COLLEGE OF LAW, AUSL Case Digests on Property Law

CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY Only 157.84 hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have
384 SCRA 152 been reclaimed, and the rest of the area are stillsubmerged areas
forming part of Manila Bay. Further, it is provided that AMARI
will reimburse the actual costs in reclaiming the areas of land
FACTS: and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs to be incurred.
President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA,
which was tasked with the development, improvement, and The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the
acquisition, lease, and sale of all kinds of lands. The then lands of the public domain, waters and other natural resources
president also transferred to PEA the foreshore and offshore lands and consequently owned by the State. As such, foreshore and
of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they are
Road and Reclamation Project. classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere
reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesn’t convert these
Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
of land and then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or
for the development of the Freedom Islands. These two presidential
entered into a joint venture in the absence of any public proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as
bidding. alienable and disposable if the law has reserved them for
some public or quasi-public use.
Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator
President Maceda denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all
scams. An investigation was conducted and it was concluded that Macasiano v. Diokno
the lands that PEA was conveying to AMARI were lands of the [G.R. No. 97764. August 10, 1992.]
public domain; the certificates of title over the En Banc, Medialdea (J): 12 concur
Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This
prompted Ramos to form an investigatory committee on the Facts: On 13 June 1990, the Municipality of Paranaque passed
legality of the JVA. Ordinance 86, s. 1990 which authorized the closure of J. Gabrielle,
G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets
Petitioner now comes and contends that the government located at Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila and the
stands to lose billions by the conveyance or sale of the establishment of a flea market thereon. The said ordinance was
reclaimed areas to AMARI. He also asked for the full approved by the municipal council pursuant to MCC Ordinance 2,
disclosure of the renegotiations happening between the parties. s. 1979, authorizing and regulating the use of certain city and/or
municipal streets, roads and open spaces within Metropolitan
Manila as sites for flea market and/or vending areas, under certain
ISSUE: terms and conditions. On 20 July 1990, the Metropolitan Manila
W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to Authority approved Ordinance 86, s. 1990 of the municipal council
AMARI of the lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the subject to conditions. On 20 June 1990, the municipal council
Constitution. issued a resolution authorizing the Parañaque Mayor to enter into
contract with any service cooperative for the establishment,
operation, maintenance and management of flea markets and/or
HELD: vending areas. On 8 August 1990, the municipality and Palanyag,
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged a service cooperative, entered into an agreement whereby the
areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State latter shall operate, maintain and manage the flea market with the
owns all lands and waters of the public domain. obligation to remit dues to the treasury of the municipal
government of Parañaque. Consequently, market stalls were put
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It up by Palanyag on the said streets. On 13 September 1990 Brig.
declares that all natural resources are owned by the State Gen. Macasiano, PNP Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic
and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public Command, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls along
domain, natural resources cannot be alienated. G.G. Cruz and J. Gabrielle St. in Baclaran. These stalls were later
returned to Palanyag. On 16 October 1990, Macasiano wrote a
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares.
1|Page
 COLLEGE OF LAW, AUSL Case Digests on Property Law

letter to Palanyag giving the latter 10 days to discontinue the flea or any part thereof shall be closed without indemnifying any person
market; otherwise, the market stalls shall be dismantled. prejudiced thereby. A property thus withdrawn from public use may
On 23 October 1990, the municipality and Palanyag filed with the be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property
trial court a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus with belonging to the local unit concerned might be lawfully used or
damages and prayer for preliminary injunction. On 17 December conveyed."
1990, the trial court issued an order upholding the validity of 4. Legal provision should be read and interpreted in
Ordinance 86 s. 1990 of the Municipality of Parañaque and accordance with basic principles already established by
enjoining Macasiano from enforcing his letter-order against law; LGU has no power to lease a road available to public
Palanyag. Hence, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic
by Macasiano thru the OSG. The legal provision (Chapter II, Section 10 of the LGC) which gives
The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and set authority to local government units to close roads and other similar
aside the 17 December 1990 decision of the RTC which granted public places should be read and interpreted in accordance with
the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the PNP Superintendent, basic principles already established by law. These basic principles
Metropolitan Traffic Command from enforcing the demolition of have the effect of limiting such authority of the province, city or
market stalls along J. Gabrielle, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia municipality to close a public street or thoroughfare. Article 424
Extension and Opena streets. NCC lays down the basic principle that properties of public
1. Property of provinces, cities and municipalities; Property dominion devoted to public use and made available to the public in
for public use general are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed
The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into of or leased by the local government unit to private persons. Aside
property for public use and patrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil from the requirement of due process which should be complied
Code). As to property for public use, Article 424 of Civil Code with before closing a road, street or park, the closure should be for
provides that "property for public use, in the provinces, cities and the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other public property
municipalities, consists of the provincial roads, city streets, the from public use when circumstances show that such property is no
squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works longer intended or necessary for public use or public service.
for public service paid for by said provinces, cities or When it is already withdrawn from public use, the property then
municipalities. All other property possessed by any of them is becomes patrimonial property of the local government unit (LGU)
patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice (Article 422 NCC; Cebu Oxygen v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]).
to the provisions of special laws." In the present case, thus, J. It is only then that the LGU can "use or convey them for any
Gabrielle G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Gacia Extension and Opena purpose for which other real property belonging to the local unit
streets are local roads used for public service and are therefore concerned might be lawfully used or conveyed." However, those
considered public properties of the municipality. roads and streets which are available to the public in general and
2. Properties for public service deemed public and under ordinarily used for vehicular traffic are still considered public
absolute control of Congress property devoted to public use. In such case, the LGU has no
Properties of the local government which are devoted to public power to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to
service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of private persons.
Congress (Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of 5. Related case, Cebu Oxygen v. Bercilles
Zamboanga, 22 SCRA 1334 [1968]). In Cebu Oxygen v. Bercilles, the City Council of Cebu, through a
3. Local governments have no authority to regulate use of resolution, declared the terminal road of M. Borces Street, Mabolo,
public properties unless authority is vested upon by Cebu City as an abandoned road, the same not being included in
Congress; e.g. Closure of roads the City Development Plan. Thereafter, the City Council passed
Local governments have no authority whatsoever to control or another resolution authorizing the sale of the said abandoned road
regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority is through public bidding. The Court held that the City of Cebu is
vested upon them by Congress. One such example of this empowered to close a city street and to vacate or withdraw the
authority given by Congress to the local governments is the power same from public use. Such withdrawn portion becomes
to close roads as provided in Section 10, Chapter II of the Local patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary
Government Code (BP 337), which states “A local government unit contract
may likewise, through its head acting pursuant to a resolution of its 6. Related case, Dacanay v. Asistio
sangguniang and in accordance with existing law and the In Dacanay v. Asistio, the disputed areas from which the market
provisions of this Code, close any barangay, municipal, city or stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets. A public street is
provincial road, street, alley, park or square. No such way or place property for public use hence outside the commerce of man (Arts.
2|Page
 COLLEGE OF LAW, AUSL Case Digests on Property Law

420, 424, Civil Code). Being outside the commerce of man, it may Rita Hospital located along GG Cruz Street are delayed as they
not be the subject of lease or other contract (Villanueva, et al. v. are unable to pass through said street due to the stalls and
Castañeda and Macalino, 15 SCRA 142 citing the Municipality of vendors.
Cavite v. Rojas, 30 SCRA 602; Espiritu v. Municipal Council of 9. Powers of local government unit not absolute
Pozorrubio, 102 Phil. 869; and Muyot v. De la Fuente, 48 O.G. The powers of a local government unit are not absolute. They are
4860). The right of the public to use the city streets may not be subject to limitations laid down by the Constitution and the laws
bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not such as our Civil Code. Moreover, the exercise of such powers
prevail over the good of the greater number in the community should be subservient to paramount considerations of health and
whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the well-being of the members of the community. Every local
respondent city officials are under legal obligation to protect. The government unit has the sworn obligation to enact measures that
leases or licenses granted by the City Government to stallholders will enhance the public health, safety and convenience, maintain
are null and void for being contrary to law. The Executive Order peace and order, and promote the general prosperity of the
issued by the acting Mayor authorizing the use of Heroes del '96 inhabitants of the local units. Based on this objective, the local
Street as a vending area for stallholders contravenes the general government should refrain from acting towards that which might
law that reserves city streets and roads for public use. The prejudice or adversely affect the general welfare.
Executive Order may not infringe upon the vested right of the 10. General public has legal right to demand the restoration
public to use city streets for the purpose they were intended to of city streets to their specific public purpose
serve: i.e., as arteries of travel for vehicles and pedestrians. As in the Dacanay case, the general public have a legal right to
7. In gratia argumenti, ordinance cannot be validly demand the demolition of the illegally constructed stalls in public
implemented as municipality has not complied with roads and streets and the officials of municipality have the
conditions imposed by the MMA for the approval of the corresponding duty arising from public office to clear the city
ordinance streets and restore them to their specific public purpose.
Even assuming, in gratia argumenti, that the municipality has the 11. Applicability of the Dacanay case; Contracts by Local
authority to pass the disputed ordinance, the same cannot be Government governed by the original terms and conditions,
validly implemented because it cannot be considered approved by and the law in force at time the rights were vested
the Metropolitan Manila Authority due to non-compliance by the As in the Dacanay case, both cases involve an ordinance which is
municipality of the conditions imposed by the former for the void and illegal for lack of basis and authority in laws applicable
approval of the ordinance. The allegations of the municipality that during its time. However, BP 337 (Local Government Code), has
the closed streets were not used for vehicular traffic and that the already been repealed by RA7160 (Local Government Code of
majority of the residents do not oppose the establishment of a flea 1991) which took effect on 1 January 1992. Section 5(d) of the
market on said streets are unsupported by any evidence that will new Code provides that rights and obligations existing on the date
show that the first condition has been met. Likewise, the of effectivity of the new Code and arising out of contracts or any
designation by the Municipality of a time schedule during which the other source of prestation involving a local government unit shall
flea market shall operate is absent (fourth condition). be governed by the original terms and conditions of the said
8. Baclaran area congested; establishment of flea market contracts or the law in force at the time such rights were vested.
on municipality streets does not help solve problem of
congestion
It is of public notice that the streets along Baclaran area are
congested with people, houses and traffic brought about by the
proliferation of vendors occupying the streets. To license and allow
the establishment of a flea market along J. Gabrielle, G.G. Cruz,
Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena streets in Baclaran
would not help in solving the problem of congestion but rather
leads to inconvenience to children as the normal transportation
flow is disrupted, to pollution and deterioration of health of
residents due to the garbage left by the vendors on the streets.
Further, ambulances and fire engines are not able to use the roads Cebu Oxygen vs Bercilles
for a more direct access to the fire area and thus lose valuable 66 SCRA 481
time that should have been spent in saving properties and lives.
And further, the ambulances and people rushing patients to St. Facts:
3|Page
 COLLEGE OF LAW, AUSL Case Digests on Property Law

Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of

This is a case on a petition for the review of the order of the Court Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then
of First Instance of Cebu dismissing petitioner's application for Zamboanga Province. On October 12, 1936, Commonwealth Act
registration of title over a parcel of land situated in the City of
39 was approved converting the Municipality of Zamboanga into
Cebu.
Zamboanga City. Sec. 50 of the Act also provided that — Buildings
The parcel of land sought to be registered was only a portion of M. and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer
Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. On September 23, 1968, the of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the
City Council of Cebu, through Resolution No. 2193, approved on City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor General.
October 3, 1968, declared the terminal portion of M. Borces Street,
Mabolo, Cebu City, as an abandoned road, the same not being The properties and buildings referred to consisted of 50 lots and
included in the City Development Plan.
some buildings constructed thereon, located in the City of
Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the Zamboanga and covered individually by Torrens certificates of title
application on the ground that the property sought to be registered in the name of Zamboanga Province.
being a public road intended for public use is considered part of
the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was approved dividing the
Consequently, it cannot be subject to registration by any private province of Zamboanga into two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and
individual.
Zamboanga del Sur. Properties and the obligations of the province
Issue: of Zamboanga shall be divided equitably between the Province of
Zamboanga del Norte and the Province of Zamboanga del Sur by
Whether or not the declaration of the road as abandoned make it the President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the
patrimonial property which may be the object of a common Auditor General.
contract.
However, on June 17, 1961, Republic Act 3039 was approved
Held:
amending Sec. 50 of Commonwealth Act 39 by providing that —All
Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province
application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga are
follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property hereby transferred, free of charge, in favor of the said City of
which can be the object of an ordinary contract. Zamboanga.

Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "Property of

Issue:
public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for
public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the
State." WON Zamboanga del Norte is deprived of its private properties
without due process and just compensation.
Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or
conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging
to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed.

Ruling:

The fact that the 26 lots are registered strengthens the proposition
that they are truly private in nature. On the other hand, that the 24
lots used for governmental purposes are also registered is of no
significance since registration cannot convert public property to
private.

Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs Zamboanga City Applying Art. 424 of NCC, all the properties in question, except the
22 SCRA 1334 two (2) lots used as High School playgrounds, could be considered
as patrimonial properties of the former Zamboanga province. Even
Facts: the capital site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and the school

4|Page
 COLLEGE OF LAW, AUSL Case Digests on Property Law

sites will be considered patrimonial for they are not for public use.
They would fall under the phrase "public works for public service"

Salas vs Jarencio
46 SCRA 734

Facts:

On February 24, 1919, the 4th Branch of the Court of First

Instance of Manila, acting as a land registration court, rendered
judgment declaring the City of Manila the owner in fee simple of a
parcel of land containing an area of 9,689.8 square meters, more
or less. On various dates in 1924, the City of Manila sold portions
of the aforementioned parcel of land in favor of Pura Villanueva.

On September 21, 1960, the Municipal Board of Manila, presided

by then Vice-Mayor Antono J. Villegas, adopted a resolution
requesting His Excellency, the President of the Philippines to
consider the feasibility of declaring the City property bounded by
Florida, San Andres, and Nebraska Streets, containing a total area
of 7,450 square meters as a patrimonial property of the City of
Manila for the purpose of reselling these lots to the actual
occupants thereof. There is therefore a precedent that this parcel
of land could be subdivided and sold to bona fide occupants. The
bill was passed by the Senate and approved by the President and
became RA 4118.

Issue:

WON the property involved in RA 4118 is a private or patrimonial

property of the City of Manila.

Ruling:

The conclusion of the respondent court that Republic Act No. 4118
converted a patrimonial property of the City of Manila into a parcel
of disposable land of the State and took it away from the City
without compensation is, therefore, unfounded. In the last analysis
the land in question pertains to the State and the City of Manila
merely acted as trustee for the benefit of the people therein for
whom the State can legislate in the exercise of its legitimate
powers.

If it were its patrimonial property why should the City of Manila be

requesting the President to make representation to the legislature
to declare it as such so it can be disposed of in favor of the actual
occupants? There could be no more blatant recognition of the fact
that said land belongs to the State and was simply granted in
usufruct to the City of Manila for municipal purposes.

5|Page