THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, plaintiff-appellee,vs.

CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE and

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,defendants-appellants.

Facts:

Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of

Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga
Province. On October 12, 1936, Commonwealth Act 39 was approved
converting the Municipality of Zamboanga into Zamboanga City. Sec.
50 of the Act also provided that Buildings and properties which the
province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another
place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price
to be fixed by the Auditor General.
Such properties include lots of capitol site, schools, hospitals,
leprosarium, high school playgrounds, burleighs, and hydro-electric
sites.

On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was approved dividing the province
of Zamboanga into two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del
Sur. As to how the assets and obligations of the old province were to be
divided between the two new ones, Sec. 6 of that law provided Upon
the approval of this Act, the funds, assets and other properties and the
obligations of the province of Zamboanga shall be divided equitably
between the Province of Zamboanga del Norte and the Province of
Zamboanga del Sur by the President of the Philippines, upon the
recommendation of the Auditor General.

However, on June 17, 1961, Republic Act 3039 was approved amending
Sec. 50 of Commonwealth Act 39 by providing that, All buildings,
properties and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga
and located within the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free
of charge, in favor of the said City of Zamboanga.

This constrained Zamboanga del Norte to file on March 5, 1962, a

complaint against defendants-appellants Zamboanga City; that, among
others, Republic Act 3039 be declared unconstitutional for depriving
Zamboanga del Norte of property without due process and just
compensation.

Lower court declared RA 3039 unconstitutional as it deprives

Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties.

Hence the appeal.

Issue:

Whether RA 3039 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it deprives

Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties.

Held:

No. RA 3039 is valid. The properties petitioned by Zamboanga del

Norte is a public property.

The validity of the law ultimately depends on the nature of the 50 lots
and buildings thereon in question. For, the matter involved here is the
extent of legislative control over the properties of a municipal
corporation, of which a province is one. The principle itself is simple: If
the property is owned by the municipality (meaning municipal
corporation) in its public and governmental capacity, the property is
public and Congress has absolute control over it. But if the property is
owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and
Congress has no absolute control. The municipality cannot be deprived
of it without due process and payment of just compensation.

The capacity in which the property is held is, however, dependent on

the use to which it is intended and devoted. Now, which of two norms,
i.e., that of the Civil Code or that obtaining under the law of Municipal
Corporations, must be used in classifying the properties in question?

Civil Code

The Civil provide: ART. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and
municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial
property; ART. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consists of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal
streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public
works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or
municipalities. All other property possessed by any of them is
patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to
the provisions of special laws.

Applying the above cited norm, all the properties in question, except
the two (2) lots used as High School playgrounds, could be considered
as patrimonial properties of the former Zamboanga province. Even the
capital site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and the school sites will
be considered patrimonial for they are not for public use. They would
fall under the phrase public works for public service for it has been
held that under the ejusdem generis rule, such public works must be
for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, just like the preceding
enumerated properties in the first paragraph of Art 424. The
playgrounds, however, would fit into this category.

Law of Municipal Corporations

On the other hand, applying the norm obtaining under the principles
constituting the law of Municipal Corporations, all those of the 50
properties in question which are devoted to public service are deemed
public; the rest remain patrimonial. Under this norm, to be considered
public, it is enough that the property be held and, devoted for
governmental purposes like local administration, public education,
public health, etc.

Final Ruling

The controversy here is more along the domains of the Law of

Municipal Corporations State vs. Province than along that of Civil
Law. If municipal property held and devoted to public service is in the
same category as ordinary private property, then that would mean
they can be levied upon and attached; they can even be acquired thru
adverse possession all these to the detriment of the local
community. It is wrong to consider those properties as ordinary private
property.

Lastly, the classification of properties other than those for public use in
the municipalities as patrimonial under Art. 424 of the Civil Code is
without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. For purpose of
this article, the principles, obtaining under the Law of Municipal
Corporations can be considered as special laws. Hence, the
classification of municipal property devoted for distinctly governmental
purposes as public should prevail over the Civil Code classification in
this particular case.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and

another judgment is hereby entered as follows:.

(1) Defendant Zamboanga City is hereby ordered to return to plaintiff

Zamboanga del Norte in lump sum the amount of P43,030.11 which
the former took back from the latter out of the sum of P57,373.46
previously paid to the latter; and

(2) Defendants are hereby ordered to effect payments in favor of

plaintiff of whatever balance remains of plaintiffs 54.39% share in the
26 patrimonial properties, after deducting therefrom the sum of
P57,373.46, on the basis of Resolution No. 7 dated March 26, 1949 of
the Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General, by way of
quarterly payments from the allotments of defendant City, in the
manner originally adopted by the Secretary of Finance and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. No costs. So ordered.

RAFAEL S. SALAS, in his capacity as Executive Secretary;

CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Governor of the Land
Authority; and LORENZO GELLA, in his capacity as Register of
Deeds of Manila, petitioners-appellants,

vs.

HON. HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch

XXIII, Court of First Instance of Manila; ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS,
in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila; and the CITY OF
MANILA, respondents-appellees.

Facts:

City of Manila owner in fee simple of a parcel of land known as Lot 1,

Block 557 of Cadastral Survey of City of Manila, containing an area of
9689.80 sqm. On various dates in 1927, City of Manila sold portions of
the parcel of land. When the last sale was effected August 1924,
Transfer Certificate of Title 22547 covering the residue of the land
7490.10 sam was issued in the name of City of Manila.

On September 1960, Municipal Board of Manila adopted a resolution

requesting the President to consider the feasibility of declaring the land
under Transfer Certificate of Title 25545-25547 as patrimonial property
of Manila for the purpose of selling these lots to the actual occupants
thereof. The resolution was then transmitted to the Congress. The bill
was then passed by Congress and approved by President, and became
Republic Act 4118, converting the land from communal property to
disposable and alienable land of State.

To implement RA 4118, Land Authority requested City of Manila to

deliver the Citys TCT 22547 in order to obtain title thereto in the name
of Land Authority. The request was granted with the knowledge and
consent of City mayor, cancelling TCT 22547 and issuing TCT 80876 in
the name of Land Authority.

City of Manila, for some reasons, brought an action to restrain, prohibit,

and enjoin Land Authority and Register of Deeds from implementing RA
4118, and praying for the declaration of RA 4118 as unconstitutional.
Trial court declared RA 4118 to be unconstitutional and invalid on the
ground that it deprived City of its property without due process of law
and payment of just compensation.

Land Authority and Register of Deeds argued that the land is a

communal land, or a portion of public domain owned by State; that the
land has not been used by City of Manila for any public purpose; that it
was originally a communal land not because it was needed in
connection with its organisation as a municipality but rather for the
common use of its inhabitants; that the City mayor merely enjoys the
usufruct over said land and its exercise of acts of ownership by selling
parts thereof did not necessarily convert the land into a patrimonial
property of City of Manila nor divert the State of its paramount title.

Issue:Whether the aforementioned land is a private or patrimonial

property of the City of Manila.

Held:

The land is public property.

As a general rule, regardless of the source or classification of the land

in the possession of municipality, excepting those which it acquired in
its own funds in its private or corporate capacity, such property is held
for the State for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be for
governmental or proprietary purposes. The legal situation is the same
if the State itself holds the property and puts it to a different use.

When it comes to property of municipality which it did not acquire in its

private or corporate capacity with its own funds (the land was
originally given to City by Spain), the legislature can transfer its
administration and disposition to an agency of the National
Government to be disposed of according to its discretion. Here it did so
in obedience to the constitutional mandate of promoting social justice
to insure the well-being and economic security of the people.

The property was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own funds
in its private or proprietary capacity. The land was part of the territory
of City of Manila granted by sovereign in its creation. Furthermore, City
expressly recognised the paramount title of the State over its land
when it requested the President to consider the feasibility of declaring
the lot as patrimonial property for selling.
There could be no more blatant recognition of the fact that said land
belongs to the State and was simply granted in usufruct to the City of
Manila for municipal purposes. But since the City did not actually use
said land for any recognized public purpose and allowed it to remain
idle and unoccupied for a long time until it was overrun by squatters,
no presumption of State grant of ownership in favor of the City of
Manila may be acquiesced in to justify the claim that it is its own
private or patrimonial property.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby reversed, and

petitioners shall proceed with the free and untrammeled
implementation of Republic Act No. 4118 without any obstacle from
the respondents. Without costs.

CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. V. BERCILLES

66 SCRA 431

FACTS:

The land sought to be registered in this case was formerly a

part of a street. Through a resolution, it was declared to be an
abandoned road and not part of the City development plan.
Thereafter, it was sold through a public bidding and petitioner was
the highest bidder. He then sought to register said land but his
application was dismissed.

HELD:

The portion of the city street subject to petitioners application

for registration of title was withdrawn from public use. Then it
follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property
of the State. It is also very clear from the Charter that property
thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for
any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may
be lawfully used or conveyed.

CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY

384 SCRA 152

FACTS:

President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA,

which was tasked with the development, improvement, and
acquisition, lease, and sale of all kinds of lands. The then president
also transferred to PEA the foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay
under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project.
Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of
land and then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the
development of the Freedom Islands. These two entered into a
joint venture in the absence of any public bidding. Later, a
privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda
denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation
was conducted and it was concluded that the lands that PEA was
conveying to AMARI were lands of the public domain; the
certificates of title over the Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA
itself was illegal. This prompted Ramos to form an investigatory
committee on the legality of the JVA. Petitioner now comes and
contends that the government stands to lose billions by the
conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He also
asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening between
the parties.

ISSUE:

W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI

of the lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
HELD:

The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged

areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State
owns all lands and waters of the public domain. The 1987
Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all
natural resources are owned by the State and except for
alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural
resources cannot be alienated. The Amended JVA covers a
reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750
hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the
area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay. Further, it
is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in
reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation
costs to be incurred. The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila
Bay are part of the lands of the public domain, waters and other
natural resources and consequently owned by the State. As such,
foreshore and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they
are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere
reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert these
inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or
presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed
lands as alienable and disposable if the law has reserved them
for some public or quasi-public use.