PROP DIGESTS SET 2 are devoted for public use or owned by the

province in its governmental capacity and thus

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of must retain its public purpose. Hence these
Zamboanga 22 SCRA 1334 governmental properties need not be paid by
Facts: Prior to the incorporation as a chartered the City of Zamboanga.
city, the Municipality of Zamboanga was the With respect to the patrimonial properties from
provincial capital of Zamboanga Province. By the 50 lots in dispute, the RA 3039 cannot be
virtue of Commonwealth Act 39, section 50 applied in order to deprive the province of its
providing that the buildings and other own patrimonial properties that are not
properties that the Province will abandon in devoted for public use. Hence the City of
view of its conversion as Zamboanga City shall Zamboanga shall pay just compensation to the
be paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price Province of Zamboanga for these patrimonial
to be fixed by the Auditor General, the said
properties.
properties consisting of 50 lots were identified
and the price were fixed thereof. An allotment
for its payment was authorized by the BIR
Commissioner. In June 17, 1961, RA 3039 was Salas, et al v Jarencio, et al
approved and it amended section 50 of the Facts: City of Manila owner in fee simple of a
Commonwealth Act 39 providing that all parcel of land known as Lot 1, Block 557 of
buildings, properties, and assets belonging to Cadastral Survey of City of Manila, containing
the Province of Zamboanga and located in the an area of 9689.80 sqm. On various dates in
City of Zamboanga are transferred free of 1927, City of Manila sold portions of the parcel
charge in favor of the City of Zamboanga. The of land. When the last sale was effected August
Province of Zamboanga del Norte filed a 1924, Transfer Certificate of Title 22547
complaint for declaratory relief with preliminary covering the residue of the land 7490.10 sam
injunction contending that the RA 3039 is was issued in the name of City of Manila.
unconstitutional as it deprives the Province of
its properties without just compensation and On September 1960, Municipal Board of Manila
due process. adopted a resolution requesting the President
to consider the feasibility of declaring the land
under Transfer Certificate of Title 25545-25547
Issue: Whether or not RA 3039 is as patrimonial property of Manila for the
purpose of selling these lots to the actual
unconstitutional?
occupants thereof. The resolution was then
transmitted to the Congress. The bill was then
passed by Congress and approved by President,
Held: The court held that to resolve the issue it and became Republic Act 4118, converting the
is important to identify the nature of the land from communal property to disposable
properties in dispute. The properties that are
and alienable land of State.
devoted for public purpose are owned by the
province in its governmental capacity. Those To implement RA 4118, Land Authority
that are not devoted for public use remain as requested City of Manila to deliver the Citys
patrimonial property of the Province. The RA TCT 22547 in order to obtain title thereto in the
3039 is held valid in so far as the properties that name of Land Authority. The request was
granted with the knowledge and consent of City governmental or proprietary purposes. The
mayor, cancelling TCT 22547 and issuing TCT legal situation is the same if the State itself
80876 in the name of Land Authority. holds the property and puts it to a different use.

City of Manila, for some reasons, brought an When it comes to property of municipality
action to restrain, prohibit, and enjoin Land which it did not acquire in its private or
Authority and Register of Deeds from corporate capacity with its own funds (the land
implementing RA 4118, and praying for the was originally given to City by Spain), the
declaration of RA 4118 as unconstitutional. legislature can transfer its administration and
disposition to an agency of the National
Trial court declared RA 4118 to be Government to be disposed of according to its
unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that discretion. Here it did so in obedience to the
it deprived City of its property without due constitutional mandate of promoting social
process of law and payment of just justice to insure the well-being and economic
compensation. security of the people.
Land Authority and Register of Deeds argued The property was not acquired by the City of
that the land is a communal land, or a portion Manila with its own funds in its private or
of public domain owned by State; that the land proprietary capacity. The land was part of the
has not been used by City of Manila for any territory of City of Manila granted by sovereign
public purpose; that it was originally a in its creation. Furthermore, City expressly
communal land not because it was needed in recognized the paramount title of the State
connection with its organization as a over its land when it requested the President to
municipality but rather for the common use of consider the feasibility of declaring the lot as
its inhabitants; that the City mayor merely
patrimonial property for selling.
enjoys the usufruct over said land and its
exercise of acts of ownership by selling parts There could be no more blatant recognition of
thereof did not necessarily convert the land into the fact that said land belongs to the State and
a patrimonial property of City of Manila nor was simply granted in usufruct to the City of
divert the State of its paramount title. Manila for municipal purposes. But since the
City did not actually use said land for any
recognized public purpose and allowed it to
Issue: Whether the aforementioned land is a remain idle and unoccupied for a long time until
private or patrimonial property of the City of it was overrun by squatters, no presumption of
Manila. State grant of ownership in favor of the City of
Manila may be acquiesced in to justify the claim
that it is its own private or patrimonial
property.
Held: The land is public property.

As a general rule, regardless of the source or

classification of the land in the possession of
municipality, excepting those which it acquired
in its own funds in its private or corporate
capacity, such property is held for the State for
the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be for
Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. projects under the MCRRP would be funded and
Bercilles L-40474, August 29, 1975 owned by PEA.

FACTS: The City Council of Cebu, in 1968, By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent
considered as an abandoned road, the terminal No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was
portion of one of its streets. Later it authorized followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309,
the sale through public bidding of the property. 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds of
The Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. was able to Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed
purchase the same. It then petitioned the RTC islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS.
of Cebu for the registration of the land. The
petition was opposed by the Provincial Fiscal Subsequently, PEA entered into a joint venture
(Prosecutor) who argued that the lot is still part agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a Thai-Philippine
of the public domain, and cannot therefore be corporation to develop the Freedom Islands.
Along with another 250 hectares, PEA and
registered.
AMARI entered the JVA which would later
transfer said lands to AMARI. This caused a stir
especially when Sen. Maceda assailed the
ISSUE: May the lot be registered in the name of agreement, claiming that such lands were part
the buyer? of public domain (famously known as the
mother of all scams).

HELD: Yes, the land can be registered in the Petitioner Frank J. Chavez filed case as a
name of the buyer, because the street in taxpayer praying for mandamus, a writ of
question has already been withdrawn from preliminary injunction and a TRO against the
public use, and accordingly has become sale of reclaimed lands by PEA to AMARI and
patrimonial property. The sale of the lot was from implementing the JVA. Following these
therefore valid. events, under President Estradas admin, PEA
and AMARI entered into an Amended JVA and
Mr. Chaves claim that the contract is null and
void.
Chavez v. PEA and Amari

Facts: In 1973, the Commissioner on Public

Highways entered into a contract to reclaim Issues:
areas of Manila Bay with the Construction and
Development Corporation of the Philippines W/n: the transfer to AMARI lands reclaimed or
(CDCP). to be reclaimed as part of the stipulations in the
(Amended) JVA between AMARI and PEA
PEA (Public Estates Authority) was created by violate Sec. 3 Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
President Marcos under P.D. 1084, tasked with
developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These W/n: the court is the proper forum for raising
lands were transferred to the care of PEA under the issue of whether the amended joint venture
P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road and agreement is grossly disadvantageous to the
Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA government.
entered into an agreement that all future
Held: other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.
On the issue of Amended JVA as violating the
constitution: PEA may reclaim these submerged areas.
Thereafter, the government can classify the
1. The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands reclaimed lands as alienable or disposable, and
comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered further declare them no longer needed for
by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are public service. Still, the transfer of such
alienable lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain
lease these lands to private corporations but to AMARI will be void in view of Section 3,
may not sell or transfer ownership of these Article XII of the 1987Constitution which
lands to private corporations. PEA may only sell prohibits private corporations from acquiring
these lands to Philippine citizens, subject to the
any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution
and existing laws.

2. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of

Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources
of the public domain until classified as alienable
or disposable lands open to disposition and
declared no longer needed for public service.
The government can make such classification
and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed
these submerged areas. Only then can these
lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public
domain, which are the only natural resources
the government can alienate. In their present
state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged areas
are inalienable and outside the commerce of
man.

3. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to

AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of
77.34 hectares110 of the Freedom Islands, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits private corporations from acquiring
any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

4. Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer

to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares111 of
still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such
transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits the alienation of natural resources