Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    09 - Laurel v. Garcia - Liao

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan could not be alienated by the Philippine government because it belonged to the state and was intended for public service as the site of the Philippine embassy. While the property had not been used for its intended purpose for over 13 years due to lack of funds, it did not lose its public domain status without a formal declaration by the government withdrawing it from public use. Legislative authority is required to authorize the sale of government property like the Roppongi site. The petitions to enjoin the proposed sale were granted.

    Copyright:

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

    09 - Laurel v. Garcia - Liao

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    50 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan could not be alienated by the Philippine government because it belonged to the state and was intended for public service as the site of the Philippine embassy. While the property had not been used for its intended purpose for over 13 years due to lack of funds, it did not lose its public domain status without a formal declaration by the government withdrawing it from public use. Legislative authority is required to authorize the sale of government property like the Roppongi site. The petitions to enjoin the proposed sale were granted.

    Original Description:

    09_Laurel v. Garcia_Liao

    Original Title

    09_Laurel v. Garcia_Liao

    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 ruled that the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan could not be alienated by the Philippine government because it belonged to the state and was intended for public service as the site of the Philippine embassy. While the property had not been used for its intended purpose for over 13 years due to lack of funds, it did not lose its public domain status without a formal declaration by the government withdrawing it from public use. Legislative authority is required to authorize the sale of government property like the Roppongi site. The petitions to enjoin the proposed sale were granted.

    Copyright:

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

    09 - Laurel v. Garcia - Liao

    Uploaded by

    Ralph Deric Espiritu
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan could not be alienated by the Philippine government because it belonged to the state and was intended for public service as the site of the Philippine embassy. While the property had not been used for its intended purpose for over 13 years due to lack of funds, it did not lose its public domain status without a formal declaration by the government withdrawing it from public use. Legislative authority is required to authorize the sale of government property like the Roppongi site. The petitions to enjoin the proposed sale were granted.

    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

    LAUREL VS.

    GARCIA Roppongi Property has ceased to become property of public


    G.R. No. 92013 and G.R. No. 92047 | 1990-07-25 dominion, because:
    o it has not been used for public service or for diplomatic
    Topic: Patrimonial property of the State purposes for over thirteen (13) years; and
    o the intention by the Executive Department and the
    Petitioners: SALVADOR H. LAUREL Congress to convert it to private use has been manifested
    Respondents: RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust, by overt acts.
    RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and CATALINO
    MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary ISSUE: WON the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by
    the Philippine Government?
    RECIT-READY: Petitioners sought to enjoin respondends from selling the
    Roppongi Property acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese HELD: No, properties belonging to the State and intended for some public
    government which became the site of Philippine embassy. Respondents service cannot be alienated.
    contend that the Civil Code does not apply and even if it does, the property
    ceased to be a public dominion, thus can be subject of sale. The SC ruled The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are Articles 419, 420 and 421.
    that the property cannot be alienated because it belongs to the State and
    intended for public service. The Roppongi Property is classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the
    Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public
    FACTS: service (i.e., for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine government).
     Petitioners sought to enjoin Respondents, their representatives and Accordingly, it is outside the commerce of man, and therefore, cannot be
    agents from proceeding with the sale of a parcel of land in Roppongi, alienated. A law or formal declaration to withdraw a property from public
    Tokyo, Japan (“Roppongi Property”), pursuant to Executive Order No. domain is necessary to make it alienable.
    296 issued by the then President Corazon Aquino.
     The Roppongi Property was acquired as part of the reparations from As regards the conversion of the Roppongi Property to patrimonial
    the Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the property, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that the Roppongi Property
    Philippine government. has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not
    o As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion
    until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on 22 July happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use. A property
    1976, when the building therein needed major repairs. continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private
    o Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration (i.e., law) on
    funds, the Roppongi Property has remained undeveloped the part of the government to withdraw it from being such.
    since that time.
     Respondents, for their part, averred that the Roppongi Property is not The Supreme Court further declared that an abandonment of the intention
    governed by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the to use the Roppongi Property for public service and to make it patrimonial
    property is located. property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite. Abandonment
     The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument cannot be inferred from the non-use alone especially if the non-use was
    that the Civil Code is applicable, citing Article 422 of the Civil Code, the attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will
    but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property.
    Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal
    premises. Legislative authority is necessary to allow the sale of government
    property.

    Finally, under Section 48, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987


    (Executive Order No. 292), conveyance of real property of the Government
    must first be authorized by law. It is not for the President to convey valuable
    real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such
    conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the
    Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.

    FALLO: 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. The
    February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT.

    You might also like