Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17870 September 29, 1962MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, petitioner,vs.THE CITY ASSESSOR & TREASURER and the BOARD OF TAX APPEALS of Cagayan de Oro City, respondents.

Binamira, Barria and Irabagon for petitioner.Vicente E. Sabellina for respondents.LABRADOR, J.:This is a petition for the review of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 710 holding that the petitioner Mindanao Bus Company is liable to the payment of the realty tax on its maintenance and repair equipment hereunder referred to.

Respondent City Assessor of Cagayan de Oro City assessed at P4,400 petitioner's above-mentioned equipment. Petitioner appealed the assessment to the respondent Board of Tax Appeals on the ground that the same are not realty. The Board of Tax Appeals of the City sustained the city assessor, so petitioner herein filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a petition for the review of the assessment.

In the Court of Tax Appeals the parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:

Petitioner and respondents, thru their respective counsels agreed to the following stipulation of facts:

1. That petitioner is a public utility solely engaged in transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks, over its authorized lines in the Island of Mindanao, collecting rates approved by the Public Service Commission;

2. That petitioner has its main office and shop at Cagayan de Oro City. It maintains Branch Offices and/or stations at Iligan City, Lanao; Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur; Davao City and Kibawe, Bukidnon Province;

3. That the machineries sought to be assessed by the respondent as real properties are the following:

(a) Hobart Electric Welder Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "A";

(b) Storm Boring Machine, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "B";

(c) Lathe machine with motor, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "C";

(d) Black and Decker Grinder, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "D";

(e) PEMCO Hydraulic Press, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "E";

(f) Battery charger (Tungar charge machine) appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "F"; and

(g) D-Engine Waukesha-M-Fuel, appearing in the attached photograph, marked Annex "G".

4. That these machineries are sitting on cement or wooden platforms as may be seen in the attached photographs which form part of this agreed stipulation of facts;

5. That petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates a garage for its TPU motor trucks; a repair shop; blacksmith and carpentry shops, and with these machineries which are placed therein, its TPU trucks are made; body constructed; and same are repaired in a condition to be serviceable in the TPU land transportation business it operates;

6. That these machineries have never been or were never used as industrial equipments to produce finished products for sale, nor to repair machineries, parts and the like offered to the general public indiscriminately for business or commercial purposes for which petitioner has never engaged in, to date.1awphl.ntThe Court of Tax Appeals having sustained the respondent city assessor's ruling, and having denied a motion for reconsideration, petitioner brought the case to this Court assigning the following errors:

1. The Honorable Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding respondents' contention that the questioned assessments are valid; and that said tools, equipments or machineries are immovable taxable real properties.

2. The Tax Court erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code, and holding that pursuant thereto the movable equipments are taxable realties, by reason of their being intended or destined for use in an industry.

3. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in denying petitioner's contention that the respondent City Assessor's power to assess and levy real estate taxes on machineries is further restricted by section 31, paragraph (c) of Republic Act No. 521; and

4. The Tax Court erred in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Respondents contend that said equipments, tho movable, are immobilized by destination, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 415 of the New Civil Code which provides:

Art. 415. The following are immovable properties:

x x x x x x x x x

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. (Emphasis ours.)

Note that the stipulation expressly states that the equipment are placed on wooden or cement platforms. They can be moved around and about in petitioner's repair shop. In the case of B. H. Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 663, the Supreme Court said:

Article 344 (Now Art. 415), paragraph (5) of the Civil Code, gives the character of real property to "machinery, liquid containers, instruments or implements intended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with any industry or trade being carried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet the requirements of such trade or industry."

If the installation of the machinery and equipment in question in the central of the Mabalacat Sugar Co., Inc., in lieu of the other of less capacity existing therein, for its sugar and industry, converted them into real property by reason of their purpose, it cannot be said that their incorporation therewith was not permanent in character because, as essential and principle elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar central would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established. Inasmuch as the central is permanent in character, the necessary machinery and equipment installed for carrying on the sugar industry for which it has been established must necessarily be permanent. (Emphasis ours.)

So that movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must first be "essential and principal elements" of an industry or works without which such industry or works would be "unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established." We may here distinguish, therefore, those movable which become immobilized by destination because they are essential and principal elements in the industry for those which may not be so considered immobilized because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal. Thus, cash registers, typewriters, etc., usually found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals and are not and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these equity comments. Airline companies use forklifts, jeep-wagons, pressure pumps, IBM machines, etc. which are incidentals, not essentials, and thus retain their movable nature. On the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of liquor and soft drinks, though movable in nature, are immobilized because they are essential to said industries; but the delivery trucks and adding machines which they usually own and use and are found within their industrial compounds are merely incidental and retain their movable nature.

Similarly, the tools and equipments in question in this instant case are, by their nature, not essential and principle municipal elements of petitioner's business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are merely incidentals acquired as movables and used only for expediency to facilitate and/or improve its service. Even without such tools and equipments, its business may be carried on, as petitioner has carried on, without such equipments, before the war. The transportation business could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rolling equipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belonging to another.

The law that governs the determination of the question at issue is as follows:

Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

x x x x x x x x x

(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works; (Civil Code of the Phil.)

Aside from the element of essentiality the above-quoted provision also requires that the industry or works be carried on in a building or on a piece of land. Thus in the case of Berkenkotter vs. Cu Unjieng, supra, the "machinery, liquid containers, and instruments or implements" are found in a building constructed on the land. A sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or less permanently, and the sawing is conducted in the land or building.

But in the case at bar the equipments in question are destined only to repair or service the transportation business, which is not carried on in a building or permanently on a piece of land, as demanded by the law. Said equipments may not, therefore, be deemed real property.

Resuming what we have set forth above, we hold that the equipments in question are not absolutely essential to the petitioner's transportation business, and petitioner's business is not carried on in a building, tenement or on a specified land, so said equipment may not be considered real estate within the meaning of Article 415 (c) of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the petition for review is hereby set aside and the equipment in question declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the purposes of the real estate tax. Without costs.

So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.Regala, Concepcion and Barrera JJ., took no part.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-26278 August 4, 1927LEON SIBAL , plaintiff-appellant,vs.EMILIANO J. VALDEZ ET AL., defendants.EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, appellee.

J. E. Blanco for appellant.Felix B. Bautista and Santos and Benitez for appellee.JOHNSON, J.:The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tarlac on the 14th day of December 1924. The facts are about as conflicting as it is possible for facts to be, in the trial causes.

As a first cause of action the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Vitaliano Mamawal, deputy sheriff of the Province of Tarlac, by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, attached and sold to the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez the sugar cane planted by the plaintiff and his tenants on seven parcels of land described in the complaint in the third paragraph of the first cause of action; that within one year from the date of the attachment and sale the plaintiff offered to redeem said sugar cane and tendered to the defendant Valdez the amount sufficient to cover the price paid by the latter, the interest thereon and any assessments or taxes which he may have paid thereon after the purchase, and the interest corresponding thereto and that Valdez refused to accept the money and to return the sugar cane to the plaintiff.

As a second cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez was attempting to harvest the palay planted in four of the seven parcels mentioned in the first cause of action; that he had harvested and taken possession of the palay in one of said seven parcels and in another parcel described in the second cause of action, amounting to 300 cavans; and that all of said palay belonged to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez his attorneys and agents, restraining them (1) from distributing him in the possession of the parcels of land described in the complaint; (2) from taking possession of, or harvesting the sugar cane in question; and (3) from taking possession, or harvesting the palay in said parcels of land. Plaintiff also prayed that a judgment be rendered in his favor and against the defendants ordering them to consent to the redemption of the sugar cane in question, and that the defendant Valdez be condemned to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1,056 the value of palay harvested by him in the two parcels above-mentioned ,with interest and costs.

On December 27, 1924, the court, after hearing both parties and upon approval of the bond for P6,000 filed by the plaintiff, issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint.

The defendant Emiliano J. Valdez, in his amended answer, denied generally and specifically each and every allegation of the complaint and step up the following defenses:

(a) That the sugar cane in question had the nature of personal property and was not, therefore, subject to redemption;

(b) That he was the owner of parcels 1, 2 and 7 described in the first cause of action of the complaint;

(c) That he was the owner of the palay in parcels 1, 2 and 7; and

(d) That he never attempted to harvest the palay in parcels 4 and 5.

The defendant Emiliano J. Valdez by way of counterclaim, alleged that by reason of the preliminary injunction he was unable to gather the sugar cane, sugar-cane shoots (puntas de cana dulce) palay in said parcels of land, representing a loss to him of P8,375.20 and that, in addition thereto, he suffered damages amounting to P3,458.56. He prayed, for a judgment (1) absolving him from all liability under the complaint; (2) declaring him to be the absolute owner of the sugar cane in question and of the palay in parcels 1, 2 and 7; and (3) ordering the plaintiff to pay to him the sum of P11,833.76, representing the value of the sugar cane and palay in question, including damages.

Upon the issues thus presented by the pleadings the cause was brought on for trial. After hearing the evidence, and on April 28, 1926, the Honorable Cayetano Lukban, judge, rendered a judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants

(1) Holding that the sugar cane in question was personal property and, as such, was not subject to redemption;

(2) Absolving the defendants from all liability under the complaint; and

(3) Condemning the plaintiff and his sureties Cenon de la Cruz, Juan Sangalang and Marcos Sibal to jointly and severally pay to the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez the sum of P9,439.08 as follows:

(a) P6,757.40, the value of the sugar cane;

(b) 1,435.68, the value of the sugar-cane shoots;

(c) 646.00, the value of palay harvested by plaintiff;

(d) 600.00, the value of 150 cavans of palay which the defendant was not able to raise by reason of the injunction, at P4 cavan. 9,439.08 From that judgment the plaintiff appealed and in his assignments of error contends that the lower court erred: (1) In holding that the sugar cane in question was personal property and, therefore, not subject to redemption;

(2) In holding that parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint belonged to Valdez, as well as parcels 7 and 8, and that the palay therein was planted by Valdez;

(3) In holding that Valdez, by reason of the preliminary injunction failed to realized P6,757.40 from the sugar cane and P1,435.68 from sugar-cane shoots (puntas de cana dulce);

(4) In holding that, for failure of plaintiff to gather the sugar cane on time, the defendant was unable to raise palay on the land, which would have netted him the sum of P600; and.

(5) In condemning the plaintiff and his sureties to pay to the defendant the sum of P9,439.08.

It appears from the record:

(1) That on May 11, 1923, the deputy sheriff of the Province of Tarlac, by virtue of writ of execution in civil case No. 20203 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Leon Sibal),levied an attachment on eight parcels of land belonging to said Leon Sibal, situated in the Province of Tarlac, designated in the second of attachment as parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (Exhibit B, Exhibit 2-A).

(2) That on July 30, 1923, Macondray & Co., Inc., bought said eight parcels of land, at the auction held by the sheriff of the Province of Tarlac, for the sum to P4,273.93, having paid for the said parcels separately as follows (Exhibit C, and 2-A):

Parcel

1 .....................................................................P1.00

2 .....................................................................2,000.00

3 .....................................................................120.93

4 .....................................................................1,000.00

5 .....................................................................1.00

6 .....................................................................1.00

7 with the house thereon ..........................150.00

8 .....................................................................

1,000.00==========

4,273.93

(3) That within one year from the sale of said parcel of land, and on the 24th day of September, 1923, the judgment debtor, Leon Sibal, paid P2,000 to Macondray & Co., Inc., for the account of the redemption price of said parcels of land, without specifying the particular parcels to which said amount was to applied. The redemption price said eight parcels was reduced, by virtue of said transaction, to P2,579.97 including interest (Exhibit C and 2).

The record further shows:

(1) That on April 29, 1924, the defendant Vitaliano Mamawal, deputy sheriff of the Province of Tarlac, by virtue of a writ of execution in civil case No. 1301 of the Province of Pampanga (Emiliano J. Valdez vs. Leon Sibal 1. the same parties in the present case), attached the personal property of said Leon Sibal located in Tarlac, among which was included the sugar cane now in question in the seven parcels of land described in the complaint (Exhibit A).

(2) That on May 9 and 10, 1924, said deputy sheriff sold at public auction said personal properties of Leon Sibal, including the sugar cane in question to Emilio J. Valdez, who paid therefor the sum of P1,550, of which P600 was for the sugar cane (Exhibit A).

(3) That on April 29,1924, said deputy sheriff, by virtue of said writ of execution, also attached the real property of said Leon Sibal in Tarlac, including all of his rights, interest and participation therein, which real property consisted of eleven parcels of land and a house and camarin situated in one of said parcels (Exhibit A).

(4) That on June 25, 1924, eight of said eleven parcels, including the house and the camarin, were bought by Emilio J. Valdez at the auction held by the sheriff for the sum of P12,200. Said eight parcels were designated in the certificate of sale as parcels 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. The house and camarin were situated on parcel 7 (Exhibit A).

(5) That the remaining three parcels, indicated in the certificate of the sheriff as parcels 2, 12, and 13, were released from the attachment by virtue of claims presented by Agustin Cuyugan and Domiciano Tizon (Exhibit A).

(6) That on the same date, June 25, 1924, Macondray & Co. sold and conveyed to Emilio J. Valdez for P2,579.97 all of its rights and interest in the eight parcels of land acquired by it at public auction held by the deputy sheriff of Tarlac in connection with civil case No. 20203 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as stated above. Said amount represented the unpaid balance of the redemption price of said eight parcels, after payment by Leon Sibal of P2,000 on September 24, 1923, fro the account of the redemption price, as stated above. (Exhibit C and 2).

The foregoing statement of facts shows:

(1) The Emilio J. Valdez bought the sugar cane in question, located in the seven parcels of land described in the first cause of action of the complaint at public auction on May 9 and 10, 1924, for P600.

(2) That on July 30, 1923, Macondray & Co. became the owner of eight parcels of land situated in the Province of Tarlac belonging to Leon Sibal and that on September 24, 1923, Leon Sibal paid to Macondray & Co. P2,000 for the account of the redemption price of said parcels.

(3) That on June 25, 1924, Emilio J. Valdez acquired from Macondray & Co. all of its rights and interest in the said eight parcels of land.

(4) That on June 25, 1924, Emilio J. Valdez also acquired all of the rights and interest which Leon Sibal had or might have had on said eight parcels by virtue of the P2,000 paid by the latter to Macondray.

(5) That Emilio J. Valdez became the absolute owner of said eight parcels of land.

The first question raised by the appeal is, whether the sugar cane in question is personal or real property. It is contended that sugar cane comes under the classification of real property as "ungathered products" in paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code. Said paragraph 2 of article 334 enumerates as real property the following: Trees, plants, and ungathered products, while they are annexed to the land or form an integral part of any immovable property." That article, however, has received in recent years an interpretation by the Tribunal Supremo de Espaa, which holds that, under certain conditions, growing crops may be considered as personal property. (Decision of March 18, 1904, vol. 97, Civil Jurisprudence of Spain.)

Manresa, the eminent commentator of the Spanish Civil Code, in discussing section 334 of the Civil Code, in view of the recent decisions of the supreme Court of Spain, admits that growing crops are sometimes considered and treated as personal property. He says:

No creemos, sin embargo, que esto excluya la excepcionque muchos autores hacen tocante a la venta de toda cosecha o de parte de ella cuando aun no esta cogida (cosa frecuente con la uvay y la naranja), y a la de lenas, considerando ambas como muebles. El Tribunal Supremo, en sentencia de 18 de marzo de 1904, al entender sobre un contrato de arrendamiento de un predio rustico, resuelve que su terminacion por desahucio no extingue los derechos del arrendario, para recolectar o percibir los frutos correspondientes al ao agricola, dentro del que nacieron aquellos derechos, cuando el arrendor ha percibido a su vez el importe de la renta integra correspondiente, aun cuando lo haya sido por precepto legal durante el curso del juicio, fundandose para ello, no solo en que de otra suerte se daria al desahucio un alcance que no tiene, sino en que, y esto es lo interesante a nuestro proposito, la consideracion de inmuebles que el articulo 334 del Codigo Civil atribuge a los frutos pendientes, no les priva del caracter de productos pertenecientes, como tales, a quienes a ellos tenga derecho, Ilegado el momento de su recoleccion.

x x x x x x x x x

Mas actualmente y por virtud de la nueva edicion de la Ley Hipotecaria, publicada en 16 de diciembre de 1909, con las reformas introducidas por la de 21 de abril anterior, la hipoteca, salvo pacto expreso que disponga lo contrario, y cualquiera que sea la naturaleza y forma de la obligacion que garantice, no comprende los frutoscualquiera que sea la situacion en que se encuentre. (3 Manresa, 5. edicion, pags. 22, 23.)

From the foregoing it appears (1) that, under Spanish authorities, pending fruits and ungathered products may be sold and transferred as personal property; (2) that the Supreme Court of Spain, in a case of ejectment of a lessee of an agricultural land, held that the lessee was entitled to gather the products corresponding to the agricultural year, because said fruits did not go with the land but belonged separately to the lessee; and (3) that under the Spanish Mortgage Law of 1909, as amended, the mortgage of a piece of land does not include the fruits and products existing thereon, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.

An examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana may give us some light on the question which we are discussing. Article 465 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, which corresponds to paragraph 2 of article 334 of our Civil Code, provides: "Standing crops and the fruits of trees not gathered, and trees before they are cut down, are likewise immovable, and are considered as part of the land to which they are attached."

The Supreme Court of Louisiana having occasion to interpret that provision, held that in some cases "standing crops" may be considered and dealt with as personal property. In the case of Lumber Co. vs. Sheriff and Tax Collector(106 La., 418) the Supreme Court said: "True, by article 465 of the Civil Code it is provided that 'standing crops and the fruits of trees not gathered and trees before they are cut down . . . are considered as part of the land to which they are attached, but the immovability provided for is only one in abstracto and without reference to rights on or to the crop acquired by others than the owners of the property to which the crop is attached. . . . The existence of a right on the growing crop is a mobilization by anticipation, a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the crop movable quoad the right acquired therein. Our jurisprudence recognizes the possible mobilization of the growing crop." (Citizens' Bank vs. Wiltz, 31 La. Ann., 244; Porche vs. Bodin, 28 La., Ann., 761; Sandel vs. Douglass, 27 La. Ann., 629; Lewis vs. Klotz, 39 La. Ann., 267.)

"It is true," as the Supreme Court of Louisiana said in the case of Porche vs. Bodin(28 La. An., 761) that "article 465 of the Revised Code says that standing crops are considered as immovable and as part of the land to which they are attached, and article 466 declares that the fruits of an immovable gathered or produced while it is under seizure are considered as making part thereof, and incurred to the benefit of the person making the seizure. But the evident meaning of these articles, is where the crops belong to the owner of the plantation they form part of the immovable, and where it is seized, the fruits gathered or produced inure to the benefit of the seizing creditor.

A crop raised on leased premises in no sense forms part of the immovable. It belongs to the lessee, and may be sold by him, whether it be gathered or not, and it may be sold by his judgment creditors. If it necessarily forms part of the leased premises the result would be that it could not be sold under execution separate and apart from the land. If a lessee obtain supplies to make his crop, the factor's lien would not attach to the crop as a separate thing belonging to his debtor, but the land belonging to the lessor would be affected with the recorded privilege. The law cannot be construed so as to result in such absurd consequences.

In the case of Citizen's Bank vs. Wiltz(31 La. Ann., 244)the court said:

If the crop quoadthe pledge thereof under the act of 1874 was an immovable, it would be destructive of the very objects of the act, it would render the pledge of the crop objects of the act, it would render the pledge of the crop impossible, for if the crop was an inseparable part of the realty possession of the latter would be necessary to that of the former; but such is not the case. True, by article 465 C. C. it is provided that "standing crops and the fruits of trees not gathered and trees before they are cut down are likewise immovable and are considered as part of the land to which they are attached;" but the immovability provided for is only one in abstractoand without reference to rights on or to the crop acquired by other than the owners of the property to which the crop was attached. The immovability of a growing crop is in the order of things temporary, for the crop passes from the state of a growing to that of a gathered one, from an immovable to a movable. The existence of a right on the growing crop is a mobilization by anticipation, a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the crop movable quoadthe right acquired thereon. The provision of our Code is identical with the Napoleon Code 520, and we may therefore obtain light by an examination of the jurisprudence of France.

The rule above announced, not only by the Tribunal Supremo de Espaabut by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, is followed in practically every state of the Union.

From an examination of the reports and codes of the State of California and other states we find that the settle doctrine followed in said states in connection with the attachment of property and execution of judgment is, that growing crops raised by yearly labor and cultivation are considered personal property. (6 Corpuz Juris, p. 197; 17 Corpus Juris, p. 379; 23 Corpus Juris, p. 329: Raventas vs. Green, 57 Cal., 254; Norris vs. Watson, 55 Am. Dec., 161; Whipple vs. Foot, 3 Am. Dec., 442; 1 Benjamin on Sales, sec. 126; McKenzie vs. Lampley, 31 Ala., 526; Crine vs. Tifts and Co., 65 Ga., 644; Gillitt vs. Truax, 27 Minn., 528; Preston vs. Ryan, 45 Mich., 174; Freeman on Execution, vol. 1, p. 438; Drake on Attachment, sec. 249; Mechem on Sales, sec. 200 and 763.)

Mr. Mechem says that a valid sale may be made of a thing, which though not yet actually in existence, is reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increment or usual incident of something already in existence, and then belonging to the vendor, and then title will vest in the buyer the moment the thing comes into existence. (Emerson vs. European Railway Co., 67 Me., 387; Cutting vs. Packers Exchange, 21 Am. St. Rep., 63.) Things of this nature are said to have a potential existence. A man may sell property of which he is potentially and not actually possessed. He may make a valid sale of the wine that a vineyard is expected to produce; or the gain a field may grow in a given time; or the milk a cow may yield during the coming year; or the wool that shall thereafter grow upon sheep; or what may be taken at the next cast of a fisherman's net; or fruits to grow; or young animals not yet in existence; or the good will of a trade and the like. The thing sold, however, must be specific and identified. They must be also owned at the time by the vendor. (Hull vs. Hull, 48 Conn., 250 [40 Am. Rep., 165].)

It is contended on the part of the appellee that paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code has been modified by section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as by Act No. 1508, the Chattel Mortgage Law. Said section 450 enumerates the property of a judgment debtor which may be subjected to execution. The pertinent portion of said section reads as follows: "All goods, chattels, moneys, and other property, both real and personal, * * * shall be liable to execution. Said section 450 and most of the other sections of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the execution of judgment were taken from the Code of Civil Procedure of California. The Supreme Court of California, under section 688 of the Code of Civil Procedure of that state (Pomeroy, p. 424) has held, without variation, that growing crops were personal property and subject to execution.

Act No. 1508, the Chattel Mortgage Law, fully recognized that growing crops are personal property. Section 2 of said Act provides: "All personal property shall be subject to mortgage, agreeably to the provisions of this Act, and a mortgage executed in pursuance thereof shall be termed a chattel mortgage." Section 7 in part provides: "If growing crops be mortgaged the mortgage may contain an agreement stipulating that the mortgagor binds himself properly to tend, care for and protect the crop while growing.

It is clear from the foregoing provisions that Act No. 1508 was enacted on the assumption that "growing crops" are personal property. This consideration tends to support the conclusion hereinbefore stated, that paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code has been modified by section 450 of Act No. 190 and by Act No. 1508 in the sense that "ungathered products" as mentioned in said article of the Civil Code have the nature of personal property. In other words, the phrase "personal property" should be understood to include "ungathered products."

At common law, and generally in the United States, all annual crops which are raised by yearly manurance and labor, and essentially owe their annual existence to cultivation by man, . may be levied on as personal property." (23 C. J., p. 329.) On this question Freeman, in his treatise on the Law of Executions, says: "Crops, whether growing or standing in the field ready to be harvested, are, when produced by annual cultivation, no part of the realty. They are, therefore, liable to voluntary transfer as chattels. It is equally well settled that they may be seized and sold under execution. (Freeman on Executions, vol. p. 438.)

We may, therefore, conclude that paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code has been modified by section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by Act No. 1508, in the sense that, for the purpose of attachment and execution, and for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, "ungathered products" have the nature of personal property. The lower court, therefore, committed no error in holding that the sugar cane in question was personal property and, as such, was not subject to redemption.

All the other assignments of error made by the appellant, as above stated, relate to questions of fact only. Before entering upon a discussion of said assignments of error, we deem it opportune to take special notice of the failure of the plaintiff to appear at the trial during the presentation of evidence by the defendant. His absence from the trial and his failure to cross-examine the defendant have lent considerable weight to the evidence then presented for the defense.

Coming not to the ownership of parcels 1 and 2 described in the first cause of action of the complaint, the plaintiff made a futile attempt to show that said two parcels belonged to Agustin Cuyugan and were the identical parcel 2 which was excluded from the attachment and sale of real property of Sibal to Valdez on June 25, 1924, as stated above. A comparison of the description of parcel 2 in the certificate of sale by the sheriff (Exhibit A) and the description of parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint will readily show that they are not the same.

The description of the parcels in the complaint is as follows:

1. La caa dulce sembrada por los inquilinos del ejecutado Leon Sibal 1. en una parcela de terreno de la pertenencia del citado ejecutado, situada en Libutad, Culubasa, Bamban, Tarlac, de unas dos hectareas poco mas o menos de superficie.

2. La caa dulce sembrada por el inquilino del ejecutado Leon Sibal 1., Ilamado Alejandro Policarpio, en una parcela de terreno de la pertenencia del ejecutado, situada en Dalayap, Culubasa, Bamban, Tarlac de unas dos hectareas de superficie poco mas o menos." The description of parcel 2 given in the certificate of sale (Exhibit A) is as follows:

2a. Terreno palayero situado en Culubasa, Bamban, Tarlac, de 177,090 metros cuadrados de superficie, linda al N. con Canuto Sibal, Esteban Lazatin and Alejandro Dayrit; al E. con Francisco Dizon, Felipe Mau and others; al S. con Alejandro Dayrit, Isidro Santos and Melecio Mau; y al O. con Alejandro Dayrit and Paulino Vergara. Tax No. 2854, vador amillarado P4,200 pesos.

On the other hand the evidence for the defendant purported to show that parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint were included among the parcels bought by Valdez from Macondray on June 25, 1924, and corresponded to parcel 4 in the deed of sale (Exhibit B and 2), and were also included among the parcels bought by Valdez at the auction of the real property of Leon Sibal on June 25, 1924, and corresponded to parcel 3 in the certificate of sale made by the sheriff (Exhibit A). The description of parcel 4 (Exhibit 2) and parcel 3 (Exhibit A) is as follows:

Parcels No. 4. Terreno palayero, ubicado en el barrio de Culubasa,Bamban, Tarlac, I. F. de 145,000 metros cuadrados de superficie, lindante al Norte con Road of the barrio of Culubasa that goes to Concepcion; al Este con Juan Dizon; al Sur con Lucio Mao y Canuto Sibal y al Oeste con Esteban Lazatin, su valor amillarado asciende a la suma de P2,990. Tax No. 2856.

As will be noticed, there is hardly any relation between parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint and parcel 4 (Exhibit 2 and B) and parcel 3 (Exhibit A). But, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not care to appear at the trial when the defendant offered his evidence, we are inclined to give more weight to the evidence adduced by him that to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, with respect to the ownership of parcels 1 and 2 of the compliant. We, therefore, conclude that parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint belong to the defendant, having acquired the same from Macondray & Co. on June 25, 1924, and from the plaintiff Leon Sibal on the same date.

It appears, however, that the plaintiff planted the palay in said parcels and harvested therefrom 190 cavans. There being no evidence of bad faith on his part, he is therefore entitled to one-half of the crop, or 95 cavans. He should therefore be condemned to pay to the defendant for 95 cavans only, at P3.40 a cavan, or the sum of P323, and not for the total of 190 cavans as held by the lower court.

As to the ownership of parcel 7 of the complaint, the evidence shows that said parcel corresponds to parcel 1 of the deed of sale of Macondray & Co, to Valdez (Exhibit B and 2), and to parcel 4 in the certificate of sale to Valdez of real property belonging to Sibal, executed by the sheriff as above stated (Exhibit A). Valdez is therefore the absolute owner of said parcel, having acquired the interest of both Macondray and Sibal in said parcel.

With reference to the parcel of land in Pacalcal, Tarlac, described in paragraph 3 of the second cause of action, it appears from the testimony of the plaintiff himself that said parcel corresponds to parcel 8 of the deed of sale of Macondray to Valdez (Exhibit B and 2) and to parcel 10 in the deed of sale executed by the sheriff in favor of Valdez (Exhibit A). Valdez is therefore the absolute owner of said parcel, having acquired the interest of both Macondray and Sibal therein.

In this connection the following facts are worthy of mention:

Execution in favor of Macondray & Co., May 11, 1923. Eight parcels of land were attached under said execution. Said parcels of land were sold to Macondray & Co. on the 30th day of July, 1923. Rice paid P4,273.93. On September 24, 1923, Leon Sibal paid to Macondray & Co. P2,000 on the redemption of said parcels of land. (See Exhibits B and C ).

Attachment, April 29, 1924, in favor of Valdez. Personal property of Sibal was attached, including the sugar cane in question. (Exhibit A) The said personal property so attached, sold at public auction May 9 and 10, 1924. April 29, 1924, the real property was attached under the execution in favor of Valdez (Exhibit A). June 25, 1924, said real property was sold and purchased by Valdez (Exhibit A).

June 25, 1924, Macondray & Co. sold all of the land which they had purchased at public auction on the 30th day of July, 1923, to Valdez.

As to the loss of the defendant in sugar cane by reason of the injunction, the evidence shows that the sugar cane in question covered an area of 22 hectares and 60 ares (Exhibits 8, 8-b and 8-c); that said area would have yielded an average crop of 1039 picos and 60 cates; that one-half of the quantity, or 519 picos and 80 cates would have corresponded to the defendant, as owner; that during the season the sugar was selling at P13 a pico (Exhibit 5 and 5-A). Therefore, the defendant, as owner, would have netted P 6,757.40 from the sugar cane in question. The evidence also shows that the defendant could have taken from the sugar cane 1,017,000 sugar-cane shoots (puntas de cana) and not 1,170,000 as computed by the lower court. During the season the shoots were selling at P1.20 a thousand (Exhibits 6 and 7). The defendant therefore would have netted P1,220.40 from sugar-cane shoots and not P1,435.68 as allowed by the lower court.

As to the palay harvested by the plaintiff in parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint, amounting to 190 cavans, one-half of said quantity should belong to the plaintiff, as stated above, and the other half to the defendant. The court erred in awarding the whole crop to the defendant. The plaintiff should therefore pay the defendant for 95 cavans only, at P3.40 a cavan, or P323 instead of P646 as allowed by the lower court.

The evidence also shows that the defendant was prevented by the acts of the plaintiff from cultivating about 10 hectares of the land involved in the litigation. He expected to have raised about 600 cavans of palay, 300 cavans of which would have corresponded to him as owner. The lower court has wisely reduced his share to 150 cavans only. At P4 a cavan, the palay would have netted him P600.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified. The plaintiff and his sureties Cenon de la Cruz, Juan Sangalang and Marcos Sibal are hereby ordered to pay to the defendant jointly and severally the sum of P8,900.80, instead of P9,439.08 allowed by the lower court, as follows:

P6,757.40for the sugar cane;

1,220.40for the sugar cane shoots;

323.00for the palay harvested by plaintiff in parcels 1 and 2;

600.00for the palay which defendant could have raised.

8,900.80============

In all other respects, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real., JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990SALVADOR H. LAUREL,petitioner, vs.RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents.

G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990DIONISIO S. OJEDA,petitioner,vs.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN JAPAN,respondents.

Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013.GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

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 Roppongi, 5-Chome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. We granted the prayer for a temporary restraining order effective February 20, 1990. One of the petitioners (in G.R. No. 92047) likewise prayes for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to fully disclose to the public the basis of their decision to push through with the sale of the Roppongi property inspire of strong public opposition and to explain the proceedings which effectively prevent the participation of Filipino citizens and entities in the bidding process. The oral arguments in G.R. No. 92013, Laurel v. Garcia, et al. were heard by the Court on March 13, 1990. After G.R. No. 92047, Ojeda v. Secretary Macaraig, et al.was filed, the respondents were required to file a comment by the Court's resolution dated February 22, 1990. The two petitions were consolidated on March 27, 1990 when the memoranda of the parties in the Laurel case were deliberated upon.

The Court could not act on these cases immediately because the respondents filed a motion for an extension of thirty (30) days to file comment in G.R. No. 92047, followed by a second motion for an extension of another thirty (30) days which we granted on May 8, 1990, a third motion for extension of time granted on May 24, 1990 and a fourth motion for extension of time which we granted on June 5, 1990 but calling the attention of the respondents to the length of time the petitions have been pending. After the comment was filed, the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 asked for thirty (30) days to file a reply. We noted his motion and resolved to decide the two (2) cases.

I

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, the other lots being:

(1) The Nampeidai Property at 11-24 Nampeidai-machi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo which has an area of approximately 2,489.96 square meters, and is at present the site of the Philippine Embassy Chancery;

(2) The Kobe Commercial Property at 63 Naniwa-cho, Kobe, with an area of around 764.72 square meters and categorized as a commercial lot now being used as a warehouse and parking lot for the consulate staff; and

(3) The Kobe Residential Property at 1-980-2 Obanoyama-cho, Shinohara, Nada-ku, Kobe, a residential lot which is now vacant.

The properties and the capital goods and services procured from the Japanese government for national development projects are part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and property and their suffering during World War II.

The Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at $550 million would be payable in twenty (20) years in accordance with annual schedules of procurements to be fixed by the Philippine and Japanese governments (Article 2, Reparations Agreement). Rep. Act No. 1789, the Reparations Law, prescribes the national policy on procurement and utilization of reparations and development loans. The procurements are divided into those for use by the government sectorand those for private partiesin projects as the then National Economic Council shall determine. Those intended for the private sector shall be made available by sale to Filipino citizens or to one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities in national development projects.

The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese government under the Second Year Schedule and listed under the heading "Government Sector", through Reparations Contract No. 300 dated June 27, 1958. The Roppongi property consists of the land and building "for the Chancery of the Philippine Embassy" (Annex M-D to Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 503). As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai on July 22, 1976 when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. 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 - Kajima Corporation which shall construct two (2) buildings in Roppongi and one (1) building in Nampeidai and renovate the present Philippine Chancery in Nampeidai. The consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign corporation of one (1) of the buildings to be constructed in Roppongi and the two (2) buildings in Nampeidai. The other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the Philippine Embassy Chancery. At the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Philippine government. No change of ownership or title shall occur. (See Annex "B" to Reply to Comment) The Philippine government retains the title all throughout the lease period and thereafter. However, the government has not acted favorably on this proposal which is pending approval and ratification between the parties. Instead, on August 11, 1986, President Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan through Administrative Order No. 3, followed by Administrative Orders Numbered 3-A, B, C and D.

On July 25, 1987, the President issued Executive Order No. 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of separations' 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 of $225 million. The first bidding was a failure since only one bidder qualified. The second one, after postponements, has not yet materialized. The last scheduled bidding on February 21, 1990 was restrained by his Court. Later, the rules on bidding were changed such that the $225 million floor price became merely a suggested floor price.

The Court finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct issues. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property to anyone while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 adds as a principal objection the alleged unjustified bias of the Philippine government in favor of selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated and are resolved at the same time for the objective is the same - to stop the sale of the Roppongi property.

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?

Petitioner Dionisio Ojeda 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 in making the property available for sale to non-Filipino citizens and entities. He 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.

II

In G.R. No. 92013, petitioner Laurel asserts that the Roppongi property and the related lots were acquired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for diplomatic and consular use by the Philippine government. Vice-President Laurel states that the Roppongi property is classified as one of public dominion, and not of private ownership under Article 420 of the Civil Code (See infra).

The petitioner submits that the Roppongi property comes under "property intended for public service" in paragraph 2 of the above provision. He states that being one of public dominion, no ownership by any one can attach to it, not even by the State. The Roppongi and related properties were acquired for "sites for chancery, diplomatic, and consular quarters, buildings and other improvements" (Second Year Reparations Schedule). The petitioner states that they continue to be intended for a necessary service. They are held by the State in anticipation of an opportune use. (Citing 3 Manresa 65-66). Hence, it cannot be appropriated, is outside the commerce of man, or to put it in more simple terms, it cannot be alienated nor be the subject matter of contracts (Citing Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 20 [1915]). Noting the non-use of the Roppongi property at the moment, the petitioner avers that the same remains property of public dominion so long as the government has not used it for other purposes nor adopted any measure constituting a removal of its original purpose or use.

The respondents, for their part, refute the petitioner's contention by saying that the subject property is not governed by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property is located. They rely upon the rule of lex situswhich is used in determining the applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to a property. They also invoke Opinion No. 21, Series of 1988, dated January 27, 1988 of the Secretary of Justice which used the lex situsin explaining the inapplicability of Philippine law regarding a property situated in Japan.

The respondents add that even assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Code is applicable, the Roppongi property has ceased to become property of public dominion. It has become patrimonial property because it has not been used for public service or for diplomatic purposes for over thirteen (13) years now (Citing Article 422, Civil Code) and because the intentionby the Executive Department and the Congress to convert it to private usehas been manifested by overt acts, such as, among others: (1) the transfer of the Philippine Embassy to Nampeidai (2) the issuance of administrative orders for the possibility of alienating the four government properties in Japan; (3) the issuance of Executive Order No. 296; (4) the enactment by the Congress of Rep. Act No. 6657 [the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] on June 10, 1988 which contains a provision stating that funds may be taken from the sale of Philippine properties in foreign countries; (5) the holding of the public bidding of the Roppongi property but which failed; (6) the deferment by the Senate in Resolution No. 55 of the bidding to a future date; thus an acknowledgment by the Senate of the government's intention to remove the Roppongi property from the public service purpose; and (7) the resolution of this Court dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., G.R. No. 87478 which sought to enjoin the second bidding of the Roppongi property scheduled on March 30, 1989.

III

In G.R. No. 94047, petitioner Ojeda once more asks this Court to rule on the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. He had earlier filed a petition in G.R. No. 87478 which the Court dismissed on August 1, 1989. He now avers that the executive order contravenes the constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the national patrimony stated in the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution. It also allegedly violates:

(1) The reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens. (Sections 2 and 3, Article XII, Constitution; Sections 22 and 23 of Commonwealth Act 141).itc-asl(2) The preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony (Section 10, Article VI, Constitution);

(3) The protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade practices;

(4) The guarantee of the right of the people to information on all matters of public concern (Section 7, Article III, Constitution);

(5) The prohibition against the sale to non-Filipino citizens or entities not wholly owned by Filipino citizens of capital goods received by the Philippines under the Reparations Act (Sections 2 and 12 of Rep. Act No. 1789); and

(6) The declaration of the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (Section 28, Article III, Constitution).

Petitioner Ojeda warns that the use of public funds in the execution of an unconstitutional executive order is a misapplication of public funds He states that since the details of the bidding for the Roppongi property were never publicly discloseduntil February 15, 1990 (or a few days before the scheduled bidding), the bidding guidelines are available only in Tokyo, and the accomplishment of requirements and the selection of qualified bidders should be done in Tokyo, interested Filipino citizens or entities owned by them did not have the chance to comply with Purchase Offer Requirements on the Roppongi. Worse, the Roppongi shall be sold for a minimum price of $225 million from which price capital gains tax under Japanese law of about 50 to 70% of the floor price would still be deducted.

IV

The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not dispute the fact that the Roppongi site and the three related properties were through reparations agreements, that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was specifically designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the Philippine Embassy.

The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government.

There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. This, the respondents have failed to do.

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 appropration. (Taken from 3 Manresa, 66-69; cited in Tolentino, Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1963 Edition, Vol. II, p. 26).

The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are:

ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion

(1) 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;

(2) 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.

ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.

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. Has the intention of the government regarding the use of the property been changed because the lot has been Idle for some years? Has it 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. 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]).

The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned public officials insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, however, that 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 government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 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 property's original purpose. Even the failure by the government to repair the building in Roppongi is not abandonment since as earlier stated, there simply was a shortage of government funds. The recent Administrative Orders authorizing a study of the status and 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.

Executive Order No. 296, though its title declares an "authority to sell", does not have a provision in its text expressly authorizing the sale of the four properties procured from Japan for the government sector. The executive order does not declare that the properties lost their public character. It merely intends to make the properties availableto foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. It merely eliminates the restriction under Rep. Act No. 1789 that reparations goods may be sold only to Filipino citizens and one hundred (100%) percent Filipino-owned entities. The text of Executive Order No. 296 provides:

Section 1. The provisions of Republic Act No. 1789, as amended, and of other laws to the contrary notwithstanding, the above-mentioned properties can be made available for sale, lease or any other manner of disposition to non-Filipino citizens or to entities owned by non-Filipino citizens.

Executive Order No. 296 is based on the wrong premise or assumption that the Roppongi and the three other properties were earlier converted into alienable real properties. As earlier stated, Rep. Act No. 1789 differentiates the procurements for the government sector and the private sector (Sections 2 and 12, Rep. Act No. 1789). Only the private sector properties can be sold to end-users who must be Filipinos or entities owned by Filipinos. It is this nationality provision which was amended by Executive Order No. 296. Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 (the CARP Law) which provides as one of the sources of funds for its implementation, the proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries, did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being classified as one of public dominion when it mentions Philippine properties abroad. Section 63 (c) refers to properties which are alienable and not to those reserved for public use or service. Rep Act No. 6657, therefore, 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. Obviously any property outside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a source of funds.

The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil Code should apply.

It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones to insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its provision is not presented to the Court It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should apply without stating what that law provides. It is a ed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.

We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or ownershipof 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 (See Salonga, Private International Law, 1981 ed., pp. 377-383); and (2) 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.

In the instant case, none of the above elements exists.

The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situsdoes not apply.

The assertion that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice sheds light on the relevance of the lex situsrule is misplaced. The opinion does not tackle the alienability of the real properties procured through reparations nor the existence in what body of the authority to sell them. In discussing who are capable of acquiring the lots, the Secretary merely explains that it is the foreign law which should determine who can acquire the propertiesso that the constitutional limitation on acquisition of lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens and entities wholly owned by Filipinos is inapplicable. We see no point in belaboring whether or not this opinion is correct. Why should we discuss who can acquire the Roppongi lot when there is no showing that it can be sold?

The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino 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. Moreover, the approval 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 for the sake of argument, however, 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.Section 79 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 provides

Section 79 (f ) Conveyances and contracts to which the Government is a party. In cases in which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a party to any deed or other instrument conveying the title to real estate or to any other property the value of which is in excess of one hundred thousand pesos, the respective Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary papers which, together with the proper recommendations, shall be submitted to the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the same. Such deed, instrument, or contract shall be executed and signed by the President of the Philippines on behalf of the Government of the Philippines unless the Government of the Philippines unless the authority therefor be expressly vested by law in another officer. (Emphasis supplied)

The requirement has been retained in Section 48, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292). SEC. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following:

(1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer.

(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality, by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. (Emphasis supplied)

It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence. Resolution No. 55 of the Senate dated June 8, 1989, asking for the deferment of the sale of the Roppongi property does not withdraw the property from public domain much less authorize its sale. It is a mere resolution; it is not a formal declaration abandoning the public character of the Roppongi property. In fact, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is conducting hearings on Senate Resolution No. 734 which raises serious policy considerations and calls for a fact-finding investigation of the circumstances behind the decision to sell the Philippine government properties in Japan.

The resolution of this Court in Ojeda v. Bidding Committee, et al., supra,did not pass upon the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296. Contrary to respondents' assertion, we did not uphold the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property. The Court stated that the constitutionality of the executive order was not the real issue and that resolving the constitutional question was "neither necessary nor finally determinative of the case." The Court noted that "[W]hat petitioner ultimately questions is the use of the proceeds of the disposition of the Roppongi property." In emphasizing that "the decision of the Executive to dispose of the Roppongi property to finance the CARP ... cannot be questioned" in view of Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657, the Court did not acknowledge the fact that the property became alienable nor did it indicate that the President was authorized to dispose of the Roppongi property. The resolution should be read to mean that in case the Roppongi property is re-classified to be patrimonial and alienable by authority of law, the proceeds of a sale may be used for national economic development projects including the CARP.

Moreover, the sale in 1989 did not materialize. The petitions before us question the proposed 1990 sale of the Roppongi property. We are resolving the issues raised in these petitions, not the issues raised in 1989.

Having declared a need for a law or 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, we see no compelling reason to tackle the constitutional issues raised by petitioner Ojeda.

The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions unless these questions are properly raised in appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for the determination of the case (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]). The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground such as the application of a statute or general law (Siler v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, [1909], Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 [1941]).

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 states why the Roppongi property should not be sold:

The Roppongi property is not just like any piece of property. It was given to the Filipino people in reparation for the lives and blood of Filipinos who died and suffered during the Japanese military occupation, for the suffering of widows and orphans who lost their loved ones and kindred, for the homes and other properties lost by countless Filipinos during the war. The Tokyo properties are a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the Filipino people in the face of an invader; like the monuments of Rizal, Quezon, and other Filipino heroes, we do not expect economic or financial benefits from them. But who would think of selling these monuments? Filipino honor and national dignity dictate that we keep our properties in Japan as memorials to the countless Filipinos who died and suffered. Even if we should become paupers we should not think of selling them. For it would be as if we sold the lives and blood and tears of our countrymen. (Rollo- G.R. No. 92013, p.147)

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 also states: Roppongi is no ordinary property. It is one ceded by the Japanese government in atonement for its past belligerence for the valiant sacrifice of life and limb and for deaths, physical dislocation and economic devastation the whole Filipino people endured in World War II.

It is for what it stands for, and for what it could never bring back to life, that its significance today remains undimmed, inspire of the lapse of 45 years since the war ended, inspire of the passage of 32 years since the property passed on to the Philippine government.

Roppongi is a reminder that cannot should not be dissipated ... (Rollo-92047, p. 9)

It is indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related properties will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and Congress must concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. A writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan. The February 20, 1990 Temporary Restraining Order is made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Bidin, Grio-Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24440 March 28, 1968THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, plaintiff-appellee,vs.CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, defendants-appellants.

Fortugaleza, Lood, Sarmiento, M. T. Yap & Associates for plaintiff-appellee.Office of the Solicitor General for defendants-appellants.BENGZON, J.P., J.: Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province. On October 12, 1936, Commonwealth Act 39 was approved converting the Municipality of Zamboanga into Zamboanga City. Sec. 50 of the Act also provided that

Buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor General.

The properties and buildings referred to consisted of 50 lots and some buildings constructed thereon, located in the City of Zamboanga and covered individually by Torrens certificates of title in the name of Zamboanga Province. As far as can be gleaned from the records, 1said properties were being utilized as follows

No. of LotsUse

1................................................ Capitol Site

3................................................ School Site

3................................................ Hospital Site

3................................................ Leprosarium

1................................................ Curuan School

1................................................ Trade School

2................................................ Burleigh School

2................................................ High School Playground

9................................................ Burleighs

1................................................ Hydro-Electric Site (Magay)

1................................................ San Roque

23................................................ vacant

It appears that in 1945, the capital of Zamboanga Province was transferred to Dipolog. 2Subsequently, or on June 16, 1948, Republic Act 286 was approved creating the municipality of Molave and making it the capital of Zamboanga Province.

On May 26, 1949, the Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General, pursuant to Commonwealth Act 39, fixed the value of the properties and buildings in question left by Zamboanga Province in Zamboanga City at P1,294,244.00. 3 On June 6, 1952, Republic Act 711 was approved dividing the province of Zamboanga into two (2): Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. As to how the assets and obligations of the old province were to be divided between the two new ones, Sec. 6 of that law provided:

Upon the approval of this Act, the funds, assets and other properties and the obligations of the province of Zamboanga shall be divided equitably between the Province of Zamboanga del Norte and the Province of Zamboanga del Sur by the President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Auditor General.

Pursuant thereto, the Auditor General, on January 11, 1955, apportioned the assets and obligations of the defunct Province of Zamboanga as follows: 54.39% for Zamboanga del Norte and 45.61% for Zamboanga del Sur. Zamboanga del Norte therefore became entitled to 54.39% of P1,294,244.00, the total value of the lots and buildings in question, or P704,220.05 payable by Zamboanga City.

On March 17, 1959, the Executive Secretary, by order of the President, issued a ruling 4holding that Zamboanga del Norte had a vested right as owner (should be co-owner pro-indiviso) of the properties mentioned in Sec. 50 of Commonwealth Act 39, and is entitled to the price thereof, payable by Zamboanga City. This ruling revoked the previous Cabinet Resolution of July 13, 1951 conveying all the said 50 lots and buildings thereon to Zamboanga City for P1.00, effective as of 1945, when the provincial capital of the then Zamboanga Province was transferred to Dipolog.

The Secretary of Finance then authorized the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to deduct an amount equal to 25% of the regular internal revenue allotment for the City of Zamboanga for the quarter ending March 31, 1960, then for the quarter ending June 30, 1960, and again for the first quarter of the fiscal year 1960-1961. The deductions, all aggregating P57,373.46, was credited to the province of Zamboanga del Norte, in partial payment of the P764,220.05 due it.

However, on June 17, 1961, Republic Act 3039 was approved amending Sec. 50 of Commonwealth Act 39 by 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. (Stressed for emphasis).

Consequently, the Secretary of Finance, on July 12, 1961, ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to stop from effecting further payments to Zamboanga del Norte and to return to Zamboanga City the sum of P57,373.46 taken from it out of the internal revenue allotment of Zamboanga del Norte. Zamboanga City admits that since the enactment of Republic Act 3039, P43,030.11 of the P57,373.46 has already been returned to it.

This constrained plaintiff-appellee Zamboanga del Norte to file on March 5, 1962, a complaint entitled "Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction" 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: (a) Republic Act 3039 be declared unconstitutional for depriving plaintiff province of property without due process and just compensation; (b) Plaintiff's rights and obligations under said law be declared; (c) The Secretary of Finance and the Internal Revenue Commissioner be enjoined from reimbursing the sum of P57,373.46 to defendant City; and (d) The latter be ordered to continue paying the balance of P704,220.05 in quarterly installments of 25% of its internal revenue allotments.

On June 4, 1962, the lower court ordered the issuance of preliminary injunction as prayed for. After defendants filed their respective answers, trial was held. On August 12, 1963, judgment was rendered, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Republic Act No. 3039 unconstitutional insofar as it deprives plaintiff Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties, consisting of 50 parcels of land and the improvements thereon under certificates of title (Exhibits "A" to "A-49") in the name of the defunct province of Zamboanga; ordering defendant City of Zamboanga to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P704,220.05 payment thereof to be deducted from its regular quarterly internal revenue allotment equivalent to 25% thereof every quarter until said amount shall have been fully paid; ordering defendant Secretary of Finance to direct defendant Commissioner of Internal Revenue to deduct 25% from the regular quarterly internal revenue allotment for defendant City of Zamboanga and to remit the same to plaintiff Zamboanga del Norte until said sum of P704,220.05 shall have been fully paid; ordering plaintiff Zamboanga del Norte to execute through its proper officials the corresponding public instrument deeding to defendant City of Zamboanga the 50 parcels of land and the improvements thereon under the certificates of title (Exhibits "A" to "A-49") upon payment by the latter of the aforesaid sum of P704,220.05 in full; dismissing the counterclaim of defendant City of Zamboanga; and declaring permanent the preliminary mandatory injunction issued on June 8, 1962, pursuant to the order of the Court dated June 4, 1962. No costs are assessed against the defendants.

It is SO ORDERED.

Subsequently, but prior to the perfection of defendants' appeal, plaintiff province filed a motion to reconsider praying that Zamboanga City be ordered instead to pay the P704,220.05 in lump sumwith 6% interest per annum. Over defendants' opposition, the lower court granted plaintiff province's motion.

The defendants then brought the case before Us on appeal.

Brushing aside the procedural point concerning the property of declaratory relief filed in the lower court on the assertion that the law had already been violated and that plaintiff sought to give it coercive effect, since assuming the same to be true, the Rules anyway authorize the conversion of the proceedings to an ordinary action, 5We proceed to the more important and principal question of the validity of Republic Act 3039.

The validity of the law ultimately depends on the nature of the 50 lots and buildings thereon in question. For, the matter involved here is the extent of legislative control over the properties of a municipal corporation, of which a province is one. 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. 6 The capacity in which the property is held is, however, dependent on the use to which it is intended and devoted. Now, which of two norms, i.e., that of the Civil Code or that obtaining under the law of Municipal Corporations, must be used in classifying the properties in question?

The Civil Code classification is embodied in its Arts. 423 and 424 which provide:1wph1.t ART. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property.

ART. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.

All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonialand shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. (Stressed for emphasis).

Applying the above cited norm, all the properties in question, except the two (2) lots used as High School playgrounds, could be considered as patrimonial properties of the former Zamboanga province. Even the capital site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and the school sites will be considered patrimonial for they are not for public use. They would fall under the phrase "public works for public service" for it has been held that under the ejusdem generis rule, such public works must be for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, just like the preceding enumerated properties in the first paragraph of Art 424. 7The playgrounds, however, would fit into this category.

This was the norm applied by the lower court. And it cannot be said that its actuation was without jurisprudential precedent for in Municipality of Catbalogan v. Director of Lands, 8 and in Municipality of Tacloban v. Director of Lands, 9 it was held that the capitol site and the school sites in municipalities constitute their patrimonial properties. This result is understandable because, unlike in the classification regarding State properties, properties for public service in the municipalities are not classified as public. Assuming then the Civil Code classification to be the chosen norm, the lower court must be affirmed except with regard to the two (2) lots used as playgrounds.

On the other hand, 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 considered public, it is enough that the property be held and, devoted for governmental purposes like local administration, public education, public health, etc. 10 Supporting jurisprudence are found in the following cases: (1) HINUNANGAN V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, 11 where it was stated that "... where the municipality has occupied lands distinctly for public purposes, such as for the municipal court house, the public school, the public market, or other necessary municipal building, we will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, presume a grant from the States in favor of the municipality; but, as indicated by the wording, that rule may be invoked only as to property which is used distinctly for public purposes...." (2) VIUDA DE TANTOCO V. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO 12held that municipal properties necessary for governmental purposes are public in nature. Thus, the auto trucks used by the municipality for street sprinkling, the police patrol automobile, police stations and concrete structures with the corresponding lots used as markets were declared exempt from execution and attachment since they were not patrimonial properties. (3) MUNICIPALITY OF BATANGAS VS. CANTOS 13held squarely that a municipal lot which had always been devoted to school purposes is one dedicated to public use and is not patrimonial property of a municipality.

Following this classification, Republic Act 3039 is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as capitol site, school sites and its grounds, hospital and leprosarium sites and the high school playground sites a total of 24 lots since these were held by the former Zamboanga province in its governmental capacity and therefore are subject to the absolute control of Congress. Said lots considered as public property are the following:

TCT NumberLot NumberU s e

2200......................................4-B......................................Capitol Site

2816......................................149......................................School Site

3281......................................1224......................................Hospital Site

3282......................................1226......................................Hospital Site

3283......................................1225......................................Hospital Site

3748......................................434-A-1......................................School Site

5406......................................171......................................School Site

5564......................................168......................................High School Play-ground

5567......................................157 & 158......................................Trade School

5583......................................167......................................High School Play-ground

6181......................................(O.C.T.)......................................Curuan School

11942......................................926......................................Leprosarium

11943......................................927......................................Leprosarium

11944......................................925......................................Leprosarium

5557......................................170......................................Burleigh School

5562......................................180.......