Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1) NO. They are properties of public dominion. A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to
Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the
The four properties were acquired through Roppongi property's original purpose. Even the
reparation agreements, and assigned to the failure by the government to repair the building in
government. The Roppongi property was Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier
specifically designated to house the Philippine stated, there simply was a shortage of
Embassy for public service. As properties of government funds.
public dominion, it is on the respondents to show
that it is patrimonial which they failed to do so.
The property is correctly classified under Art 420
The Roppongi site is outside the commerce of of the Civil Code as property belonging to the
man. Thus, it cannot be alienated. State and intended for some public service. The
fact that it has not been used for actual Embassy
Its ownership is a special collective ownership for service does not automatically convert it to
general use and enjoyment, an application to the patrimonial property. Such conversion happens
satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the only if property is withdrawn from public use,
social group. The purpose is not to serve the through an abandonment of the intention to use
State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is the Roppongi property for public service and to
intended for the common and public welfare and make it patrimonial property. Abandonment must
cannot be the object of appropriation. be a certain and positive act based on correct
legal premises.
The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are:
The EO No. 296 does not declare that the
ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or properties lost their public character, merely
of private ownership. intending the properties to be made available to
ART. 420. The following things are property of foreigners and not to Filipinos alone, in case of
public dominion sale, lease or other disposition. Furthermore, it is
(1) Those intended for public use, such as based on the wrong premise that the Japan
roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges properties can be sold to end-users, when in fact
constructed by the State, banks shores it cannot.
roadsteads, and others of similar character;
Neither does the CARP Law re-classify the tackle the constitutional issues raised by
properties into patrimonial properties, merely petitioner Ojeda. The Court does not ordinarily
stating that sources of funds for its pass upon constitutional questions unless these
implementation be sourced from proceeds of the questions are properly raised in appropriate
disposition of the Government in foreign cases.
countries, but not that the Roppongi property be
withdrawn from being classified as a property of DISPOSITIVE: The petitions are GRANTED. A
public dominion. writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the
respondents from proceeding with the sale of the
(Insert Conflict of Law Doctrine here) Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The
February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order
2) NO. A law or a formal declaration to withdraw is made PERMANENT.
the Roppongi property from public domain to
make it alienable and a need for legislative
authority to allow the sale of the property is
needed. None has been enacted for this purpose.