Laurel V Garcia
Laurel V Garcia
Laurel V Garcia
I
The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues.
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the
The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047
Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the
Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956, the other lots Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino
being: citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are
resolved at the same time for the objective is the same - to stop the
(1) The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi, Shibuya-ku, sale of the Roppongi property.
Tokyo which has an area of approximately 2,489.96 square meters,
and is at present the site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery; The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues:
(2) The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe, with an (1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by
area of around 764.72 square meters and categorized as a commercial the Philippine Government?; and
lot now being used as a warehouse and parking lot for the consulate
staff; and
(2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the
authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property?
(3) The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2 Obanoyama-cho,
Shinohara, Nada-ku, Kobe, a residential lot which is now vacant.
Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda in G.R. No. 92047, apart from questioning the
authority of the government to alienate the Roppongi property assails
The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296 in making the property
Japanese government for national development projects are part of available for sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities. He also questions
the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or
property and their suffering during World War II. Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being
discriminatory against Filipino citizens and Filipino-owned entities by
The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550 denying them the right to be informed about the bidding requirements.
million would be payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with
annual schedules of procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and II
Japanese governments (Article 2, Reparations Agreement). Rep. Act
In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property Philippines under the Reparations Act (Sections 2 and 12 of Rep. Act
and the related lots were acquired as part of the reparations from the No. 1789); and
Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine
government. Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi property is
(6) The declaration of the state policy of full public disclosure of all
classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership
transactions involving public interest (Section 28, Article III,
under Article 420 of the Civil Code (See infra).
Constitution).
The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is
that the Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. This,
become property of public dominion. It has become patrimonial the respondents have failed to do.
property because it has not been used for public service or for
diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article
422, Civil Code) and because the intention by the Executive As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the
Department and the Congress to convert it to private use has been commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special
manifested by overt acts, such as, among others: (1) the transfer of collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to
the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai (2) the issuance of administrative the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The
orders for the possibility of alienating the four government properties purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens;
in Japan; (3) the issuance of Executive Order No. 296; (4) the it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the
enactment by the Congress of Rep. Act No. 6657 [the Comprehensive object of appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa, 66-69; cited in
Agrarian Reform Law] on June 10, 1988 which contains a provision Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963
stating that funds may be taken from the sale of Philippine properties Edition, Vol. II, p. 26).
in foreign countries; (5) the holding of the public bidding of the
Roppongi property but which failed; (6) the deferment by the Senate The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are:
in Resolution No. 55 of the bidding to a future date; thus an
acknowledgment by the Senate of the government's intention to
remove the Roppongi property from the public service purpose; and ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or
(7) the resolution of this Court dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. of private ownership.
Bidding Committee, et al., G.R. No. 87478 which sought to enjoin the
second bidding of the Roppongi property scheduled on March 30, ART. 420. The following things are property of
1989. public dominion
(1) The reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is
of the public domain to Filipino citizens. (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII, not of the character stated in the preceding article,
Constitution; Sections 22 and 23 of Commonwealth Act 141).i•t•c-aüsl is patrimonial property.
(2) The preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of
and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and
(Section 10, Article VI, Constitution); intended for some public service.
(3) The protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair Has the intention of the government regarding the use of the property
competition and trade practices; been changed because the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it
become patrimonial?
(4) The guarantee of the right of the people to information on all
matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III, Constitution); 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
(5) The prohibition against the sale to non-Filipino citizens or entities property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is
not wholly owned by Filipino citizens of capital goods received by the withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v.
Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the
public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be
until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to determined (See Salonga, Private International Law, 1981 ed., pp.
withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 377-383); and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance
335 [1960]). is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence,
the need to determine which law should apply.
The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned
public officials insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, In the instant case, none of the above elements exists.
however, that an abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi
property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under
The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There
Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be
is no question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is
inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was
the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property
attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable
belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to
will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the
effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex
property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368
situs does not apply.
[1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on
correct legal premises.
The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice sheds light
on the relevance of the lex situs rule is misplaced. The opinion does
A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not
not tackle the alienability of the real properties procured through
relinquishment of the Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the
reparations nor the existence in what body of the authority to sell
failure by the government to repair the building in Roppongi is not
them. In discussing who are capable of acquiring the lots, the
abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage of
Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which should
government funds. The recent Administrative Orders authorizing a
determine who can acquire the properties so that the constitutional
study of the status and conditions of government properties in Japan
limitation on acquisition of lands of the public domain to Filipino
were merely directives for investigation but did not in any way signify a
citizens and entities wholly owned by Filipinos is inapplicable. We see
clear intention to dispose of the properties.
no point in belaboring whether or not this opinion is correct. Why
should we discuss who can acquire the Roppongi lot when there is no
Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", showing that it can be sold?
does not have a provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of
the four properties procured from Japan for the government sector.
The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino of
The executive order does not declare that the properties lost their
the recommendation by the investigating committee to sell the
public character. It merely intends to make the properties available to
Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least, conditioned on
foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other
a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property.
disposition. It merely eliminates the restriction under Rep. Act No.
Moreover, the approval does not have the force and effect of law since
1789 that reparations goods may be sold only to Filipino citizens and
the President already lost her legislative powers. The Congress had
one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities. The text of
already convened for more than a year.
Executive Order No. 296 provides:
Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong premise or assumption Section 79 (f ) Conveyances and contracts to
that the Roppongi and the three other properties were earlier which the Government is a party. — In cases in
converted into alienable real properties. As earlier stated, Rep. Act No. which the Government of the Republic of the
1789 differentiates the procurements for the government sector and Philippines is a party to any deed or other
the private sector (Sections 2 and 12, Rep. Act No. 1789). Only the instrument conveying the title to real estate or to
private sector properties can be sold to end-users who must be any other property the value of which is in excess
Filipinos or entities owned by Filipinos. It is this nationality provision of one hundred thousand pesos, the respective
which was amended by Executive Order No. 296. Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary
papers which, together with the proper
Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 (the CARP Law) which provides as recommendations, shall be submitted to the
one of the sources of funds for its implementation, the proceeds of the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the
disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, same. Such deed, instrument, or contract shall be
did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being classified as one of executed and signed by the President of the
public dominion when it mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section Philippines on behalf of the Government of the
63 (c) refers to properties which are alienable and not to those Philippines unless the Government of the
reserved for public use or service. Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, does Philippines unless the authority therefor be
not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. expressly vested by law in another officer.
It merely enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (Emphasis supplied)
(as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under
Executive Order No. 299. Obviously any property outside of the The requirement has been retained in Section 48, Book I of the
commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds. Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292).
The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real
Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Property. — Whenever real property of the
Code should apply. Government is authorized by law to be
conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be
It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all executed in behalf of the government by the
people, should be the ones to insist that in the sale of extremely following:
valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law
should prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when (1) For property belonging to and titled in the
enacted, and exceptions to its provision — is not presented to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the
Court It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law President, unless the authority therefor is
should apply without stating what that law provides. It is a ed on faith expressly vested by law in another officer.
that Japanese law would allow the sale.
The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions unless
these questions are properly raised in appropriate cases and their
resolution is necessary for the determination of the case (People v.
Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional
question although properly presented by the record if the case can be
disposed of on some other ground such as the application of a statute
or general law (Siler v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175,
[1909], Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 [1941]).
The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property
should not be sold: