Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 331 views

    Salas v. Jarencio

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between the City of Manila and the national government. [1] The City Mayor sought to declare a law unconstitutional that transferred land reserved as communal property to the Land Tenure Administration. [2] The trial court agreed it was unconstitutional as it deprived the city of property without compensation. [3] However, the Supreme Court held that as the city did not prove it acquired the land privately, it was presumed to be property of the state, and the legislature could transfer its administration to the national government.

    Copyright:

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

    Salas v. Jarencio

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    331 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between the City of Manila and the national government. [1] The City Mayor sought to declare a law unconstitutional that transferred land reserved as communal property to the Land Tenure Administration. [2] The trial court agreed it was unconstitutional as it deprived the city of property without compensation. [3] However, the Supreme Court held that as the city did not prove it acquired the land privately, it was presumed to be property of the state, and the legislature could transfer its administration to the national government.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between the City of Manila and the national government. [1] The City Mayor sought to declare a law unconstitutional that transferred land reserved as communal property to the Land Tenure Administration. [2] The trial court agreed it was unconstitutional as it deprived the city of property without compensation. [3] However, the Supreme Court held that as the city did not prove it acquired the land privately, it was presumed to be property of the state, and the legislature could transfer its administration to the national government.

    Copyright:

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

    Salas v. Jarencio

    Uploaded by

    Pepper Potts
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between the City of Manila and the national government. [1] The City Mayor sought to declare a law unconstitutional that transferred land reserved as communal property to the Land Tenure Administration. [2] The trial court agreed it was unconstitutional as it deprived the city of property without compensation. [3] However, the Supreme Court held that as the city did not prove it acquired the land privately, it was presumed to be property of the state, and the legislature could transfer its administration to the national government.

    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 1

    SALAS V.

    JARENCIO
    G.R. No. L-29788, August 30, 1972
    Esguerra, J.

    FACTS:

    1. The City Mayor of Manila, Antonio J. Villegas seeks to declare as unconstitutional


    RA No. 4118 declaring several parcels of land situated in the City of Manila which
    is reserved as a communal property as disposable or alienable land of the State to
    be placed under the disposal of the Land Tenure Administration pursuant to a
    Resolution of the Municipal Board of Manila, presided by then Vice-Mayor
    Antonio J. Villegas requesting the President to consider the feasibility of declaring
    the city property 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 patrimonialproperty of the City of Manila for the
    purpose of reselling these lots to the actual Occupants thereof.
    2. The trial court declared the same as unconstitutional and invalid of the ground
    that it deprived the City of Manila of its property without due process of law and
    payment of just compensation.
    3. Appellants 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.

    ISSUE:

    WON the property involved private or patrimonial property of the City of Manila.

    HELD:

    NO. 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 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.

    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. 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).

    The alleged patrimonial character of the land under the ownership of the City of
    Manila is totally belied by the City's 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.

    You might also like