RAFAEL S.

SALAS, in his capacity as City of Manila, for some reasons, brought an

Executive Secretary; CONRADO F. action to restrain, prohibit, and enjoin Land
ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Governor of the Authority and Register of Deeds from
Land Authority; and LORENZO GELLA, in his
implementing RA 4118, and praying for the
capacity as Register of Deeds of
Manila, petitioners-appellants, declaration of RA 4118 as unconstitutional.
vs.
6.) Trial court declared RA 4118 to be
HON. HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that it
Judge of Branch XXIII, Court of First Instance deprived City of its property without due process
of Manila; ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his of law and payment of just compensation.
capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila; and
the CITY OF MANILA, respondents-appellees.
7.) Land Authority and Register of Deeds
Facts:
argued that the land is a communal land, or a
portion of public domain owned by State; that
1.) City of Manila owner in fee simple of a the land has not been used by City of Manila for
parcel of land known as Lot 1, Block 557 of any public purpose; that it was originally a
Cadastral Survey of City of Manila, containing an communal land not because it was needed in
area of 9689.80 sqm. connection with its organisation as a municipality
but rather for the common use of its inhabitants;
2.) On various dates in 1927, City of Manila that the City mayor merely enjoys the usufruct
sold portions of the parcel of land. When the last over said land and its exercise of acts of
sale was effected August 1924, Transfer ownership by selling parts thereof did not
Certificate of Title 22547 covering the residue of necessarily convert the land into a patrimonial
the land 7490.10 sam was issued in the name of property of City of Manila nor divert the State of
City of Manila. its paramount title.

3.) On September 1960, Municipal Board of Issue:

Manila adopted a resolution requesting the Whether the aforementioned land is a private or
President to consider the feasibility of declaring patrimonial property of the City of Manila.
the land under Transfer Certificate of Title Held:
25545-25547 as patrimonial property of Manila The land is public property.
for the purpose of selling these lots to the actual
occupants thereof. As a general rule, regardless of the source or
classification of the land in the possession of
4.) The resolution was then transmitted to municipality, excepting those which it acquired in
the Congress. The bill was then passed by its own funds in its private or corporate capacity,
Congress and approved by President, and such property is held for the State for the benefit
became Republic Act 4118, converting the land of its inhabitants, whether it be for governmental
from communal property to disposable and or proprietary purposes. The legal situation is the
alienable land of State. same if the State itself holds the property and puts
it to a different use.
5.) To implement RA 4118, Land Authority
requested City of Manila to deliver the Citys TCT When it comes to property of municipality which it
22547 in order to obtain title thereto in the name did not acquire in its private or corporate capacity
of Land Authority. The request was granted with with its own funds (the land was originally given
the knowledge and consent of City mayor, to City by Spain), the legislature can transfer its
cancelling TCT 22547 and issuing TCT 80876 in administration and disposition to an agency of the
the name of Land Authority. National Government to be disposed of according
to its discretion. Here it did so in obedience to the
constitutional mandate of promoting social justice THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL
to insure the well-being and economic security of NORTE, plaintiff-appellee,
the people. vs.
CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF
The property was not acquired by the City of FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF
Manila with its own funds in its private or INTERNAL REVENUE,defendants-appellants.
proprietary capacity. The land was part of the
territory of City of Manila granted by sovereign in Facts:
its creation. Furthermore, City expressly
recognised the paramount title of the State over
its land when it requested the President to 1.) Prior to its incorporation as a chartered
consider the feasibility of declaring the lot as city, the Municipality of Zamboanga used to be the
patrimonial property for selling. provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province.

There could be no more blatant recognition of the 2.) On October 12, 1936, Commonwealth
fact that said land belongs to the State and was Act 39 was approved converting the Municipality of
simply granted in usufruct to the City of Manila for Zamboanga into Zamboanga City.
municipal purposes. But since the City did not
actually use said land for any recognized public 3.) Sec. 50 of the Act also provided that
purpose and allowed it to remain idle and Buildings and properties which the province shall
unoccupied for a long time until it was overrun by abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another
squatters, no presumption of State grant of place will be acquired and paid for by the City of
ownership in favor of the City of Manila may be Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor
acquiesced in to justify the claim that it is its own General.
private or patrimonial property.
4.) Such properties include lots of capitol
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby site, schools, hospitals, leprosarium, high school
reversed, and petitioners shall proceed with the playgrounds, burleighs, and hydro-electric sites.
free and untrammeled implementation of
Republic Act No. 4118 without any obstacle from 5.) On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was
the respondents. Without costs. approved dividing the province of Zamboanga into
two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga
del Sur.

6.) As to how the assets and obligations of

the old province were to be divided between the two
new ones, Sec. 6 of that law provided Upon the
approval of this Act, the funds, assets and other
properties and the obligations of the province of
Zamboanga shall be divided equitably between the
Province of Zamboanga del Norte and the Province
of Zamboanga del Sur by the President of the
Philippines, upon the recommendation of the
Auditor General.

7.) However, on June 17, 1961, Republic

Act 3039 was approved amending Sec. 50 of
Commonwealth Act 39 by providing that, All
buildings, properties and assets belonging to the
former province of Zamboanga and located within Civil Code
the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free The Civil provide: ART. 423. The property of
of charge, in favor of the said City of Zamboanga. provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided into
property for public use and patrimonial property;
8.) This constrained Zamboanga del Norte ART. 424. Property for public use, in the
to file on March 5, 1962, a complaint against provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of
defendants-appellants Zamboanga City; that, the provincial roads, city streets, municipal
among others, Republic Act 3039 be declared streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
unconstitutional for depriving Zamboanga del Norte promenades, and public works for public service
of property without due process and just paid for by said provinces, cities, or
compensation. municipalities. All other property possessed by
any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed
9.) Lower court declared RA 3039 by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions
unconstitutional as it deprives Zamboanga del of special laws.
Norte of its private properties.
Applying the above cited norm, all the properties
Hence the appeal. in question, except the two (2) lots used as High
School playgrounds, could be considered as
Issue: patrimonial properties of the former Zamboanga
Whether RA 3039 is unconstitutional on the province. Even the capital site, the hospital and
grounds that it deprives Zamboanga del Norte of leprosarium sites, and the school sites will be
its private properties. considered patrimonial for they are not for public
use. They would fall under the phrase public
Held: works for public service for it has been held that
No. RA 3039 is valid. The properties petitioned under the ejusdem generis rule, such public
by Zamboanga del Norte is a public property. works must be for free and indiscriminate use by
anyone, just like the preceding enumerated
The validity of the law ultimately depends on the properties in the first paragraph of Art 424. The
nature of the 50 lots and buildings thereon in playgrounds, however, would fit into this
question. For, the matter involved here is the category.
extent of legislative control over the properties of
a municipal corporation, of which a province is Law of Municipal Corporations
one. The principle itself is simple: If the property On the other hand, applying the norm obtaining
is owned by the municipality (meaning municipal under the principles constituting the law of
corporation) in its public and governmental Municipal Corporations, all those of the 50
capacity, the property is public and Congress has properties in question which are devoted to public
absolute control over it. But if the property is service are deemed public; the rest remain
owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then patrimonial. Under this norm, to be considered
it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute public, it is enough that the property be held and,
control. The municipality cannot be deprived of it devoted for governmental purposes like local
without due process and payment of just administration, public education, public health,
compensation. etc.

The capacity in which the property is held is, Final Ruling

however, dependent on the use to which it is The controversy here is more along the domains
intended and devoted. Now, which of two norms, of the Law of Municipal Corporations State vs.
i.e., that of the Civil Code or that obtaining under Province than along that of Civil Law. If
the law of Municipal Corporations, must be used municipal property held and devoted to public
in classifying the properties in question? service is in the same category as ordinary
private property, then that would mean they can Chavez v. Pea and Amari
be levied upon and attached; they can even be
acquired thru adverse possession all these to Fact:
the detriment of the local community. It is wrong
to consider those properties as ordinary private 1.) In 1973, the Comissioner on Public
property. Highways entered into a contract to reclaim areas
of Manila Bay with the Construction and
Lastly, the classification of properties other than Development Corportion of the Philippines
those for public use in the municipalities as (CDCP).
patrimonial under Art. 424 of the Civil Code is
2.) PEA (Public Estates Authority) was
without prejudice to the provisions of special created by President Marcos under P.D. 1084,
laws. For purpose of this article, the principles, tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed
obtaining under the Law of Municipal lands.
Corporations can be considered as special
laws. Hence, the classification of municipal 3.) These lands were transferred to the care
property devoted for distinctly governmental of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila
Cavite Road and Reclamation Project (MCRRP).
purposes as public should prevail over the Civil
CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that
Code classification in this particular case. all future projects under the MCRRP would be
funded and owned by PEA.

4.) By 1988, President Aquino issued

Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to
PEA. It was followed by the transfer of three Titles
(7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds
of Paranaque to PEA covering the three
reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM
ISLANDS.

5.) Subsquently, PEA entered into a joint

venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-
Philippine corporation to develop the Freedom
Islands. Along with another 250 hectares, PEA
and AMARI entered the JVA which would later
transfer said lands to AMARI.

6.) This caused a stir especially when Sen.

Maceda assailed the agreement, claiming that
such lands were part of public domain (famously
known as the mother of all scams).

7.) Peitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a

taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of
preliminary injunction and a TRO against the sale
of reclaimed lands by PEA to AMARI and from
implementing the JVA. Following these events,
under President Estradas admin, PEA and
AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and Mr.
Chaves claim that the contract is null and void.

Issue:
w/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or to
be reclaimed as part of the stipulations in the
(Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA violate
Sec. 3 Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and
w/n: the court is the proper forum for raising the further declare them no longer needed for public
issue of whether the amended joint venture service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed
agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the alienable lands of the public domain to AMARI will
government. be void in view of Section 3, Article XII of the
1987Constitution which prohibits private
Held: corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain.

On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the

constitution:
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands
comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by
certificates of title in the name of PEA, are
alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may
lease these lands to private corporations but may
not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to
private corporations. PEA may only sell these
lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the
ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and
existing laws.

2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of

Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources
of the public domain until classified as alienable
or disposable lands open to disposition and
declared no longer needed for public service. The
government can make such classification and
declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these
submerged areas. Only then can these lands
qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain,
\

which are the only natural resources the

government can alienate. In their present state,
the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas are
inalienable and outside the commerce of man.

3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to

AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34
hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.

4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer

to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of
still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
the alienation of natural resources other than
agricultural lands of the public domain.

PEA may reclaim these submerged areas.

Thereafter, the government can classify the