Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Laurel v. Garcia, GR No. 92013, 92047

    Uploaded by

    Amicah
    The case involves a property in Japan known as the Roppongi property that was acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. The property was intended to be used as the site of the Philippine Embassy in Japan. While the embassy was relocated in 1976 due to needed repairs, the government failed to provide funds to repair the Roppongi property. The president issued an order allowing non-Filipino citizens to purchase reparations properties like Roppongi. Petitioners objected to the sale of Roppongi. The Supreme Court ruled that as a property of public dominion, Roppongi cannot be alienated by the government and is intended for public use and welfare rather than private appropriation

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel v. Garcia, GR No. 92013, 92047

    Uploaded by

    Amicah
    2K views2 pages
    The case involves a property in Japan known as the Roppongi property that was acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. The property was intended to be used as the site of the Philippine Embassy in Japan. While the embassy was relocated in 1976 due to needed repairs, the government failed to provide funds to repair the Roppongi property. The president issued an order allowing non-Filipino citizens to purchase reparations properties like Roppongi. Petitioners objected to the sale of Roppongi. The Supreme Court ruled that as a property of public dominion, Roppongi cannot be alienated by the government and is intended for public use and welfare rather than private appropriation

    Original Title

    14. Laurel v. Garcia, GR No. 92013, 92047

    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 case involves a property in Japan known as the Roppongi property that was acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. The property was intended to be used as the site of the Philippine Embassy in Japan. While the embassy was relocated in 1976 due to needed repairs, the government failed to provide funds to repair the Roppongi property. The president issued an order allowing non-Filipino citizens to purchase reparations properties like Roppongi. Petitioners objected to the sale of Roppongi. The Supreme Court ruled that as a property of public dominion, Roppongi cannot be alienated by the government and is intended for public use and welfare rather than private appropriation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Laurel v. Garcia, GR No. 92013, 92047

    Uploaded by

    Amicah
    The case involves a property in Japan known as the Roppongi property that was acquired by the Philippine government through a reparations agreement with Japan. The property was intended to be used as the site of the Philippine Embassy in Japan. While the embassy was relocated in 1976 due to needed repairs, the government failed to provide funds to repair the Roppongi property. The president issued an order allowing non-Filipino citizens to purchase reparations properties like Roppongi. Petitioners objected to the sale of Roppongi. The Supreme Court ruled that as a property of public dominion, Roppongi cannot be alienated by the government and is intended for public use and welfare rather than private appropriation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    2G PROPERTY Property of Public Dominion

    14. Laurel v. Garcia G.R. NO. 92013, 92047


    DATE: July 25, 1990
    PONENTE: GUTIERREZ,
    JR.
    DOCTRINE The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is
    intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of
    appropriation
    FACTS
    (The subject property in this case is one of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine
    gov't under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan. The Roppongi property was
    acquired from the Japanese government through Reparations Contract No. 300. The Roppongi
    property consists of the land and building "for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy." As
    intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to
    Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the
    failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained
    undeveloped since that time.

    The President issued EO entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations' capital
    goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The four properties in Japan
    including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first "Whereas" clause. Amidst
    opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the gov't has been pushing its decision to
    sell the reparations properties starting with Roppongi lot.

    The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone
    while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias
    of the Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and
    entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are resolved at the same time for the
    objective is the same - to stop the sale of the Roppongi property.
    ISSUE/S
    WON the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine Government?
    RULING
    No the Roppongi property cannot be alienated by the PH Gov't. As property of public dominion,
    the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. Its ownership is a special collective
    ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective needs,
    and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but
    the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of
    appropriation.

    The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil
    Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service. The fact that the
    Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not
    automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the
    property is withdrawn from public use. An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi
    property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil
    Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the
    non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a
    lack of financial support to repair and improve the property. A mere transfer of the Philippine
    Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi property's original
    purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the building in Roppongi is not
    abandonment.
    ANTONIO, AMICAH FRANCES

    You might also like