Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The Roppongi case is one of the four properties in 1. Can the Roppongi property and others of its
Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the kind be alienated by the Philippine
Reparation Agreement entered into with Japan. The Government?
other three (3) properties include Nampeidai Property
(present site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery), NO. There can be no doubt that the property
Kobe Commercial Property (commercial lot being used is of public dominion and the respondents
as a warehouse and parking lot for consulate staff) and have failed to show that it has become
Kobe Residential Property (resident lot which is now patrimonial.
vacant).
The property is correctly classified under Art
The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to
valued at $550M would be payable in twenty (20) years the State and intended for some public
in accordance with annual schedules of procurements service. The fact that it has not been used for
to be fixed by the Philippine and Japanese actual Embassy service does not automatically
governments. The procurements are to be divided into convert it to patrimonial property. Such
government sector and those for private parties in conversion happens only if property is
projects, the latter shall be made available only to withdrawn from public use, through an
Filipino citizens or to 100% Filipino-owned entities in abandonment of the intention to use the
national development projects. Roppongi property for public service and to
make it patrimonial property. Abandonment
The Roppongi property was acquired under the must be a certain and positive act based on
heading “Government Sector” for the Chancery of the correct legal premises.
Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to
Nampeida due to the need for major repairs. However, The EO does not declare that the properties
the Roppongi property has remained underdeveloped lost their public character, merely intending
since that time. the properties to be made available to
foreigners and not to Filipinos alone, in case of
sale, lease or other disposition. Furthermore,
it is based on the wrong premise that the needed. None has been enacted for this
Japan properties can be sold to end-users, purpose.
when in fact it cannot.
3. W/N EO No. 296 is constitutional?
Neither does the CARP Law re-classify the
properties into patrimonial properties, merely The SC did not anymore pass upon its
stating that sources of funds for its constitutionality.
implementation be sourced from proceeds of
the disposition of the Government in foreign
countries, but not that the Roppongi property Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon, GR No. 139868
be withdrawn from being classified as a June 8, 2006
property of public dominion.
Facts:
CONFLICT OF LAW 2 American citizens have resided in the
Furthermore, the respondents’ argument that Philippines. They have an adopted daughter. The
wife died and left a will where she left her entire
the Japanese law and not our Civil Code shall
estate to her husband. 2 years after the wife's
apply is incorrect. There is no conflict of law
death, the husband married a Candelaria. 4 years
in this situation. A conflict of law arises only after, Richard died and left a will where he left his
when: entire estate to Candelaria except for some of his
a. There is a dispute over the title or shares in a company which he left to his adopted
ownership of an immovable, such that daughter. Audrey’s will was admitted to probate in
the capacity to take and transfer CFI Rizal. Inventory was taken on their conjugal
immovables, the formalities of properties. Ancheta, as the administrator, filed for
conveyance, the essential validity and a partition of the first wife's estate. The will was also
effect of the transfer, or the admitted in a court in her native land (Maryland).
interpretation and effect of a
conveyance, are to be determined. Issue: Whether or not the properties in issue
b. A foreign law on land ownership and its should be governed by the law where the property
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a is situated
domestic law on the same matters.
Ruling:
Hence, the need to determine which law Yes, properties in issue should be governed by the
law where the property is situated. However, since
should apply. Both elements does not exist in
the first wife is a foreign national, the intrinsic
the case. The issues are not concerned with
validity of her will is governed by her national law.
the validity of ownership or title. There is no The national law of the person who made the will
question that the property belongs to the shall regulate whose succession is in consideration
Philippines. The issue is the authority of the whatever the nature of the property and regardless
government officials to validly dispose of of the country where the property maybe found (Art
property belonging to the state and the 16 CC). The first wife's properties may be found in
validity of the procedures adopted to effect the Philipppines, however the successional rights
the sale, which should be governed by over those properties are governed by the national
Philippine law The rule of lex situs does not law of the testator.
apply.
City Government of Quezon vs. Judge Ericta
2. Does the Chief Executive, her officers and GR No. L-34915 June 24, 1983
agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to
sell the Roppongi property? Facts:
An ordinance was promulgated in Quezon city
which approved the the regulation ofestablishment
NO. A law or a formal declaration to withdraw
of private cemeteries in the said city. According to
the Roppongi property from public domain to
the ordinance, 6% of the total area of the private
make it alienable and a need for legislative memorial park shall be set aside for charity burial
authority to allow the sale of the property is of deceased persons who are paupers and have
been residents of QC. Himlayang Pilipino, a private their property without due process of law by trespassing,
memorial park, contends that the taking or demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property
confiscation of property restricts the use of situated in the land. CFI and RTC denied it but CA
property such that it cannot be used for any reversed the decision. Petitioners tried to appeal the
reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of all decision in CA but were denied thus this appeal
beneficial use of his property. It also contends that
the taking is not a valid exercise of police power, ISSUE:
since the properties taken in the exercise of police Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a
power are destroyed and not for the benefit of the forcible entry case against petitioner?
public. RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since
Issue: private respondents were in actual possession of the
Whether or not the ordinance made by Quezon property at the time they were forcibly ejected by
City is a valid taking of private property petitioner, private respondents have a right to
commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the
Ruling: legality or illegality of possession.
No, the ordinance made by Quezon City is not a Private respondents, as actual possessors, can
valid way of taking private property. The ordinace commence a forcible entry case against petitioner
is actually a taking without compensation of a because ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is
certain area from a private cemetery to benefit merely a quieting process and never determines the
paupers who are charges of the municipal actual title to an estate. Title is not involved, only actual
corporation. Instead of building or maintaing a possession. It is undisputed that private respondents
public cemeteries. State's exercise of the power of were in possession of the property and not the
expropriation requires payment of just petitioners nor the spouses Jose. Although the
compensation. Passing the ordinance without petitioners have a valid claim over ownership this does
benefiting the owner of the property with just not in any way justify their act of ―forcible entry.‖ It
compensation or due process, would amount to must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of
unjust taking of a real property. Since the property the title to the property the party in peaceable quiet
that is needed to be taken will be used for the possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand,
public's benefit, then the power of the state to violence or terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior
expropriate will come forward and not the police possession can recover such possession even against the
power of the state. owner himself.Whatever may be the character of his
possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has
the security that entitles him to remain on the property
GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. V until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better
COURT OF APPEALS right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The
doctrine of self help, which the petitioners were using to
FACTS: justify their actions, are not applicable in the case
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, because it can only be exercised at the time of actual or
Philadelphia, USA are owners of the land situated in threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at
sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal (the land bar (in fact they are the ones who are threatening to
being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses Jose remove the respondents with the use of force.) Article
executed a special power of attorney authorizing 536 basically tells us that the owner or a person who has
petitioner German Management Services to develop a better right over the land must resort to judicial means
their property. They have already acquired the proper to recover the property from another person who
permits to do so but they discovered that the land was possesses the land.
occupied by the respondent with 20 other farmers
(members of the Concerned of Farmer’s Association.) When possession has already been lost, the owner must
These farmers have occupied the land for the last twelve resort to judicial process for the recovery of property.
to fifteen years prior to the issuance of the permits and As clearly stated in Article 536- ―In no case may
they already have their crops all over the property. In possession be acquired through force or intimidation as
short, they are in actual possession of the land. long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who
believes that he has an action or right to deprive another
Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and; of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the
demolish and bulldoze their crops and property. The competent court, if holder should refuse to deliver the
respondents filed in CFI because they were deprived of thing.‖
seeks vindication for the alleged malicious and
unlawful fencing of the plaintiffs’ business premises.
Villafuerte vs CA
Issue:
Facts:
1. Whether or not the respondents can invoke
Spouses Reynaldo C. Villafuerte and Perlita Tan- the doctrine of self-help contained in Article
Villafuerte operated a gasoline station known 429 of the Civil Code.
as Peewees Petron Powerhouse Service Station and 2. Whether or not it was improper for private
General Merchandise on the premises of three (3) respondents to resort to fencing their properties
adjoining lots at the corner of Gomez Street and in order to remove petitioners from the
Quezon Avenue in Lucena City. One of these lots, is premises.
owned by several persons namely, Edilberto de Mesa,
Gonzalo Daleon and his brother Federico A. Daleon and Ruling:
Mrs. Anicia Yap-Tan, mother of appellee Perlita Tan-
Villafuerte. 1. No.
Appellants Edilberto de Mesa and Gonzalo Daleon Private respondents could not invoke the doctrine of
acquired their respective lots subject to the lease by self-help contained in Article 429 of the Civil Code.
Petrophil Corporation which had built thereon the
gasoline station being managed by the Villafuerte Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
couple. When the lease of Petrophil Corporation the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
expired on December 31, 1988, the Villafuertes disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
obtained a new lease on the lot of Edilberto de Mesa force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
for a period expiring on December 31, 1989.
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
As regards the lot of Daleon brothers, the Villafuertes invasion or usurpation of his property.
were not as lucky. For, instead of obtaining a lease
renewal, what they received were demand letters from
The doctrine finds no application when occupation was
the brothers counsel ordering them to vacate the
effected through lawful means such as in this case
premises. Instead of complying therewith, the
where petitioners possession of the lots owned by
Villafuertes simply ignored the demand and continued
private respondents was effected through lease
operating the gas station.
agreements
Gonzalo Daleon filed a complaint against the
2. No.
Villafuertes in the Office of the Barangay Captain of
Barangay Tres, Lucena City. No settlement was
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired
reached.
through force or intimidation as long as there is a
possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he
Villafuertes, upon expiration of lease contract with
has an action or a right to deprive another of the
Edilberto de Mesa, the same was not renewed. The
holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent
spouses continued to operate their gasoline station
court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
and other businesses on the lot of de Mesa despite the
latters demand to vacate.
Having disregarded the plain requirement of the law,
private respondents were held accountable to
Edilberto de Mesa and Gonzalo Daleon, with the aid of
petitioners for the various damages prayed for by
several persons and without the knowledge of the
petitioners in their amended complaint.
Villafuertes, caused the closure of the latters gasoline
station by constructing fences around it. Villafuertes
countered with a complaint for damages with
preliminary mandatory injunction against both
Edilberto de Mesa and Gonzalo Daleon. The complaint Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43938 (April 1
everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a
Surface Rights of Landowner (Article 437) reasonable height.
Facts: The rights over the land are indivisible and that the land
itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The
Jose dela Rosa filed an application for registration of a classification must be categorical; the land must be
parcel of land on his own behalf and on behalf of his either completely mineral or completely agricultural.
children. This application was separately opposed by
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. (Benguet) and Atok Big In the instant case, as already observed, the land which
Wedge Corporation (Atok). was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so
and became mineral — and completely mineral — once
The petitioners claimed that they have acquired the land the mining claims were perfected. As long as mining
from their parents and that they have been in possession operations were being undertaken thereon, or
of the land ever since. Benguet and Atok opposed on underneath, it did not cease to be so and become
the ground that they have mineral claims covering the agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was
property and had been in actual, continuous and enclosed with a fence and was cultivated by those who
exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner. were unlawfully occupying the surface.
Issue:
Held: