SALAS vs JARENCIO children succeed to his rights and obligations.

This case involves a petition for review of the decision of CFI declaring that RA 4118 is
unconstitutional and invalid, and that, the said law deprived the City of Manila of its property
without due process of law and payment of just compensation.
FACTS:
LA, thru Deputy Governor Yap, sent to Mayor Villegas a proposed subdivision plan of the lot
for the resale of the subdivision lots by the LA to bona fide applicants.
The Mayor, thru his Executive and Technical Adviser acknowledged receipt of the subdivision
plan.

The 4th Branch of the CFI of Manila rendered judgment declaring the City of Manila as the
owner in fee simple of a parcel of land with an area of approx.. 9,000 sqm.
The Register of Deeds issued an Original Certificate Title No. 4329 in fabor of the City of
Manila.
City of Manila sold portions of the land to Pura Villanueva. Thereafter, OCT 4329 was
cancelled and transfer certificate of title were issued to Pura Villanueva in favor of her.
On the last sale, TCT 21974 in the name of COM, was cancelled, and in lieu thereof, TCT
22547 was issued, with an area of approx.. 7,000 sqm. In the name of the COM.
The Municipal Board of Manila adopted a resolution requiring the Philippine President to
consider the feasibility of declaring the land under TCTs 22545 and 22547, with an area of
7,450sqm, as patrimonial property of the City of Manila, for the purpose of reselling the lots
to actual occupants.
HB 191 was filed on the House of Representatives, which seeks to declare the property as
patrimonial property of COM since it is not used as public communal land. And that resale of
lands shall be made to the actual occupants, who have been long-time occupants, and they
are willing to buy the property.
LA, thru Yap, requested the City Treasurer of Manila, thru the City Mayor, to surrender and
deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT 22547 in order to obtain title under LA. The
request was duly granted with the knowledge and consent of the Office of the City Mayor.
Thereafter, TCT 22547 was cancelled, and TCT 80876 was issued in the name of LTA.
On December 20, 1966, Mayor Villegas filed an action for injunction and prohibition to
restrain the LA Governor and Register of Deeds of Manila in the implementation of RA 4118
because it is unconstitutional.
The trial court rules that RA 4118 is unconstitutional and invalid because it deprived the
COM due process and payment of just compensation.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the property is private or patrimonial property.
2. WON RA 4118 is unconstitutional.
HELD:
1. The property is

A revised version of the bill was introduced to the HOR, which is HB 1453. This seeks to
convert the parcel of land which is reserved as communal property, into alienable or
disposable property, and thereafter be subdivide and sold to bona fide occupants and
tenants. The revised bill reiterated the Resolution adopted by the Municipal Board of Manila,
i.e., feasibility to declare property as alienable or disposable, since the land is not useful for
public projects. And that, the approval of the bill will implement the policy on administration
of land for the landless and the promotion of Social Justice as enshrined on the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

The HOR passed and approved HB 1453. It was sent to the Senate and it was subsequently
passed and approved.

The bill was approved on June 20, 1964 by the President, and the bill became RA 4118,
which declared that the land under TCT 22547, which was reserved as communal property,
is converted into alienable or disposable land of the State. The Land Tenure Administration
(LTA, now, Land Authority, LA), is tasked to:
1. subdivide the property into small lots not exc. 120 sqm
2. sell the land on installment

No down payment is required for the purchase of the land.

If the occupant is unable to purchase, it shall be leased not exc. 8% of the assessed value
per year.
The lot price shall not exc P20/sqm.
If the occupant is a delinquent payer on his installment, the amount due shall be payable in
24 equal installment within 5 years from the date of full ownership.
Any ejectment proceedings shall be dismissed upon the defendant’s motion.
The death of the purchaser prior to the completion of payment, will have the widow or his