Salas V Jarencio

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046 8/27/17, 08:25
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Jarencio
No. L-29788. August 30, 1972.
RAFAEL S. SALAS, in his capacity as Executive Secretary;

CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Governor of
the Land Authority; and LORENZO GELLA, in his
capacity as Register of Deeds of Manila, petitioners-
appellants, vs. HON.HILARION U. JARENCIO, as
Presiding Judge of Branch XXIII, Court of First Instance of
Manila; ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor
of the City of Manila; and the CITY OF MANILA,
respondents-appellees.
Civil law; Property; Municipal corporations; Presumption where

manner of acquisition of land by municipality not shown.·It is true
that the City of Manila as well as its predecessor, the Ayuntamiento
de Manila, could validly acquire property in its corporate or private
capacity, following‰ the accepted doctrine on the dual character·
public and private·of a municipal corporation. And when it
acquires property in its private capacity, it acts like an ordinary
person capable of entering into contracts or making transactions for
the transmission of title or other real rights. In the absence of title
deed to any land claimed by the City of Manila as its own, showing
that it was acquired with its private or corporate funds, the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e212568d109e90394003600fb002c009e/p/APF026/?username=Guest Page 1 of 30
presumption is that such land came from the State upon the
creation of the municipality (Unson vs. Lacson, et al., 100 Phil 695).
Same; Same; Same; Ownership of communal lands belongs to
the State.·Communal lands or „legua comunal‰ came into existence
when a town or pueblo was established in this country under the
laws of Spain (Law VII, Title III, Book VI, Recopilacion de las Leyes
de Indios). The municipalities of the Philippines were not entitled,
as a matter of right, to any part of the public domain for use as
communal lands. The Spanish law provided that the usufruct of a
portion of the public domain adjoining municipal territory might be
granted by the government for communal purposes, upon proper
petition, but until
735
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 735
Salas vs. Jarencio
granted, no rights therein passed to the municipalities, and, in any

event, the ultimate title remained in the sovereign (City of Manila
vs. Insular Government, 10 Phil. 327).
Same; Same; Same; Rule as to ownership of land in possession

of municipality.·It may be laid down as a general rule that
regardless of the source or classification of land in the possession of
a municipality, excepting those acquired with its own funds in its
private or corporate capacity, such property is held iv trust for the
State for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be for
governmental or proprietary purposes. It holds such lands Rubiect
to the paramount power of the legislature to dispose of the same, for
after all it owes its creation to it as an agent for the performance of
a part of its public work, the municipality being but a subdivision or

instrumentality thereof for purposes of local administration.
Constitutional Law; Separation of powers; Legislative
classification of land not subject to judicial review.·The Congress
has dealt with the land involved as one reserved for communal use
(terreno comunal). The act of classifying State property calls for the
exercise of wide discretionary legislative power and it should not be
interfered with by the Courts.
Constitutional law; Statutes; Presumption of constitutionality of
statutes.·It is now well established that the presumption is always
in favor of the constitutionality of a law. To declare a law
unconstitutional, the repugnancy of that law to the Constitution
must be clear and unequivocal, for even if a law is aimed at the
attainment of some public good, no infringement of constitutional
rights is allowed. To strike down a law there must be a clear
showing that what the fundamental law condemns or prohibits, the
statute allows it to be done.
Municipal corporations; City of Manila; No presumption of
State grant of ownership to municipality where land remained idle.
·Since the City of Manila did not actually use said land for any
recognized public purpose and allowed it to remain idle and
unoccupied for a long time until it was overrun by squatters, no
presumption of State grant of ownership in favor of the City may be
acquiesced in to justify the claim that it is its own private or
patrimonial property.
Constitutional law; Eminent domain; City of Manila; Republic
Act 4118 merely confirmed character of property in possession of the
City of Manila.·Republic Act 4118 was never intended to
expropriate the properly involved but merely to confirm its
character as communal land of the State and to make-it available
for disposition by the National Government; the subdivision of the
land and conveyance of the resulting subdivi-
736
Salas vs. Jarencio
sion lots to the occupants by Congressional authorization does not

operate as an exercise of the power of eminent domain without just
compensation but simply as a manifestation of its right and power
to deal with state property.
PETITION FOR REVIEW by certiorari of a decision of the

Court of First Instance of Manila.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant
Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres, Solicitor Raul L Goco
and Magno B. Pablo & Cipriano A. Tan, Legal Staff, Land
Authority for petitioners-appellants.
Gregorio A. Ejercito and Felix C. Chavez for
respondents-appellees.
ESGUERRA, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of

First Instance of Manila, Branch XXIII, in Civil Case No.
67946, dated September 23, 1968, the dispositive portion of
which is as follows:
„WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment declaring Republic Act

No. 4118 unconstitutional and invalid in that it deprived the City of
Manila of its property without due process and payment of just
compensation. Respondent Executive Secretary and Governor of the
Land Authority are hereby restrained and enjoined from

implementing the provisions of said law. Respondent Register of
Deeds of the City of Manila is ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 80876 which he had issued in the name of the Land
Tenure Administration and reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 22547 in the name of the City of Manila which he cancelled, if
that is feasible, or issue a new certificate of title for the same parcel
1
of land in the name of the City of Manila.‰
The facts necessary for a clear understanding of this case

are as follows:
On February 24, 1919, the 4th Branch of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, acting as a land registration
court, rendered judgment in Case No. 18, G.L.R.O. Record
No. 111, declaring the City of Manila the owner in fee
simple
_______________
1 Pages 79-80. Rollo.
737
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 737

Salas vs. Jarencio
of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1, Block 557 of the

Cadastral Survey of the City of Manila, containing an area
of 9,680.8 square meters, more or less, Pursuant to said
judgment the Register of Deeds of Manila on August 21,
1920, issued in favor of the City of Manila, Original
Certificate of Title No. 4329 covering the aforementioned
parcel of kind. On various dates in 1924, the City of Manila
sold portions of the aforementioned parcel of land in favor

of Pura Villanueva. As a consequence of the transactions
Original Certificate of Title No. 4329 was cancelled and
transfer certificates of title were issued in favor of Pura
Villanueva for the portions purchased by her. When the last
sale to Pura Villanueva was effected on August 22, 1924,
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21974 in the name of the
City of Manila was cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer
Certificate of Title (T.C.T,) No. 22547 covering the residue
thereof known as Lot 1-B-2-B of Block 557, with an area of
7,490.10 square meters, was issued in the name of the City
of Manila.
On September 21, 1980, the Municipal Board of Manila,
presided by then Vice-Mayor Antonio 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, under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 25545 and
22547, containing a total area of 7,450 square meters as a
patrimonial property of the City of Manila for the purpose
2
of reselling these lots to the actual occupants thereof.
The said resolution of the Municipal Board of the City of
Manila was officially transmitted to the President of the
Philippines by then Vice-Mayor Antonio J. Villegas on
September 21, 1960, with the information that the same
resolution was, on the same date, transmitted to the
Senate and House
3
of Representatives of the Congress of the
Philippines.
_______________
2 Annex „E‰ to the Partial Stipulation of Facts, page 121, Records.

3 Annex „E-l‰ to the Partial Stipulation of Facts, page 122, Records.
738

Salas vs. Jarencio
During the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the

Philippines, House Bill No. 191 was filed in the House of
Representatives by then Congressman Bartolome
Cabangbang seeking to declare the property in question as
patrimonial property of the City of Manila, and for other
purposes. The explanatory note of the Bill gave the grounds
for its enactment, to wit:
„In the particular case of the property subject of this bill, the City of
Manila does not seem to have use thereof as a public communal
property. As a matter of fact, a resolution was adopted by the
Municipal Board of Manila at its regular session held on September
21, 1960, to request the feasibility of declaring the city property
bounded by Florida, San Andres and Nebraska Streets as a
patrimonial property of the City of Manila for the purpose of
reselling these lots to the actual occupants thereof. Therefore, it will
be to the best interest of society that the said property be used in
one way or another. Since this property has been occupied for a long
time by the present occupants thereof and since said occupants
have expressed their willingness to buy the said property, it is but
4
proper that the same be sold to them.‰
Subsequently, a revised version of the Bill was introduced

in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Manuel
Cases. Antonio Raquiza and Nicanor Yñiguez as House Bill
No. 1453, with the following explanatory note:
„The accompanying bill seeks to convert one (1) parcel of land in the
district of Malate, which is reserved as communal property into a

disposable or alienable property of the State and to provide its
subdivision and sale to bona fide occupants or tenants.
„This parcel of land in question was originally an aggregate part
of a piece of land with an area of 9,689.8 square meters, more or
less, x x x On September 21, 1960, the Municipal Board of Manila in
its regular session unanimously adopted a resolution requesting the
President of the Philippines and Congress of the Philippines the
feasibility of declaring this property into disposable or alienable
property of the State. There is therefore a precedent that this parcel
of land could be subdivided and sold to bona fide occupants. This
parcel of land will not serve any useful public project because it is
bound-
_______________
4 Annex „F‰ to the Partial Stipulation of Facts, page 123, Records.
739
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 739

Salas vs. Jarencio
ed on all sides by private properties which were formerly parts of

this lot in question.
„Approval of this bill will implement the policy of the
Administration of land for the landless and the Fifth Declaration of
Principles of the Constitution, which states that the promotion of
Social Justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all
people should be the concern of the State. We are ready and willing
to enact legislation promoting the social and economic well-being of
the people whenever an opportunity for enacting such kind of
legislation arises.
In view of the foregoing consideration and to insure fairness and
justice to the present bona fide occupants thereof, approval of this

5
Bill is strongly urged.‰
The Bill having been passed by the House of

Representatives, the same was thereafter sent to the
Senate where it was thoroughly discussed, as evidenced by
the Congressional Records for May 20, 1964, pertinent
portion of which is as follows:
„SENATOR FERNANDEZ: Mr. President, it will be recalled that

when the late Mayor Lacson was still alive, we approved a similar
bill. But afterwards, the late Mayor Lacson came here and
protested against the approval, and the approval was reconsidered.
May I know whether the defect in the bill which we approved, has
already been eliminated in this present bill?
„SENATOR TOLENTINO: I understand Mr. President, that that
has already been eliminated, and that is why the City of Manila has
no more objection to this bill.
„SENATOR FERNANDEZ: Mr. President, in view of that
manifestation and considering that Mayor Villegas and
Congressman Albert of the Fourth District of Manila are in favor of
the bill. I would not want to pretend to know more what is good for
the City of Manila.
„SENATOR TOLENTINO: Mr. President, there being no
objection, I move that we approve this bill on second reading.
„PRESIDENT PRO-TEMPORE: The bill is approved on second
reading after several Senators said aye and nobody said nay.‰
________________
5 Annex „F-1‰, page 128, Records.
740

Salas vs. Jarencio
The bill was passed by the Senate, approved by the

President on June 20, 1964, and became Republic Act No.
4118. It reads as follows:
Lot 1-B-2-B of Block 557 of the cadastral survey of the City of

Manila, situated in the District of Malate. City of Manila, which is
reserved as communal property, is hereby converted mto disposal or
alienable land of the State, to be placed under ihe disposal of the
Land Tenure Administration. The Land Tenure Administration
shall subdivide the property into small lots, none of which shall
exceed one hundred and twenty square meters in area and sell the
same on installment basis to the tenants or bona fide occupants
thereof and to individuals, in the order mentioned: Provided, That
no down payment shall be required of tenants or bona fide
occupants. who cannot afford to pay such down payment: Provided,
further, That no person can purchase more than one lot: Provided,
furthermore, That if the tenant or bona fide occupant of any given
lot is not able to purchase the same, he shall be given a lease from
month to month until such time that he is able to purchase the lot:
Provided, still further, That in the event of lease the rentals which
may be charged shall not exceed eight per cent per annum of the
assessed value of the property leased: And provided, finally, That in
fixing the price of each lot, wMch shall not exceed twenty pesos per
square meter, the cost of subdivision and survey shall not be
included.
„Sec. 2. Upon approval of this Act no ejectment proceedings
against any tenant or bona fide occupant of the above lots shall be
instituted and any ejectment proceedings pending in court against
any such tenant or bona fide occupant shall be dismissed upon
motion of the defendant: Provided, That any demolition order
directed against any tenant or bona fide occupant shall be lifted.

„Sec. 3. Upon approval of this Act, if the tenant or bona fide
occupant is in arrears in the payment of any rentals, the amount
legally due shall be liquidated and shall be payable in twenty-four
equal monthly installments from the date of liquidation.
„Sec. 4. No property acquired by virtue of this Act shall be
transferred, sold, mortgaged, or otherwise disposed of within a
period of five years from the date full ownership thereof has been
vested in the purchaser without the consent of the Land Tenure
Administration,
„Sec. 5. In the event of the death of the purchaser prior to the
complete payment of the price of the lot purchased by
741
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 741

Salas vs. Jarencio
him, his widow and children shall succeed in all his rights and
obligations with respect to his lot.
„Sec. 6. The Chairman of the Land Tenure Administration shall
implement and issue such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
„Sec. 7. The sum of one hundred fifty thousand pesos in
appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act.
„Sec. 8. All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with this Act are
repealed or modified accordingly.
„Sec. 9. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
„Approved, June 20, 1964.‰
To implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 4118, and

pursuant to the request of the occupants of the property
involved, then Deputy Governor Jose V. Yap of the Land
Authority (which succeeded the Land Tenure

Administration) addressed a letter, dated February 18,
1965, to Mayor Antonio Villegas, furnishing him with a
copy of the proposed subdivision plan of said lot as
prepared for the Republic of the Philippines for resale of
the subdivision
6
lots by the Land Authority to bona fide
applicants.
On March 2, 1965, the City Mayor of Manila, through
his Executive and Technical Adviser, acknowledged receipt
of the proposed subdivision plan of the property in question
attd informed the Land Authority that his office would
interpose no objection to the implementation of said 7
law,
provided that its provisions be strictly complied with.
With the above-mentioned written conformity of the City
of Manila for the implementation of Republic Act No. 4118,
the Land Authority, thru then Deputy Governor Jose V.
Yap, requested the City Treasurer of Manila, thru the City
Mayor, for the surrender and delivery to the former of the
ownerÊs duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 22547
m order to obtain title thereto in the name of the Land Au-
_______________
6 Annex „J‰, page 142, Records.

7 Annex „K‰, page 145, Records.
742

Salas vs. Jarencio
thority. The request was duly granted with8 the knowledge

and consent of the Office of the City Mayor.
With the presentation of Transfer Certificate of Title No.

22547, which had been yielded as above stated by the City
authorities to the Land Authority, Transfer Certificate of
Title (T.C.T. No. 22547) was cancelled by the Register of
Deeds of Manila and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 80876 was issued in the name of the Land Tenure
Administration (now Land Authority) 9
pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act No. 4118.
But due to reasons which do not appear in the record,
the City of Manila made a complete turn-about, for on
December 20, 1966, Antonio J. Villegas, in his capacity as
the City Mayor of Manila and the City of Manila as a duly
organized public corporation, brought an action for
injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary injunction
to restrain, prohibit and enjoin the herein appellants,
particularly the Governor of the Land Authority and the
Register of Deeds of Manila, from further implementing
Republic Act No. 4118, and praying for the declaration of
Republic Act No. 4118 as unconstitutional.
With the foregoing antecedent facts, which are all
contained in the partial stipulation of facts submitted to
the trial court and approved by respondent Judge, the
parties waived the presentation of further evidence and
submitted the case for decision. On September 23, 1968,
judgment was rendered by the trial court declaring
Republic Act No. 4118 unconstitutional and invalid on the
ground that it deprived the City of Manila of its property
without due process of law and payment of just
compensation. The respondents were ordered to undo all
that had been done to carry out the provisions of said Act
and were restrained from further implementing the same.
Two issues are presented for determination, on the
resolution of which the decision in this case hinges, to wit:
I. Is the property involved private or patrimonial property of the

City of Manila?
________________
8 Annexes „L‰ and „L-l‰, pages 145-147, Records.

9 Annexes „A‰ and „N‰, pages 148-150, Records.
743
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 743

Salas vs. Jarencio
II. Is Republic Act No. 4118 valid and not repugnant to the
Constitution?
I.
As regards the first issue, appellants maintain that the

land involved is a communal land or „legua comunal‰ which
is a portion of the public domain owned by the State; that it
came into existence as such when the City of Manila, or
any pueblo or town in the Philippines for that matter, was
founded under the laws of Spain, the former sovereign; that
upon the establishment of a pueblo, the administrative
authority was required to allot and set aside portions of the
public domain for a public plaza, a church site, a site for
public buildings, lands to serve as common pastures and for
streets and roads; that in assigning these lands some lots
were earmarked for strictly public purposes, and ownership
of these lots (for public purposes) immediately passed to
the new municipality; that in the case of common lands or
„legua comunal‰, there was no such immediate acquisition

of ownership by the pueblo, and the land though
administered thereby, did not automatically become its
property in the absence of an express grant from the
Central Government, and that the reason for this
arrangement is that this class of land was not absolutely
needed for the discharge of the municipalityÊs
governmental functions.
It is argued that the parcel of land involved herein has
not been used by the City of Manila for any public purpose
and had not been officially earmarked as a site for the
erection of some public buildings; that this circumstance
confirms the fact that it was originally „communal‰ land al-
loted to the City of Manila by the Central Government not
because it was needed in connection with its organization
as a municipality but simply for the common use of its
inhabitants; that the present City of Manila as successor of
the Ayuntamiento de Manila under the former Spanish
sovereign merely enjoys the usufruct over said land, and its
exercise of acts of ownership by selling parts thereof did not
necessarily convert the land into a patrimonial property of
the City of Manila nor divest the State of its paramount
title.
744

Salas vs. Jarencio
Appellants further argue that a municipal corporation, like

a city is a governmental agent of the State with authority
to govern a limited portion of its territory or to administer
purely local affairs in a given political subdivision, and the
extent of its authority is strictly delimited by the grant of

power conferred by the State; that Congress has the
exclusive power to create, change or destroy municipal
corporations; that even if We admit that legislative control
over municipal corporations is not absolute and even if it is
true that the City of Manila has a registered title over the
property in question, the mere transfer of such land by an
act of the legislature from one class of public land to
another, without compensation, does not invade the vested
rights of the City.
Appellants finally argue that Republic Act No. 4118 has
treated the land involved as one reserved for communal
use, and this classification is conclusive upon the courts;
that if the City of Manila feels that this is wrong and its
interests have been thereby prejudiced, the matter should
be brought to the attention of Congress for correction; and
that since Congress, in the exercise of its wide
discretionary powers has seen fit to classify the land in
question as communal, the Courts certainly owe it to a
coordinate branch of the Government to respect such
determination and should not interfere with the
enforcement of the law.
Upon the other hand, appellees argue by simply quoting
portions of the appealed decision of the trial court, which
read thus:
„The respondents (petitioners-appellants herein) contend, among

other defenses, that the property in question is communal property.
This contention is, however, disproved by Original Certificate of
Title No. 4329 issued on August 21, 1920 in favor of the City of
Manila after the land in question was registered in the CityÊs favor.
The Torrens Title expressly states that the City of Manila was the
owner in Âfee simpleÊ of the said land. Under Sec. 38 of the Land
Registration Act, as amended, the decree of confirmation and
registration in favor of the City of Manila . . . shall be conclusive

upon and against all persons including the Insular Government and
all the branches there . . . There is nothing in the said certificate of
title indicating that the land was ÂcommunalÊ land as contended by
the respondents. The erroneous assumption by
745
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 745

Salas vs. Jarencio
the Municipal Board of Manila that the land in question was

communal land did not make it so. The Municipal Board had no
authority to do that.
„The respondents, however, contend that Congress had the power
and authority to declare that the land in question was ÂcommunalÊ
land and the courts have no power or authority to make a contrary
finding. This contention is not entirely correct or accurate. Congress
has the power to classify Âland of the public domainÊ, transfer them
from one classification to another and declare them disposable or
not. Such power does not, however, extend to properties which are
owned by cities, provinces and municipalities in their ÂpatrimonialÊ
capacity.
„Art. 324 of the Civil Code provides that properties of provinces,
cities and municipalities are divided into properties for public use
and patrimonial property. Art. 424 of the same code provides that
properties for public use consist of provincial roads, city streets,
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades and public works for public service paid for by said
province, cities or municipalities. All other praperty possessed by
any of them is patrimonial. Tested by this criterion the Court finds
and holds that the land in question is patrimonial property of the
City of Manila.
„Respondents contend that Congress .has declared the land in

question to be ÂcommunalÊ and, therefore, such designation is
conclusive upon the courts. The Courts holds otherwise. When a
statute is assailed as unconstitutional the Courts have the power
and authority to inquire into the question and pass upon it. This
has long ago been settled in Marbury vs. Madison, 2 L. ed. 60, when
the United States Supreme Court speaking thru Chief Justice
Marshall held:
Âx x x If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void,

does it, notwithstanding its validity, bind the courts, and oblige them to
give effect? It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is ... So if a law be in opposition to the
constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular
case, so that the court must either decide that case conformable to the
constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of
these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of
unconstitutional judicial duty.Ê‰
Appellees finally concluded that when the courts declare a

law unconstitutional it does not mean that the judicial
power is superior to the legislative power. It simply means
that the power of the people is superior to both and that
746

Salas vs. Jarencio
when the will of the legislature, declared in statutes,

stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the
Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the
Constitution rather than by the statutes.
There is one outstanding factor that should be borne in
mind in resolving the character of the land involved, and it

is that the City of Manila, although declared by the
Cadastral Court as owner in fee simple, has not shown by
any shred of evidence in what manner it acquired said land
as its private or patrimonial property. It is true that the
City of Manila as well as its predecessor, the Ayuntamiento
de Manila, could validly acquire property in its corporate or
private capacity, following the accepted doctrine on the
dual character·public and private·of a municipal
corporation. And when it acquires property in its private
capacity, it acts like an ordinary person capable of entering
into contracts or making transactions for the transmission
of title or other real rights. When it comes to acquisition of
land, it must have done so under any of the modes
established by law for the acquisition of ownership and
other real rights. In the absence of a title deed to any land
claimed by the City of Manila as its own, showing that it
was acquired with its private or corporate funds, the
presumption is that such land came from the State upon
the creation of the municipality (Unson vs. Lacson, et al.,
100 Phil. 695). Originally the municipality owned no
patrimonial property except those that were granted by the
State not for its public but for private use. Other properties
it owns are acquired in the course of the exercise of its
corporate powers as a juridical entity to which category a
municipal corporation pertains.
Communal lands or „legua comunal‰ came into existence
when a town or pueblo was established in this country
under the laws of Spain (Law VII, Title III, Book VI,
Recopilacion de las Ley es de Indios). The municipalities of
the Philippines were not entitled, as a matter of right, to
any part of the public domain for use as communal lands.
The Spanish law provided that the usufruct of a portion of
the public domain adjoining municipal territory might be
granted by the Government for communal purposes, upon
747
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 747

Salas vs. Jarencio
proper petition, but, until granted, no rights therein passed

to the municipalities, and, in any event, the ultimate title
remained in the sovereign (City of Manila vs. Insular
Government, 10 Phil 827).
„For the establishment, then, of new pueblos the administrative

authority of the province, in representation of the Governor
General, designated the territory for their location and extension
and the metes and bounds of the same; and before alloting the lands
among the new settlers, a special demarcation was made of the
places which were to serve as the public square of the pueblo, for
the erection of the church, and as sites for the public buildings,
among others, the municipal building or the casa real, as well as of
the lands which were to constitute Âthe common pastures, and
propios of the municipality and the streets and roads which were to
intersect the new town were laid out, x x x.‰ (Municipality of
Catbalo-gan vs. Director of Lands, 17 Phil. 216, 220) (Italics
supplied)
It may, therefore, be laid down as a general rule that

regardless of the source or classification of land in the
possession of a municipality, excepting those acquired with
its own funds in its private or corporate capacity, such
property is held in trust for the State for the benefit of its
inhabitants, whether it be for governmental or proprietary
purposes. It holds such lands subject to the paramount
power of the legislature to dispose of the same, for after all

it owes its creation to it as an agent for the performance of
a part of its public work, the municipality being but a
subdivision or instrumentality thereof for purposes of local
administration. Accordingly, the legal situation is the same
as if the State itself holds the property and puts it to a
different use (2 McQuilin, Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed.,
p. 197, citing Monagham vs. Armatage, 218 Minn. 27, 15 N.
W. 2nd 241).
True it is that the legislative control over a municipal
corporation is not absolute even when it comes to its
property devoted to public use, for such control must not be
exercised to the extent of depriving persons of their
property or rights without due process of law, or in a
manner impairing the obligations of contracts.
Nevertheless, when it comes to property of the municipality
which it did not acquire in its private or corporate capacity
with its own
748

Salas vs. Jarencio
funds, the legislature can transfer its administration and

disposition to an agency of the National Government to be
disposed of according to its discretion. Here it did so in
obedience to the constitutional mandate of promoting social
justice to insure the well-being and economic security of the
people.
It has been held that a statute authorizing the transfer
of a Municipal airport to an Airport Commission created by
the legislature, even without compensation to the city, was
not violative of the due process clause of the American

Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of Minnessota in
Monagham vs. Armatage, supra, said:
„x x x The case is controlled by the further rule that the legislature,

having plenary control of the local municipality, of its creation and
of all its affairs, has the right to authorize or direct the
expenditures of money in its treasury, though raised, for a
particular purpose, for any legitimate municipal purpose, or to
order and direct a distribution thereof upon a division of the
territory into separate municipalities xxx. The local municipality
has no such vested right in or to its public, funds, like that which
the Constitution protects in the individual as precludes legislative
interferences. People vs. Power, 25 111. 187; State Board (of
Education) vs. City, 56 Miss. 518. As remarked by the supreme
court of Maryland in Mayor vs. Sehner, 37 Md. 180: ÂIt is of the
essence of such a corporation, that the government has the sole
right as trustee of the public interest, at its own good will and
pleasure, to inspect, regulate, control, and direct the corporation, its
funds, and franchises.Ê
„We therefore hold that c.500, in authorizing the transfer of the
use and possession of the municipal airport to the commission
without compensation to the city or to the park board, does not
violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.‰
The Congress has dealt with the land involved as one

reserved for communal use (terreno comunal). The act of
classifying State property calls for the exercise of wide
discretionary legislative power and it should not be
interfered with by the courts.
This brings Us to the second question as regards the
validity of Republic Act No. 4118, viewed in the light of
Article III, Sections 1, subsection (1) and (2) of the Con-
749
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 749

Salas vs. Jarencio
stitution which ordain that no person shall be deprived of

his property without due process of law and that no private
property shall be taken for public use without just
compensation.
II.
The trial court declared Republic Act No. 4118

unconstitutional for allegedly depriving the City of Manila
of its property without due process of law and without
payment of just compensation. It is now well established
that the presumption is always in favor of the
constitutionality of a law (U.S. vs. Ten Yu, 24 PhiL 1; Go
Ching, et al vs. Dinglasan, et al., 45 O.G. No. 2, pp. 703,
705). To declare a law unconstitutional, the repugnancy of
that law to the Constitution must be clear and unequivocal,
for even if a law is aimed at the attainment of some public
good, no infringement of constitutional rights is allowed. To
strike down a law there must be a clear showing that what
the fundamental law condemns or prohibits, the statute
allows it to be done (Morfe vs. Mutuc, et al., G.R. No. L-
20387, Jan. 31, 1968; 22 SCRA 424). That situation does
not obtain in this case as the law assailed does not in any
manner trench upon the constitution as will hereafter be
shown.
Republic Act No. 4118 was intended to implement the
social justice policy of the Constitution and the
Government program of „Land for the Landless‰. The

explanatory note of House Bill No. 1453 which became
Republic Act No. 4118, reads in part as follows:
„Approval of this bill will implement the policy of the

administration of Âland for the landlessÊ and the Fifth Declaration of
Principles of the Constitution which states that Âthe promotion of
social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all
people should be the concern of the State.Ê We are ready and willing
to enact legislation promoting the social and economic well-being of
the people whenever an opportunity for enacting such kind of
legislation arises.Ê ‰
The respondent Court held that Republic Act No. 4118, „by
converting the land in question·which is the patrimonial
property of the City of Manila into disposable alien-
750

Salas vs. Jarencio
able land of the State and placing it under the disposal of

the Land Tenure Administration·violates the provisions of
Article III (Secs. 1 and 2) of the Constitution which ordain
that „private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation, and that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law‰. In support thereof reliance is placed on the ruling in
Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga,
G.R. No. 2440, March 28, 1968; 22 SCRA 1334, which holds
that Congress cannot deprive a municipality of its private
or patrimonial property without due process of law and
without payment of just compensation since it has no

absolute control thereof. There is no quarrel over this rule
if it is undisputed that the property sought to be taken is in
reality a private or patrimonial property of the
municipality or city. But it would be simply begging the
question to classify the land in question as such. The
property, as has been previously shown, was not acquired
by the City of Manila with its own funds in its private or
proprietary capacity. That it has in its name a registered
title is not questioned, but this title should be deemed to be
held in trust for the State as the land covered thereby was
part of the territory of the City of Manila granted by the
sovereign upon its creation. That the National
Government, through the Director of Lands, represented by
the Solicitor General, in the cadastral proceedings did not
contest the claim of the City of Manila that the land is its
property, does not detract from its character as State
property and in no way divests the legislature of its power
to deal with it as such, the state not being bound by the
mistakes and/or negligence of its officers.
One decisive fact that should be noted is that the City of
Manila expressly recognized the paramount title of the
State over said land when by its resolution of September
20, 1960, the Municipal Board, presided by then Vice-
Mayor Antonio Villegas, requested „His Excellency the
President of the Philippines to consider the feasibility of
declaring the city property bounded by Florida, San Andres
and Nebraska Streets, under Transfer Certificate of Title
Nos.
751
VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 751
Salas vs. Jarencio
25545 and 25547, containing an area of 7,450 square

meters, as patrimonial property of the City of Manila for
the purpose of reselling these lots to the actual occupants
thereof.‰ (See Annex E, Partial Stipulation of Facts, Civil
Case No. 67945, CFI, Manila, p. 121, Record of the Case)
[Italics Supplied]
The alleged patrimonial character of the land under the
ownership of the City of Manila is totally belied by the
CityÊs own official act, which is fatal to its claim since the
Congress did not do as bidden. 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. But since the City did not actually
use said land for any recognized public purpose and
allowed it to remain idle and unoccupied for a long time
until it was overrun by squatters, no presumption of State
grant of ownership in favor of the City of Manila may be
acquiesced in to justify the claim that it is its own private
or patrimonial property (Municipality of Tigbauan vs.
Director of Lands, 35 Phil. 798; City of Manila vs. Insular
Government, 10 Phil. 327; Municipality of Luzuriaga V3.
Director of Lands, 24 Phil. 193), 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.
Republic Act No. 4118 was never intended to expropriate
the property involved but merely to confirm its character as
communal land of the State and to make it available for
disposition by the National Government: And this was done
752

Salas vs. Jarencio
at the instance or upon the request of the City of Manila

itself. The subdivision of the land and conveyance of the
resulting subdivision lots to the occupants by
Congressional authorization does not operate as an
exercise of the power of eminent domain without just
compensation in violation of Section 1, subsection (2),
Article III of the Constitution, but simply as a
manifestation of its right and power to deal with state
property.
It should be emphasized that the law assailed was
enacted upon formal written petition of the Municipal
Board o£ Manila in the form of a legally approved
resolution* The certificate of title over the property in the
name of the City of Manila was accordingly cancelled and
another issued to the Land Tenure Administration after the
voluntary surrender of the CityÊs duplicate certificate of
title by the City Treasurer with the knowledge and consent
of the City Mayor. To implement the provisions of Republic
Act No. 4118, the then Deputy Governor of the Land
Authority sent a letter, dated February 18, 1965, to the
City Mayor furnishing him with a copy of the „proposed

subdivision plan of the said lot as prepared for the Republic
of the Philippines for subdivision and resale by the Land
Authority to bona fide applicants.‰ On March 2, 1965, the
Mayor of Manila, through his Executive and Technical
Adviser, acknowledged receipt of the subdivision plan and
informed the Land Authority that his Office ÂViii interpose
no objection to the implementation of said law provided
that its provisions are strictly complied with.‰ The
foregoing sequence of events, clearly indicate a pattern of
regularity and observance of due process in the reversion of
the property to the National Government. All such acts
were done in recognition by the City of Manila of the right
and power of the Congress to dispose of the land involved.
Consequently, the City of Manila was not deprived of
anything it owns, either under the due process clause or
under the eminent domain provisions of the Constitution. If
it failed to get from the Congress the concession it sought
753
VOL. 46, AUGUST SO, 1972 753

Salas vs. Jarencio
of having the land involved given to it as its patrimonial

property, the Courts possess no power to grant that relief.
Republic Act No. 4118 does not, therefore, suffer from any
constitutional infirmity.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby
reversed, and petitioners shall proceed with the free and
untrammeled implementation of Republic Act No, 4118
without any obstacle from the respondents. Without costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,

Fernando, Teehankee and Antonio, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Makasiar, J., took no part.
Decision reversed.
Notes.·Test as to the extent of legislative control aver

properties of the municipalities. If the property is owned by
the municipality in its public and governmental capacity,
the property is public and Congress has absolute control
over it. But if the property is owned in its private or
proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and Congress
has no absolute control. The municipality cannot be
deprived of it without due process and payment of just
compensation. Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of
Zamboanga, L-24440, March 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 1334.
Classification of properties of public corporations.·
Articles 423 and 424 of the Civil Code classify property of
provinces, cities, and municipalities into property for public
use and patrimonial property. Property for public U3e
consists of provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets,
the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and
public works for public service paid for by said provinces,
cities, or municipalities. All other property possessed by
any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by the
Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws.
········
754
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Salas V Jarencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salas V Jarencio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salas V Jarencio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046 8/27/17, 08:25

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-29788. August 30, 1972.

RAFAEL S. SALAS, in his capacity as Executive Secretary;

Civil law; Property; Municipal corporations; Presumption where

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 735

Salas vs. Jarencio

granted, no rights therein passed to the municipalities, and, in any

Same; Same; Same; Rule as to ownership of land in possession

a part of its public work, the municipality being but a subdivision or

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Salas vs. Jarencio

sion lots to the occupants by Congressional authorization does not

PETITION FOR REVIEW by certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of

„WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment declaring Republic Act

Land Authority are hereby restrained and enjoined from

The facts necessary for a clear understanding of this case

1 Pages 79-80. Rollo.

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 737

of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1, Block 557 of the

sold portions of the aforementioned parcel of land in favor

2 Annex „E‰ to the Partial Stipulation of Facts, page 121, Records.

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

During the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the

Subsequently, a revised version of the Bill was introduced

district of Malate, which is reserved as communal property into a

4 Annex „F‰ to the Partial Stipulation of Facts, page 123, Records.

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 739

ed on all sides by private properties which were formerly parts of

justice to the present bona fide occupants thereof, approval of this

The Bill having been passed by the House of

„SENATOR FERNANDEZ: Mr. President, it will be recalled that

5 Annex „F-1‰, page 128, Records.

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The bill was passed by the Senate, approved by the

Lot 1-B-2-B of Block 557 of the cadastral survey of the City of

directed against any tenant or bona fide occupant shall be lifted.

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 741

To implement the provisions of Republic Act No. 4118, and

Authority (which succeeded the Land Tenure

6 Annex „J‰, page 142, Records.

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

thority. The request was duly granted with8 the knowledge

With the presentation of Transfer Certificate of Title No.

I. Is the property involved private or patrimonial property of the

8 Annexes „L‰ and „L-l‰, pages 145-147, Records.

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 743

As regards the first issue, appellants maintain that the

„legua comunal‰, there was no such immediate acquisition

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Appellants further argue that a municipal corporation, like

extent of its authority is strictly delimited by the grant of

„The respondents (petitioners-appellants herein) contend, among

registration in favor of the City of Manila . . . shall be conclusive

VOL. 46, AUGUST 30, 1972 745

the Municipal Board of Manila that the land in question was