66 SCRA 481 Political Law 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 & Acetylene Co., Inc. was the highest bidder at P10,800.00. Cebu
Oxygen applied for the lands registration before CFI Cebu but the provincial fiscal
opposed it, so did the court later through Judge Pascual Bercilles, as it was ruled 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 Property thus withdrawn from public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Cebu Oxygens application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows
that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an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.

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al

L-24440, March 28, 1968

FACTS: After Zamboanga Province was divided into two (Zamboanga Del Norte and Zamboanga Del Sur),
Republic Act 3039 was passed providing that--

"All buildings, properties, and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within
the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred free of charge in favor of the City of Zamboanga."

Suit was brought alleging that this grant without just compensation was unconstitutional because it
deprived the province of property without due process. Included in the properties were the capital site
and capitol building, certain school sites, hospital and leprosarium sites, and high school playgrounds.
ISSUES:

Are the properties mentioned, properties for public use or patrimonial property?

Should the city pay for said properties?

HELD:

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. But if we follow the law on Municipal Corporations,
as long as the purpose is for a public service, the property should be considered for PUBLIC USE.

If the Civil Code classification is used, since almost all the properties involved are patrimonial, the law
would be unconstitutional since the province would be deprived of its own property without just
compensation. If the law on Municipal Corporations would be followed, the properties would be of
public dominion, and therefore NO COMPENSATION would be required. It is the law on Municipal
Corporations that should be followed. Firstly, while the Civil Code may classify them as patrimonial, they
should not be regarded as ordinary private property. They should fall under the control of the State,
otherwise certain governmental activities would be impaired. Secondly, Art. 424, 2nd paragraph itself
says "without prejudice to the provisions of special laws."