RABUCO vs.

VILLEGAS subdivided lots to them as the tenants and bona fide

occupants thereof, and instead ordering their ejectment.
TEEHANKEE, J.:p
Case L-24915 involves petitioners' independent petition for
The Court herein upholds the constitutionality of Republic Act injunction filed directly with the Court of Appeals January 29,
3120 on the strength of the established doctrine that the 19655 to forestall the demolition overnight of their houses
subdivision of communal land of the State (although titled in pursuant to the order of demolition set for January 30, 1965
the name of the municipal corporation) and conveyance of the at 8 a.m. issued by respondents city officials pending the
resulting subdivision lots by sale on installment basis to bona elevation of their appeal. The appellate court gave due course
fide occupants by Congressional authorization and thereto and issued the writ of preliminary injunction as
disposition does not constitute infringements of the due prayed for.
process clause or the eminent domain provisions of the
Constitution but operates simply as a manifestation of the The two cases were ordered "consolidated into one" since they
legislature's right of control and power to deal with State were "unavoidably interlaced." The appellate court, finding
property. that the constitutionality of Republic Act 3120 was "the
dominant and inextricable issue in the appeal" over which it
The origin and background of the cases at bar which deal had no jurisdiction and that the trial court incorrectly
with the decisive issue of constitutionality of Republic Act "sidetracked" the issue, thereafter certified the said cases to
3120 enacted on June 17, 1961, as raised by respondent this Court, as follows:
mayor of Manila in resisting petitioners' pleas that respondent
mayor not only lacks the authority to demolish their houses The validity of Republic Act 3120 which was
or eject them as tenants and bona fide occupants of a parcel seasonably posed in issue in the court below was
of land in San Andres, Malate2 but is also expressly prohibited sidetracked by the trial court, thus:
from doing so by section 2 of the Act, may be summarized
from the Court of Appeals'3 certification of resolution of May The constitutionality of Republic Act
31, 1965 as follows: No. 3120 need not be passed upon as
the principal question in issue is
Case L-24916 involves petitioners' appeal to the Court of whether the houses of the petitioners
Appeals4 from the decision of the Manila court of first instance are public nuisances, which the court
dismissing their petition for injunction and mandamus to resolved in the affirmative. As a
enjoin the demolition of their houses and the ejectment from matter of fact even if the petitioners
the public lots in question and to direct respondent were already the owners of the land
administrator of the Land Authority (now Secretary of on which their respected houses are
Agrarian Reform) to implement the provisions of Republic Act erected, the respondent city officials
3120 for the subdivision and sale on installment basis of the could cause the removal thereof as
they were constructed in violation of
 city ordinances and constitute public and mandamus, being vested with
nuisance. lawful possession over Lot 21-B,
Block 610, granted by law, Republic
It is significant to note, however, that what is Act No. 3120.
sought by the respondent City Mayor and City
Engineer of Manila is not only the demolition of 2. Civil Case No. 56092 has not been
the petitioners' houses in the premises in barred by any prior judgment, as
controversy, but their ejectment as well. wrongly claimed by respondents-
Moreover, Republic Act 3120 does intend not only appellees.
the dismissal of the ejectment proceedings
against the petitioners from the land in 3. Ejectment and demolition against
controversy upon their motion, but as well that petitioners-appellants are unlawful
any demolition order issued against them shall and clearly prohibited by Republic
also have to be dismissed. The law says: Act No. 3120.

Upon approval of this Act no The defense of the respondents Mayor and City
ejectment proceedings against any Engineer of Manila to arguments 2 and 3 is the
tenants or bona fide occupant shall invalidity of the said Republic Act 3120 for being
be instituted and any proceedings in violation of the Constitutional prohibition
against any such tenant or bona against the deprivation of property without due
fideoccupant shall be dismissed upon process of law and without just compensation. So
motion of the defendant. Provided, that even if argument 2 interposed by the
That any demolition order directed petitioners-appellants should be rejected, still
against any tenant or bona they may claim a right, by virtue of the aforesaid
fide occupant thereof, shall be provisions of Republic Act 3120, to continue
dismissed. (Sec. 2, R. A. 3120). possession and occupation of the premises and
the lifting of the order of demolition issued
Indeed, the petitioners-appellants, who contended against them. The constitutionality of the said
in the court below that it was not necessary to Republic Act 3120, therefore, becomes the
decide on the validity or constitutionality of the dominant and inextricable issue of the appeal.
law, now asseverate that 'Republic Act No. 3120
expressly prohibits ejectment and demolition of Case L-24661 for the continuation and maintenance of the
petitioners' home.' The petitioners' argument in writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by the Court
their appeal to this Court runs as follows: of Appeals for preservation of the status quo was filed by
petitioners directly with this Court on June 21, 1965, pending
1. Petitioners-appellants are entitled transmittal of the records of Cases L-24915 and L-24916 to
to the remedies of injunction this Court as certified by the Court of Appeals which declared
itself without jurisdiction over the principal and decisive issue Administration" for subdivision into small lots not exceeding
of constitutionality of Republic Act 3120. 120 square meters per lot for sale on installment basis to the
tenants or bona fide occupants thereof6 and expressly
The Court gave due course thereto and on August 17, 1965 prohibited ejectment and demolition of petitioners' homes
issued upon a P1,000 bond the writ of preliminary under section 2 of the Act as quoted in the appellate court's
injunction as prayed for enjoining respondents "from certification resolution, supra.
demolishing and/or continuing to demolish the houses of
herein petitioners situated in Lot No. 21-B, Block No. 610 of The incidental issue seized upon by the trial court as a main
the Cadastral Survey of the City of Manila, or from performing issue for "sidetracking" the decisive issue of constitutionality,
any act constituting an interference in or disturbance of their to wit, that petitioners' houses as they stood at the time of its
present possession." judgment in 1965 "were constructed in violation of city
ordinances and constituted public nuisances" whose removal
The records of two cases certified by the appellate court, L- could be ordered "even if petitioners were already the owners
24915 and L-24916, were eventually forwarded to this Court of the land on which their respective houses are erected" has
which per its resolution of August 24, 1965 ordered that they become moot with the burning down of the petitioners' houses
be docketed and be considered together with case L-24661. in the fire of April 19, 1970.

In the early morning of April 19, 1970, a large fire of If the Act is invalid and unconstitutional for constituting
undetermined origin gutted the Malate area including the lot deprivation of property without due process of law and
on which petitioners had built their homes and dwellings. without just compensation as contended by respondents city
Respondents city officials then took over the lot and kept officials, then the trial court's refusal to enjoin ejectment and
petitioners from reconstructing or repairing their burned demolition of petitioners' houses may be upheld. Otherwise,
dwellings. At petitioners' instance, the Court issued on June petitioners' right under the Act to continue possession and
17, 1970 a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents occupation of the premises and to the lifting and dismissal of
city officials "from performing any act constituting an the order of demolition issued against them must be enforced
interference in or disturbance of herein petitioners' possession and the trial court's judgment must be set aside.
of Lot No. 21-B, Block No. 610, of the Cadastral Survey of the
City of Manila" as safeguarded them under the Court's Respondents city officials' contention that the Act must be
subsisting preliminary injunction of August 17, 1965. stricken down as unconstitutional for depriving the city of
Manila of the lots in question and providing for their sale in
The "dominant and inextricable issue" at bar, as correctly subdivided small lots to bona fide occupants or tenants
perceived by the appellate court is the constitutionality of without payment of just compensation is untenable and
Republic Act 3120 whereby Congress converted the lot in without basis, since the lots in question are manifestly owned
question together with another lot in San Andres, Malate by the city in its public and governmental capacity and are
"which are reserved as communal property" into "disposable therefore public property over which Congress had absolute
or alienable lands of the State to be placed under the control as distinguished from patrimonial property owned by
administration and disposal of the Land Tenure it in its private or proprietary capacity of which it could not be
deprived without due process and without just deemed to be held in trust for the State as the land covered
compensation.7 thereby was part of the territory of the City of Manila granted
by the sovereign upon its creation." 10
Here, Republic Act 3120 expressly declared that the
properties were "reserved as communal property" and ordered There as here, the Court holds that the Acts in question
their conversion into "disposable and alienable lands of the (Republic Acts 4118 in Salas and Republic Act 3120 in the
State" for sale in small lots to the bona fide occupants thereof. case at bar) were intended to implement the social justice
It is established doctrine that the act of classifying State policy of the Constitution and the government program of
property calls for the exercise of wide discretionary legislative land for the landless and that they were not "intended to
power which will not be interfered with by the courts. expropriate the property involved but merely to confirm its
character as communal land of the State and to make it
The case of Salas vs. Jarencio8 wherein the Court upheld the available for disposition by the National Government: ... The
constitutionality of Republic Act 4118 whereby Congress in subdivision of the land and conveyane of the resulting
identical terms as in Republic Act 3120 likewise converted subdivision lots to the occupants by Congressional
another city lot (Lot 1-B-2-B of Block 557 of the cadastral authorization does not operate as an exercise of the power of
survey of Manila also in Malate) which was reserved as eminent domain without just compensation in violation of
communal property into disposable land of the State for resale Section 1, subsection (2), Article III of the Constitution, 11 but
in small lots by the Land Tenure, Administration to the bona simply as a manifestation of its right and power to deal
fide occupants is controlling in the case at bar. with state property." 12

The Court therein reaffirmed the established general rule that Since the challenge of respondents city officials against the
"regardless of the source or classification of land in the constitutionality of Republic Act 3120 must fail as the City
possession of a municipality, excepting those acquired with its was not deprived thereby of anything it owns by acquisition
own funds in its private or corporate capacity, such property with its private or corporate funds either under the due
is held in trust for the State for the benefit of its inhabitants, process clause or under the eminent domain provisions of the
whether it be for governmental or proprietary purposes. It Constitution, the provisions of said Act must be enforced and
holds such lands subject to the paramount power of the petitioners are entitled to the injunction as prayed for
legislature to dispose of the same, for after all it owes implementing the Act's prohibition against their ejectment
its creation to it as an agent for the performance of a part of and demolition of their houses.
its public work, the municipality being but a subdivision or
instrumentality thereof for purposes of local administration. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the lower court (in
Accordingly, the legal situation is the same as if the State Case No. L-24916) is hereby set aside, and the preliminary
itself holds the property and puts it to a different use" 9 and injunction heretofore issued on August 17, 1965 is hereby
stressed that "the property, as has been previously shown, made permanent. The respondent Secretary of Agrarian
was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own funds in Reform as successor agency of the Land Tenure
its private or proprietary capacity. That it has in its name a Administration may now proceed with the due
registered title is not questioned, but this title should be
implementation of Republic Act 3120 in accordance with its communities."4 What was succinctly expressed therein was
terms and provisions. No costs. made more definite in the article on local government. 5 Its
first section reads: "The territorial and political subdivisions of
Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and
Esguerra, Muoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur. barrios."6 Then comes this provision: "The National Assembly
shall enact a local government code which may not thereafter
Fernandez, J., took no part. be amended except by a majority vote of all its Members,
defining a more responsive and accountable local government
structure with an effective system of recall, allocating among
the different local government units their powers,
responsibilities, and resources, and providing for the
qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers,
functions, and duties of local officials, and all other matters
relating to the organization and operation of the local units.
Separate Opinions However, any change in the existing form of local government
shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose." 7 After which there
is this limitation on the power of local government: "No
FERNANDO, J., concurring: province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided,
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
It is undoubted that the opinion of the Court penned by except in accordance with the criteria established in the local
Justice Teehankee, with his customary lucidity and government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of
thoroughness, is in accordance with our past decisions on the the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units
matter. Reflection on the innovation introduced by the present affected."8 The autonomy of cities and municipalities is
Constitution on local government, did, however, give rise to guaranteed in these words: "(1) Provinces with respect to
doubts on my part as to the continuing authoritativeness component cities and municipalities, and cities and
of Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall
Zamboanga1 and Salas v. Jarencio,2 the two principal opinions ensure that the acts of their component units are with the
relied upon, both of which decisions were promulgated before scope of their assigned powers and functions. Highly
the effectivity of the new fundamental law. Hence this urbanized cities, as determined by standards established in
separate opinion setting forth the reasons why I join the rest the local government code, shall be independent of
of my brethren. province."9Then comes the last section: "Each local
government unit shall have the power to create its own
1. In the declaration of principles and state policies 3 it is sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such
specifically provided: "The State shall guarantee and promote limitations as may be provided by law." 10
the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio,
to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
The objective is thus crystal-clear and well-defined. The goal their duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the
is the fullest autonomy to local government units consistent President cannot interfere with local governments, so long as
with the basic theory of a unitary, not a federal, polity. It is the same or its officers act within the scope of their authority.
the hope that thereby they will attain "their fullest He may not enact an ordinance which the municipal council
development as self-reliant communities." 11 It is more than has failed or refused to pass, even if it had thereby violated a
just the expression of an aspiration as attest by one of the duty imposed thereto by law, although he may see to it that
articles of the Constitution devoted to such a subject. 12 It was the corresponding provincial officials take appropriate
not so under the 1935 charter. On this point, all that disciplinary action therefor. Neither may he vote, set aside or
appeared therein was: "The President shall ... exercise general annul an ordinance passed by said council within the scope of
supervision over all local governments as may be provided by its jurisdiction, no matter how patently unwise it may be. He
law ... . 13 According to Justice Laurel in Planas v. Gil, 14 "the may not even suspend an elective official of a regular
deliberation of the Constitutional Convention show that the municipality or take any disciplinary action against him,
grant of the supervisory authority to the Chief Executive in except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding
this regard was in the nature of a compromise resulting from provincial board." 18
the conflict of views in that body, mainly between the
historical view which recognizes the right of local self- 2. So it was that under the 1935 Constitution, the national
government ... and the legal theory which sanctions the government when acting through the executive had only such
possession by the state of absolute control over local general supervisory authority as was provided by statute.
governments .. . The result was the recognition of the power of There was no restriction, however, on the legislative body to
supervision and all its implications and the rejection of what create or to abolish local government units. What was more,
otherwise would be an imperium in imperio to the detriment of the powers vested in them could be expanded or diminished
a strong national government." 15 For the above provision depending on the will of Congress. It could hardly be assumed
starts with the vesting of control in the President "of all the therefore that under the previous charter, they could
executive departments, bureaus, or offices," as distinguished justifiably lay claim to real autonomy. For so long as the
from "general supervision over all local governments as may legislation itself took care of delineating the matters that were
be provided by law." 16 The difference in wording is highly appropriately within the scope of their competence, there
significant. So it was stressed by the then Justice, later Chief could be no objection to its validity. No constitutional problem
Justice, Concepcion in Pelaez v. Auditor General: 17 "The arose. Things have changed radically. We start with the
power of control under this provision implies the right of the declared principle of the State guaranteeing and promoting
President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may the autonomy of local government units. 19 We have likewise
be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, noted the earnestness of the framers as to the attainment of
bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to such declared objective as set forth in the specific article 20 on
act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied by the the matter. It is made obligatory on the National Assembly to
Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local governments enact a local government code. What is more, unlike the
are concerned. With respect to the latter, the fundamental law general run of statutes, it cannot be amended except by a
permits him to wield no more authority than that of checking majority vote of all its members. It is made to include "a more
whether said local governments or the officers thereof perform responsive and accountable local government structure with
an effective system of recall," with an expressed reference to case of Republic Act No. 3120 being rendered inoperative by
"qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, virtue of its repugnancy to the present Constitution? 27
functions, and duties of local officials, [as well as] all other
matters relating to the organization and operation of local 3. Nonetheless, such doubts were set at rest by two
units." 21 Mention is likewise made of the "powers, considerations. The opinion of Justice Teehankee makes
responsibilities, and resources," 22 items that are identified reference to the ratio decidendi of Salas v. Jarencio as to the
with local autonomy. As if that were not enough, the last trust character impressed on communal property of a
sentence of this particular provision reads: "However, any municipal corporation, even if already titled. As set forth in
change in the existing form of local government shall not take the opinion: "The Court [in Salas v. Jarencio] reaffirmed the
effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a established general rule that 'regardless of the source of
plebiscite called for the purpose." 23 To the extent that the last classification of land in the possession of a municipality,
section requires that the creation, division, merger, abolition excepting those acquired with its own funds in its private or
or alteration of a boundary of a province, city, municipality, or corporate capacity, such property is held in trust for the State
barrio, must be in accordance with the criteria established in for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be governmental
the local government code and subject to the approval by a or proprietary purposes. It holds such lands subject to the
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in such unit or units, paramount power of the legislature to dispose of the same, for
the adherence to the basic principle of local self-government is after all it owes its creation to it as agent for the performance
quite clear.24 Equally significant is the stress on the of a part of its public work, municipality being but a
competence of a province, city, municipality or barrio "to subdivision or instrumentality thereof for purposes of local
create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to administration. Accordingly, the legal situation is the same as
such limitations as may be provided by law." 25 The care and if the State itself holds the property and puts it to a different
circumspection with which the framers saw to the enjoyment use' and stressed that 'the property, as has been previously
of real local self-government not only in terms of shown, was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own
administration but also in terms of resources is thus funds in its private or proprietary capacity. That it has in its
manifest. Their intent is unmistakable. Unlike the case under name registered title is not questioned, but this title should be
the 1935 Constitution, there is thus a clear manifestation of deemed to be held in trust for the State as the land covered
the presumption now in favor of a local government unit. It is thereby was part of the territory of the City of Manila granted
a well-nigh complete departure from what was. Nor should it by the sovereign upon its creation." 28
be ignored that a highly urbanized city "shall be independent"
not only of the national government but also of a This is a doctrine which to my mind is unaffected by grant of
province. 26Would it not follow then that under the present extensive local autonomy under the present Constitution. Its
dispensation, the moment property is transferred to it by the basis is the regalian doctrine. It is my view that under the
national government, its control over the same should be as Constitution, as was the case under the 1935 charter, the
extensive and as broad as possible. Considerations of the holding of a municipal corporation as a unit of state does not
above nature gave rise to doubts on my part as to the impair the plenary power of the national government
decisions in the Zamboanga del Norte and Salas cases still exercising dominical rights to dispose of it in a manner it sees
retaining unimpaired their doctrinal force. Would this be a fit, subject to applicable constitutional limitations as to the
citizenship of the grantee. An excerpt from Lee Hong Hok v. subdivision of the land and conveyance of the resulting
David 29 is relevant: "As there are overtones indicative of subdivision lots to the occupants by Congressional
skepticism, if not of outright rejection, of the well-known authorization does not operate as an exercise of the power of
distinction in public law between the government authority eminent domain without just compensation in violation of
possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the Section 1, subsection (2), Article III of the Constitution, but
concept of sovereignty, and its capacity to own or acquire simply as a manifestation of its right and power to deal with
property, it is not inappropriate to pursue the matter further. state property." 31 It is true of course, that a local government
The former comes under the heading of imperium and the unit, if expressly authorized by statute, could make use of its
latter of dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with property in the same manner. It does appear, however, that
reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary there was no such grant of authority. Moreover, the national
character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation government is not only in a better position to make a reality of
and use of lands and other natural resources, including their the social justice principle but also is subject to less pressure
disposition, except as limited by the Constitution. Dean on the part of the affluent, at least where the distribution of
Pound did speak of the confusion that existed during the state property is concerned. It is thus a more efficient
medieval era between such two concepts, but did note the instrument than a province, city or municipality to attain this
existence of res publicae as a corollary to dominium. As far as highly desirable goal. In an economy essentially based on
the Philippines was concerned, there was a recognition by capitalism, where the power of concentrated wealth cannot be
Justice Holmes in Cario v. Insular Government, a case of underestimated, the countervailing force exerted by a strong
Philippine origin, that 'Spain in its earlier decrees embodied national government sensitive to the needs of our
the universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the countrymen, deeply mired in the morass of poverty, the
Crown ... .' That was a manifestation of the concept of jura disinherited of fortune, can make itself much more effectively
regalia, which was adopted by the present Constitution, felt. If only for that cogent reason then, I am prepared to
ownership however being vested in the state as such rather ignore whatever doubts or misgivings I did entertain at the
than the head thereof." 30 outset.

4. Much more compelling is the reliance on the opinion of Hence this concurrence.
Justice Teehankee on the even more fundamental principle of
social justice, which was given further stress and a wider
scope in the present Constitution. According to the opinion of
the Court: "There as here, the Court holds that the Acts in
question (Republic Act 4118 in Salas and Republic Act 3120
in the case at bar) were intended to implement the social Separate Opinions
justice policy of the Constitution and the government program
of land for the landless and that they were not 'intended to FERNANDO, J., concurring:
expropriate the property involved but merely to confirm its
character as communal land of the State and to make it It is undoubted that the opinion of the Court penned by
available for disposition by the National Government: ... The Justice Teehankee, with his customary lucidity and
thoroughness, is in accordance with our past decisions on the the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units
matter. Reflection on the innovation introduced by the present affected."8 The autonomy of cities and municipalities is
Constitution on local government, did, however, give rise to guaranteed in these words: "(1) Provinces with respect to
doubts on my part as to the continuing authoritativeness component cities and municipalities, and cities and
of Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall
1 2
Zamboanga and Salas v. Jarencio, the two principal opinions ensure that the acts of their component units are with the
relied upon, both of which decisions were promulgated before scope of their assigned powers and functions. Highly
the effectivity of the new fundamental law. Hence this urbanized cities, as determined by standards established in
separate opinion setting forth the reasons why I join the rest the local government code, shall be independent of
of my brethren. province."9Then comes the last section: "Each local
government unit shall have the power to create its own
1. In the declaration of principles and state policies 3 it is sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such
specifically provided: "The State shall guarantee and promote limitations as may be provided by law." 10
the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio,
to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant The objective is thus crystal-clear and well-defined. The goal
communities."4 What was succinctly expressed therein was is the fullest autonomy to local government units consistent
made more definite in the article on local government. 5 Its with the basic theory of a unitary, not a federal, polity. It is
first section reads: "The territorial and political subdivisions of the hope that thereby they will attain "their fullest
the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and development as self-reliant communities." 11 It is more than
barrios."6 Then comes this provision: "The National Assembly just the expression of an aspiration as attest by one of the
shall enact a local government code which may not thereafter articles of the Constitution devoted to such a subject. 12 It was
be amended except by a majority vote of all its Members, not so under the 1935 charter. On this point, all that
defining a more responsive and accountable local government appeared therein was: "The President shall ... exercise general
structure with an effective system of recall, allocating among supervision over all local governments as may be provided by
the different local government units their powers, law ... . 13 According to Justice Laurel in Planas v. Gil, 14 "the
responsibilities, and resources, and providing for the deliberation of the Constitutional Convention show that the
qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, grant of the supervisory authority to the Chief Executive in
functions, and duties of local officials, and all other matters this regard was in the nature of a compromise resulting from
relating to the organization and operation of the local units. the conflict of views in that body, mainly between the
However, any change in the existing form of local government historical view which recognizes the right of local self-
shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes government ... and the legal theory which sanctions the
cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose." 7 After which there possession by the state of absolute control over local
is this limitation on the power of local government: "No governments .. . The result was the recognition of the power of
province, city, municipality, or barrio may be created, divided, supervision and all its implications and the rejection of what
merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, otherwise would be an imperium in imperio to the detriment of
except in accordance with the criteria established in the local a strong national government." 15 For the above provision
government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of starts with the vesting of control in the President "of all the
executive departments, bureaus, or offices," as distinguished justifiably lay claim to real autonomy. For so long as the
from "general supervision over all local governments as may legislation itself took care of delineating the matters that were
be provided by law." 16 The difference in wording is highly appropriately within the scope of their competence, there
significant. So it was stressed by the then Justice, later Chief could be no objection to its validity. No constitutional problem
Justice, Concepcion in Pelaez v. Auditor General: 17 "The arose. Things have changed radically. We start with the
power of control under this provision implies the right of the declared principle of the State guaranteeing and promoting
President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may the autonomy of local government units. 19 We have likewise
be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, noted the earnestness of the framers as to the attainment of
bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to such declared objective as set forth in the specific article 20 on
act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied by the the matter. It is made obligatory on the National Assembly to
Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local governments enact a local government code. What is more, unlike the
are concerned. With respect to the latter, the fundamental law general run of statutes, it cannot be amended except by a
permits him to wield no more authority than that of checking majority vote of all its members. It is made to include "a more
whether said local governments or the officers thereof perform responsive and accountable local government structure with
their duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the an effective system of recall," with an expressed reference to
President cannot interfere with local governments, so long as "qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers,
the same or its officers act within the scope of their authority. functions, and duties of local officials, [as well as] all other
He may not enact an ordinance which the municipal council matters relating to the organization and operation of local
has failed or refused to pass, even if it had thereby violated a units." 21 Mention is likewise made of the "powers,
duty imposed thereto by law, although he may see to it that responsibilities, and resources," 22 items that are identified
the corresponding provincial officials take appropriate with local autonomy. As if that were not enough, the last
disciplinary action therefor. Neither may he vote, set aside or sentence of this particular provision reads: "However, any
annul an ordinance passed by said council within the scope of change in the existing form of local government shall not take
its jurisdiction, no matter how patently unwise it may be. He effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
may not even suspend an elective official of a regular plebiscite called for the purpose." 23 To the extent that the last
municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, section requires that the creation, division, merger, abolition
except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding or alteration of a boundary of a province, city, municipality, or
provincial board." 18 barrio, must be in accordance with the criteria established in
the local government code and subject to the approval by a
2. So it was that under the 1935 Constitution, the national majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in such unit or units,
government when acting through the executive had only such the adherence to the basic principle of local self-government is
general supervisory authority as was provided by statute. quite clear.24 Equally significant is the stress on the
There was no restriction, however, on the legislative body to competence of a province, city, municipality or barrio "to
create or to abolish local government units. What was more, create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to
the powers vested in them could be expanded or diminished such limitations as may be provided by law." 25 The care and
depending on the will of Congress. It could hardly be assumed circumspection with which the framers saw to the enjoyment
therefore that under the previous charter, they could of real local self-government not only in terms of
administration but also in terms of resources is thus funds in its private or proprietary capacity. That it has in its
manifest. Their intent is unmistakable. Unlike the case under name registered title is not questioned, but this title should be
the 1935 Constitution, there is thus a clear manifestation of deemed to be held in trust for the State as the land covered
the presumption now in favor of a local government unit. It is thereby was part of the territory of the City of Manila granted
a well-nigh complete departure from what was. Nor should it by the sovereign upon its creation." 28
be ignored that a highly urbanized city "shall be independent"
not only of the national government but also of a This is a doctrine which to my mind is unaffected by grant of
province. 26Would it not follow then that under the present extensive local autonomy under the present Constitution. Its
dispensation, the moment property is transferred to it by the basis is the regalian doctrine. It is my view that under the
national government, its control over the same should be as Constitution, as was the case under the 1935 charter, the
extensive and as broad as possible. Considerations of the holding of a municipal corporation as a unit of state does not
above nature gave rise to doubts on my part as to the impair the plenary power of the national government
decisions in the Zamboanga del Norte and Salas cases still exercising dominical rights to dispose of it in a manner it sees
retaining unimpaired their doctrinal force. Would this be a fit, subject to applicable constitutional limitations as to the
case of Republic Act No. 3120 being rendered inoperative by citizenship of the grantee. An excerpt from Lee Hong Hok v.
virtue of its repugnancy to the present Constitution? 27 David 29 is relevant: "As there are overtones indicative of
skepticism, if not of outright rejection, of the well-known
3. Nonetheless, such doubts were set at rest by two distinction in public law between the government authority
considerations. The opinion of Justice Teehankee makes possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the
reference to the ratio decidendi of Salas v. Jarencio as to the concept of sovereignty, and its capacity to own or acquire
trust character impressed on communal property of a property, it is not inappropriate to pursue the matter further.
municipal corporation, even if already titled. As set forth in The former comes under the heading of imperium and the
the opinion: "The Court [in Salas v. Jarencio] reaffirmed the latter of dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with
established general rule that 'regardless of the source of reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary
classification of land in the possession of a municipality, character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation
excepting those acquired with its own funds in its private or and use of lands and other natural resources, including their
corporate capacity, such property is held in trust for the State disposition, except as limited by the Constitution. Dean
for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be governmental Pound did speak of the confusion that existed during the
or proprietary purposes. It holds such lands subject to the medieval era between such two concepts, but did note the
paramount power of the legislature to dispose of the same, for existence of res publicae as a corollary to dominium. As far as
after all it owes its creation to it as agent for the performance the Philippines was concerned, there was a recognition by
of a part of its public work, municipality being but a Justice Holmes in Cario v. Insular Government, a case of
subdivision or instrumentality thereof for purposes of local Philippine origin, that 'Spain in its earlier decrees embodied
administration. Accordingly, the legal situation is the same as the universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the
if the State itself holds the property and puts it to a different Crown ... .' That was a manifestation of the concept of jura
use' and stressed that 'the property, as has been previously regalia, which was adopted by the present Constitution,
shown, was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own
ownership however being vested in the state as such rather ignore whatever doubts or misgivings I did entertain at the
than the head thereof." 30 outset.

4. Much more compelling is the reliance on the opinion of Hence this concurrence.
Justice Teehankee on the even more fundamental principle of
social justice, which was given further stress and a wider
scope in the present Constitution. According to the opinion of
the Court: "There as here, the Court holds that the Acts in
question (Republic Act 4118 in Salas and Republic Act 3120
in the case at bar) were intended to implement the social
justice policy of the Constitution and the government program
of land for the landless and that they were not 'intended to
expropriate the property involved but merely to confirm its
character as communal land of the State and to make it
available for disposition by the National Government: ... The
subdivision of the land and conveyance of the resulting
subdivision lots to the occupants by Congressional
authorization does not operate as an exercise of the power of
eminent domain without just compensation in violation of
Section 1, subsection (2), Article III of the Constitution, but
simply as a manifestation of its right and power to deal with
state property." 31 It is true of course, that a local government
unit, if expressly authorized by statute, could make use of its
property in the same manner. It does appear, however, that
there was no such grant of authority. Moreover, the national
government is not only in a better position to make a reality of
the social justice principle but also is subject to less pressure
on the part of the affluent, at least where the distribution of
state property is concerned. It is thus a more efficient
instrument than a province, city or municipality to attain this
highly desirable goal. In an economy essentially based on
capitalism, where the power of concentrated wealth cannot be
underestimated, the countervailing force exerted by a strong
national government sensitive to the needs of our
countrymen, deeply mired in the morass of poverty, the
disinherited of fortune, can make itself much more effectively
felt. If only for that cogent reason then, I am prepared to