Property Case Digests

Case 5:

December 4, 1967

G.R. No. L-15829
ROMAN R. SANTOS, petitioner-appellee, 
vs.
HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications and JULIAN C. CARGULLO, respondents-appellants.

Facts:

The Zobel family of Spain formerly owned vast track of marshland in the municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga province. Called Hacienda San Esteban, it was administered and managed by the Ayala y Cia. From the year 1860 to about the year 1924 Ayala y Cia., devoted the hacienda to the planting and cultivation of nipa palms from which it gathered nipa sap or "tuba." It operated a distillery plant in barrio San Esteban to turn nipa tuba into potable alcohol, which was in turn manufactured into liquor.

Accessibility through the nipa palms deep into the hacienda posed as a problem. Ayala y Cia., therefore dug canals leading towards the hacienda's interior where most of them interlinked with each other. The canals facilitated the gathering of tuba and the guarding and patrolling of the hacienda by security guards called "arundines." By the gradual process of erosion these canals acquired the characteristics and dimensions of rivers.

In 1924 Ayala y Cia shifted from the business of alcohol production to bangus culture. It converted Hacienda San Esteban from a forest of nipa groves to a web of fishponds. To do so, it cut down the nipa palm, constructed dikes and closed the canals criss-crossing the hacienda.

Sometime in 1925 or 1926 Ayala y Cia., sold a portion of Hacienda San Esteban to Roman Santos who also transformed the swamp land into a fishpond. In so doing, he closed and built dikes across Sapang Malauling Maragul, Quiñorang Silab, Pepangebunan, Bulacus, Nigui and Nasi.

The closing of the man-made canals in Hacienda San Esteban drew complaints from residents of the surrounding communities. Claiming that the closing of the canals caused floods during the rainy season, and that it deprived them of their means of transportation and fishing grounds, said residents demanded re-opening of those canals.

Subsequently, Mayor Lazaro Yambao of Macabebe, accompanied by policemen and some residents went to Hacienda San Esteban and opened the closure dikes at Sapang Malauling Maragul Nigui and Quiñorang Silab.

Whereupon, Roman Santos filed Civil Case No. 4488 in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga which preliminarily enjoined Mayor Yambao and others from demolishing the dikes across the canals. The municipal officials of Macabebe countered by filing a complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 4527) in the same court. The Pampanga Court of First Instance rendered judgment in both cases against Roman Santos who immediately elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Do the streams involved in this case belong to the public domain or to the owner of Hacienda San Esteban according to law and the evidence submitted to the Department of Public Works and Communications?

Ruling:

A private person may take possession of a watercourse if he constructed the same within his property.

One and all, the evidence, oral and documentary, presented by Roman Santos in the administrative proceedings supports the conclusion of the lower court that the streams involved in this case were originally man-made canals constructed by the former owners of Hacienda San Esteban and that said streams were not held open for public use. This same conclusion was reached 27 years earlier by an investigator of the Bureau of Public Works whose report and recommendations were approved by the Director of Public Works and submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Communications.

The streams in question were artificially made, hence of private ownership.

Pursuant to Article 71 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, and Article 408(5) of the Spanish Civil Code, channels of creeks and brooks belong to the owners of estates over which they flow. The channels, therefore, of the streams in question, which may be classified creeks, belong to the owners of Hacienda San Esteban.

With the exception of Sapang Cansusu, being a natural stream and a continuation of the Cansusu River, admittedly a public stream, belongs to the public domain. Its closure therefore by the predecessors of Roman Santos was illegal.

All the other streams, being artificial and devoted exclusively for the use of the hacienda owner and his personnel, are declared of private ownership. Hence, the dams across them should not he ordered demolished as public nuisances.

Case 6:

G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

SALVADOR 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.

Facts:

These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of land at 306 Roppongi, 5-Chome Minato-ku Tokyo, Japan scheduled on February 21, 1990. The Supreme Court granted the prayer for a temporary restraining order, in favor of the petitioner, effective February 20, 1990.

The subject property in this case is one of the four (4) properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan on May 9, 1956.

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.

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.

Issue:

Can the Roppongi property and others of its kind be alienated by the Philippine Government?

Ruling:

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 appropriation.