SALVADOR H. LAUREL v. RAMON GARCIA, GR No.

92013, 1990-07-25

Facts:

The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the
Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan

The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese government for
national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their
losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.

Rep. Act No. 1789, the Reparations Law, prescribes the national policy on procurement and
utilization of reparations and development loans. The procurements are divided into those for
use by the government sector... and those for private parties in projects as the then National
Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made available
by sale to Filipino citizens or to one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities... in
national development projects.

The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year
Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector",... As intended, it became the site of
the Philippine Embassy... until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976when the
Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our government to provide
necessary funds, the Roppongi... property has remained undeveloped since that time.

A proposal was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino by former Philippine Ambassador to

Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a Japanese
firm - Kajima Corporation - which shall construct two (2)... buildings in Roppongi and one (1)
building in Nampeidai and renovate the present Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The
consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign corporation of one (1) of the...
buildings to be constructed in Roppongi and the two (2) buildings in Nampeidai.

The other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the Philippine Embassy Chancery. At the
end of the lease period, all... the three leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the
Philippine government. No change of ownership or title shall occur. (See Annex "B" to Reply
to Comment) The Philippine government retains the title all throughout the lease period... and
thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably on this proposal which is pending
approval and ratification between the parties. Instead, on August 11, 1986, President Aquino
created a committee to study the... disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in
Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through Administrative Order No. 3, followed by Administrative Orders
Numbered 3-A, B, C and D.

Issues:

The petitioner in G. R. No. 92013 raises the following issues:

(1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine
Government?; and

(2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to sell
the Roppongi property?

Ruling:

Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi property is classified as one of public dominion,
and not of private ownership under Article 420 of the Civil Code

The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended for public
service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public dominion, no
ownership by any one can attach to it, not even by the

State.

The Roppongi and related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and
consular quarters, buildings and other improvements"... he respondents, for their part, refute the
petitioner's contention by saying that the subject property is not governed by our Civil Code but
by the laws of Japan where the property is located. They rely upon the rule of lex... situs which
is used in determining the applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the
title to a property.

As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an
application to the satisfaction... of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose
is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and
public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.

The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does
not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the
property is withdrawn from public use

A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or
ownership "until there is a formal declaration on the part... of the government to withdraw it
from being such

A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the
Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the building
in Roppongi is not... abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage of
government funds.

Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", does not have a
provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan for
the government sector. The executive order does not... declare that the properties lost their
public character. It merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to
Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other... disposition.

It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones to
insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not
Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law -- its coverage... and effects, when enacted, and
exceptions to its provisions -- is not presented to the Court. It is simply asserted that the lex
loci... rei sitae or Japanese law should apply without stating what that law provides. It is
assumed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.

The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the
property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent... officials to
validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to
effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine law. The rule of... lex situs does not apply.

Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the Roppongi property is no longer of public
dominion, there is another obstacle to its sale by the respondents.

There is no law authorizing its conveyance.

The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It was given to the Filipino people
in reparation for the lives and blood of Filipinos who died and suffered during the Japanese
military occupation, for the suffering of... widows and orphans who lost their loved ones and
kindred, for the homes and other properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The
Tokyo properties are a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the Filipino people in the face
of an invader; like the... monuments of Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do not
expect economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think of selling these
monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity dictate that we... keep our properties in Japan
as memorials to the countless Filipinos who died and suffered. Even if we should become
paupers we should not think of selling them. For it would be as if we sold the lives and blood
and tears of our... countrymen.

It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated prices
fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos -
veterans and civilians alike.

Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties will eventually be sold is a policy
determination where both the President and Congress must concur.