Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Lara Et. Al. Digest

    Uploaded by

    DIA ROSE YAO CINCO. SANGGAYAN
    This case involves the expropriation of land by the Philippine government to build an air force base. During WWII, the land was occupied by Japanese forces who built an airfield, runway, and other military structures. The court ruled that the Philippine government, as the victor in the war, is the legitimate successor to any properties owned by Japan in the Philippines. Therefore, the government does not need to compensate the landowners for the value of the military structures built by Japan, as those structures now belong to the Philippine government. The landowners remain owners of the underlying land but the government owns any improvements made for military purposes during occupation.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Lara Et. Al. Digest

    Uploaded by

    DIA ROSE YAO CINCO. SANGGAYAN
    133 views2 pages
    This case involves the expropriation of land by the Philippine government to build an air force base. During WWII, the land was occupied by Japanese forces who built an airfield, runway, and other military structures. The court ruled that the Philippine government, as the victor in the war, is the legitimate successor to any properties owned by Japan in the Philippines. Therefore, the government does not need to compensate the landowners for the value of the military structures built by Japan, as those structures now belong to the Philippine government. The landowners remain owners of the underlying land but the government owns any improvements made for military purposes during occupation.

    Original Description:

    Public International Law

    Original Title

    Republic of the Philippines vs. Lara et. al. 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 involves the expropriation of land by the Philippine government to build an air force base. During WWII, the land was occupied by Japanese forces who built an airfield, runway, and other military structures. The court ruled that the Philippine government, as the victor in the war, is the legitimate successor to any properties owned by Japan in the Philippines. Therefore, the government does not need to compensate the landowners for the value of the military structures built by Japan, as those structures now belong to the Philippine government. The landowners remain owners of the underlying land but the government owns any improvements made for military purposes during occupation.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Lara Et. Al. Digest

    Uploaded by

    DIA ROSE YAO CINCO. SANGGAYAN
    This case involves the expropriation of land by the Philippine government to build an air force base. During WWII, the land was occupied by Japanese forces who built an airfield, runway, and other military structures. The court ruled that the Philippine government, as the victor in the war, is the legitimate successor to any properties owned by Japan in the Philippines. Therefore, the government does not need to compensate the landowners for the value of the military structures built by Japan, as those structures now belong to the Philippine government. The landowners remain owners of the underlying land but the government owns any improvements made for military purposes during occupation.

    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

    Republic of the Philippines vs. Lara, et al.

    [No. L-5080. November 29, 1954]

    Facts:
    The Republic of the Philippines as well as defendants Enrique Lara, et al, are
    appealing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, in its Civil
    Case No. 43, filed by the Republic for the expropriation of a large area of land
    (covering 187 parcels) located in Lipa City, upon which the Armed Forces of the
    Philippines constructed and now operates and maintains the Fernando Air Base.
    The land in question was, during the later part (1943) of the Japanese occupation,
    occupied by the enemy forces and converted into a campsite and airfield. The houses
    along the National Highway and the provincial roads were destroyed, and the fruit
    trees, orchards, and sugar crops cut down; in place thereof, the Japanese forces built
    concrete airstrips, concrete taxi-ways, dug-outs, canals, concrete ramps, ditches,
    gravel roads, and air raid shelters. The battle for the liberation added to the
    devastation of the area in question. Upon liberation, the United States Army took
    possession of the airfield; and on July 4, 1946, the air base was handed over by the U.
    S. government to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Philippine Army then took
    steps to negotiate for the purchase of the area for the purpose of constructing thereat a
    permanent air base. Several landowners sold their properties to the government at the
    prices fixed by the Appraisal Committee. The greater majority of the land owners did
    not want to accept the prices offered by the government; hence, steps were taken
    towards the filing of the complaint for expropriation.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the Philippine Republic is the legitimate successor to the
    properties owned by the enemy occupant.

    Held:
    Yes. When the Japanese Army had built a concrete airstrip, runway, and taxiway,
    the Court agrees that these improvements should be excluded as an element of
    appreciation or damage, on the ground that "the Republic of the Philippines as victor
    in the last war should be considered the legitimate successor to the properties owned
    by the Japanese in the Philippines".
    Defendants-appellants insist that a belligerent occupant could not take private
    property without compensation; that the Japanese forces were possessors of their
    lands in bad faith; and that therefore, the improvements constructed thereon by them
    should, under our civil law, belong to the owners of the lands to which they are
    attached. This argument is untenable. In the first place, the rules of Civil Code
    concerning industrial accession were not designed to regulate relations between
    private persons and a sovereign belligerent, nor intended to apply to constructions
    made exclusively for prosecuting a war, when military necessity is temporarily
    paramount. In the second place, while art. 46 of the Hague Regulations provide that
    "private property may not be confiscated", confiscation differs from the temporary use
    by the enemy occupant of private land and buildings for all kinds of purposes
    demanded by the necessities of war.
    Consequently, the Japanese occupant is not regarded as a possessor in bad faith of
    the lands taken from the defendants-appellants and converted into an airfield and
    campsite; its use thereof was merely temporary, demanded by war necessities and
    exigencies. But while the defendants-appellants remained the owners of their
    respective lands, the Republic of the Philippines succeeded to the ownership or
    possession of the constructions made thereon by the enemy occupant for war
    purposes, unless the treaty of peace should otherwise provide; and it is under no
    obligation to pay indemnity for such constructions and improvements in these
    expropriation proceedings.

    You might also like