Alyssa Marie D. Caguete Atty.

Maria
Lourdes P. Garcia
JD 2-2
Assignment in Property
I.
Q. Mr. Soriano owns a land 500 sq meter more or less situated 50 meters from the
shoreline. Later by the natural action of the sea --- part of the land was completely
submerged and about 00 sq meters was ta!en by the water. "i#e years later$ the
go#ernment decided to reclaim the land and %lled the land including the 00 square
meter owned by Mrs. Santos. &an Mr. Santos now claim the land'
(ns. )0pts *
+o$ he cannot claim the land. In the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 281
SCRA 639, the court held that when the sea ad#ances and pri#ate properties are
permanently in#aded by the wa#es$ the properties so in#aded become part of the
shore or beach and then they pass to the public domain. In the case at bar$ since a
portion of the property was completely submerged in the water and becomes part
of the shore$ such portion is passed to the public domain and therefore$ may be
#alidly reclaimed by the go#ernment. ,he owner$ Mr. Santos is dispossessed of his
right to his property by #irtue of -natural e.propriation/.
0. Mr. Santos$ a Municipal Mayor donated his land to his Municipality which in turn
con#erted his land into a public pla1a. ,he pla1a was beside a catholic church. Later
the &atholic &hurch e.tended its grounds to include a small portion of the pla1a. Mr.
Santos$ being a de#out &atholic and being the donor of the property did not ob2ect
thereto. (fter Mayor Santos3 term and )0 years thereafter$ the &hurch wanted to
acquire ownership of the e.tended portion. ,he new Mayor ob2ected. Mr. Santos
engaged a lawyer for the church to defend its position. &ase was %led in court. If
you were the 4udge$ how will you decide and why' )0 pts.
(ns*
Mr. Santos could not #alidly donate the property to the &atholic &hurch because the
same was a property for public use. In Harty vs. Municipality of ictoria $13 !"il 1#2 $
the Supreme &ourt ruled that the property which became a public pla1a could not
ha#e been #alidly donated by the town to the church because the same was
property for public use. 5#en assuming that the property was originally a pri#ate
property$ it must be assumed that he wai#ed his right thereto for the bene%t of the
townspeople and the property thus became property for public use. In the case at
bar$ the pla1a being a promenade for public use$ is property of public dominion. It is
outside the commerce of man$ and cannot be leased$ donated$ sold$ or be the
ob2ect of any contract.
&. Sensing that a big tract of land was a go#ernment land$ informal settlers
occupied the property. 6hen this situation reached the &ity Mayor reali1ing that
there are yet no funds to construct a go#ernment hospital therein$ decided to lease
the lots to the squatters. 6hen it was already time to construct the hospital$ the
squatters did not want to lea#e arguing that they are legitimate tenants of the &ity.
,he &ity then sued to reco#er possession of the lot. May the squatters be e2ected'
)0pts.
(ns.
7es$ they may be e2ected because their entry as well as the constructions they
made is illegal. ,hey cannot be considered legitimate tenants of the &ity e#en by
#irtue of the lease e.ecuted by the &ity Mayor. In the case of City of Manila vs.
$arcia, $.R. %&26'#3 $ the &ourt ruled that the Mayor of the &ity of Manila cannot
legali1e forcible entry into public property by the simple e.pedient of gi#ing permits$
or$ for that matter$ e.ecuting leases. In the case at bar$ the permits granted by the
city mayor do not ha#e any legal e8ect hence they should be e2ected from the
property.
9. Supposing you own a :acienda Luisita. Inside :acienda Luisita is a cree! leading
towards the ;ampanga ri#er. 6hat is the nature of the property of the cree! and
why'
(ns. )0 pts.
If the cree! is de#oted e.clusi#ely for pri#ate use$ it is of pri#ate ownership. In the
case of Santos vs. Moreno $ $R %&1#829, the court held that canals constructed by
pri#ate persons within pri#ate lands and de#oted e.clusi#ely for pri#ate use must be
of pri#ate ownership. Since the cree! was constructed inside :acienda Luisita which
is a pri#ate property and assuming that it is being used pri#ately$ it should be
considered as a pri#ate property.
II.
5.amples of ;roperties for ;ublic <se* 5pts
a= >oads ? 59S($ &laro M. >ecto (#enue
b= ;orts ? +inoy (quino International (irport$ 0atangas ;ort
c= >i#ers ? &agayan ri#er$ 9a#ao ri#er
d= Shores ? Manila bay$ La <nion beach
e= 0ridges ? San 4uanico bridge$ 4ones bridge
III. 5.amples of ;roperty for ;ublic Ser#ice* 5pts.
a= &amp &rame
b= ;<; main campus
c= Malaca@ang palace
d= +ational Museum
e=Que1on &ity :all
IA. &haracteristics of ;roperty of the public domain* )0 pts.
a= ,hey are outside the commerce of man
b=,hey are not susceptible to pri#ate appropriation
c= ,hey are not susceptible to acquisiti#e prescription
d= ,hey are not sub2ect to attachment
e= ,hey are not sub2ect to e.ecution
f= ,hey cannot be burdened with #oluntary easements
A. &lassi%cation of ;ublic Lands* 5 pts.
a= (gricultural
b= "orest or timber
c= Mineral lands
d= +ational par!s
AI. Binds of properties of ;ri#ate Cwnership 5 pts.
a= ;atrimonial property of the State
b= ;roperty belonging to pri#ate persons
AII. 5.amples of patrimonial property of the State* )0 pts.
a= "riar lands
b= ;art of 0oracay which was classi%ed as alienable and disposable by #irtue of ;roc.
)0DE
c= &entral 0usiness ;ar! I ? a 00-hectare area in ;asay &ity which is home to SM
Mall of (sia &omple. and SM by the 0ay.
d= &entral 0usiness ;ar! II - a EF-hectare area which is home to <niwide &oastal
Mall and Metro Manila 9e#elopment (uthority3s Southwest Integrated ;ro#incial
,ransport ,erminal.
e= ,he G.5 hectare reclamation pro2ect in the Municipality of Mabini$ 0atangas which
is intended for mi.ed commercial and industrial use.
AIII 9istinguish between Ho#ernment Lands and ;ublic lands* 5 pts.
;ublic lands are that part of go#ernment lands which are thrown open to pri#ate
appropriation nd settlement by homestead and other li!e general laws. Ho#ernment
lands are broader in scope$ and may be said to include also those lands de#oted to
public use or public ser#ice$ as well as public lands before and after they are made
a#ailable for pri#ate appropriation$ and also patrimonial lands. <pon the other hand$
public lands are merely a part of go#ernment lands.
II. "ill the blan!s* 5 pts.
;ublic dominion does not import the idea of ownership. It is not owned by the state
but simply under its 2urisdiction and administration for the collecti#e en2oyment of
the people.
;roperty when no longer use for public ser#ice or public use form part of the
patrimonial property of the state. ,here must be a positi#e act by the e.ecuti#e or
legislati#e branch of go#ernment that the property is no longer needed for public
use or public ser#ice.
,here should be no room for doubt that it is not the 4udicial branch of the
go#ernment which determines the classi%cation of lands of the public domain into
alienable or disposable lands$ forest or mineral but the 5.ecuti#e branch of the
go#ernment.
;ublic lands may be disposed of in accordance with &ommonwealth (ct +o )E)
J;ublic Land (ct=. ,he disposition of public lands is lodged e.clusi#ely in the
;resident$ sub2ect only to the control of the Secretary of 5n#ironment and +atural
>esources.
I. Match the principle of law with the appropriate case* )0.pts
;roperties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man$ and cannot be
leased$ donated$ sold$ or be the ob2ect of any contract$ e.cept insofar as they may
be the ob2ect of repairs or impro#ements and other incidental things of similar
character. Municipality of &a#ite #s. >o2as
,hey cannot be acquired by prescriptionK no matter how long the possession of the
properties ha#e been$ -there can be no prescription against the State regarding
property of the public domain./ Meneses #s. &ommonwealth
Ho#ernment properties$ as well as their usufruct$ cannot be le#ied upon by
e.ecution$ nor can they be attached. ,an ,oco #. Mun. &ouncil of Iloilo.
&anals constructed by pri#ate persons within pri#ate lands are of pri#ate ownership.
Santos #s. Moreno
;ublic properties are e.empt from e.ecution because of their necessity for
go#ernmental functions. ,an ,oco #. Mun. &ouncil of Iloilo
5#en if the go#ernment collect tool fees$ the road is still intended for public use. If
anyone can use it under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public.
MI(( #s. &(
(s a public water$ it cannot be registered under the ,orrens System in the name of
any indi#idual. +either the mere construction of irrigation di!es by the +ational
Irrigation (dministration which pre#ents the water from Lowing in and out of a
%shpond$ nor its con#ersion into a %shpond$ alter or change the nature of the cree!
as a property of the public domain. Maneclang #s. Intermediate (ppellate &ourt
&onstructions made on &C(S,(L 6(,5>S inasmuch as it belongs to the state$ and is
used as a waterway may be properly remo#ed or demolished. Aillongco #s. Moreno
(n abandonment of the intention to use the >oppongi property for public ser#ice
and to ma!e it patrimonial property under (rticle E of the &i#il &ode must be
de%nite. (bandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the
non-use was attributable not to the go#ernment3s own deliberate and indubitable
will but to a lac! of %nancial support to repair and impro#e the property. Laurel #s.
Harcia
J&lemencia 0. Ada. de Aillongco$ et al. #. "lorencio Moreno$ et al. L-)ME0$ 4an. F)$
)ND=
J Mun. of &a#ie #s. >o2as$ F0 ;hil. D0=
JManeclang$ et. al #s. I(& H.>. +o. D55M5$ Sept. F0$ )NGD=
JLaurel #s. Harcia H.>. +o. N0)F$ 4uly 5$ )NN0=
JMeneses #s. &ommonwealth$ DN ;hil. 505=
JMI(( #s. &($ H.>. +o. )55D50$ 4uly 0$ 00D=
JAiuda de ,an ,oco #. Municipal &ouncil of Iloilo$ EN;hil. 5=
JSantos #. Moreno$ H> L-)5GN$ 9ec. E$ )NDM=
J ,an ,oco #. Mun. &ouncil of Iloilo$ EN ;hil.5=