Laurel v. Garcia (G.R. No.
92013) regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of
Ojeda v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 92047)
ROPPONGI PROPERTY
FACTS:
These 2 petitions for prohibition seek to enjoin
respondents from proceeding with the bidding for the
sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306
Roppongi, 5-Chrome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan. The
latter case also, prays for a writ of mandamus to fully
disclose to the public the basis of their decision to
push through with the sale of the Roppongi property.
The Roppongi case is one of the 4 properties in
Japan acquired by the Philippine government under
the Reparation Agreement entered into with Japan.
The other three (3) properties include Nampeidai
Property (present site of the Philippine Embassy
Chancery), Kobe Commercial Property
(commercial lot being used as a warehouse and
parking lot for consulate staff) and Kobe
Residential Property (resident lot which is now
vacant).
The Reparations Agreement provides that
reparations valued at $550M would be payable in 20
years in accordance with annual schedules of
procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and
Japanese governments. The procurements are to be
divided into government sector and those for private
parties in projects, the latter shall be made available
only to Filipino citizens or to 100% Filipino-owned
entities in national development projects.
The Roppongi property was acquired under the
heading Government Sector for the Chancery of
the Philippine Embassy until the latter was
transferred to Nampeida due to the need for major
repairs. However, the Roppongi property has
remained underdeveloped since that time.
Although there was a proposal to lease the property
with the provision to have buildings built at the
expense of the lessee, the same was not acted
favorably upon by the government. Instead,
President Aquino issued EO No. 296 entitling non-
Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations
capital goods and services in the event of sale,
lease or dispositions. Thereafter, amidst the
oppositions by various sectors, the Executive branch
of the government pushed for the sale of
reparation properties, starting with the Roppongi
lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a
minimum floor price of $225M. The first was a
failure, while the second has been postponed and
later restrained by the SC.
Amongst the arguments of the respondents is that
the subject property is not governed by our Civil
Code, but rather by the laws of Japan where the
property is located. They relied upon the rule of lex
situs which is used in determining the applicable law
the title to a property.
ISSUES:
1. Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be
alienated by the Philippine Government?
NO. There can be no doubt that the property is of
public dominion and the respondents have failed to
show that it has become patrimonial.
The property is correctly classified under Art 420 of the
Civil Code as property belonging to the State and
intended for some public service. The fact that it has not
been used for actual Embassy service does not
automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Such
conversion happens only if property is withdrawn from
public use, through an abandonment of the intention to
use the Roppongi property for public service and to
make it patrimonial property. Abandonment must be a
certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.
The EO does not declare that the properties lost their
public character, merely intending 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 Japan properties
can be sold to end-users, when in fact it cannot.
Neither does the CARP Law re-classify the properties
into patrimonial properties, merely stating that sources of
funds for its implementation be sourced from proceeds
of the disposition of the Government in foreign countries,
but not that the Roppongi property be withdrawn from
being classified as a property of public dominion.
CONFLICT OF LAW
Furthermore, the respondents argument that the
Japanese law and not our Civil Code shall apply is
incorrect. There is no conflict of law in this situation.
A conflict of law arises only when:
a. There is a dispute over the title or ownership of
an immovable, such that the capacity to take and
transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance,
the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the
interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be
determined.
b. A foreign law on land ownership and its
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a
domestic law on the same matters.
Hence, the need to determine which law should apply.
Both elements does not exist in the case. The issues
are not concerned with the validity of ownership or title.
There is no question that the property belongs to the
Philippines. The issue is the authority of the government
officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the
state and the validity of the procedures adopted to effect
the sale, which should be governed by Philippine law
The rule of lex situs does not apply.
2. Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have
the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi
property?

NO. A law or a formal declaration to withdraw 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.

3. W/N EO No. 296 is constitutional?

The SC did not anymore pass upon its

constitutionality.