Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City

of Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334

Prior to the incorporation as a chartered city
50 providing that the buildings and other properties that the
Province will abandon
RA 3039 was approved providing that all buildings, properties,
and assets belonging to the Province of Zamboanga and
located in the City of Zamboanga are transferred free of charge
in favor of the City of Zamboanga.
26 lots are patrimonial property of the old Province of
Zamboanga, the movant City of Zamboanga contends that the
said lots are not patrimonial property of the former Province of
Zamboanga
ZC: 26 lots aforestated were not partrimonial property of the former
Province of Zamboanga, for the reason that said 26 lots have always
been used for public purposes, such as school sites, playground and
athletic fields for schools.
ZdN: 26 lots are vacant, or that the building existing thereon were
constructed in bad faith

Whether or not RA 3039 is unconstitutional?
the issue it is important to identify the nature of the properties in
dispute.
Public Dominion - Free
Patrimonial Property- Just Compensation
Instead, the records of the case should be remanded to the
court of origin for new trial, in order to determine whether or
not the 26 lots were or were not actually devoted to public use
or governmental purposes prior to the enactment of Republic
Act 3039.


Conflicting Public Property Definitions:
Civil Code: free and for the indiscriminate use by anyone
Municipal Corp law: properties which are devoted to public service



It is the law on Municipal Corporations that should be
followed.

PRELUDE:

If we follow the Civil Code classification, only the high
school playgrounds are for public use since it is the only
one that is available to the general public, and all the rest
are patrimonial property since they are not devoted to
public use but to public service.

Salas v. Jarencio
The municipal Board of Manila requested the President of the
Philippines to have the lot declared as patrimonial property of
the City so that it could be sold by the City to the actual
occupants of the lot.
Congress enacted Republic Act 4118 and its disposal was given
to a national government entity, the Land Tenure
Administration. (To the state)


ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the National Government
in giving the disposal of the lot in question to the Land Tenure
Administration can be lawfully done.

HELD: Yes. There being no proof that the lot had been
acquired by the City with its own funds, the presumption is
that it was given to it by the State IN TRUST for the benefit of
the inhabitants. Residual control remained in the State, and
therefore the STATE can lawfully dispose of the lot. Thus,
Republic Act 4118 is valid and constitutional and this is so
even if the City of Manila will receive NO COMPENSATION
from the State.

POLITICAL LAW; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; POWER OF
THE CITY OF MANILA AS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION;
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN PRIVATE CAPACITY.
The City of 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.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IF THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT LAND
WAS ACQUIRED WITH PRIVATE FUNDS, PRESUMPTION IS
THAT STATE IS SOURCE. 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.
3. ID.; ID.; CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN ITS
POSSESSION. 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.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCEPT OF LEGUA COMUNAL
EXPLAINED. Comunal lands or "legua comunal" came into
existence when a town or pueblo was established in this country
under the laws of Spain. 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. It might be granted by the Government for
communal purposes, upon proper petition, but, until granted, no
right therein passed to the municipalities, and. in any event, the
ultimate title remained in the Sovereign.
Cebu Oxygen vs Judge Bercilles

Municipal Corporation Patrimonial Property
Discretionary Power
In 1968, a terminal portion of a street in Cebu was excluded in
the citys development plan hence the council declared it as
abandoned and was subsequently opened for public bidding.
Cebu Oxygen was the highest bidder @P10,800.00. Cebu
Oxygen applied for the lands registration before CFI Cebu but
the provincial fiscal denied it, so did the court later, alleging
that the road is part of the public domain hence beyond the
commerce of man.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Oxygen can validly own said
land.
HELD: Yes. Under Cebus Charter (RA 3857), the city council
may close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue,
park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public
servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which
other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used
or conveyed. Since that portion of the city street subject of
Cebu Oxygens application for registration of title was
withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn
portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object
of an ordinary contract.
Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that Property
of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or
for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property
of the State.

____

Petitioner applied for registration of title over a portion of M.
Gorces Street in Cebu City. Said portion was declared an abandoned
road by the City Council of Cebu the same not being included in the
Cebu Development Plan, and later, by authority of the City Council,
was sold by the Acting Mayor to petitioner who was the highest
bidder at a public bidding.
The trial court dismissed petitioner's application on motion of the
Assistant Provincial Fiscal on the ground that the property sought to
be registered being a public road intended of public use is
considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the
commerce of men.
On petition for review, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court's
order the directed the latter to proceed with the hearing of petition's
application for registration of title.
SYLLABUS
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; STREETS; POWER OF
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO WITHDRAW PORTION OF
STREET FROM PUBLIC USE. Where a portion of the city
street is withdrawn from public use by the city council, which under
the city charter is empowered to close any city road, street or alley,
boulevard, avenue, park or square, the property thus withdraw from
public servitude become patrimonial property and be used or
conveyed for any purpose for which any real property belonging to
the city may be lawfully used or conveyed.
2. PROPERTY; PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN MAY BE
CONVERTED INTO PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY. Under
Article 422 of the Civil Code, "property of public dominion, when
no longer intended for public service, shall form part of the
patrimonial property of the State.


CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES
AUTHORITY
384 SCRA 152

FACTS:
President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA, which was
tasked with the development, improvement, and acquisition, lease, and
sale of all kinds of lands. The then president also transferred to PEA the
foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal
Road and Reclamation Project.

Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of land an
d then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the development
of the Freedom Islands. These two entered into a joint venture in t
he absence of any public bidding.

Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda
denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was
conducted and it was concluded that the lands that PEA was conveying to
AMARI were lands of the public domain; the certificates of title over
the
Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted
Ramos to form an investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.

Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to los
e
billions by the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI.
He also asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening
between the parties.

ISSUE:
W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of th
e lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.

HELD:
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands and
waters of the public domain.

The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all
natural resources are owned by the State and except for alienable
agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be
alienated.

The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84
hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the
rest of the area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila
Bay. Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs
in reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation
costs to be incurred.

The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of
the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequentl
y owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be
alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public
domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert
these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential
proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and
disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-
public use.