in" o alienable lan" o the public "omain.



1>

The Supreme Court airme" that the 1;<.> hectares o reclaime" lan"s comprising the Free"om

Islan"s, no( covere" b! certiicates o title in the name o 4$A, are alienable lan"s o the public

"omain. The ;9.1; hectares o submerge" areas o #anila 'a! remain inalienable natural

resources o the public "omain. The transer 2as embo"ie" in a *oint venture agreement6 to

A#A%I, a private corporation, o(nership o <<.3 hectares o the Free"om Islan"s, is voi" or

being contrar! to Section 3, Article NII o the 19>< Constitution (hich prohibits private

corporations rom ac7uiring an! in" o alienable lan" o the public "omain. Furthermore, since

the Amen"e" =KA also sees to transer to Amari o(nership o 9-.1;5 hectares o still

submerge" areas o #anila 'a!, such transer is voi" or being contrar! to Section , Article NII

o the 19>< Constitution (hich prohibits the alienation o natural resources other than

agricultural lan"s o the public "omain.

3-. Facts

In his capacit! as ta+pa!er, Francisco ChaveH petitione" the Court "irectl! or, among other

things, access to all "ocuments an" inormation relating to the Smoe! #ountain evelopment

an" %eclamation 4ro*ect 2the 4ro*ectD6, inclu"ing its un"erl!ing =oint Kenture Agreement 2=KA6

bet(een the ational 0ousing Authorit! 20A6, a government bo"!, an" %BII 'uil"ers, Inc.

2%'I6 2 pg. 1B36.

/ith Congress having approve" the 4ro*ect as a boost to inrastructure through its "evelopment

o lo(Bcost housing pro*ects, a private sector *oint venture scheme (as pursue" in accor"ance

(ith the 'uil"BEperateBan"BTranser &a( (hereb! the contractor un"ertaes the construction . .

. orV the government agenc! or local government unit concerne" (hich shall pa! the contractorits total investment e+pen"e" on the pro*ect, plus reasonable rate o returnD 2pg. ;B1-6. Ater

multiple "esign changes, cost overruns, an" correspon"ing amen"ments to the =KA, the 4ro*ect

(as ultimatel! suspen"e", an" %'I ma"e "eman"s or pa!ment. A e( !ears later, the 0ousing

an" Urban evelopment Coor"inating Council initiate" a bi""ing process or the (or

remaining on the 4ro*ect, an" the 0A reache" a settlement (ith %'I to terminate the original

=KA 2pg.39B<6. %aising constitutional issues an" asserting his right to all inormation relate" to

the 4ro*ect, #r. ChaveH ile" a petition "irectl! (ith the Court.

ecision

eci"ing on the issue o (hether the 0A must be compelle" to "isclose all inormation relate"

to the 4ro*ect, the Court rule" that relie must be grante" because the right o the people to

inormation on matters o public concern is enshrine" in the 19>< Constitution 2pg. >56.

Speciicall!, Article II, Section > an" Article III, Section < o the Constitution, taen together as

t(in provisions,D a"opt a polic! o ull public "isclosure on all transactions involving public

interest an" acno(le"ge the people)s right to inormation. Case la( urther eluci"ates these

constitutional tenets b! stating that an essential element o these ree"oms is to eep open a

continuing "ialogue or process o communication bet(een the government an" the people . . .

These t(in provisions o the Constitution see to promote transparenc! in polic!Bmaing an" in

the operations o the government, as (ell as provi"e the people suicient inormation to e+ercise

eectivel! other constitutional rightsD 2pg. >5B><6. In "eining the limits o these ree"oms, the

Court note" that such inormation re7uests must pertain to "einite propositions o the

government an" that inormation might be shiel"e" b! applicable privileges 2e.g. militar! secrets

an" inormation relating to national securit!6 2pg. >>B9-6. Finall!, the Court recogniHe" that

because no enabling la( e+ists provi"ing government agencies (ith the proce"ural mechanics to

"isclose such inormation, the 0A cannot be aulte" or an inabilit! to "isclose. evertheless,



19

(here a "ut! to "isclose "oes not e+ist, there still ma! e+ist a "ut! to permit access, an" so the

Court or"ere" the 0A to permit access to all inormation relate" to the 4ro*ect 2pg. >9B9-6.

31. %$4U'&IC EF T0$ 40I&I44I$S,4etitioner,v. $##AU$& C. CE%T$8,%espon"ent.

%$J$S, =.:

FACTS:

%espon"ent $mmanuel C. CorteH 2CorteH6 ile" (ith the %TC an applicationor *u"icial

conirmation o title over a parcel o lan" locate" at 'aranga! 24oblacion6 Aguho, 4. 0errera

Street, 4ateros, #etro #anila. In support o his application, CorteH submitte", inter alia, the

ollo(ing "ocuments: 216 ta+ "eclarations or various !ears rom 1955 until --; 26 surve!

plan o the propert!, (ith the annotation that the propert! is classiie" as alienable an"

"isposable 236 technical "escription o the propert!, (ith a certiication issue" b! a geo"eticengineer 26 ta+ clearance certiicate 2;6 e+tra*u"icial settlement o estate conve!ing the sub*ect

propert! to CorteH an" 256 escritura "e particion e+tra*u"icial "ate" =ul! 19, 195, allocating the

sub*ect propert! to Felicisima Cotas CorteH mother.

As there (as no opposition, the %TC issue" an Er"er o eneral eault an" CorteH (as allo(e"

to present his evi"ence e+Bparte.

CorteH claime" that the sub*ect parcel o lan" is a portion o &ot o. 59<, (hich (as "eclare"

or ta+ation purposes in the name o his mother. 0e allege" that &ot o. 59< (as inherite" b!

his mother rom her parents in 195 that, ater his parents "ie", he an" his siblings e+ecute" an

$+traB=u"icial Settlement o $state over the properties o their "ecease" parents an" one o the

properties allocate" to him (as the sub*ect propert!. 0e allege" that the sub*ect propert! ha"

been in the possession o his amil! since time immemorial that the sub*ect parcel o lan" is not

part o the reservation o the epartment o $nvironment an" atural %esources 2$%6 an" is,

in act, classiie" as alienable an" "isposable b! the 'ureau o Forest evelopment 2'F6.

$rnesto Santos, (ho testiie" that he has no(n the amil! o CorteH or over si+t! 25-6 !ears

an" that CorteH an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest have been in possession o the sub*ect propert!

since he came to no( them.

The %TC grante" CorteH application or registration, ho(ever, The %epublic o the 4hilippines

2petitioner6, represente" b! the Eice o the Solicitor eneral, appeale" to the CA, alleging that

the %TC erre" in granting the application or registration "espite the ailure o CorteH to compl!

(ith the re7uirements or original registration o title. The petitioner pointe" out that, although

CorteH "eclare" that he an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest (ere in possession o the sub*ect parcel

o lan" since time immemorial, no "ocument (as ever presente" that (oul" establish his

pre"ecessorsBinBinterests possession o the same "uring the perio" re7uire" b! la(. That

petitioner claime" that CorteH assertion that he an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest ha" been in open,

a"verse, an" continuous possession o the sub*ect propert! or more than thirt! 23-6 !ears "oesnot constitute (ellBneigh incontrovertible evi"ence re7uire" in lan" registration cases that it is a

mere claim, (hich shoul" not have been given (eight b! the %TC.

The CA oun" that CorteH an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest ha" been in open, continuous, an"

e+clusive possession o the sub*ect propert! or more than 3- !ears, (hich, un"er Section 126



-

o 4resi"ential ecree 24..6 o. 1;9, suice" to convert it to private propert!.

0ence, the instant petition.

ISSU$: /hether the CA erre" in airming the grant o the application or registration.

0$&: The Court o Appeals "ecision is reverse".

CIKI& &A/ ac7uisitive prescription

The Court in"s that CorteH aile" to compl! (ith the legal re7uirements or the registration o

the sub*ect propert! un"er Section 1216 an" 26 o 4.. o. 1;9.

Section 1216 o 4.. o. 1;9 reers to the *u"icial conirmation o imperect or incomplete

titles to public lan" ac7uire" un"er Section >2b6 o C.A. o. 11, as amen"e" b! 4.. o. 1-<3.

WUn"er Section 1216 o 4.. o. 1;9V, applicants or registration o title must suicientl!establish irst, that the sub*ect lan" orms part o the "isposable an" alienable lan"s o the public

"omain secon", that the applicant an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest have been in open,

continuous, e+clusive, an" notorious possession an" occupation o the same an" thir", that it is

un"er a bona i"e claim o o(nership since =une 1, 19;, or earlier.W

In the case at bar, (hile the A"vance 4lan bearing the notation (as certiie" b! the &an"s

#anagement Services o the $%, the certiication reers onl! to the technical correctness o

the surve! plotte" in the sai" plan an" has nothing to "o (hatsoever (ith the nature an"

character o the propert! surve!e".

%espon"ents aile" to submit a certiication rom the proper government agenc! to prove that the

lan"s sub*ect or registration are in"ee" alienable an" "isposable.

Section 126 o 4.. o. 1;9 sanctions the original registration o lan"s ac7uire" b!

prescription un"er the provisions o e+isting la(s. WAs Section 126 o 4.. o. 1;9V

categoricall! provi"es, onl! private properties ma! be ac7uire" thru prescription an" un"er

Articles - an" 1 o the Civil Co"e, onl! those properties, (hich are not or public use,

public service or inten"e" or the "evelopment o national (ealth, are consi"ere" private.W

CIKI& &A/ e+press "eclaration b! the State

The Civil Co"e maes it clear that patrimonial propert! o the State ma! be ac7uire" b! private

persons through prescription. This is brought about b! Article 1113, (hich states that Wall things

(hich are (ithin the commerce o man are susceptible to prescription,W an" that propert! o the

State or an! o its sub"ivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the ob*ect o

prescription.W

The Court urther stresse" that the perio" o ac7uisitive prescription (oul" onl! begin to run

rom the time that the State oiciall! "eclares that the public "ominion propert! is no longerinten"e" or public use, public service, or or the "evelopment o national (ealth.

Accor"ingl!, although lan"s o the public "omain that are consi"ere" patrimonial ma! be

ac7uire" b! prescription un"er Section 126 o 4.. o. 1;9, beore ac7uisitive prescription

coul" commence, the propert! sought to be registere" must not onl! be classiie" as alienable

an" "isposable it must also be "eclare" b! the State that it is no longer inten"e" or public use,



1

public service or the "evelopment o the national (ealth. Thus, absent an e+press "eclaration b!

the State, the lan" remains to be propert! o public "ominion.

The Court in"s no evi"ence o an! oicial "eclaration rom the state attesting to the patrimonial

character o the sub*ect propert!. CorteH aile" to prove that ac7uisitive prescription has begun to

run against the State, much less that he has ac7uire" title to the sub*ect propert! b! virtue

thereo. It is o no moment that CorteH an" his pre"ecessorsBinBinterest have been in possession

o the sub*ect propert! or ;< !ears at the time he applie" or the registration o title thereto. lt is

not the notorious, e+clusive an" uninterrupte" possession an" occupation o an alienable an"

"isposable public lan" or the man"ate" perio"s that converts it to patrimonial.

3<. En #arch -, 19, the Court o First Instance o Iloilo ren"ere" *u"gment in Civil Case o.

3;1 thereo, (herein the appellant, herein Tan Eng SHe K"a. "e Tan Toco (as the plainti an"

the #unicipalit! o Iloilo the "een"ant an" the ormer sought to recover o the plainti value oa strip o lan" belonging to sai" plainti taen b! the "een"ant to (i"en a public street the

*u"gment entitle" the plainti to recover 4hp ,955.- representing the value o sai" strip o

lan" rom the "een"ant. En appeal to the *u"gment (as airme" on ovember >, 19. Ater

the case (as reman"e" to the court o origin an" the *u"gment ren"ere" therein ha" become inal

an" e+ecutor!. Attorne! =ose $vangelista in his o(n behal an" as counsel or the a"ministrati+

o =ose #a. Arro!o)s intestate estate ile" a claim in the sai" case or proessional services

ren"ere" b! him, (hich the court acting (ith the consent o the appellant (i"o(, i+e" at 1;Q o

the amount o the *u"gment.

At the hearing on sai" claim, the claimants appearea" as "i" also or the 4hilippine ational'an (hich pra!e" that the amount o the *u"gment be turne" over to it because the lan" taen

over ha" been mortgage" to it. Antero Soriano also appeare" claiming the amount o the

*u"gment as it ha" been assigne" to him an" b! him in turn, assigne" to #auricio CruH Co.,

Inc. Ater hearing, all the a"verse claims on the amount o the *u"gment, the court or"ere" that

the attorne!)s lien in the amount o 1;Q o the *u"gment be recor"e" in avor o Attorne!

$vangelista in his o(n behal an" counsel or the a"ministrati+ o the "ecease" =ose #a. Arro!o

an" "irecte" the #unicipalit! o Iloilo to ile an action o interplea"ing against the a"verse

claimants: the 4', Antero Soriano, #auricio CruH Co., =ose $vangelista an" =ose Arro!o, as

(as "one the case being ile" in the CFI o Iloilo as civil case no. <<-. En #arch 9, 19> (ith

the approval o the au"itor o the provincial treasurer o Iloilo an" (ith the $+ecutive 'ureau

pai" the late Antero Soriano the amount o 4hp 5,---.-- in part pa!ment o the *u"gment

mentione" above assigne" to him b! Tan 'oon Tiong acting as attorne!BinBact o the appellant

herein, Tan Eng SHe K"a. "e Tan Toco. En ecember 1>, 19>, the municipal treasurer o Iloilo

"eposite" (ith the cler o the Court o First Instance o Iloilo the amount o 4hp 5,---.-- on

account o the *u"gment ren"ere" in sai" civil case no. 3;1. In pursuance o the resolution o

the court belo( or"ering that the attorne!)s lien in the amount o 1;Q o the *u"gment be

recor"e" in avor o Attorne! =ose $vangelista.In his o(n behal an" as a counsel or the late

=ose #a. Arro!o, the sai" cler o court "elivere" on the same "ate to sai" Attorne! $vangelista

the sai" amount o 4hp 5,---.--.

At the hearing o the instant case, the coB"een"ants o $vangelista agree" not to "iscuss the

pa!ment ma"e to the latter b! the cler o CFI o Iloilo o the amount 4hp 5,---.-- mentione"

above in consi"eration o sai" la(!er)s (aiver o the remain"er o the 1;Q o sai" *u"gment

amounting to 4hp .59. /ith these pa!ments o 4hp 5,---.-- each maing a total o 4hp

1,---.-- , the *u"gment or 4hp ,955. against the #unicipalit! o Iloilo (as re"uce" to 4hp



3-,955.- (hich (as a"*u"icate" b! sai" court to #aurice CruH Co. This appeal, then is

conine" to the claim o #auricio CruH Co. as allege" assignee o the rights o the late Soriano

b! virtue o the sai" *u"gment in pa!ment o proessional services ren"ere" b! him to the sai"

(i"o( an" her coBheirs.

ISSU$:

/hether or not the assignment ma"e b! Tan 'oon Tiong as attorne!BinBact o the appellant Tan

Eng SHe K"a. "e Tan Toco to Attorne! Antero Soriano, o all the cre"its, rights an" interests

belonging to sai" appellant entitle" K"a. "e Tan Toco v.s. the #unicipal o Iloilo a"*u"icating to

sai" (i"o( the amount o 4hp ,955.- plus the costs o court against sai" municipal council in

consi"eration o the proessional services ren"ere" b! sai" attorne! to sai" (i"o( an" her coB

heirs vali"L

0$&:

J$S. As to (hether Tan 'oon Tiong as attorne!BinBact o the appellant (as empo(ere" b! his

principal to mae as assignment o cre"its, rights an" interests, in pa!ment o "ebts or

proessional services ren"ere" b! la(!ers.Tan 'oon Tiong is authoriHe" to emplo! an" contract

or the services o la(!ers upon such con"itions as he ma! "eem convenient. This po(er

necessaril! implies the authoirt! to pa! the proessional services the! engage". In the present

case, or the appellant in avor o Att!. Soriano or proessional services ren"ere" in other cases

in the interests o the appellant an" her coBheirs (as that cre"it (hich ha" against the

#unicipalit! an" such assignment (as e7uivalent to the pa!ment o amount o sai" cre"it to

Antero Soriano or proessional services.

3>. 4ASAJ CITJ vs CFI #AI&A

.%. o. &B315 September , 19>

T0$ 4ASAJ CITJ EK$%#$T, T0$ CITJ #AJE% EF $F$AT4ASAJ CITJ

EK$%#$T, T0$ #$#'$%S EF T0$ #UICI4A&'EA% EF 4ASAJ ClTJ an" T0$

CITJ T%$ASU%$% EF 4ASAJ CITJEK$%#$T, petitionersBappellants,vs.T0$

0EE%A'&$ CEU%T EF FI%ST ISTAC$ EF #AI&A, '%AC0 Nan" KIC$T$

AKI ISI4 2"oing business un"er the irm name K.. ISI4SES

ASSECIAT$S6, respon"entsBappellees.

FACTS

In August 195, K Isip an" Sons,

2KISD6

represente" b!

Kicente Isip, entere" into a Contract an" AgreementD (ith the 4asa!Cit! ov)t

24asa!D6

, represente" b! #a!or 4ablo Cuneta, to construct ane( 4asa! Cit! 0all. The sai" contract

contemplate" construction b!stages (here KIS shall a"vance the amount nee"e" or

theconstruction an" shall onl! procee" on the succee"ing stage uponreimbursement

o 4asa!.KIS accomplishe" about 4hp1.<# o the total contract price o 4hp .9#,



3

representing various stages o (or. 4asa! Cit! onl! pai"4hp 1.1# leaving a balance o 4hp

5--, (hich prompte" KIS to ilean action or speciic perormance.uring the litigation, the

parties entere" into a CompromiseAgreement (here KIS shall be pai" the balance, sub*ect to

KISurnishing 4asa!

X

a

ne(

perormance bon" in proportion

X

to the

remaining value o the uninishe" construction

XD

as provi"e" in subBparagraph ' o paragraph 1.Thereater, KIS applie" or garnishment on the

4' un"s o 4asa!, (hich the latter is no( assailing the vali"it!. In its motion to set asi"e the

garnishment, 4asa! is 7uestioning the or"er o the court onthe submission o the perormance

bon" urnishe" b! KIS.KIS submitte" a perormance bon" o 4hp5- (hich KISincrease"

subse7uentl! to 4hp1-- (hich pertains to the -Q o thecost o the ne+t stage o the

construction to be un"ertaen. The court oun" the same reasonable an" substantiall! compliant

or the court "eems it unreasonable to compel KIS to submit a perormance bon"or the

remaining cost o the pro*ect.

ISSU$:

/hether the amount o the perormance bon" shoul" cover the(hole uninishe" pro*ect or onl!

the ne+t stage o (or to be "one

0$&

J$S.

SubBparagraph ' o paragraph 1 o the CompromiseAgreement contemplate" a IKISI'&$

E'&IATIE. Thereore,

the

perormance bon" shoul" be in proportionD to the uncomplete"

(or.0$&%ATIE



The sai" stipulation, i rea" together (ith the stageBb!Bstageconstruction an" pa!ment approach

rom the agreements, lea"s to theconclusion that parties contemplate" a "ivisible obligation,

(hichnecessitates

that the perormance bon" be in proportionD

to theuncomplete" (or./hat is crucial in subBparagraph ' o paragraph 1 o thecompromise

agreement are the (or"s Win proportion.W I the partiesreall! inten"e" the perormance bon" to

reer to the (hole uninishe"(or, then the provision shoul" have re7uire" the plainti

contractorto submit an" ile a ne( perormance bon" to cover the remainingvalue cost o the

uninishe" (or o the construction. Using the (or"sin proportion then signiicantl! change" the

meaning o the paragraphto ultimatel! mean a perormance bon" e7ual to -Q o the ne+t

stageo (or to be "one

39. $spiritu v. #unicipal Council o 4oHorrubio, 4angasinan .%. o. &B11-1. =anuar! 1,

19;>.V $n 'anc, #ontema!or 2=6: 1- concur Facts: uring the last (orl" (ar, the maret

buil"ing o the to(n o 4oHorrubio (as "estro!e", an" ater &iberation, the maret ven"ors

began constructing temporar! an" maeB shit stalls, even small resi"ences, on a portion o the

to(n plaHa. The #unicipal Treasurer collecte" rom these stall o(ners ees at the rate o 4.; per

s7uare meter a month. In time, the (hole municipal maret (as rehabilitate", but the o(ners o

the structures on the plaHa aile" an" reuse" to transer to sai" maret place. In 19;1, the

#unicipal Council o 4oHorrubio passe" %esolution -9, or"ering the occupants an" o(ners o

the structures on the plaHa to remove their buil"ings (ithin 5- "a!s rom receipt o the

resolution. In ans(er to this resolution, > o the maret stall buil"ing o(ners ile" a petition or prohibition in the CFI 4angasinan 4ropert!, --3 2 5 6 0a!stacs 2'erne uerrero6 against the

#unicipal Council, the #unicipal #a!or, an" the Chie o 4olice o 4oHorrubio. The trial court,

on > April 19;5, "ismisse" the petition or prohibition ile" b! appellants an" liting the

preliminar! in*unction it initiall! issue", an" or"ering the removal o the appellant)s stalls rom

the public plaHa (ithin 1- "a!s rom notice. Appeal (as ile" b! the appellants to the Supreme

Court. En ; =anuar! 19;<, appellants voluntaril! vacate" the public plaHa o 4oHorrubio.

Concrete ences (ere constructe" in the premises, an" absent an! complaints rom the appellants

nor their counsels, a motion or the "ismissal o the case (as ile" as the case has become moot

an" aca"emic. The appellants aile" to comment on the petition or "ismissal. The Supreme

Court "eci"e" the case in a ormal resolution, instea" o a resolution or the satisaction o the parties an" gui"ance o the to(n oicials an" resi"ents. It airme" the "ecision appeale" rom

(ith costs against appellants. 1. o contract or agreement bet(een appellants an" municipalit!

ee not rent but maret stall ees The ee o 4.; per s7uare meter collecte" b! the #unicipal

Treasurer, (as not or the rent o the portion o the public plaHa occupie" b! the maret stalls,

but rather the maret stall ees charges on all maret ven"ors in a public maret. There (as

absolutel! no contract or agreement bet(een the appellants an" the municipalit!, about renting o

the 4laHa to the ormer. The occupation o the plaHa an" the construction o temporar! buil"ings

thereon mostl! or maret, even resi"ence purposes, (as merel! tolerate" b! the municipalit!,

because o the "estruction o the public maret "uring the (ar. . To(n plaHas are properties o

public "ominion to be "evote" to public use an" ma"e available to public in general illegal

private construction a nuisance sub*ect to abatement accor"ing to la( To(n plaHa cannot be use"

or the construction o maret stalls, speciall! o resi"ences, an" that such structures constitute a

nuisance sub*ect to abatement accor"ing to la(. To(n plaHas are properties o public "ominion,

to be "evote" to public use an" to be ma"e available to the public in general. The! are outsi"e

the commerce o man an" cannot be "ispose" o or even lease" b! the municipalit! to private



;

parties. /hile in case o (ar or "uring an emergenc!, to(n plaHas ma! be occupie" temporaril!

b! private in"ivi"uals, (hen the emergenc! has cease", sai" temporar! occupation or use must

also cease, an" the to(n oicials shoul" see to it that the to(n plaHas shoul" ever be ept open to

the public an" ree rom encumbrances or illegal private constructions.

-. 4rovince o 8amboanga "el orte v. Cit! o 8amboanga .%. o. &B-. #arch >,

195>.V $n 'anc, 'engHon 2=6: > concur, 1 on leave Facts: 4rior to its incorporation as a chartere"

cit!, the #unicipalit! o 8amboanga use" to be the provincial capital o the then 8amboanga

4rovince. En 1 Ectober 1935, Common(ealth Act 39 (as approve" converting the

#unicipalit! o 8amboanga into 8amboanga Cit!. Section ;- o the Act also provi"e" that

buil"ings an" properties (hich the province shall aban"on upon the transer o the capital to

another place (ill be ac7uire" an" pai" or b! the Cit! o 8amboanga at a price to be i+e" b!

the Au"itor eneral.D The properties an" buil"ings reerre" to consiste" o ;- lots an" some

buil"ings constructe" thereon, locate" in the Cit! o 8amboanga an" covere" in"ivi"uall! b!Torrens certiicates o title in the name o 8amboanga 4rovince. The lots are utiliHe" as the

Capitol Site 21 lot6, School site 23 lots6, 0ospital site 23 lots6, &eprosarium 23 lots6, Curuan

school 21 lot6, Tra"e school 21 lot6, 'urleigh school 2 lots6, burleigh 29 lots6, high school

pla!groun" 2 lots6, h!"roBelectric site 21 lot6, san ro7ue 2L1 lot6, an" another 3 vacant lots. In

19;, the capital o 8amboanga 4rovince (as transerre" to ipolog an" on 15 =une 19>, %A

>5 create" the municipalit! o #olave an" maing it the capital o 8amboanga 4rovince. En 5

#a! 199, the Appraisal Committee orme" b! the Au"itor eneral, pursuant to CA 39, i+e" the

value o the properties an" buil"ings in 7uestion let b! 8amboanga 4rovince in 8amboanga Cit!

at 41,9,.--. 0o(ever, on 1 =ul! 19;1, a Cabinet %esolution (as passe", conve!ing all the

sai" ;- lots an" buil"ings thereon to 8amboanga Cit! or 41.--, eective as o 19;, (hen the

provincial capital o the 8amboanga 4rovince (as transerre" to ipolog. En 5 =une 19;, %A

<11 (as approve" "ivi"ing the province o 8amboanga into 8amboanga "el orte an"

8amboanga "el Sur. As to ho( the assets an" obligations o the ol" province (ere to be "ivi"e"

bet(een the t(o ne( ones, Section 5 o the la( provi"e" that upon the approval o the Act, the

un"s, assets an" other properties an" the obligations o the province o 8amboanga shall be

"ivi"e" e7uitabl! bet(een the 4rovince o 8amboanga "el orte an" the 4rovince o 8amboanga

"el Sur b! the 4resi"ent o the 4hilippines, upon the recommen"ation o the Au"itor eneral.D

En 11 =anuar! 19;;, the Au"itor eneral apportione" the assets an" obligations o the "eunct

4rovince o 8amboanga, apportioning ;.39Q or 8amboanga "el orte an" ;.51Q or8amboanga "el Sur. En 1< #arch 19;9, the $+ecutive Secretar!, b! or"er o the 4resi"ent,

issue" a ruling hol"ing that 8amboanga "el orte ha" a veste" right as o(ner 2shoul" be coB

o(ner proBin"iviso6 o the properties mentione" in Section ;- o CA 39, an" is entitle" to the

price thereo, pa!able b! 8amboanga Cit!. This eectivel! revoe" the Cabinet %esolution o 1

=ul! 19;1. The Secretar! o Finance then authoriHe" the Commissioner o Internal %evenue to

"e"uct an amount e7ual to ;Q o the regular internal revenue allotment or the Cit! o

8amboanga or the 7uarter en"ing 31 #arch 195-, then or the 7uarter en"ing 3- =une 195-, an"

again or the irst 7uarter o the iscal !ear 195-B1951. The "e"uctions, all aggregating

4;<,3<3.5 (as cre"ite" to the province o 8amboanga "el orte, in partial pa!ment o the

4<-,-,-; "ue it. 0o(ever, on 1< =une 1951, %A 3-39 (as approve" amen"ing Section ;- oCA 39 b! provi"ing that all buil"ings, properties an" assets belonging to the ormer province o

8amboanga an" locate" (ithin the Cit! o 8amboanga are hereb! transerre", ree o charge, in

avor o the sai" Cit! o 8amboanga.D En 1 =ul! 1951, the Secretar! o Finance or"ere" the

Commissioner o Internal %evenue to stop rom eecting urther pa!ments to 8amboanga "el

orte an" to return to 8amboanga Cit! the sum o 4;<,3<3.5 taen rom it out 4ropert!, --3



5

2 1; 6 0a!stacs 2'erne uerrero6 o the internal revenue allotment o 8amboanga "el orte.

8amboanga Cit! a"mits that since the enactment o %A 3-39, 43,-3-.11 o the 4;<,3<3.5 has

alrea"! been returne" to it. This constraine" 8amboanga "el orte to ile on ; #arch 195, a

complaint entitle" eclarator! %elie (ith 4reliminar! #an"ator! In*unctionD in the CFI

8amboanga "el orte against 8amboanga Cit!, the Secretar! o Finance an" the Commissioner

o Internal %evenue. En =une 195, the lo(er court or"ere" the issuance o preliminar!

in*unction as pra!e" or. Ater trial an" on 1 August 1953, *u"gment (as ren"ere" "eclaring %A

3-39 unconstitutional as it "eprives the province o its private properties, or"ere" the cit! to pa!

the province the sum o 4<-,--.-; an" in relation to this or"ere" the inance secretar! to "irect

the Commissioner o Internal revenue to "e"uct rom its regular 7uarterl! internal revenue

allotment e7uivalent to ;Q, ;Q rom the regular 7uarterl! internal revenue allotment or the

Cit! an" to remit the same to the province until the sum has been ull! pai" or"ere" the province

to e+ecute the correspon"ing public instrument "ee"ing to the cit! the ;- parcels o lan" an" the

improvements thereon un"er the certiicates o title upon ull pa!ment "ismisse" the

counterclaim o the cit! an" "eclare" permanent the preliminar! man"ator! in*unction issue" on> =une 195<. The province ile" a motion to reconsi"er pra!ing that the Cit! be or"ere" instea"

to pa! the 4<-,-.-; in lump sum (ith 5Q interest per annum. Ever the cit!)s opposition, the

lo(er court grante" the province)s motion. 0ence, the appeal to the Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court set asi"e the "ecision appeale" rom an" entere" another or"ering the cit! to

return to the province in lump sum the amount o 43,-3-,11 (hich the cit! too bac rom the

province out o the sum o 4;<,3<3.5 previousl! pai" to the latter, an" or"ering the cit! to eect

pa!ments in avor o the province o (hatever balance remains o the provinces)s ;.39Q share

in the 5 patrimonial properties, ater "e"ucting thererom the sum o 4;<,3<3.5, on the basis o

%esolution < "ate" 5 #arch 199 o the Appraisal Committee orme" b! the Au"itor eneral,

b! (a! o 7uarterl! pa!ments rom the allotments o the Cit!, in the manner originall! a"opte" b! the Secretar! o Finance an" the Commissioner o Internal %evenue (ithout costs. 1.

4roce"ural aspect %ules authoriHe conversion o procee"ings to an or"inar! action 'rushing

asi"e the proce"ural point concerning the propriet! o "eclarator! relie ile" in the lo(er court

on the assertion that the la( ha" alrea"! been violate" an" that the province o 8amboanga "el

orte sought to give it coercive eect, since assuming the same to be true, the %ules an!(a!

authoriHe the conversion o the procee"ings to an or"inar! action, the Court procee"e" to the

more important an" principal 7uestion o the vali"it! o %A 3-39. . 4ropert! o(ne" b!

municipalit! in its governmental capacit!, propert! is public Congress has absolute control over

it I the propert! is o(ne" b! the municipalit! 2meaning municipal corporation6 in its public an"

governmental capacit!, the propert! is public an" Congress has absolute control over it. 'ut i

the propert! is o(ne" in its private or proprietar! capacit!, then it is patrimonial an" Congress

has no absolute control. The municipalit! cannot be "eprive" o it (ithout "ue process an"

pa!ment o *ust compensation. 3. 4roperties o provinces, cities an" municipalities Article 3 o

the Civil Co"e provi"es that the propert! o provinces, cities an" municipalities, is "ivi"e" into

propert! or public use an" patrimonial properl!.D Article o the same co"e provi"es that

propert! or public use, in the provinces, cities, an" municipalities, consists o the provincial

roa"s, cit! streets, municipal streets, the s7uares, ountains, public (aters, promena"es, an"

public (ors or public service pai" or b! sai" provinces, cities, or municipalities. All other

propert! possesse" b! an! o them is patrimonial an" shall be governe" b! this Co"e, (ithout pre*u"ice to the provisions o special la(s.D . Application o Article CC 4ropert!, --3

2 15 6 0a!stacs 2'erne uerrero6 a. 4roperties patrimonial e+cept or pla!groun" Appl!ing the

norm in the Civil Co"e, all the properties in 7uestion, e+cept the t(o 26 lots use" as 0igh School

pla!groun"s, coul" be consi"ere" as patrimonial properties o the ormer 8amboanga province.

$ven the capitol site, the hospital an" leprosarium sites, an" the school sites (ill be consi"ere"

patrimonial or the! are not or public use. b. $*us"em eneris, properties not inclu"e" in



<

public (ors or public serviceD The! (oul" not all un"er the phrase public (ors or public

serviceD or it has been hel" that un"er the e*us"em generis rule, such public (ors must be or

ree an" in"iscriminate use b! an!one, *ust lie the prece"ing enumerate" properties in the irst

paragraph o Article. . The pla!groun"s, ho(ever, (oul" it into this categor!. This (as the

norm applie" b! the lo(er court. c. =urispru"ence An" it cannot be sai" that its actuation (as

(ithout *urispru"ential prece"ent or in #unicipalit! o Catbalogan v. irector o &an"s, an" in

#unicipalit! o Tacloban v. irector o &an"s, 9 it (as hel" that the capitol site an" the school

sites in municipalities constitute their patrimonial properties. This result is un"erstan"able

because, unlie in the classiication regar"ing State properties, properties or public service in

the municipalities are not classiie" as public. ;. Application o the &a( o #unicipal

Corporations a. 4roperties "evote" to public service are "eeme" public Appl!ing the norm

obtaining un"er the principles constituting the la( o #unicipal Corporations, all those o the ;-

properties in 7uestion (hich are "evote" to public service are "eeme" public the rest remain

patrimonial. Un"er this norm, to be consi"ere" public, it is enough that the propert! be hel" an"

"evote" or governmental purposes lie local a"ministration, public e"ucation, public health, etc. b. =urispru"ence Supporting *urispru"ence are oun" in the ollo(ing cases: 216 0inunangan v.

irector o &an"s, (here it (as state" that (here the municipalit! has occupie" lan"s "istinctl!

or public purposes, such as or the municipal court house, the public school, the public maret,

or other necessar! municipal buil"ing, the Court (ill, in the absence o proo to the contrar!,

presume a grant rom the State in avor o the municipalit! but, as in"icate" b! the (or"ing, that

rule ma! be invoe" onl! as to propert! (hich is use" "istinctl! or public purposes.D 26 Kiu"a

"e Tantoco v. #unicipal Council o Iloilo hel" that municipal properties necessar! or

governmental purposes are public in nature. Thus, the auto trucs use" b! the municipalit! or

street sprinling, the police patrol automobile, police stations an" concrete structures (ith the

correspon"ing lots use" as marets (ere "eclare" e+empt rom e+ecution an" attachment sincethe! (ere not patrimonial properties. 236 #unicipalit! o 'atangas v. Cantos, hel" s7uarel! that a

municipal lot (hich ha" al(a!s been "evote" to school purposes is one "e"icate" to public use

an" is not patrimonial propert! o a municipalit!. 5. %A 3-39 vali" insoar as it aects lots

previousl! use" b! the province in its governmental capacit! %A 3-39 is vali" insoar as it

aects the lots use" as capitol site, school sites an" its groun"s, hospital an" leprosarium sites

an" the high school pla!groun" sites, a total o lots, since these (ere hel" b! the ormer

8amboanga province in its governmental capacit! an" thereore are sub*ect to the absolute

control o Congress. <. 'urleigh lots constitute appurtenant groun"s o the 'urleigh schools an"

partae o the nature o the same The eight 'urleigh lots are a"*oining each other an" in turn are

bet(een the t(o lots (herein the 'urleigh 4ropert!, --3 2 1< 6 0a!stacs 2'erne uerrero6

schools are built. Sai" eight lots constitute the appurtenant groun"s o the 'urleigh schools an"

partae o the nature o the same. >. 'uil"ings on lots are public Assumption base" on

histor!, an" Character o buil"ings as accessor! to the lan" The recor"s "o not "isclose (hether

the! (ere constructe" at the e+pense o the ormer 4rovince o 8amboanga. Consi"ering

ho(ever the act that sai" buil"ings must have been erecte" even beore 1935 (hen CA 39 (as

enacte" an" the urther act that provinces then ha" no po(er to authoriHe construction o

buil"ings such as those in the present case at their o(n e+pense, it can be assume" that sai"

buil"ings (ere erecte" b! the ational overnment, using national un"s. 0ence, Congress

coul" ver! (ell "ispose o sai" buil"ings in the same manner that it "i" (ith the lots in 7uestion.'ut even assuming that provincial un"s (ere use", still the buil"ings constitute mere accessories

to the lan"s, (hich are public in nature, an" so, the! ollo( the nature o sai" lan"s, i.e., public.

#oreover, sai" buil"ings, those locate" in the cit!, (ill not be or the e+clusive use an" beneit o

cit! resi"ents or the! coul" be availe" o also b! the provincial resi"ents. The province then, an"

its successorsBinBinterest, are not reall! "eprive" o the beneits thereo. 9. 4rovince cannot be

"eprive" o its share in the value o the 5 other lots %A 3-39 cannot be applie" to "eprive



>

8amboanga "el orte o its share in the value o the rest o the 5 remaining lots (hich are

patrimonial properties since the! are not being utiliHe" or "istinctl! governmental purposes. The

act that these 5 lots are registere" strengthens the proposition that the! are trul! private in

nature. 1-. %egistration cannot convert public propert! to private The act that the lots use"

or governmental purposes are registere" is o no signiicance since registration cannot convert

public propert! to private. 11. &a( o #unicipal Corporations prevails over that o Civil Co"e

ire conse7uence o hol"ing propert! or public service similar to or"inar! private propert! The

Court is more incline" to uphol" the vie( that the controvers! is more along the "omains o the

&a( o #unicipal Corporations 2State v. 4rovince6 than along that o Civil &a(. The Court is not

incline" to hol" that municipal propert! hel" an" "evote" to public service is in the same

categor! as or"inar! private propert!. The conse7uences are "ire. As or"inar! private properties,

the! can be levie" upon an" attache". The! can even be ac7uire" thru a"verse possession, all

these to the "etriment o the local communit!. 1. &a( o #unicipal Corporation, or the purpose

o Article CC, consi"ere" special la(D The classiication o properties other than those or

public use in the municipalities as patrimonial un"er Article o the Civil Co"e is (ithout pre*u"ice to the provisions o special la(s.D For purposes o the article, the principles obtaining

un"er the &a( o #unicipal Corporations can be consi"ere" as special la(sD. 0ence, the

classiication o municipal propert! "evote" or governmental purposes as public shoul" prevail

over the Civil Co"e classiication in this particular case. 13. 4rovince not guilt! o laches Un"er

CA 39, Section ;-, the cause o action in avor o the "eunct 8amboanga 4rovince arose onl! in

199 ater the Au"itor eneral i+e" the value o the properties in 7uestion. /hile in 19;1, the

Cabinet resolve" to transer sai" properties practicall! or ree to 8amboanga Cit!, a

reconsi"eration thereo (as seasonabl! sought. In 19;, the ol" province (as "issolve". As

successorBinBinterest to more than hal o the properties involve", 8amboanga "el orte (as able

to get a reconsi"eration o the Cabinet %esolution in 19;9. In act, partial pa!ments (ere eecte"subse7uentl! an" it (as onl! ater the passage o %A 3-39 in 1951 that the present controvers!

arose. 4lainti brought suit in 195. All the oregoing, thus, are negative laches. 1. 8amboanga

"el orte entitle" to ;.39Q share in the amounts collecte" in the 5 patrimonial 4ropert!, --3

2 1> 6 0a!stacs 2'erne uerrero6 properties 4a!ment cannot be pai" in lump sum 8amboanga

"el orte is still entitle" to collect rom the Cit! o 8amboanga the ormer)s ;.39Q share in the

5 properties (hich are patrimonial in nature, sai" share to be compute" on the basis o the

valuation o sai" 5 properties as containe" in %esolution <, "ate" 5 #arch 199, o the

Appraisal Committee orme" b! the Au"itor eneral. The share, ho(ever, cannot be pai" in

lump sum, e+cept as to the 43,-3-.11 alrea"! returne" to the Cit!, as the return o sai" amount

to the cit! (as (ithout legal basis. %A 3-39 too eect onl! on 1< =une 1951 ater a partial

pa!ment o 4;<,3<3.5 ha" alrea"! been ma"e. Since the la( "i" not provi"e or retroactivit!, it

coul" not have vali"l! aecte" a complete" act. 0ence, the amount o 43,-3-.11 shoul" be

imme"iatel! returne" b! the Cit! to the province. The remaining balance, i an!, in the amount o

plainti)s ;.39Q share in the 5 lots shoul" then be pai" b! the Cit! in the same manner

originall! a"opte" b! the Secretar! o Finance an" the Commissioner o Internal %evenue, an"

not in lump sum. Article 1159 o the Civil Co"e on reciprocal obligations invoe" b! plainti to

*usti! lump sum pa!ment is inapplicable since there has been so ar in legal contemplation no

complete "eliver! o the lots in 7uestion. The titles to the registere" lots are not !et in the name

o 8amboanga Cit!

1. Salas v =arencio

Facts:

#unicipal 'oar" o #anila a"opte" a resolution re7uiring the 4res. to consi"er the easibilit! o

"eclaring an area to be a patrimonial propert! o #anila or the purpose o reselling these lots to



9

the actual occupants. %A 11> (as passe" "eclaring the area as an alienable"isposable lan" o

the State, to be place" un"er the &an" Tenure A"ministration2&an" Authorit!6. ov. Jap o &an"

Authorit! (rote letter to #a!or o #anila or the propose" sub"ivision plan o

(c#anila accepte". 'ut "ue to unno(n reasons, #anila "eci"e" to go against their

agreementD an" pra!e" that %A 11> be not implemente" an" that it is unconstitutional.

%espon"ent =u"ge =arencio "eclare" that %A 11> is unconstitutional an" invali", thus the

petition or revie(.

Issue:

Is %A 11> vali"L

0el":

KA&IY #anila has not sho(n an! evi"ence that it ac7uire" sai" lan" as private or patrimonial

propert!. Further, %A 11> (as inten"e" to implement the social *ustice polic! o the

Constitution an" the &an" or the &an"lessD program. The %A (as never inten"e" to

e+propriate the propert! involve" but conirme" its character as communal lan" o the State an"

to mae it available or "isposition b! the at)l ov)t through the &an" Authorit!.

FACTS: The Cit! o #anila ha" a Torrens Title over a <,9-Bs7uareBmeter lot.The municipal 'oar" o #anila re7ueste" the 4resi"ent o the 4hilippines to have the lot

"eclare" as patrimonial propert! o the Cit! so that it coul" be sol" b! the Cit! to the actual

occupants o the lot. In 195, Congress enacte" %epublic Act 11> (hereb! the lot (as ma"e

"isposable or alienable lan" o the State 2not o the Cit!6, an" its "isposal (as given to a national

government entit!, the &an" Tenure A"ministration.

ISSU$: /hether or not the act o the ational overnment in giving the "isposal o the lot in

7uestion to the &an" Tenure A"ministration can be la(ull! "one.

0$&: Jes. There being no proo that the lot ha" been ac7uire" b! the Cit! (ith its o(n un"s,

the presumption is that it (as given to it b! the State I T%UST or the beneit o the

inhabitants. %esi"ual control remaine" in the State, an" thereore the STAT$ can la(ull!

"ispose o the lot. Thus, %epublic Act 11> is vali" an" constitutional an" this is so even i the

Cit! o #anila (ill receive E CE#4$SATIE rom the State.

. FACTS:

The 4hilippine Commission enacte" Act o. 13-5 (hich authoriHe" the Cit! o #anila to

reclaim a portion o #anila 'a!. The reclaime" area (as to orm part o the &unetae+tension.

The act provi"e" that the reclaime" area shall be the propert! o the Cit! o #anila, an" the cit!

is authoriHe" to set asi"e a tract o the reclaime" lan" or a hotel site an" to lease or to sell the

same. &ater, the Cit! o #anila conve!e" a portion o the reclaime" area to 4etitioner. Then



3-

4etitioner sol" the lan", together (ith all the improvements, to the Tarlac evelopment

Corporation 2TC6.

ISSU$:

/ the sub*ect propert! (as patrimonial propert! o the Cit! o #anila.

0$&:

The petitions (ere "enie" or lac o merit. The court oun" it necessar! to anal!He all the

provisions o Act o. 135-, as amen"e", in or"er to unravel the legislative intent. The grant

ma"e b! Act o. 135- o the reclaime" lan" to the Cit! o #anila is a grant o a publicD nature.

Such grants have al(a!s been strictl! construe" against the grantee because it is a gratuitous

"onation o public mone! or resources, (hich resulte" in an unair a"vantage to the grantee. Inthe case at bar, the area reclaime" (oul" be ille" at the e+pense o the Insular overnment an"

(ithout cost to the Cit! o #anila. 0ence, the letter o the statute shoul" be narro(e" to e+clu"e

matters (hich, i inclu"e", (oul" "eeat the polic! o legislation.

3. Commissioner o 4ublic 0igh(a!s v. San iego, 31 SC%A 515

Facts: 'eore //II, the 4hilippine overnment ile" an action or the e+propriation o a parcel

o lan" o(ne" b! 0ashim or the construction o a public roa". overnment too possession

over the propert! ater the "eposit o the amount o 3, 13.5. %ecor"s o the case (ere"estro!e" "uring the //II. Ater the (ar, 0ashim ile" an action or mone! claims beore the

CFI against 'ureau o 4ublic 0igh(a!s.

The parties entere" into a compromise agreement (herein the 'ureau shall pa! almost hal o the

amount claime". The bureau aile" to pa! so 0ashim ile" a motion or the issuance o a (rit o

e+ecution. %espon"ent *u"ge grante" the motion. The sheri serve" the (rit (ith a otice o

arnishment to 4' against the 'ureau?s un"s. 0ashim urther ile" a motion or issuance o an

or"er or"ering the release o the amount. It (as grante". 4' release" the amount. 4etitioner

ile" this petition or certiorari (ith man"ator! in*unction to reimburse the amount release".

Issues:

1. /hether or not the State ma! invoe its immunit! rom suit

. /hether or not the State ma! impugn the vali"it! o the compromise agreement

3. /hether or not the or"ers (ere vali"

%uling: In e+propriation procee"ings, the State submits to the court?s *uris"iction an" ass the

court to airm its right to tae the propert! sought to be e+propriate". State immunit! "oes not

appl!.

Enl! the principal can 7uestion the authorit! o the counsel to enter into a compromise

agreement. The state cannot raise it.

The assaile" or"ers are voi". overnment un"s are not sub*ect to garnishment.

Property digests

Documents

Transcript of Property digests