G o v e r n m e n t

o f

t h e

P h i l

I s l a n d s

v s Cabangis

53 Phil 112Facts: A certain lots were formerly a part of a largeparcel of land belonging to the predecessor of the herein claimants and appellees. From theyear 1896 said land began to wear away, due tothe action of the waves of Manila Bay, until they e a r 1 9 0 1 w h e n t h e s a i d l o t s b e c a m e c o m p l e t e l y s u b m e r g e d i n w a t e r i n o r d i n a r y tides, and remained in such a state until 1912 when the Government undertook the dredgingof Vitas Estuary in order to facilitate navigation,depositing all the sand and silt taken from thebed of the estuary on the low lands which werec o m p l e t e l y c o v e r e d w i t h w a t e r , s u r r o u n d i n g that belonging to the Philippine ManufacturingCompany, thereby slowly and gradually formingthe lots, the subject matter of this proceeding. Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in not h o l d i n g t h a t t h e l o t s i n q u e s t i o n a r e o f t h e public domain the same havi n g b e e n g a i n e d from the sea by accession, by fillings made byt h e B u r e a u o f P u b l i c W o r k s a n d b y t h e construction of the break-water. Held: T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e l o t s i n question having disappeared on account of thegradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide, and having remained in such a state untilthey were reclaimed from the sea by the fillingi n d o n e b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t , t h e y a r e p u b l i c l a n d i n t h e s e n s e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e h e r e i n claimants-appellees nor their predecessors didanything to prevent their destruction.By virtue whereof, the judgment appealed fromthe lower court is reversed -------------------------------------------Cebu Oxygen vs Judge Bercilles Municipal Corporation Patrimonial Property Discretionary Power In 1968, a terminal portion of a street in Cebu was excluded in the citys development plan hence the council declared it as abandoned and was subsequently opened for public bidding. Cebu Oxygen was the highest bidder @P10,800.00. Cebu Oxygen applied for the lands registration before CFI Cebu but the provincial fiscal denied it, so did the court later, alleging that the road is part of the public domain hence beyond the commerce of man. ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Oxygen can validly own said land. HELD: Yes. Under Cebus Charter (RA 3857), the city council may close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which otherreal property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. Since that portion of the city street subject of Cebu Oxygens application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract. Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

---------------------------------------CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. V. BERCILLES 66 SCRA 431

FACTS: The land sought to be registered in this case was formerly a part of a street. Through a resolution, it was declared to be an abandoned road and not part of the City development plan. Thereafter, it was sold through a public bidding and petitioner was the highest bidder. sought to register said land but his application was dismissed. He then

HELD: The portion of the city street subject to petitioners application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use. Then it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property of the State. It is also very clear from the Charter that property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. -------------------------------GR# L-24440 March 28, 1968 (Constitutional Law Just Compensation, Patrimonial Property) FACTS: After the incorporation of the Municipality of Zamboanga as a chartered city, petitioner province contends that facilities belonging to the latter and located within the City of Zamboanga will be acquired and paid for by the said city. However, respondent city avers that pursuant to RA No. 3039 providing for the transfer free of charge of all buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga to the said City. ISSUE: Whether or not facilities which the province shall abandon will be acquired by the city upon just compensation. HELD: Yes, If the property is owned by the municipality in its public and governmental capacity, the property is public and can be transferred free of charge. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and can be expropriated upon payment of just compensation. -------------------------------Republic v. CA Facts: A lot with an area of 17,311 sq.m. situated in Barrio Pinagbayanan, Pila, Laguna and 20 meters from the shore of Laguna de Bay; was purchased by Benedicto del Rio from Angel Pili on 19 April 1909. The Deed of Sale evidencing said purchase is duly recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The land was declared for tax purposes beginning the year 1918, and the realty taxes thereon had been paid since 1948. When Benedicto del Rio died in 1957, his heirs extrajudicially partitioned

his estate and the subject parcel passed on to his son, Santos del Rio, as the latter's share in the inheritance. Santos del Rio filed his application for registration of said parcel on 9 May 1966. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands and by private oppositors, petitioners in G.R. No. L-43190. Sometime before 1966, private oppositors obtained permission from Santos del Rio to construct duck houses on the land in question. Although there was no definite commitment as to rentals, some of them had made voluntary payments to private respondent. In violation of the original agreement, private oppositors constructed residential houses on the land which prompted private respondent to file an ejectment suit against the former in 1966. Meanwhile, during the latter part of 1965 and in 1966, private oppositors had simultaneously filed their respective sales applications with the Bureau of Lands, and in 1966, they opposed Santos del Rio's application for registration. The CFI Laguna dismissed the application for registration. Applicant appealed and obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of Appeals, setting aside that of the trial court. The Director of Lands and the private oppositors filed their respective Petitions for Review of said decision. Issue: Whether the land in question, is really part of the foreshore lands? Held: Property, which includes parcels of land found in Philippine territory, is either of public dominion or of private ownership. Public lands, or those of public dominion, have been described as those which, under existing legislation are not the subject of private ownership, and are reserved for public purposes. The New Civil Code enumerates properties of public dominion in Articles 420 and 502 thereof. Article 402 includes those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; and those which belong to the State without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth" as property belonging to public dominion. Article 502 adds "rivers and their natural beds; continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves; waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of public dominion; and lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands and their beds; to the enumeration. Foreshore land is that part of (the land) which is between high and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides; or the strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the tide. In the present case, since the inundation of a portion of the land near the lake is not due to flux and reflux of tides, it thus cannot be considered a foreshore land within the meaning cited by the Director of Lands. While at the time of the grant of free patent to respondent Morato, the land was not reached by the water, however, due to gradual sinking of the land caused by natural calamities, the sea advances had permanently invaded a portion of subject land. As disclosed at the trial, through the testimony of the court-appointed commissioner, Engr. Abraham B. Pili, the land was under water during high tide in the month of August 1978. The water margin covers half of the property, but during low tide, the water is about a kilometer. -----------------------LAUREL V. GARCIA 187 SCRA 797

FACTS: The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the Philippines from Japan pursuant to a Reparations Agreement. The property is where the Philippine Embassy was once located, before it transferred to the Nampeidai property. would be available to sale or disposition. One of the first properties opened up for public auction was the Roppongi property, despite numerous oppositions from different sectors. It was decided that the properties

HELD: The Roppongi property was acquired together with the other properties through reparation agreements. They were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property was specifically designated under the agreement to house the Philippine embassy. It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. The respondents have failed to do so. As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and payment, in application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service doesnt automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use. A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such. ---------------------------------G.R. No. 92013. July 25, 1990 G.R. No. 92047, July 25, 1990 OJEDA, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., et al FACTS: These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306 Ropponggi, 5Chome Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956, and is part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.

As intended, the subject property became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976. Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped since that time. A proposal was presented to President Corazon C. Aquino by former Philippine Ambassador to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a Japanese firm where, at the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Philippine government. On August 11, 1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe. On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of reparations capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition. The four properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the first Whereas clause. Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the government has been pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi lot. The property has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price at $225 million. ISSUES: The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 raises the following issues: (1) Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine Government?; and (2) Does the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property? In G.R. NO. 92047, apart from questioning the authority of the government to alienate the Roppongi property assails the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296, the petitioner also questions the bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan for being discriminatory against Filipino citizens and Filipino-owned entities by denying them the right to be informed about the bidding requirements. HELD: The petition is granted. As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation. (Taken from 3 Manresa, 66-69; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition, Vol. II, p. 26). The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or

ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]). An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite. Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the governments own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazarao, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises. A mere transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai in 1976 is not relinquishment of the Roppongi propertys original purpose. Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an authority to sell, does not have a provision in this text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan for the government sector. It merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. Rep Act No. 6657, does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. It merely enumerates possible sources of future funding to augment (as and when needed) the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Executive Order No. 299. Moreover, President Aquinos approval of the recommendation by the investigating committee to sell the Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least, conditioned on a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property. It does not have the force and effect of law since the President already lost her legislative powers. The Congress had already convened for more than a year. Assuming that the Roppongi property is no longer of public dominion, there is another obstacle to its sale by the respondents. There is no law authorizing its conveyance, and thus, the Court sees no compelling reason to tackle the constitutional issue raised by petitioner Ojeda. -------------------------------------------------Laurel v. Garcia G.R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990, 187 SCRA 797 Gutierrez, J. FACTS: In view of the Reparations Agreement between the Philippines and Japan, four properties located in Japan were given to the Philippines. One of these properties is the Roppongi property. The said property was formerly the location of the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy until it was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976. The Roppongi property has remained abandoned from the time of the transfer due to lack of funds to develop the said property. Consequently, Administrative orders were issued by the President authorizing the study of the condition of the properties of the Philippines in Japan. Subsequently, Executive Order 296 was issued by President Aquino allowing non-Filipinos to buy or lease some of the properties of the Philippines located in Japan, including Roppongi. Petitioners now contend that the Roppongi property cannot be alienated as it is classified as public dominion and not of private ownership because it is a property intended for public service under paragraph 2, article 420 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, respondents aver that it has already become part of the patrimonial property of the State which can be alienated because it has not been used for public service for

over 13 years. They further contend that EO 296 converted the subject property to patrimonial property. ISSUE: Whether or not the Roppongi property still forms part of the public dominion hence cannot be disposed nor alienated. HELD: Yes. The respondents failed to convincingly show that the property has already become patrimonial. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Under Art. 422 of the Civil Code, there must be a definite and a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being public. Abandonment must be a certain and a positive act based on correct legal premises. The mere transfer of the embassy to Nampeidai is not a relinquishment of the propertys original purpose. The Administrative orders authorizing the study of the conditions of government properties in Japan were merely directives for investigation but did not in any way signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties. Likewise, EO 296 did not declare that the properties lost their public character; it merely made them available to foreigners in case of sale, lease or other disposition. Thus, since there is no law authorizing its conveyance, the Roppongi property still remains part of the inalienable properties of the State. Rabuco v. Villegas G.R. No. L-24916, February 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 658 10 Teehankee, J. FACTS: The issue in this case involves the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3120 whereby the Congress converted the lots in question together with another lot in San Andres, Malate that are reserved as communal property into disposable or alienable lands of the State. Such lands are to be placed under the administration and disposal of the Land Tenure Administration for subdivision into small lots not exceeding 120 square meters per lot for sale on instalment basis to the tenants or bona fide occupants thereof and expressly prohibited ejectment and demolition of petitioners' homes under Section 2 of the Act. Respondent contends that the Act is invalid and unconstitutional for it constitutes deprivation of property without due process of law and without just compensation. ISSUE: Whether or not Republic Act No. 3120 is constitutional. HELD: Yes. The lots in question are manifestly owned by the city in its public and governmental capacity and are therefore public property over which Congress had absolute control as distinguished from patrimonial property owned by it in its private or proprietary capacity of which it could not be deprived without due process and without just compensation. It is established doctrine that the act of classifying State property calls for the exercise of wide discretionary legislative power, which will not be interfered with by the courts. The Acts in question were intended to implement the social justice policy of the Constitution and the government program of land for the landless and that they were not intended to expropriate the property involved but merely to confirm its character as communal land of the State and to make it available for disposition by the National Government. The subdivision of the land and conveyance of the resulting subdivision lots to the occupants by Congressional authorization does not operate as an exercise of the power of eminent domain without just compensation in violation of Section 1, subsection (2), Article III of the Constitution, but simply as a manifestation of its right and power to deal with state property. --------------------------------------------------Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga G.R. No. L-24440, March 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 1334 Bengzon, J.P., J. FACTS: On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was approved dividing the province of

Zamboanga into two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. Republic Act 3039 was approved providing that all buildings, properties and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free of charge, in favor of the said City of Zamboanga. Plaintiff-appellee Zamboanga del Norte filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte against defendants-appellants Zamboanga City, the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It was prayed that Republic Act 3039 be declared unconstitutional for depriving plaintiff province of property without due process and just compensation. Included in the properties were the capital site and capitol building, certain school sites, hospital and leprosarium sites, and high school playground. ISSUE: Whether or not the properties mentioned are properties for public use or patrimonial. HELD: The subject properties are properties for public use. The validity of the law ultimately depends on the nature of the lots and buildings in question. The principle itself is simple: If the property is owned by the municipality (meaning municipal corporation) in its public and governmental capacity, the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it. But if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control. The municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation. Applying the norm obtaining under the principles constituting the law of Municipal Corporations, all those of the 50 properties in question which are devoted to public service are deemed public; the rest remain patrimonial. Under this norm, to be 13 considered public, it is enough that the property be held and, devoted for governmental purposes like local administration, public education, public health, etc. Regarding the several buildings existing on the lots above-mentioned, the records do not disclose whether they were constructed at the expense of the former Province of Zamboanga. Considering however the fact that said buildings must have been erected even before 1936 when Commonwealth Act 39 was enacted and the further fact that provinces then had no power to authorize construction of buildings such as those in the case at bar at their own expense, it can be assumed that said buildings were erected by the National Government, using national funds. Hence, Congress could very well dispose of said buildings in the same manner that it did with the lots in question. --------------------------------------Macasiano v. Diokno G.R. No. 97764, August 10, 1992, 212 SCRA 464 Medialdea, J. FACTS: The Municipality of Paranque passed an ordinance that authorized the closure of J. Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets located at Baclaran, Paranaque Metro Manila and the establishment of a flea market thereon. Thereafter, the municipal council of Paranaque issued a resolution authorizing Paranaque Mayor Walfrido N. Ferrer to enter into a contract with any service cooperative for the establishment, operation, maintenance and management of flea markets and/or vending areas. By virtue of this, respondent municipality and respondent Palanyag, a service cooperative, entered into an agreement whereby the latter shall operate, maintain and manage the flea market in the aforementioned streets with the 11 obligation to remit dues to the treasury of the municipal government of Paranaque. Consequently, market stalls were put up by Palanyag on the said streets. Petitioner Macasiano, PNP Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, then ordered the destruction and confiscation of the stalls along the abovementioned streets.

Hence, respondents filed with the trial court a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction, to which the petitioner filed his opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court upheld the validity of the ordinance in question. ISSUE: Whether or not an ordinance or resolution which authorizes the lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid. HELD: No. The aforementioned streets are local roads used for public service and are therefore considered public properties of respondent municipality. Article 424 of the Civil Code provides that properties of public dominion devoted for public use and made available to the public in general are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or leased by the local government unit to private persons. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, LGUs have no authority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority is vested upon them by Congress. -----------------------------------------------Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 100709, November 14, 1997, 281 SCRA 639 Panganiban, J. FACTS: Morato filed for a patent on a parcel of land located in Calauag, Quezon, which was approved, provided that the land shall not be encumbered or alienated within a period of five years from the date of the issuance of the patent. Later on, the land was established to be a portion of Calauag Bay, which was five to six feet deep during high tides and three feet deep on low tides. The water level rose because of the ebb and flow of tides from the bay and the storms that frequently passed through the area. Furthermore, it was observed by the Director of Lands from his investigation, that the land of Morato was leased to Advincula for P100 per month and it was also mortgaged to Co for P10,000. The Director of Lands filed a suit with the contention that Morato violated the 5-year prohibitory period and thus the patent should be cancelled and the land should revert back to the State. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of the prohibition of the patent, and thus, the subject land should revert back to the ownership of the State. HELD: Yes. The lease was an encumbrance included in the prohibitions of the patent because it impairs the use of the land by Morato herself. As for the mortgage, it is a 12 legal limit on the title and if there will be foreclosure because Morato was not able to pay her debts, the property will be auctioned. It is also a limitation on Morato's right to enjoy and possess the land for herself. Encumbrance, as defined, is an impairment on the use or transfer of property, or a claim or lien on the property where there is a burden on the title. Thus, Morato clearly violated the terms of the patent on these points. Moreover, the property became a foreshore land because it turned into a portion of land which was covered most of the time with water, whether it was low or high tide. Foreshore is defined as land between high and low waters which is dry depending on the reflux or ebb of the tides. In accordance with this land reclassification, the land can no longer be subject to a pending patent application and must be returned to the State. -------------------------------Jovellanos vs. Court of Appeals 21062010 JOVELLANOS 210 SCRA 126 (Art. 1164) vs. CA

Facts: Daniel Jovellanos and Philamlife entered into a a lease and conditional sale agreement over a house and lot. At that time, Daniel Jovellanos was married to Leonor Dizon, with whom he had three children, the petitioners. Leonor Dizon died consequently. Then Daniel married private respondent Annette with whom he begot two children. The daughter from the 1st marriage Mercy Jovellanos married Gil Martinez and at the behest of Daniel Jovellanos, they built a house on the back portion of the premises. With the lease amounts having been paid, Philamlife executed to Daniel Jovellanos a deed of absolute sale and, on the next day, the latter donated to herein petitioners all his rights, title and interests over the lot and bungalow thereon. In 1985, Daniel died. Private respondent Annette H. Jovellanos claimed in the lower court that the aforestated property was acquired by her deceased husband while their marriage was still subsisting and which forms part of the conjugal partnership of the second marriage. Petitioners contend that the property, were acquired by their parents during the existence of the first marriage under their lease and conditional sale agreement with Philamlife of September 2, 1955. Issue: WON the house and lot pertains to the second marriage? YES Held: The conditional sale agreement in said contract is, therefore, also in the nature of a contract to sell, as contradistinguished from a contract of sale. In a contract to sell or a conditional sale, ownership is not transferred upon delivery of the property but upon full payment of the purchase price. Generally, ownership is transferred upon delivery, but even if delivered, the ownership may still be with the seller until full payment of the price is made, if there is stipulation to this effect. The stipulation is usually known as a pactum reservati dominii, or contractual reservation of title, and is common in sales on the installment plan. Compliance with the stipulated payments is a suspensive condition. The failure of which prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. Daniel consequently acquired ownership thereof only upon full payment of the said amount hence, although he had been in possession of the premises since September 2, 1955, it was only on January 8, 1975 that Philamlife executed the deed of absolute sale thereof in his favor. Daniel Jovellanos did not enjoy the full attributes of ownership until the execution of the deed of sale in his favor. The law recognizes in the owner the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law, 19 and, under the contract, Daniel Jovellanos evidently did not possess or enjoy such rights of ownership. Upon the execution of said deed of absolute sale, full ownership was vested in Daniel Jovellanos. Since. as early as 1967, he was already married to Annette H. Jovellanos, this property necessarily belonged to his conjugal partnership with his said second wife. NB: But since it pertained to the second wife, she is still liable to pay the corresponding reimbursements to the petitioners who helped pay for the amortization of the house and lot. Remember Article 118 of the Family Code on property bought on installments, where ownership is vested during the marriage, such property shall belong to the conjugal partnership. ----------------------Garcia v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 180 Puno, J. FACTS: Petitioner Atty. Pedro Garcia, with the consent of his wife Remedios Garcia,

sold a parcel of land situated at Bel Air II Village, Makati to his daughter Maria Luisa Magpayo and her husband Luisito Magpayo. The Magpayos mortgaged the land to the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to secure a loan. The Magpayos failed to pay their loan upon its maturity, hence, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and at the public auction sale in which PBCom bought the land. The redemption period of the foreclosed mortgage expired without the Magpayos redeeming the same, hence, title over the land was consolidated in favor of PBCom. PBCom subsequently filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The RTC granted the petition. Upon service of the writ of possession, Maria Luisa Magpayos brother, Jose Ma. T. Garcia, who was in possession of the land, refused to honor it. Jose Garcia thereupon filed against PBCom, the Magpayos, and the RTC Sheriff the instant suit for recovery of realty and damages wherein he contended, inter alia, that at the time of the alleged sale to the Magpayo spouses, he was in possession of the property; that, when his mother Remedios Tablan Garcia died, sometime in October, 1980, he became, by operation of law, a co-owner of the property; and that, Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, at the time of the execution of the instrument in favor of the Magpayo spouses was not in possession of the subject property. 21 ISSUE: Whether or not Jose Magpayo was a co-owner of the parcel of the land in dispute. HELD: No. Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale. Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses. On the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder. A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so. On the other hand, one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong. The records show that petitioner Jose Garcia occupied the property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his parents. An owners act of allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free does not create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latters favor. Consequently, it is of no moment that petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a hindrance to a valid transfer of ownership. All said, the Magpayo spouses were already the owners when they mortgaged the property to PBCom. ----------------------------NATIVIDAD ANDAMO & EMMANUEL ANDAMO, vs.IAC, & MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990 CJ Fernan certiorari, prohibition and mandamus ISSUE: W/N a CORP., which has built through its agents, waterpaths, water conductors & contrivances w/in its land, thereby causing inundation & damage to an adjacent land, can be held civilly liable for damages under Art. 2176 & 2177 on quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case. y y Sps. Andamo, owners of a parcel of land situated in Cavite which is adjacent to that of Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation. W/in the land of respondent corporation, waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners' land, caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioners' crops and plants,

washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during rainy and stormy seasons, and exposed plants and other improvements to destruction. Andamo instituted a criminal action against Efren Musngi, Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, officers and directors of herein respondent corporation, for destruction by means of inundation under Art. 324, RPC Subsequently, petitioners filed another action (civil case) against respondent corporation, for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction TC dismissed Civil Case for lack of jurisdiction, as the criminal case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. It was anchored on the provision of Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Court which provides that "criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action." IAC affirming the decision of TC. y yy RULING: Decision of IAC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TC is ordered to reinstate Civil Case and to proceed with the hearing of the case with dispatch. This decision is immediately executory. y the civil action is one under Arts 2176 & 2177, on quasi-delicts. All the elements are present: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. In Azucena vs. Potenciano, the Court declared that in quasi-delicts, "(t)he civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case according to Articles 33 and 2177, CC. There can be no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear injunction in Art. 31, that his action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter." -----------------------------------------------Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 228 Cruz, J. FACTS: An application for registration of a parcel of land was filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet Province, was divided into 9 lots. According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, in 1964. In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they had acquired the subject land by virtue of prescription Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her father shortly after the Liberation. Alberto said he received Lots 6-9 in 1961 from his mother, Bella Alberto. She was corroborated by Felix Marcos, who recalled the earlier possession of the land by Alberto's father. Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold to it on September 22, 1934, by the successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the claim in September 1909 and recorded it on October 14, 1909. From the date of its purchase, Benguet had been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner. Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930, and recorded on January 2, 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2, 1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots. The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, arguing that the land sought to be registered was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.

The trial court denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their claim of possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered. The applicants appealed to the respondent court, which reversed the trial court and affirmed the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining claims. Both Benguet and Atok appealed to the Supreme Court, invoking their superior right of ownership. The Republic filed its own petition for review and reiterated its argument that neither the private respondents nor the two mining companies had any valid claim to the land because it was not alienable and registerable. ISSUE: Whether or not Benguet and Atok have a better right over the property in question. HELD: Yes. It is true that the subject property was considered forest land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, but this did not impair the rights already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time. The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain. By such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even 31 the government, without need of any further act such as the purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had become the private property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok. It is true, as the Court of Appeals observed, that such private property was subject to the "vicissitudes of ownership," or even to forfeiture by non-user or abandonment or, as the private respondents aver, by acquisitive prescription. The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is "no conflict of interest" between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. However, the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral and completely mineral once the mining claims were perfected. As long as mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and become agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed with a fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the surface. This is an application of the Regalian doctrine. If a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong. Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective mining claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption. The land was not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents by virtue of acquisitive prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies for agricultural and mineral purposes. The decision is set aside and that of the trial court is reinstated.