420

what are considered property of public dominion?

- those intended for public use, then those intended for public service, or for
the dev't of nat'l wealth
property intended for public use:
- roads, streets, parks,
a property is considered, according to the court, for public use, within the mea
ning of the civil code, if it is open indiscriminately to the public, in other w
ords, anyone can go there and use it, like our streets, anyone can use our stree
ts. that's property for public use.
property of public dominion are subject to certain special rules, that's another
important thing to remember.
-they cannot be the subject matter of contracts, cannot be sold, cannot be lease
d, or otherwise make as subject of contracts.
-they cannot be acquired by prescription.
-they cannot be attached and sold at public auction to satisfy any judgment.
-they cannot be burdened with an easement.
-they cannot even be registered, you cannot have them titled in your name under
the torrens system, (and if a title is issued covering the property of public do
minion is not a valid title)
the gov't has property of 2 types:
property of public dominion
patrimonial property
>with respect to the patrimonial property, just like any other properties, just
like ordinary private property that can be the subject of contracts
>property of public dominion
as long as it remains such, is subject to the special rules we mentioned, (the c
annot be's)
is it possible to convert properties of public dominion to patrimonial property?
YES.
how?
will the mere fact that the property is no longer actually being used for public
use, or is no longer actually being devoted to some public service. will that a
utomatically convert the property to patrimonial property?
NO.
there must be a formal declaration in the case of National Government property b
y the executive or legislative of such conversion otherwise the property remains
property of public dominion.
with respect to property of political subdivisions, the conversion must be autho
rized by law. (roponggi cases)
Roponggi case:
Under the Reparation Agreement, the roponggi property is for the use of our emba
ssy, but they were never used for that purpose.
after long period of time, there was an attempt to sell this property, the SC sa
id:
"the mere fact that these properties in Japan had not been actually used, for th
eir original purpose, does not automatically convert this properties to patrimon
ial property. They remain part of the public domain, and consequently not availa
ble for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration o
n the part of the government to withdraw it from being such."
abandonment cannot be inferred, an abandonement must be definite.
on the part of local gov't entities, just like the state, their properties are s
ubdivided into properties for public use, and patrimonial property.
Again, for property to be considered public use, it must be open indiscriminatel
y to the public, otherwise, it cannot be said as property for public use.
In some cases, however, the SC in determining whether properties of a local gove
rnment unit should be considered as public or patrimonial, instead, opted to app
ly the special laws governing municipal corporations. thus, in the case of zambo
anga:
Zamboanga case:
the SC said, we cannot possibly decide this case strictly along the lines, and p
arameters set by the civil code, in determining what properties are for public u
se, and what are private property. this involve the creation of a new local gov'
t carved out of a political unit.
In that case, and in similar cases involving local governments, the SC instead,
considered the use of the property whether it is for governmental purposes or no
t.
as long as the property was used for governmental purposes, it was considered pr
operty for public use or property of the public property.
still on this point, in the absence of clear evidence, as to the source of the f
unds used in acquiring the property which is currently held by local government
unit, the presumption is that the property, the land, came from the State. ok?
SALAS v JARENCIO and some other cases.
so, if an LGU is currently holding property but there is no clear showing as to
the source of the funds used to acquire those property or as to how it acquired
the property, the presumption is that, that property, that land, actually came f
rom the State, and the LGU is holding it merely in trust for the State, for the
benefit of the inhabitants of the locality. k?
if that is so, those properties of course, cannot be considered patrimonial prop
erty. they will be considered public property and the national legislature will
be considered to have absolute control over these properties.
in some cases decided by the SC, it has been made clear that LGUs cannot enter i
nto contracts, cannot even validly authorize, by means of an ordinance, the awar
ding of contracts over certain streets in favor of private individuals for purpo
ses of having a flea market there. as long as the street remains a street, it's
for public use and therefore it is beyond the power of the LGU to deal with by m
eans of contracts.
in one case, the LGU authorized that a certain street in the area be converted i
nto a flea market, there was an ordinance authorizing that, the Court said, that
cannot be.
what is quite clear from these cases is that while even under the local governme
nt code, LGUs are allowed to withdraw certain streets, when no longer necessary,
withdraw from public use, they cannot, in a manner of speaking, have undertaken
it to. in other words, without actually withdrawing the road from public use,
they will still maintain it as a street, and at the same time, operate it as a f
lea market. that cannot be done.
So, in these cases, decided by the SC, sabi ng SC, "hindi pwede yan!" as long as
they have not been withdrawn, from public use, they remain property for public
use, and you cannot at the same time, enter into contracts with private individu
als who intend to operate the flea market in that road.
Kailangan, kung gusto nyo i-withdraw, i-withdraw nyo.
in other words, that street will cease to be a street. it can no longer be a str
eet. only after that, can you deal with it as patrimonial property, but not whil
e it is still a street.
you recall the, ruling of the SC in CHAVEZ v. PEA, k?
there was this agreement between the PEA and the Amari, the latter would reclaim
areas of Manila Bay and as payment, it will be paid with reclaimed lands. so, y
ou remember the ruling of the SC in this case.
maliwanag na maliwanag sabi ng SC.
with respect to the reclaimed lands in Freedom Island around 157 Hectares. which
are covered by titles in the name of the PEA. they are alieanable lands of the
public domain but they may only be leased not sold, to private corporations. of
course, they may be sold to filipino citizens.
with respect to the submerged areas, they are inalienable and are outside the co
mmerce of man. K?
only after PEA has reclaimed them may the government reclassify them as alienabl
e and disposable lands, if no longer needed for public service.
the transfer of the submerged lands to Amari, is also void since the constitutio
n prohibits alienation of our natural resources other than agricultural land of
the public domain. K?
Remember the important point of the decision. just stick to the main decision. a
lright.