Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 680 views

    Laurel vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Charry Castillon
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Roppongi property in Japan, which was given to the Philippines as war reparations, cannot be sold by the government. The property is classified as property intended for public service under the Civil Code and therefore belongs to the public domain. As such, it cannot be alienated or sold as it is intended for the common welfare. While the property has not been used for its intended purpose as an embassy for over 13 years, the court found the government did not definitively intend to convert it to private use. The court also rejected the argument that Japanese law should apply, stating the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to dispose of state property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Laurel vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Charry Castillon
    680 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Roppongi property in Japan, which was given to the Philippines as war reparations, cannot be sold by the government. The property is classified as property intended for public service under the Civil Code and therefore belongs to the public domain. As such, it cannot be alienated or sold as it is intended for the common welfare. While the property has not been used for its intended purpose as an embassy for over 13 years, the court found the government did not definitively intend to convert it to private use. The court also rejected the argument that Japanese law should apply, stating the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to dispose of state property.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Roppongi property in Japan, which was given to the Philippines as war reparations, cannot be sold by the government. The property is classified as property intended for public service under the Civil Code and therefore belongs to the public domain. As such, it cannot be alienated or sold as it is intended for the common welfare. While the property has not been used for its intended purpose as an embassy for over 13 years, the court found the government did not definitively intend to convert it to private use. The court also rejected the argument that Japanese law should apply, stating the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to dispose of state property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    680 views2 pages

    Laurel vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Charry Castillon
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Roppongi property in Japan, which was given to the Philippines as war reparations, cannot be sold by the government. The property is classified as property intended for public service under the Civil Code and therefore belongs to the public domain. As such, it cannot be alienated or sold as it is intended for the common welfare. While the property has not been used for its intended purpose as an embassy for over 13 years, the court found the government did not definitively intend to convert it to private use. The court also rejected the argument that Japanese law should apply, stating the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to dispose of state property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs.

    RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset


    Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and
    CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents.
    G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990
    FACTS:

    Salvador Laurel filed a petition for prohibition seeking to stop the Philippine
    government from selling the Roppongi Property located in Japan. It is one of the
    properties given to the Philippines by the Japanese Government as reparations for
    the damage done by the latter to the former during World War II.

    Petitioner Laurel states that the property is classified as one of public


    dominion, hence no ownership by anyone can attach to it, not even by the State.
    Laurel submits that the property comes under "property intended for public service"
    in paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code.

    The respondents argue that the subject property is not governed by our Civil
    Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is located (Lex Situs).

    The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that the
    Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of
    public dominion. Respondents contend that the property has become patrimonial
    because it has not been used for public service or for diplomatic purposes for over
    thirteen (13) years, and the intention by the Executive Department and the
    Congress to convert it to private use has been manifested already by overt acts.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Roppongi property can be alienated by the Philippine


    Government.

    RULING:

    No. The Roppongi property is correctly classified under par. 2 of Art. 420 of
    the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for public service.

    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. It is intended for the common and public welfare and
    cannot be the object of appropriation.

    As to respondents’ contentions, the Supreme Court held that the respondents


    have failed to convincingly show that the property has become patrimonial. 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. The intention to make it
    patrimonial property must be definite.

    Moreover, the SC ruled that respondents’ argument on the non-applicability


    of Philippine Civil Code in this case is incorrect. The issues are not concerned with
    validity of ownership or title. 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.

    WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A


    writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale
    of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan.

    You might also like