Property Law Digests

1. NGP
Property
Atty. Garcia
ASSIGNMENT #4
1. The difference between public dominion and public ownership
- Art. 419 of the Civil Code used “public dominion” instead of “public
ownership” because the public, being the Republic of the Philippines, not
only does it have the right to appropriate, enjoy, dispose, and recover its
properties, the public also has the right and jurisdiction to rule over its
properties by implementing and enforcing laws to maintain or end its
ownership.
2. The difference between public use and public service
- If a property is for public use, the property belongs to the State, and its
features and amenities may be used by the public directly. If a property is
for public service, the property either belongs to the State or a private
corporation vested with public interest. A property for public service does
not necessarily mean that it is for public use, because while the purpose of
a property for public service is for public convenience, its features and
amenities may not be directly utilized by the public, and can only be used
by duly authorized persons.
3. Properties of public dominion cannot be appropriated or are beyond the
commerce of man because its purpose is to not serve the State as a single,
juridical person, but to serve the citizens as individuals with needs.
4. Yes, the state can own properties similar to a private individual through the
concept of patrimonial property. If a property of public dominion gets converted
into a patrimonial property, the state may have the same rights as that of a
private individual, and may dispose of said patrimonial property according to the
same laws and regulations.
5. Yes, a property of public dominion when no longer for public use or service
becomes a patrimonial property, as provided by Article 422 of the Civil Code.
However, for a property of public dominion to be converted into a patrimonial
property, a formal declaration of the legislative department or an authorization of
the law is required before it is implemented.

2. 6. The difference between Article 420 and Article 424 of the Civil Code is that
Article 420 defined properties for public service, while Article 424 elaborated on
more properties that could be considered as for public use. There are no
properties for public service mentioned in Article 424 because it focused on
structures built by cities and municipalities that can be utilized by the public, or
communal properties.
7. a) The City of Paranaque contention that MIAA should be imposed with tax was
based on Opinion No. 061 of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel,
which opined that the Local Government Code of 1991 withdrew the exemption
from real tax estate granted to MIAA under Section 21 of the MIAA charter. Thus,
MIAA negotiated with the City of Paranaque to pay the real estate tax imposed
by the City.
b) MIAA’s defense that it should not be taxed was based on Opinion No. 147 of
the OGCC, which clarified Opinion No. 061. It pointed out that Section 206 of the
Local Government Code requires persons exempt from real estate tax to show
proof of exemption. The OGCC opined that Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the
proof that MIAA is exempt from real estate tax.
c) The issue of the case is whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are
exempt from real estate tax under existing laws.
d) MIAA’s legal personality is that of an instrumentality vested with corporate
powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other
government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with
corporate powers.
e) MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation, because it has no
capital stock divided by shares. The Administrative Code of 1987 provides that a
government owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a
stock or non-stock corporation. MIAA does not have any stockholders or voting
shares. Thus, MIAA is not a government owned or controlled corporation.
f) The airport lands and buildings are classified as public dominion and therefore
owned by the state.
g) The classification of airport lands and buildings as public dominion implies that
such lands and buildings are outside the commerce of men and therefore cannot
be the subject of appropriation or any transaction.

3. h) The Supreme Court’s basis for its ruling regarding the classification of airport
lands and buildings of the MIAA are Sections 83 and 88 of the Public Land Law
or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which provides that the tract or tracts of land
reserved under the provisions of Section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and
shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until
again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation of
the President.
8. a) The objections of the City of Manila to RA 4118 were actually unknown, as
they do not appear in the record. Initially, Antonio J. Villegas, as the City Mayor
of Manila, was supportive of the proceedings until December 1966, when he
made a complete turn-about and filed an action of injunction prohibiting the
implementation of RA 4118.
b) No, the subject property is no patrimonial property, because aside from the
fact that the City of Manila failed to provide any evidence showing that the
Congress approved the conversion of such property into a patrimonial property,
the City of Manila’s act of requesting the President to make representation to the
legislature to declare it as such so it can be disposed of in favor of the actual
occupants belies its claim that the subject properties are patrimonial properties.
c) The Supreme Court classified the subject lands as communal lands, and
therefore it is available for disposition by the National Government.
d) The Supreme Court ruled that RA 4118 is constitutional, because it never
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.