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.

.ISSUE: WON the subject property cannot be alienated.

The answer is in the affirmative.

Under Philippine Law, there can be no doubt that it is of public

dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has
become patrimonial. This, the respondents have failed to do. As
property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the
commerce of man. It cannot be alienated.

The  Roppongi  property  was  acquired  together  with  the  other  properties through  reparation 
agreements.    They  were  assigned  to  the  government sector  and  that  the  Roppongi 
property  was  specifically  designated  under the agreement to house the Philippine embassy.
 
It  is  of  public  dominion  unless  it  is  convincingly  shown  that  the  property has become
patrimonial.  The respondents have failed to do so.
 
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 payment, in
application to the satisfaction of collective  needs,  and  resides  in  the  social  group.    The 
purpose  is  not  to serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is  intended for the
common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.