Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 367 views

    Laurel Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    The document summarizes a legal case regarding the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. It was used as the Philippine Embassy until needing repairs, after which the Philippine government sought to sell the property. The issue is whether Japanese law or Philippine law governs the authority to sell the property. The court ruled that Philippine law applies, not Japanese law, because there is no conflict of laws - the property undisputedly belongs to the Philippines, so the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to sell it.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    367 views1 page
    The document summarizes a legal case regarding the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. It was used as the Philippine Embassy until needing repairs, after which the Philippine government sought to sell the property. The issue is whether Japanese law or Philippine law governs the authority to sell the property. The court ruled that Philippine law applies, not Japanese law, because there is no conflict of laws - the property undisputedly belongs to the Philippines, so the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to sell it.

    Original Description:

    conflicts

    Original Title

    1. Laurel vs Garcia

    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 document summarizes a legal case regarding the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. It was used as the Philippine Embassy until needing repairs, after which the Philippine government sought to sell the property. The issue is whether Japanese law or Philippine law governs the authority to sell the property. The court ruled that Philippine law applies, not Japanese law, because there is no conflict of laws - the property undisputedly belongs to the Philippines, so the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to sell it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    367 views1 page

    Laurel Vs Garcia

    Uploaded by

    cyhaaangelaaa
    The document summarizes a legal case regarding the sale of a property in Japan acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. It was used as the Philippine Embassy until needing repairs, after which the Philippine government sought to sell the property. The issue is whether Japanese law or Philippine law governs the authority to sell the property. The court ruled that Philippine law applies, not Japanese law, because there is no conflict of laws - the property undisputedly belongs to the Philippines, so the issue is the authority of Philippine officials to sell it.

    Copyright:

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

    1. LAUREL VS GARCIA conflict with a domestic law on the same matters.

    Hence,
    G.R. No. 92013 the need to determine which law should apply.
    July 25, 1990
    In the instant case, none of the above elements
    FACTS: exists.
    1. The Roppongi case is one of the four properties
    in Japan acquired by the Philippine government The issues are not concerned with validity of
    under the Reparation Agreement entered into ownership or title. There is no question that the property
    with Japan. belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of
    2. The said property was acquired from the the respondent officials to validly dispose of property
    Japanese government through Reparations belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures
    Contract No. 300. It consists of the land and adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine
    building for the Chancery of the Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
    Embassy.
    3. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of
    Embassy until the latter was transferred to Justice sheds light on the relevance of the lex situs rule is
    Nampeidai when the Roppongi building needed misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of
    major repairs. the real properties procured through reparations nor the
    4. The Executive branch of the government has existence in what body of the authority to sell them. In
    been pushing its decision to sell the reparations discussing who are capable of acquiring the lots, the
    properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which
    property has twice been set for bidding at a should determine who can acquire the properties so that
    minimum floor price of $225 million. the constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the
     The first bidding was a failure since only one public domain to Filipino citizens and entities wholly
    bidder qualified. owned by Filipinos is inapplicable.
     The second one, after postponements, has
    not yet materialized.
     The last scheduled bidding on February 21,
    1990 was restrained by his Court.
    5. Petitioner Laurel states that the Roppongi
    property is classified as one of public
    dominion, and not of private ownership under
    Article 420 of the Civil Code
    6. The respondents, for their part, refute the
    petitioner's contention by saying that the subject
    property is not governed by our Civil Code but
    by the laws of Japan where the property is
    located. They rely upon the rule of lex
    situs which is used in determining the applicable
    law regarding the acquisition, transfer and
    devolution of the title to a property.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the laws of Japan will apply in the case at


    bar

    RULING:

    NO.

    We see no reason why a conflict of law rule


    should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A
    conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a
    dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such
    that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the
    formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect
    of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a
    conveyance, are to be determined; and (2) A foreign law
    on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to

    You might also like