property full cases (public dominion-ownership)

8/18/2019 Property Full Cases (Public Dominion-Ownership)

1/191

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 6295 September 1,1911THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.IGNACIO CARLOS, defendant-appellant.

A. D. Gibbs for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Harvey for

appellee.P

PER CURIAMThe information filed in this case is asfollos!The undersi"ned accuses #"nacio Carlosof the crime of theft, committed asfollos!That on, durin", and beteen the $%th

da& of 'ebruar&, $()(, and the %d da& of March, $($), in the cit& of Manila,Philippine #slands, the said #"nacioCarlos, ith intent of "ain and ithout

violence or intimidation a"ainst theperson or force a"ainst the thin", didthen and there, illfull&, unlafull&, andfeloniousl&, ta*e, steal , and carr& aa& to thousand to hundred and sevent&-three +,% *iloatts of electriccurrent, of the value of nine hundred

and nine +()( pesos and tent& +)cents Philippine currenc&, the propert& of the Manila Electric Railroad and/i"ht Compan&, a corporation doin"

business in the Philippine #slands, ithout the consent of the onerthereof0 to the dama"e and pre1udice of the said Manila Electric Railroad and/i"ht Compan& in the said sum of ninehundred and nine +()( pesos andtent& +) cents Philippine currenc&,e2ual to and e2uivalent of 3,435 pesetasPhilippine currenc&. All contrar& to la.+6"d. /. M. 678T97RT:,

Prosecuting Attorney.

6ubscribed and sorn to before me this3th da& of March, $($), in the cit& of Manila, Philippine #slands, b& /. M.6outhorth, prosecutin" attorne& forthe cit& of Manila.+6"d. C:AR/E6 6. /7B#N;#ER,

Judge, First Instance.

A preliminar& investi"ation hasheretofore been conducted in this case,under m& direction, havin" e


2/191

7bviousl& this difference could not bedue to normal causes, for hile theelectrician called b& the defense+/anusa testifies to the possibilit& of adifference beteen to such meters, heplaces the e


3/191


4/191

7co. The defendant called uponMarcelina, but instead of deliverin" thesaid amount she as*ed Marcelina forP%) in the name of >oa2uina ho had inno a& authoriDed her to do so.Marcelina "ave her P%), believin" that>oa2uina had sent for it. Counsel for thedefendant insisted that the complaintchar"ed his client ith to differentcrimes of estafa in violation of section $$of ;eneral 7rders, No. 4=. #n disposin"of this 2uestion this court said!The said defect constitutes one of thedilator& pleas indicated b& section $,and the accused ou"ht to have raised thepoint before the trial be"an. :ad this

been done, the complaint mi"ht have been amended in time, because it ismerel& a defect of form easil& remedied. . . . #nasmuch as in the firstinstance the accused did not ma*e the

correspondin" dilator& plea to theirre"ularit& of the complaint, it must beunderstood that has aived suchob1ection, and is not no entitled toraise for the first time an& 2uestion inreference thereto hen submittin" tothis court her assi"nment of errors.

Apart from the fact that the defense doesnot pretend that an& of the essentialri"hts of the accused have been in1ured,the alle"ation of the defect above

alluded to, hich in an& case ould onl& affect form of the complaint, can not 1ustif& a reversal of the 1ud"mentappealed from, accordin" to theprovisions of section $) of ;eneral7rders, No. 4=.#n the case at bar it is not pointed out

herein an& of the essential ri"hts of thedefendant have been pre1udiced b& reason of the fact that the complaintcovered the entire period. #f telvedistinct and separate complaints had

been filed a"ainst the defendant, one foreach month, the sum total of thepenalties imposed mi"ht have been ver&

much "reater than that imposed b& thecourt in this case. The coverin" of theentire period b& one char"e has been

beneficial, if an&thin", and notpre1udicial to the ri"hts of thedefendant. The prosecutin" attorne& elected to cover the entire period ithone char"e and the accused havin" beenconvicted for this offense, he can nota"ain be prosecuted for the stealin" of the current at an& time ithin thatperiod. Then, a"ain, e are of theopinion that the char"e as properl& laid. The electricit& as stolen from thesame person, in the same manner, andin the same place. #t as substantiall& one continuous act, althou"h the1umper mi"ht have been removed andreplaced dail& or monthl&. Thedefendant as moved b& one impulse toappropriate to his on use the current,

and the means adopted b& him for theta*in" of the current ere in theeud"e Heus C. Abro"ar, Re"ional TrialCourt +RTC, Ma*ati Cit&, Branch $4),

hich denied the Motion to Fuash

+9ith Motion to efer Arrai"nment inCriminal Case No. ((-34 for theft.Philippine /on" istance TelephoneCompan& +P/T is the holder of ale"islative franchise to render local andinternational telecommunicationservices under Republic Act No.)=. 8nder said la, P/T isauthoriDed to establish, operate,mana"e, lease, maintain and purchasetelecommunication s&stems, includin"transmittin", receivin" and sitchin"stations, for both domestic andinternational calls. 'or this purpose, ithas installed an estimated $. million

telephone lines nationide. P/T alsooffers other services as authoriDed b& Certificates of Public Convenience andNecessit& +CPCN dul& issued b& theNational TelecommunicationsCommission +NTC, and operates andmaintains an #nternational ;atea& 'acilit& +#;'. The P/T netor* isthus principall& composed of the Public6itch Telephone Netor* +P6TN,telephone handsets andIortelecommunications e2uipment used b& its subscribers, the ires and cableslin*in" said telephone handsets andIortelecommunications e2uipment,antenna, the #;', and othertelecommunications e2uipment hichprovide interconnections.% "avvp#il.net P/T alle"es that one of the alternativecallin" patterns that constitute netor* fraud and violate its netor* inte"rit& is

that hich is *non as #nternational6imple Resale +#6R. #6R is a method of routin" and completin" internationallon" distance calls usin" #nternationalPrivate /eased /ines +#P/, cables,antenna or air ave or fre2uenc&, hichconnect directl& to the local or domestice


5/191

subscriber to "ive the P#N number alsoindicated in the phone card. 7nce thecallerKs identit& +as purchaser of thephone card is confirmed, the #6R operator ill then provide a Philippinelocal line to the re2uestin" caller via the#P/. Accordin" to P/T, calls madethrou"h the #P/ never pass the tollcenter of #;' operators in thePhilippines. 8sin" the local line, the

Ba&net card user is able to place a call toan& point in the Philippines, providedthe local line is National irect ial+N capable.4

P/T asserts that Ba&net conducts its#6R activities b& utiliDin" an #P/ tocourse its incomin" international lon"distance calls from >apan. The #P/ islin*ed to sitchin" e2uipment, hich isthen connected to P/T telephonelinesInumbers and e2uipment, ith

Ba&net as subscriber. Throu"h the use of the telephone lines and other auapanesenational +chairman of the board of directors0 ;ina C. Mu*aida, a 'ilipina

+board member and president0 /uisMarcos P. /aurel, a 'ilipino +boardmember and corporate secretar&0 Ric*& Chan Pe, a 'ilipino +board member andtreasurer0 and Lasushi 8eshima, also a>apanese national +board member.8pon complaint of P/T a"ainst Ba&netfor netor* fraud, and on the stren"thof to search arrants$) issued b& theRTC of Ma*ati, Branch $3, NationalBureau of #nvesti"ation +NB# a"entssearched its office at the th 'loor, 6>;Buildin", ala&aan Avenue, Ma*ati Cit& on November =, $(((. AtsushiMatsuura, Nobu&oshi Mi&a*e, Edourd

. /acson and Rolando >. @ille"as erearrested b& NB# a"ents hile in the actof mannin" the operations of Ba&net.6eiDed in the premises durin" the search

ere numerous e2uipment and devicesused in its #6R activities, such asmultiple


6/191

facilities, and not the value of an&thin"oned b& it. 'inall&, he averred that thealle"ations in the Amended #nformationare alread& subsumed under the#nformation for violation of Presidentialecree +P.. No. 3)$ filed and pendin"in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Ma*ati Cit&, doc*eted as Criminal CaseNo. 555.The prosecution, throu"h private

complainant P/T, opposed themotion,$3 contendin" that the movantunlafull& too* personal propert&

belon"in" to it, as follos! $ intan"ibletelephone services that are bein" offered

b& P/T and other telecommunicationcompanies, i.e., the connection andinterconnection to their telephonelinesIfacilities0 the use of thosefacilities over a period of time0 and %the revenues derived in connection ith

the rendition of such services and theuse of such facilities.$4

The prosecution asserted that the use of P/TKs intan"ible telephoneservicesIfacilities allos electronic voicesi"nals to pass throu"h the same, andultimatel& to the called part&Ks number.#t averred that such serviceIfacilit& isa*in to electricit& hich, althou"h anintan"ible propert&, ma&, nevertheless,

be appropriated and be the sub1ect of

theft. 6uch service over a period of timefor a consideration is the business thatP/T provides to its customers, hichenables the latter to send variousmessa"es to installed recipients. Theservice rendered b& P/T is a*in tomerchandise hich has specific value,and therefore, capable of appropriation

b& another, as in this case, throu"h the#6R operations conducted b& the movantand his co-accused.The prosecution further alle"ed thatinternational business calls andrevenues constitute personal propert& envisa"ed in Article %)= of the Revised

Penal Code. Moreover, the intan"ibletelephone servicesIfacilities belon" toP/T and not to the movant and theother accused, because the& have notelephone services and facilities of theiron dul& authoriDed b& the NTC0 thus,the ta*in" b& the movant and his co-accused of P/T services as ithintent to "ain and ithout the latterKsconsent.

The prosecution pointed out that theaccused, as ell as the movant, erepaid in e


7/191

merchandise and merel& renders aservice or, in the ords of P/T, theconnection and interconnection to theirtelephone linesIfacilities, such servicecannot be the sub1ect of theft as definedin Article %)= of the Revised PenalCode.%

:e further declared that to cate"oriDebusiness as personal propert& under

Article %)= of the Revised Penal Code

ould lead to absurd conse2uences0 inprosecutions for theft of "as, electricit& or ater, it ould then be permissible toalle"e in the #nformation that it is the"as business, the electric business or the

ater business hich has been stolen,and no lon"er the merchandiseproduced b& such enterprise.3

/aurel further cited the Resolution of the 6ecretar& of >ustice in Piltel v.MendoDa,4 here it as ruled that the

Revised Penal Code, le"islated as it as before present technolo"ical advances ere even conceived, is not ade2uate toaddress the novel means of stealin"airaves or airtime. #n said resolution, it

as noted that the inade2uac& prompted the filin" of 6enate Bill %(+sic entitled The Anti-Telecommunications 'raud of $(( todeter clonin" of cellular phones andother forms of communications fraud.

The said bill aims to protect in number+E6N +sic or Capcode, mobileidentification number +M#N, electronic-international mobile e2uipment identit& +EME#I#ME#, or subscriber identit& module and an& attempt to duplicatethe data on another cellular phone

ithout the consent of a publictelecommunications entit& ould bepunishable b& la.5 Thus, /aurelconcluded, there is no crime if there isno la punishin" the crime.7n Au"ust %), )), the CA rendered

1ud"ment dismissin" the petition. Theappellate court ruled that a petition for

certiorari under Rule 54 of the Rules of Court as not the proper remed& of thepetitioner. 7n the merits of the petition,it held that hile business is "enerall& an activit&

hich is abstract and intan"ible in form,it is nevertheless considered propert&under Article %)= of the Revised PenalCode. The CA opined that P/TKs

business of providin" international calls

is personal propert& hich ma& be theob1ect of theft, and cited 8nited 6tates v.Carlos= to support such conclusion. Thetribunal also cited 6trochec*er v.RamireD,( here this Court ruled thatone-half interest in a da&Ks business ispersonal propert& under 6ection of ActNo. %(4, otherise *non as the Bul* 6ales /a. The appellate court held thatthe operations of the #6R are notsubsumed in the char"e for violation of

P.. No. 3)$./aurel, no the petitioner, assails thedecision of the CA, contendin" that -T:E C78RT 7' APPEA/6 ERRE #NR8/#N; T:AT T:E PER67NA/PR7PERTL A//E;E/L 6T7/EN PER T:E #N'7RMAT#7N #6 N7T T:E#NTERNAT#7NA/ /7N; #6TANCECA//6 B8T T:E B86#NE66 7'P/T.T:E C78RT 7' APPEA/6 ERRE #N

R8/#N; T:AT T:E TERMB86#NE66 #6 PER67NA/ PR7PERTL 9#T:#N T:E MEAN#N; 7' ART. %)=7' T:E RE@#6E PENA/ C7E.%)

Petitioner avers that the petition for a rit of certiorari ma& be filed to nullif& an interlocutor& order of the trial court

hich as issued ith "rave abuse of discretion amountin" to eanuar& $, $(%,could not have contemplated to includeinternational lon" distance calls andbusiness as personal propert& under

Article %)= thereof.#n its comment on the petition, the

7ffice of the 6olicitor ;eneral +76;maintains that the amended informationclearl& states all the essential elementsof the crime of theft. PetitionerKsinterpretation as to hether aninternational lon" distance call ispersonal propert& under the la isinconse2uential, as a readin" of theamended information readil& revealsthat specific acts and circumstances

ere alle"ed char"in" Ba&net, throu"h

its officers, includin" petitioner, of feloniousl& ta*in", stealin" and ille"all& usin" international lon" distance calls

belon"in" to respondent P/T b& conductin" #6R operations, thus,routin" and completin" internationallon" distance calls usin" lines, cables,antenna andIor airave fre2uenc&

hich connect directl& to the local ordomestic e


8/191

The issues for resolution are as follos!+a hether or not the petition forcertiorari is the proper remed& of thepetitioner in the Court of Appeals0 +b

hether or not international telephonecalls usin" Ba& 6uper 7rient Cardsthrou"h the telecommunication servicesprovided b& P/T for such calls, or, inshort, P/TKs business of providin" saidtelecommunication services, are proper

sub1ects of theft under Article %)= of theRevised Penal Code0 and +c hether ornot the trial court committed "raveabuse of discretion amountin" to e


9/191

enumerated in the statute because it isof e2ual atrocit&, or of *indred character

ith those hich areenumerated.3= 9hen interpretin" acriminal statute that does not e


10/191

different capacit& *non as anaccumulator0 or it ma& be sent throu"h a

ire, 1ust as "as or oil ma& betransported either in a close tan* orforced throu"h a pipe. :avin" reachedthe premises of the consumer, it ma& beused in an& a& he ma& desire, bein",li*e illuminatin" "as, capable of bein"transformed either into heat, li"ht, orpoer, at the option of the purchaser. #n

9oods v. People,54 the 6upreme Court of #llinois declared that there is nothin" inthe nature of "as used for illuminatin"purposes hich renders it incapable of

bein" feloniousl& ta*en and carriedaa&. #t is a valuable article of merchandise, bou"ht and sold li*e otherpersonal propert&, susceptible of bein"severed from a mass or lar"er 2uantit& and of bein" transported from place toplace.

;as and electrical ener"& should not bee2uated ith business or servicesprovided b& business entrepreneurs tothe public. Business does not have aneapan.#n this modern a"e of technolo"&,telecommunications s&stems have

become so ti"htl& mer"ed ith computers&stems that it is difficult to *no hereone starts and the other finishes. Thetelephone set is hi"hl& computeriDedand allos computers to communicateacross lon" distances.$ Theinstrumentalit& at issue in this case is

not merel& a telephone but a telephoneine


11/191

under the afore2uoted provision of theRevised Penal Code.=

#f it as the intent of the Philippine/e"islature, in $(%), to include servicesto be the sub1ect of theft, it should haveincorporated the same in Article %)= of the Revised Penal Code. The /e"islaturedid not. #n fact, the Revised Penal Codedoes not even contain a definition of services.

#f ta*in" of telecommunication servicesor the business of a person, is to beproscribed, it must be b& specialstatute( or an amendment of theRevised Penal Code. 6everal states in the8nited 6tates, such as Ne Lor*, Ne >erse&, California and @ir"inia, realiDedthat their criminal statutes did notcontain an& provisions penaliDin" thetheft of services and passed lasdefinin" and penaliDin" theft of

telephone and computer services. ThePenns&lvania Criminal 6tatute no penaliDes theft of services, thus!+a Ac2uisition of services. --+$ A person is "uilt& of theft if heintentionall& obtains services for himself or for another hich he *nos areavailable onl& for compensation, b& deception or threat, b& alterin" ortamperin" ith the public utilit& meteror measurin" device b& hich such

services are delivered or b& causin" orpermittin" such alterin" or tamperin", b& ma*in" or maintainin" an& unauthoriDed connection, hetherph&sicall&, electricall& or inductivel&, toa distribution or transmission line, b& attachin" or maintainin" the attachmentof an& unauthoriDed device to an& cable,

ire or other component of an electric,telephone or cable television s&stem orto a television receivin" set connected toa cable television s&stem, b& ma*in" or

maintainin" an& unauthoriDedmodification or alteration to an& deviceinstalled b& a cable television s&stem, or

b& false to*en or other tric* or artifice toavoid pa&ment for the service.#n the 6tate of #llinois in the 8nited6tates of America, theft of labor orservices or use of propert& is penaliDed!+a A person commits theft hen heobtains the temporar& use of propert&,labor or services of another hich areavailable onl& for hire, b& means of threat or deception or *noin" that such

use is ithout the consent of the personprovidin" the propert&, labor or services.#n $(=), the drafters of the Model PenalCode in the 8nited 6tates of Americaarrived at the conclusion that labor andservices, includin" professional services,have not been included ithin thetraditional scope of the term propert&in ordinar& theft statutes. :ence, the& decided to incorporate in the Code6ection %., hich defines and

penaliDes theft of services, thus!+$ A person is "uilt& of theft if hepurposel& obtains services hich he*nos are available onl& forcompensation, b& deception or threat, or

b& false to*en or other means to avoidpa&ment for the service. 6ervicesinclude labor, professional service,transportation, telephone or otherpublic service, accommodation in hotels,restaurants or elsehere, admission to

e


12/191

communications s&stem, includin" theintroduction of computer viruses andthe li*e, resultin" on the corruption,destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messa"es or electronicdocuments shall be punished b& aminimum fine of 7ne hundred thousandpesos +P$)),))).)) and a ma


13/191

of the Public 6itch Telephone Netor*,telephone handsets andIortelecommunications e2uipment used b& its subscribers, the ires and cableslin*in" these handsets andIore2uipment, antennae, transmissionfacilities, the international "atea& facilit& + IGF and othertelecommunications e2uipmentprovidin" interconnections.= To

safe"uard the inte"rit& of its netor*,P/T re"ularl& conducts investi"ationson various prepaid cards mar*eted andsold abroad to determine alternativecallin" patterns + ACP and netor* fraud that are bein" perpetrated a"ainstit.

To prevent or stop netor* fraud,P/TKs ACP etection ivision+ ACPDD re"ularl& visits forei"n

countries to conduct mar*et research on various prepaid phone cards offeredabroad that allo their users to ma*eoverseas calls to P/T subscribers in thePhilippines at a cheaper rate.

The ACP bou"ht #e 0u%ber/ne prepaid card U a card principall& mar*eted to 'ilipinos residin" in the8nited in"dom for calls to thePhilippines to ma*e test calls usin"

to telephone lines! t0e +*%*-p0oe an #capable( telephoneline hich ma*es the call and throu"h

hich the access number and the P#Nnumber printed at the bac* of the cardare entered0 and t0e re3e*;*-p0oe a caller identification +callerid unite2uipped telephone line hich

ould receive the call and reflect theincomin" callerKs telephone number.

urin" a test call placed at the P/T

ACP office, the receivin" phonereflected a P/T telephone number +=3%=4 as the callin" number

used, as if the call as ori"inatin" froma local telephone in Metro Manila. 8pon

verification ith the P/TKs #nte"ratedCustomer Mana"ement +billin" 6&stem,the ACP learned that the subscriberof the reflected telephone number is

Abi"ail R. RaDon AlvareD, ith addressat $ ominic 6avio 6t., 6avioCompound, Baran"a& on Bosco,Paraa2ue Cit&. #t further learned that

several lines are installed at this address ith Abi"ail and @ernon R. RaDon+respondents, amon" others, assubscribers.$)

To validate its findin"s, the ACPconducted the same test calls onNovember 4, ))% at the premises of theNTC in FueDon Cit& +and in the presenceof an NTC representative$$ usin" thesame prepaid card +validation test . The

receivin" phone at the NTC premisesreflected the telephone numbersre"istered in the name of Abi"ail as thecallin" number fro% t#e 1nited

2ingdo%.$

6imilar test calls subse2uentl& conducted usin" the prepaidcards 1nity Card and ID *upercallingCard revealed the same results. Thecalleride2uipped receivin" phone

reflected telephone numbers

$%

that are inthe names of E


14/191

placed in a plastic electrical conduitrouted to the ad1acent room at thesecond floor.$

7n ecember %, ))%, Police6uperintendent ;ilbert C. CruD filed aconsolidated application for a search

arrant$= before >ud"e 'rancisco ;.Mendiola of the RTC, for the crimes of theft and violation of P No. 3)$.

Accordin" to P/T, the respondents are

en"a"ed in a form of netor* fraud*non as #nternational 6imple Resale+ I*' hich amounts to theft under theRPC.

#6R is a method of routin" andcompletin" international lon" distancecalls usin" lines, cables, antennaeandIor ave fre2uencies hich areconnected directl& to the domesticeud"e Mendiola found probable causefor the issuance of the search arrantsapplied for. Accordin"l&, four search

arrants) ere issued for violations of Article %)=, in relation to Article %)(, of the RPC + *3 A4" and *3 A45 and of P No. 3)$, as amended + *3 +4" and

*3 +45 for the #6R activities bein"conducted at $ ominic 6avio 6t., 6avioCompound and at No. %= #ndonesia 6t.,Better /ivin" 6ubdivision, both inBaran"a& on Bosco, Parana2ue Cit&.The four search arrants enumeratedthe ob1ects to be searched and seiDed asfollos!$. MER##AN 68B6CR#BER6 8N#T

AN P/T 6/ /#NE6 andIor CAB/E6 AN ANTENNA6 andIor similare2uipment or device capable of

transmittin" air aves or fre2uenc&,such as a Meridian 6ubscriberKs 8nit,Broadband 6/ and telephone lines0

. PER67NA/ C7MP8TER6 or an& similar e2uipment or device capable of acceptin" information appl&in" theprescribed process of the informationand suppl&in" the result of this process0

%. N7#A M7EM or an& similare2uipment or device that enables dataterminal e2uipment such as computers

to communicate ith other dataterminal e2uipment via a telephone line0

3. F8#NT8M E2uipment or an& similare2uipment capable of receivin" di"italsi"nals from the internet and convertin"those si"nals to voice0

4. F8#NT8M, %C7M AN C#6C7Routers or an& similar e2uipmentcapable of sitchin" pac*ets of data to

their assi"ned destination or addresses0

5. /#N6 6/ 69#TC: or an& similare2uipment capable of sitchin" data0

. C7MP8TER PR#NTER6 AN6CANNER6 or an& similar e2uipment ordevice used for cop&in" andIor printin"data andIor information0

=. 67'T9ARE, #6ETTE6, TAPE6 or

an& similar e2uipment or device used forrecordin" or storin" information0 and

(. Manuals, phone cards, access codes, billin" statements, receipts, contracts,chec*s, orders, communications anddocuments, lease andIor subscriptiona"reements or contracts,communications and documentsrelatin" to securin" and usin" telephonelines andIor e2uipmentV.W$

7n the same date, the PNP searched the

premises indicated in the arrants. 7necember $), ))%, a return as made

ith a complete inventor& of the items

seiDed. 7n >anuar& $3, ))3, the P/Tand the PNP filed ith the epartmentof >ustice a 1oint complaintaffidavit fortheft and for violation of P No. 3)$a"ainst the respondents.%

7n 'ebruar& $=, ))3, the respondentsfiled ith the RTC a motion to2uash3 the search arrants essentiall& on the folloin" "rounds! first , the RTC

had no authorit& to issue search arrants hich ere enforced inParaa2ue Cit&0 second , theenumeration of the items to be searchedand seiDed lac*ed particularit&0and t#ird , there as no probable causefor the crime of theft.

7n March $, ))3, P/T opposed therespondents? motion.4

#n a >ul& 5, ))3 order,5

the RTCdenied the respondents? motion to2uash. :avin" been rebuffedin theirmotion for reconsideration,= therespondents filed a petitionfor certiorari ith the CA.X (

RULING O# THE CA

7n Au"ust $$, ))5, the CA renderedthe assailed decision and resolution,"rantin" the respondents? petition

for certiorari . The CA S ARGUMENTS

P/T faults the CA for rel&in"on $aurel on three "rounds! first,

$aurel cannot be cited &et as anauthorit& under the principle of staredecisis because $aurel is not &et finaland e


15/191

infor%ation on the "round that theinformation does not char"e an& offense0 hence, the determination of thee

ARGUMENTS

The respondents counter that hile $aurel ma& not &et be final, atleast it has a persuasive effect as thecurrent 1urisprudence on the matter.Even ithout $aurel , the CAKsnullification of 69 Al and 69 A can

ithstand scrutin& because of the

novelt& of the issue presented before it.The nullification of para"raphs , = and( of 69 Bl and 69 B must beupheld not onl& on the "round of

broadness but for lac* of an& relation hatsoever ith P No. 3)$ hichpunishes the theft of electricit&.OUR RULING

9e p%rt*%& -r%t the petition.

Laurel and its reversal by the

Court En Banc

Before proceedin" ith the case, arevie of $aurel is in order as it involvessubstantiall& similar facts as in thepresent case.

Ba&net Co., /td. + +aynet sells prepaidcards, YBa& 6uper 7rient Card,X thatallo their users to place a call to thePhilippines from >apan. P/T asserted

that Ba&net is en"a"ed in #6R activities b& usin" an international private leasedline + IP$ to course Ba&netKs incomin"

international lon" distance calls. The#P/ is lin*ed to a sitchin" e2uipment,

hich is then connected to P/Ttelephone linesInumbers ande2uipment, ith Ba&net as subscriber.

To establish its case, P/T obtained asearch arrant. 7n the stren"th of theitems seiDed durin" the search of Ba&netKs premises, the prosecutor found

probable cause for theft a"ainst /uisMarcos /aurel + $aurel and otherBa&net officials. Accordin"l&, aninformation as filed, alle"in" that theBa&net officials Yta*e, steal and use theinternational lon" distance calls

belon"in" to P/T b& V#6R activitiesW


16/191

have spo*en in lan"ua"e that is clearand definite! that business is personalpropert& under Article %)= of theRevised Penal Code.


17/191

personall& *non to them0 and +4 the arrant specificall& describes the placeto be searched and the thin"s to beseiDed.33 6hould an& of these re2uisites

be absent, the part& a""rieved b& theissuance and enforcement of the search

arrant ma& file a motion to 2uash thesearch arrant ith the issuin" court or

ith the court here the action issubse2uentl& instituted.34

A search arrant proceedin" is a specialcriminal and 1udicial process a*in to a

rit of discover&. #t is desi"ned b& theRules of Criminal Procedure to respondonl& to an incident in the main case, if one has alread& been instituted, or inanticipation thereof. 6ince it is at mostincidental to the main criminal case, anorder "rantin" or den&in" a motion to2uash a search arrant ma& be

2uestioned onl& via a petitionfor certiorari under Rule 54.35

9hen confronted ith this petition, thehi"her court must necessaril& determinethe validit& of the loer courtKs actionfrom the prism of hether it as tainted

ith "rave abuse of discretion. B& "raveabuse of discretion, 1urisprudence refersto the capricious and himsical e


18/191

CA rulin". The CourtKs attitude in thatcase should have been adopted b& theCA in the present case a fortiori sincethe rulin" that the CA relied upon asnot &et final at the time the CA resolvedto 2uash the search arrants.

b. $upervenin! events ,ustifyin! a

broader review under Rule *+

7rdinaril&, the CAKs determinationunder Rule 54 is limited to hether theRTC "ravel& abused its discretion in"rantin" or den&in" the motion to2uash based on facts t#en e8isting.Nonetheless, the Court reco"niDes thatsupervenin" facts ma& transpire afterthe issuance and implementation of thesearch arrant that ma& provide

1ustification for the 2uashal of the search arrant via a petition forcertiorari .

'or one, if the offense for hich the arrant is issued is subse2uentl& decriminaliDed durin" the pendenc& of the petition for certiorari , then the

arrant ma& be 2uashed.43 'or another,a subse2uent rulin" from the Court thata similar set of facts and circumstancesdoes not constitute an offense, as alle"edin the search arrant application, ma&

be used as a "round to 2uash a arrant.44#n both instances, theunderl&in" reason for 2uashin" thesearch arrant is the absence of probable cause hich can onl& possibl& e


19/191

decriminaliDed, probable cause for thecrime alle"ed could not possibl& e


20/191

#t is clear from P/TKs submission thatit confuses the crime for hich $% B'l and $% B'( ere issued ith thecrime for hich $% &'l and $%&'

( ere issued! 69 Bl and 69 B ere issued for violation of P No. 3)$,to be enforced in to different places asidentified in the arrants. The crime for

hich these search arrants ere issueddoes not pertain to the crime of theft

here matters of personal propert& andthe ta*in" thereof ith intent to "ain

become si"nificant but to P No. 3)$.

These items could not be the sub1ect of a violation of P No. 3)$ since P/T itself does not claim that these itemsthemselves comprise the unauthoriDedinstallations. 'or emphasis, hat PNo. 3)$ punishes is the unauthoriDedinstallation of telephone connection

ithout the previous consent of P/T.#n the present case, P/T has not shonthat connectin" printers, scanners,dis*ettes or tapes to a computer, even if connected to a P/T telephone line,

ould or should re2uire its priorauthoriDation.

Neither could these items be a means of committin" a violation of P No. 3)$since these cop&in", printin" andstora"e devices in no a& aided therespondents in ma*in" the unauthoriDedconnections. 9hile these items ma& beaccessor& to the computers and othere2uipment lin*ed to telephone lines, PNo. 3)$ does not cover this *ind of items

ithin the scope of the prohibition. Toallo the seiDure of items under theP/TKs interpretation ould, as the CA correctl& observed, allo the seiDureunder the arrant of properties forpersonal use of the respondents.

#f P/T see*s the seiDure of these itemsto prove that these installations contain

the respondents? financial "ain and thecorrespondin" business loss to P/T,then that purpose is served b& 69 Aland 69 A since this is hat P/Tessentiall& complained of in char"in"the respondents ith theft. :oever,the same reasonin" does not 1ustif& itsseiDure under a arrant for violation of P No. 3)$ since these items are notdirectl& connected to the P/T

telephone lines and P/T has not evenclaimed that the installation of theseitems re2uires prior authoriDation fromit.

HERE#ORE, premises considered,the petition is PARTIALL GRANTED. The decision and theresolution of the Court of Appeals inCA;.R. 6P No. =($% arehereb& MODI#IED in that 69 Al and

69 A are hereb& declared valid andconstitutional.

SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 1956"! De3ember?, 2!12

ILLEM (EUMER, Petitioner, vs. A7ELINA AMORES, Respondent. E C # 6 # 7 NPERLASB(ERNA(E, J.:Before the Court is a Petition for Revie on Certiorari$ under Rule 34 of the Rulesof Co/lli assailin" the 7ctober =, ))(ecision and >anuar& 3, )$$Resolution% of the court of Appeals +CAin CA-;.R. C@ No. )$(3), hichaffirmed the 'ebruar& =, ))ecision3 of the Re"ional Trial Court+RTC of Ne"ros 7riental, Branch %3 inCivil Case No. # ==3. The fore"oin"rulin"s dissolved the con1u"alpartnership of "ains of 9illem Beumer

+petitioner and Avelina Amores+respondent and distributed the

properties formin" part of the saidpropert& re"ime.The 'actual AntecedentsPetitioner, a utch National, andrespondent, a 'ilipina, married inMarch (, $(=). After several &ears, theRTC of Ne"ros 7riental, Branch %,declared the nullit& of their marria"e inthe ecision4 dated November $), )))on the basis of the formerKs

ps&cholo"ical incapacit& ascontemplated in Article %5 of the 'amil& Code.Conse2uentl&, petitioner filed a Petitionfor issolution of Con1u"alPartnership5 dated ecember $3, )))pra&in" for the distribution of thefolloin" described properties claimedto have been ac2uired durin" thesubsistence of their marria"e, to it!B& Purchase!

a. /ot $, Bloc* % of the consolidatedsurve& of /ots $33 G $3 of theuma"uete Cadastre, covered b& Transfer Certificate of Title +TCT No.=35, containin" an area of 4 s2uaremeters +s2.m., includin" a residentialhouse constructed thereon.

b. /ot $3 of the uma"uete Cadastre,covered b& TCT No. $(3, containin"an area of =)5 s2.m., includin" aresidential house constructed thereon.c. /ot 4=34 of the uma"uete Cadastre,covered b& TCT No. $%)5, containin"an area of 45 s2.m.d. /ot 3, Bloc* 3 of the consolidatedsurve& of /ots $33 G $3 of theuma"uete Cadastre, covered b& TCTNo. $%), containin" an area of 34s2.m.B& a& of inheritance!e. $I of /ot )44-A of the uma"ueteCadastre, covered b& TCT No. %45,containin" an area of ,5%4 s2.m. +the

area that appertains to the con1u"alpartnership is %5.34 s2.m..

f. $I$4 of /ot )44-# of the uma"ueteCadastre, covered b& TCT No. %44,containin" an area of %5) s2.m. +thearea that appertains to the con1u"alpartnership is 3 s2.m..

#n defense,= respondent averred that, ith the e


21/191

consistin" of drills, a eldin" machine,"rinders, clamps, etc. 6he alle"ed thatthese tools and e2uipment have a totalcost of P4)),))).)).$4

The RTC Rulin"7n 'ebruar& =, )), the RTC of Ne"ros 7riental, Branch %3 rendered itsecision, dissolvin" the partiesK con1u"alpartnership, aardin" all the parcels of land to respondent as her paraphernal

properties0 the tools and e2uipment infavor of petitioner as his e


22/191

#n an& event, the Court cannot, even onthe "rounds of e2uit&, "rantreimbursement to petitioner "iven thathe ac2uired no ri"ht hatsoever over thesub1ect properties b& virtue of itsunconstitutional purchase. #t is ell-established that e2uit& as a rule illfollo the la and ill not permit that to

be done indirectl& hich, because of public polic&, cannot be done

directl& .( 6urel&, a contract that violatesthe Constitution and the la is null and

void, vests no ri"hts, creates noobli"ations and produces no le"al effectat all.%) Corollar& thereto, under Article$3$ of the Civil Code,%$ petitionercannot have the sub1ect propertiesdeeded to him or allo him to recoverthe mone& he had spent for the purchasethereof. The la ill not aid either part& to an ille"al contract or a"reement0 it

leaves the parties here it findsthem.% #ndeed, one cannot salva"e an& ri"hts from an unconstitutionaltransaction *noin"l& entered into.Neither can the Court "rant petitionerKsclaim for reimbursement on the basis of un1ust enrichment.%% As held in 'renDel

v. Catito, a case also involvin" aforei"ner see*in" monetar& reimbursement for mone& spent onpurchase of Philippine land, theprovision on un1ust enrichment does notappl& if the action is proscribed b& theConstitution, to it!'utile, too, is petitioner?s reliance on

Article of the Ne Civil Code hichreads!

Art. . Ever& person ho throu"h anact of performance b& another, or an& other means, ac2uires or comes intopossession of somethin" at the e


23/191

The& claimed onership over said lot b& virtue of a ecision$ dated ecember$, $((5 of the epartment of Environment and Natural Resources+ENR in ENR-NCR Case No. (4-4%and Ta< eclaration No. E-))=-$((3.$%

Respondents alle"ed that sometime inMa& $(=, petitioners sou"ht permissionto construct a house ithin /ot %(5.Respondents a"reed on the condition

that petitioners ill vacate the momentthe& need the land. 6ubse2uentl&,respondents made an oral demand onpetitioners to leave the house and returnpossession of the lot ithin $4 da&s fromnotice. #n a /etter$3 dated Ma& $=, ))3,respondents reiterated their demand forpetitioners to demolish the house,

vacate the $)-s2uare-meter lot on hich the house stands and topa& P$,))) as rent until the& have done

so. As respondentsK demands remainedunheeded, the& filed a complaint forunlaful detainer a"ainst petitioners

before Baran"a& Moonal* inParaa2ue Cit&. The case as doc*etedas Baran"a& Case No. )4I)3-)4$. 7n>ul& 3, ))3, Att&. 9endell E. Coronel,/uponIPan"*at 6ecretar& of Baran"a& Moonal* issued a Certification to 'ile

Action$4 in said case upon the reasons'ailed or refused to acceptIobe& summons to appear for hearin" and6ettlement has been repudiated.#n their Anser,$5 petitioners sou"ht thedismissal of the complaint on the"round that respondents had filed asimilar case a"ainst them before theMeTC of Paraa2ue Cit&, Branch ,doc*eted as Civil Case No. ))3-5(.The latter case is the sub1ect of thepetition in ;.R. No. $=33().7n 6eptember 5, ))4, the MeTC of

Paraa2ue Cit&, Branch =, rendered 1ud"ment in favor of respondentsMarcelo. The court a 2uo ruled out

forum shoppin" upon findin" that thehouse sub1ect of the present case isdifferent from that in Civil Case No.))3-5(. The structure involved in thelatter case as ori"inall& occupied b& petitionersK relative and later ta*en over

b& them$ hile the house sub1ect of thepresent case as constructed b& petitioners themselves. The MeTC heldthat petitioners failed to refute the

character of their possession as merel& tolerated b& respondents and the&

became deforciants upon the latterKsdemand for them to vacate the sub1ectpremises. The court ordered petitionersto pa& respondents P$,))) as reasonablecompensation for the use andoccupation of the premises, attorne&Ksfees of P),))) and P%,))) perappearance of counsel for respondents.7n appeal, the Paraa2ue RTC, Branch

4=, affirmed the rulin" of the MeTC. #na ecision dated November , ))5, theRTC sustained respondentsK ri"ht to

brin" action to evict petitioners from thecontested propert&. #t found petitionersKclaim of onership unsubstantiated andtheir defense of forum shoppin" ithoutmerit since the properties involved inCivil Case Nos. ))3-5( and ))3-$are different from each other.Petitioners moved for reconsideration

but their motion as denied in an7rder$= dated 'ebruar& 4, )).Thereafter, petitioners filed a Petitionfor Revie $( under Rule 3 of the Rules

ith the CA.#n the assailed ecision dated March $=,))=, the appellate court affirmed intoto the RTC 1ud"ment. #t found no

basis to dismiss respondentsK complaint based on either forum shoppin" orsplittin" a cause of action. The CA disre"arded petitionersK ar"ument that

the sub1ect propert& is public land in vie of their admission in their

Anser) that respondents are theoners and possessors thereof.Petitioners filed a Motion forReconsideration$ hich the CA deniedin a Resolution dated Au"ust $, ))=.;.R. No. $=33()7n >ul& $, ))3, petitioners spousesRicardo and Evel&n Marcelo filed aComplaint% for unlaful detainera"ainst respondents Armando 6ilverio,

6r., and Remedios 6ilverio. The case asdoc*eted as Civil Case No. ))3-5(

before the MeTC of Paraa2ue Cit&,Branch .PetitionersK Complaint bore essentiall& the same alle"ations as their Complaintin Civil Case No. ))3-$ save for toalle"ations! +$ respondents re2uestedpetitionersK permission to construct ahouse in /ot %(5 in Ma& $(=50 and +respondents improved the house and

even operated a sari-sari store3

inMarcelo Compound.#n their Anser4 dated Au"ust %, ))3,respondents belied petitionersK claim of eul& 3, ))3, Att&. 9endell E.Coronel, /uponIPan"*at 6ecretar& of Baran"a& Moonal* issued aCertification to 'ile Action( in said caseupon the reasons 'ailed or refused toacceptIobe& summons to appear forhearin" and 6ettlement has beenrepudiated.#n an Anser%) dated 6eptember =,))3, respondents assailed the ENR ecision dated ecember $, $((5 forsupposedl& aardin" onership of thesub1ect propert& to petitioners.

Accordin" to respondents, ;racianoMarcelo, 6r., petitioner RicardoMarceloKs father, as a tenant of 'abian/umbos before the latter sold his land toMi*e @elarde. 6ubse2uentl&, @elardefenced the sub1ect propert&, hich

respondents insist is not part of theparcels that /umbos sold to @elarde.8pon the belief that /ot %(5 is still

h f l d b i i h id i i hi h * il i h b i h h h i l

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt30


24/191

"overnment propert&, the sons of ;raciano Marcelo, 6r., includin"petitioner Ricardo Marcelo and 'loranteMarcelo, divided the land amon"themselves and occupied the same. 7nthe tract allotted to 'lorante, he too* inrespondent Remedios 6ilverio to live

ith him and his ife, Marilou.Respondents averred that it as in $((

hen the Marcelos conceived the idea of

appl&in" for a sales patent over /ot %(5 ith the ENR. The Marcelo siblin"sappointed petitioner Ricardo Marcelo tofile the Miscellaneous 6ales Application+M6A in their behalf, sharin" thee


25/191

measures $) s2uare meters. #n vie of this, the spouses Marcelo believe thatthe refusal b& the 6ilverios to vacate saidhouses violated at least to ri"hts and"ave rise to separate causes of action.The Court?s Rulin"8nlaful detainer is an action to recoverpossession of real propert& from one

ho ille"all& ithholds possession afterthe e


26/191

the anser is in the affirmative, then theprior 1ud"ment is a bar to thesubse2uent action0 conversel&, it isnot.3= Aside from the absence of inconsistenc& test and same evidencetest, e have also ruled that a previous

1ud"ment operates as a bar to asubse2uent one hen it had touched ona matter alread& decided, or if theparties are in effect liti"atin" for the

same thin".3(The absence of inconsistenc& test findsno application in this case since itpresupposes that a final 1ud"ment has

been rendered in the first case. B& appl&in" the same evidence test,hoever, it becomes apparent that theproof necessar& to obtain affirmativerelief in Civil Case No. ))3-5( is thesame as that in Civil Case No. ))3-$.6ince the spouses Marcelo are claimin"

sole onership of /ot %(5 in theirM6A, the evidence needed to establish better ri"ht of possession over the houseconstructed b& 'lorante Marcelo andMarilou 6ilverio, and the one built b& the 6ilverios is the same, re"ardless of the fact that the& ere built on separateportions of said lot. 9e have ruled timeand a"ain that a part& cannot, b&

var&in" the form of action, or adoptin" adifferent method of presentin" his case,escape the operation of the principlethat one and the same cause of actionshall not be tice liti"ated.4)

Evidentl&, the spouses Marcelo en"a"edin forum shoppin" b& filin" separatecases for unlaful detainer based on asin"le claim of onership over /ot %(5.6aid act is li*eise tantamount tosplittin" a cause of action hich, in thiscase, is a cause for dismissal on the"round of litis pendentia. 7n this scorealone, the petition for revie on

certiorari filed b& the spouses Marcelo in;.R. Nos. $=33() must fail, alon"sidetheir averments in ;.R. No. $=3)(.

#n an& case, even if e confront the issueas to ho beteen the spouses Marceloand the 6ilverios have better ri"ht of possession over the sub1ect properties,the former ould still not prevail.

As earlier stated, the ENR-NCR hadcanceled the M6A filed b& the spousesMarcelo in its ecision4$ dated >ul& $$,)). The epartment found that thespouses Marcelo failed to satisf& the

re2uirements for the ac2uisition of /ot%(5 under the Public /and Act. TheENR-NCR clarified that the ecisiondated ecember $, $((5 "ave duecourse to the application, not onl& of thespouses Marcelo, but also those of otherapplicants. #t "ave ei"ht to the findin"sin the ocular inspection that the spousesMarcelo are actuall& occup&in" onl& 4)s2uare meters of /ot %(5 hile theremainin" portions are inhabited b& $$$

families. The ENR-NCR adds that thespouses Marcelo cannot claim the entire/ot No. %(5 since Republic Act No.%)4 limits the area of land that ma& beapplied for to $,))) s2uare meters.4% #nconclusion, the ENR-NCR held that/ot %(5 remains a public land and itsdellers ma& appl& for the purchase of those portions that the& are actuall& occup&in".'actual considerations relatin" to landsof the public domain properl& rest

ithin the administrative competence of the irector of /ands and the ENR.'indin"s of administrative a"encies,

hich have ac2uired e


27/191

land patent has been issued over thesame or an& portion thereof.< < < ud"e Andres C.

A"uilar decided the aforesaid case andheld that the land occupied b& thepetitioners, bein" public in nature, as

be&ond the commerce of man andtherefore could not be the sub1ect of private occupanc&. 5 The rit of preliminar& in1unction as madepermanent. 6

The decision as apparentl& notenforced, for the petitioners ere notevicted from the place0 in fact, accordin"to then the& and the $= other persons

ere in $($ assi"ned specific areas orspace allotments therein for hich the& paid dail& fees to the municipal"overnment. " The problem appears tohave festered for some more &ears undera presumabl& uneas& truce amon" theprota"onists, none of hom made an&

move, for some reason that does notappear in the record. Then, on >anuar& $, $(=, the Association of ConcernedCitiDens and Consumers of 6an'ernando filed a petition for theimmediate implementation of Resolution No. (, to restore the sub1ectpropert& to its ori"inal and customar& use as a public plaDa.

Actin" thereon after an investi"ationconducted b& the municipalattorne&, 9 respondent @icente A.Macalino, as officer-in-char"e of theoffice of the ma&or of 6an 'ernando,issued on >une $3, $(=, a resolutionre2uirin" the municipal treasurer andthe municipal en"ineer to demolish thestalls in the sub1ect place be"innin" >ul& $, $(=. 1! The reaction of thepetitioners as to file a petition forprohibition ith the Court of 'irst#nstance of Pampan"a, doc*eted as CivilCase No. 53), on >une 5, $(=. The

respondent 1ud"e denied the petition on>ul& $(, $(=, 11 and the motion forreconsideration on Au"ust 4,

$(= 12 promptin" the petitioners to his on decision sustainin" the Ro1as #n leasin" a portion of said plaDa 2uestion formin" part of the public

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_184079_2013.html#fnt62


28/191

$(=, 12 promptin" the petitioners tocome to this Court on certiorari tochallen"e his decision. 1?

As re2uired, respondent Macalino filedhis comment 1: on the petition, and thepetitioners countered ith theirrepl&. 15 #n compliance ith ourresolution of 'ebruar& , $(=%, thepetitioners submitted theirmemorandum 16 and respondent

Macalino, for his part, as*ed that hiscomment be considered hismemorandum. 1" 7n >ul& =, $(=5, thene officer-in-char"e of the office of thema&or of 6an 'ernando, Paterno 6.;uevarra, as impleaded in lieu of

@ir"ilio 6ancheD, ho had himself earlier replaced the ori"inal respondentMacalino. 1

After considerin" the issues and thear"uments raised b& the parties in their

respective pleadin"s, e rule for therespondents. The petition must bedismissed.There is no 2uestion that the placeoccupied b& the petitioners and from

hich the& are sou"ht to be evicted is apublic plaDa, as found b& the trial courtin Civil Case No. )3). This findin" asmade after consideration of theantecedent facts as especiall& established b& the testimon& of former6an 'ernando Ma&or Rodolfo :iDon,

ho later became "overnor of Pampan"a, that the National Plannin"Commission had reserved the area for apublic plaDa as earl& as $(4$. Thisintention as reiterated in $(53 throu"hthe adoption of Resolution No. (. 19#t does not appear that the decision inthis case as appealed or has beenreversed. #n Civil Case ;.R. No. 53),

hich is the sub1ect of this petition, therespondent 1ud"e sa no reason to

disturb the findin" in Civil Case No.)3) and indeed used it as a basis for

his on decision sustainin" the2uestioned order. 2!

The basic contention of the petitioners isthat the disputed area is under lease tothem b& virtue of contracts the& hadentered into ith the municipal"overnment, first in $(5$ insofar as theori"inal occupants ere concerned, andlater ith them and the other petitioners

b& virtue of the space allocations made

in their favor in $($ for hich the& sa the& are pa&in" dail& fees. 21 Themunicipal "overnment has deniedma*in" such a"reements. #n an& case,the& ar"ue, since the fees ere collecteddail&, the leases, assumin" their validit&,could be terminated at ill, or an& da&,as the claimed rentals indicated that theperiod of the leases as from da& toda&. 22

The parties belabor this ar"ument

needlessl&. A public plaDa is be&ond the commerceof man and so cannot be the sub1ect of lease or an& other contractualunderta*in". This is elementar&. #ndeed,this point as settled as earl& asin !unicipality of Cavite vs.

'o)as, 2?decided in $($4, here theCourt declared as null and void the leaseof a public plaDa of the said municipalit& in favor of a private person.>ustice Torres said in that case!

Accordin" to article %33 of the CivilCode! Propert& for public use inprovinces and in tons comprises theprovincial and ton roads, the s2uares,streets, fountains, and public aters, thepromenades, and public or*s of "eneral service supported b& said tonsor provinces.The said PlaDa 6oledad bein" apromenade for public use, the municipalcouncil of Cavite could not in $()

ithdra or e


29/191

there no on the stren"th of theiralle"ed lease contracts. The& shouldhave realiDed and accepted this earlier,considerin" that even before Civil CaseNo. )3) as decided, themunicipalcouncil of 6an 'ernando hadalread& adopted Resolution No. (,series of $(53, declarin" the area as thepar*in" place and public plaDa of themunicipalit&.

#t is the decision in Civil Case No. )3)and the said resolution of the municipalcouncil of 6an 'ernando thatrespondent Macalino as see*in" toenforce hen he ordered the demolitionof the sta"s constructed in the disputedarea. As officer-in-char"e of the office of the ma&or, he had the dut& to clear thearea and restore it to its intended use asa par*in" place and public plaDa of themunicipalit& of 6an 'ernando,

conformabl& to the aforementionedorders from the court and the council. #tis, therefore, not correct to sa& that hehad acted ithout authorit& or ta*en thela into his hands in issuin" his order.Neither can it be said that he acted

himsicall& in e


30/191

has been pushin" ith "reat vi"or its ;overnment Properties in >apan for The respondents for their part refute "overnment?s intention to remove the


31/191

has been pushin", ith "reat vi"or, itsdecision to sell the reparationsproperties startin" ith the Roppon"ilot. The propert& has tice been set for

biddin" at a minimum floor price of \4 million. The first biddin" as afailure since onl& one bidder 2ualified.The second one, after postponements,has not &et materialiDed. The lastscheduled biddin" on 'ebruar& $, $(()

as restrained b& his Court. /ater, therules on biddin" ere chan"ed such thatthe \4 million floor price becamemerel& a su""ested floor price.The Court finds that each of the hereinpetitions raises distinct issues. Thepetitioner in ;.R. No. ()$% ob1ects tothe alienation of the Roppon"i propert& to an&one hile the petitioner in ;.R.No. ()3 adds as a principal ob1ectionthe alle"ed un1ustified bias of the

Philippine "overnment in favor of sellin" the propert& to non-'ilipinocitiDens and entities. These petitionshave been consolidated and are resolvedat the same time for the ob1ective is thesame - to stop the sale of the Roppon"ipropert&.The petitioner in ;.R. No. ()$% raisesthe folloin" issues!+$ Can the Roppon"i propert& andothers of its *ind be alienated b& thePhilippine ;overnment0 and+ oes the Chief E57"?, petitioner /aurelasserts that the Roppon"i propert& andthe related lots ere ac2uired as part of the reparations from the >apanese

"overnment for diplomatic and consularuse b& the Philippine "overnment. @ice-President /aurel states that theRoppon"i propert& is classified as one of public dominion, and not of privateonership under Article 3) of the CivilCode +6ee infra.The petitioner submits that theRoppon"i propert& comes underpropert& intended for public service inpara"raph of the above provision. :e

states that bein" one of public dominion,no onership b& an& one can attach toit, not even b& the 6tate. The Roppon"iand related properties ere ac2uired forsites for chancer&, diplomatic, andconsular 2uarters, buildin"s and otherimprovements +6econd LearReparations 6chedule. The petitionerstates that the& continue to be intendedfor a necessar& service. The& are held b& the 6tate in anticipation of an opportuneuse. +Citin" % Manresa 54-55. :ence, itcannot be appropriated, is outside thecommerce of man, or to put it in moresimple terms, it cannot be alienated nor

be the sub1ect matter of contracts +Citin"Municipalit& of Cavite v. Ro1as, %) Phil.) V$($4W. Notin" the non-use of theRoppon"i propert& at the moment, thepetitioner avers that the same remainspropert& of public dominion so lon" asthe "overnment has not used it for otherpurposes nor adopted an& measure

constitutin" a removal of its ori"inalpurpose or use.

The respondents, for their part, refutethe petitioner?s contention b& sa&in"that the sub1ect propert& is not "overned

b& our Civil Code but b& the las of >apan here the propert& is located.The& rel& upon the rule of le8 situs hich is used in determinin" theapplicable la re"ardin" the ac2uisition,transfer and devolution of the title to apropert&. The& also invo*e 7pinion No.

$, 6eries of $(==, dated >anuar& ,$(== of the 6ecretar& of >ustice hichused the le8 situs in e


32/191

involvin" public interest +6ection =, Article ###, Constitution.Petitioner 71eda arns that the use of public funds in the e


33/191

countries, did not ithdra theRoppon"i propert& from bein" classifiedas one of public dominion hen itmentions Philippine properties abroad.6ection 5% +c refers to properties hichare alienable and not to those reservedfor public use or service. Rep Act No.554, therefore, does not authoriDe theE


34/191

&Court noted that V9What petitionerultimatel& 2uestions is the use of theproceeds of the disposition of theRoppon"i propert&. #n emphasiDin"that the decision of the Eapanesemilitar& occupation, for the sufferin" of idos and orphans ho lost theirloved ones and *indred, for the homesand other properties lost b& countless'ilipinos durin" the ar. The To*&oproperties are a monument to the

braver& and sacrifice of the 'ilipinopeople in the face of an invader0 li*e themonuments of RiDal, FueDon, and other'ilipino heroes, e do not eapan as memorials to thecountless 'ilipinos ho died andsuffered. Even if e should becomepaupers e should not thin* of sellin"them. 'or it ould be as if e sold thelives and blood and tears of ourcountr&men. +Rollo- ;.R. No. ()$%,p.$3

The petitioner in ;.R. No. ()3 alsostates!Roppon"i is no ordinar& propert&. #t isone ceded b& the >apanese "overnmentin atonement for its past belli"erence forthe valiant sacrifice of life and limb andfor deaths, ph&sical dislocation andeconomic devastation the hole 'ilipinopeople endured in 9orld 9ar ##.#t is for hat it stands for, and for hatit could never brin" bac* to life, that its

si"nificance toda& remains undimmed,inspire of the lapse of 34 &ears since the

ar ended, inspire of the passa"e of %

& p p & pPhilippine "overnment.Roppon"i is a reminder that cannot Ushould not U be dissipated ... +Rollo-()3, p. (#t is indeed true that the Roppon"ipropert& is valuable not so much

because of the inflated prices fetched b& real propert& in To*&o but more so

because of its s&mbolic value to all

'ilipinos U veterans and civilians ali*e. 9hether or not the Roppon"i andrelated properties ill eventuall& be soldis a polic& determination here both thePresident and Con"ress must concur.Considerin" the properties? importanceand value, the las on conversion anddisposition of propert& of publicdominion must be faithfull& folloed.

9:ERE'7RE, #N @#E9 7' T:E'7RE;7#N;, the petitions are

;RANTE. A rit of prohibition isissued en1oinin" the respondents fromproceedin" ith the sale of theRoppon"i propert& in To*&o, >apan. The'ebruar& ), $(() Temporar& Restrainin" 7rder is madePERMANENT.67 7RERE.

!elencio-Herrera, Paras, +idin, Grio-

A:uino and 'egalado, JJ., concur.

6eparate 7pinions CR8H, J., concurrin"!# concur completel& ith the eustice ;utierreD and

ill add the folloin" observations onl& for emphasis.#t is clear that the respondents havefailed to sho the President?s le"alauthorit& to sell the Roppon"i propert&.

9hen as*ed to do so at the hearin" on

these petitions, the 6olicitor ;eneral asat best ambi"uous, althou"h # must addin fairness that this as not his fault.

authorit&. /e"al eustice ;utierreD, >r., # onl& ish to

ma*e a fe observations hich couldhelp in further clarif&in" the issues.8nder our tripartite s&stem of "overnment ordained b& theConstitution, it is Con"ress that la&sdon or determines policies. ThePresident e


35/191

" p & " branch of "overnment.The 1udiciar& interprets the las and, inappropriate cases, determines hetherthe las enacted b& Con"ress andapproved b& the President, andpresidential acts implementin" suchlas, are in accordance ith theConstitution.The Roppon"i propert& as ac2uired b&

the Philippine "overnment pursuant tothe reparations a"reement beteen thePhilippine and >apanese "overnments.8nder such a"reement, this propert&

as ac2uired b& the Philippine"overnment for a specific purpose,namel&, to serve as the site of thePhilippine Embass& in To*&o, >apan.Conse2uentl&, Roppon"i is a propert& of public dominion and intended for publicservice, s2uarel& fallin" ithin that class

of propert& under Art. 3) of the CivilCode, hich provides! Art. 3). The folloin" thin"s arepropert& of public dominion !+$ ...+ Those hich belon" to the 6tate,

ithout bein" for public use, and areintended for some public service or forthe development of the national ealth.+%%(aPublic dominion propert& intended forpublic service cannot be alienated unless

the propert& is first transformed intoprivate propert& of the state otherise*non as patrimonial propert& of thestate. $ The transformation of publicdominion propert& to state patrimonialpropert& involves, to m& mind, a policydecision. #t is a polic& decision becausethe treatment of the propert& variesaccordin" to its classification.Conse2uentl&, it is Con"ress hich candecide and declare the conversion of

Roppon"i from a public dominionpropert& to a state patrimonial propert&.

"declaration.Moreover, the sale of public propert& +once converted from public dominionto state patrimonial propert& must beapproved b& Con"ress, for this a"ain is amatter of polic& +i.e. to *eep or disposeof the propert&. 6ec. 3=, Boo* $ of the

Administrative Code of $(= provides!6EC. 3=. /fficial Aut#oried to Convey

'eal Property. U 9henever realpropert& of the ;overnment isauthoriDed b& la to be conve&ed, thedeed of conve&ance shall be e


36/191

p p p &absence of an& shoin" to thecontrar&0 = + 9ith respect to forestlands, the same continue to be lands of the public dominion unless and untilreclassified b& the Er.'or purposes of this separate opinion, #assume that the piece of land located in%)5 Roppon"i, 4-Chome, Minato-*uTo*&o, >apan +hereinafter referred to as

the Roppon"i propert& ma& becharacteriDed as propert& of publicdominion, ithin the meanin" of Article3) + of the Civil Code!VPropert&W hich belon"VsW to the 6tate,

ithout bein" for public use, and areintended for some public service -.#t mi"ht not be amiss hoever, to notethat the appropriateness of tr&in" to

brin" ithin the confines of the simplethreefold classification found in Article3) of the Civil Code +propert& for

public use propert& intended for somepublic service and propert& intendedfor the development of the national

ealth all property oned b& theRepublic of the Philippines hetherfound ithin the territorial boundariesof the Republic or located ithin theterritor& of another soverei"n 6tate,is not self-evident. The first item of theclassification propert& intendedfor public use can scarcel& be properl&

applied to propert& belon"in" to theRepublic but found ithin the territor& of another 6tate. The third item of the

p p &development of the national ealth isillustrated, in Article %%( of the 6panishCivil Code of $==(, b& mines or mineralproperties. A"ain, mineral lands oned

b& a soverei"n 6tate are rarel&, if ever,found ithin the territorial base of another soverei"n 6tate. The tas* of eustice Montema&or, spea*in" for theCourt, said!

Article 3 of the /a of 9aters of $=55provides that hen a portion of the

shore is no lon"er ashed b& the atersof the sea and is not necessar& forpurposes of public utilit&, or for theestablishment of special industries, orfor coast-"uard service, the "overnmentshall declare it to be the propert& of theoners of the estates ad1acent theretoand as an increment thereof. 9e believethat only t#e e8ecutive and possibly t#elegislative depart%ents #ave t#e

aut#ority and t#e po(er to %a


37/191

fro% public use, it follo(s t#at suc#

(it#dra(n portion beco%es

patri%onial property (#ic# can be t#e

ob)ect of an ordinary contract . Article 3 of the Civil Code e7-

!unicipality of Hinunganan v.

Director of $ands 5@ P#il. "5@ ">"?

Province of a%boanga del 0orte v.

City of a%boanga, 6CRA $%%3+$(5=.# ould also add that such as the casenot onl& in respect of? propert& of municipal corporations but also inrespect of propert& of the 6tate itself.

Manresa in commentin" on Article %3$of the $==( 6panish Civil Code hich

Civil Code b& Article 3 thereof, rote!/a dificultad ma&or en todo esto estriba,naturalmente, en fi1ar el momento en2ue los bienes de dominio publico de1ande serlo. 6i la Administracion o laautoridad competente le"islativerealiDan 2un acto en virtud del cual cesael destino o uso publico de los bienes de2ue se trata naturalmente la dificultad

2ueda desde el primer momentoresuelta. :a& un punto de partida ciertopara iniciar las relaciones 1uridicas a 2uepudiera haber lu"ar Pero puede ocurrir:ue no #aya taldeclaracion e8presa,

legislativa or ad%inistrativa, y, sin

e%bargo, cesar de #ec#o el destino

publico de los bienes0 ahora bien, eneste caso, & para los efectos 1uridicos 2ueresultan de entrar la cosa en el comerciode los hombres,? se entedera :ue se #averificado la conversion de los bienes

patri%onialesK

El citado tratadista Ricci opina, respectodel anti"uo Codi"o italiano, por laafirmativa, & por nuestra parte creemos2ue tal debe ser la soluciion. El destinode las cosas no depende tanto de unadeclaracion e


38/191

ecember $(43, the then 6ecretar& of No. ()4, enacted on ) >une $(4%, herself ma& carr& out the function or and rial Attorney David '. Hilario for


39/191

A"riculture and Natural Resourcespromul"ated /ands Administrative7rders Nos. -5 and - hich ereentitled, respectivel&! 6upplementar& Re"ulations ;overnin" the 6ale of the $ands of t#e Private Do%ain of theRepublic of the Philippines0 and6upplementar& Re"ulations ;overnin"the $ease of $ands of Private Do%ain of

the Republic of the Philippines +teune 5, $(3, the AssistantProvincial 'iscal of Cebu filed a motionto dismiss the application on the "roundthat the propert& sou"ht to be re"istered

bein" a public road intended for publicuse is considered part of the publicdomain and therefore outside thecommerce of man. Conse2uentl&, itcannot be sub1ect to re"istration b& an& private individual. 5

After hearin" the parties, on 7ctober $$,$(3 the trial court issued an orderdismissin" the petitioner?s application

for re"istration of title. 6 :ence, thei i i f i

6uch poer to vacate a street or alle& isdi i d h di i ill

HEIRS O# #ELINO T. SANTIAGO,+ b S

entered into b& the irector of /andsd li i h id h


40/191

instant petition for revie.'or the resolution of this case, thepetitioner poses the folloin" 2uestions!+$ oes the Cit& Charter of Cebu Cit& +Republic Act No. %=4 under 6ection%$, para"raph %3, "ive the Cit& of Cebuthe valid ri"ht to declare a road asabandoned and+ oes the declaration of the road, as

abandoned, ma*e it the patrimonialpropert& of the Cit& of Cebu hich ma& be the ob1ect of a common contract+$ The pertinent portions of the RevisedCharter of Cebu Cit& provides!6ection %$. $egislative Po(ers. An& provision of la and e


41/191

respondent to the Minister of NaturalResources proved unavailin" 6 but onfurther appeal to the 7ffice of thePresident, private respondent as"ranted the relief sou"ht, thus!PREM#6E6 C7N6#ERE, 6alesContract No. -5) and eed No. @-$4=, both e


42/191

the controverted lot is made indubitable b& the fact that the cancellation of theaard in his favor b& the M:A#,notithstandin", the irector of /andsissued a eed of Conve&ance to him.This proves that the irector of /ands

as convinced that 6antia"o hadcomplied ith the re2uirements for thesale of the land0 and ri"htl& so, for the

determination of hether improvements ere made b& 'elino 6antia"o is to bemade b& the irector of /ands, and not

b& the M:A#. To allo the latter to do so ould result in an abdication of one of the functions of the Bureau of /ands.

And this e cannot allo. P7TE6TA6E/E;ATA N7N E/E;ARE P7TE6T.

A poer once dele"ated cannot beredele"ated.

9:ERE'7RE, the assailed decision of public respondent dated April 5, $(=3 ishereb& ANN8//E and 6ET A6#E.The decision of the Minister of NaturalResources dated >une =, $(=% isRE#N6TATE. Costs a"ainst privaterespondent.67 7RERE.Gutierre, Jr., Feliciano, +idin and

Cortes, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 1"99" September?, 2!1?HEIRS O# MARIO MALA(ANAN,

Repre)ete+ b& S%& A.M%%b%%, Petitioners,

vs.REPU(LIC O# THEPHILIPPINES, Respondent.R E 6 7 / 8 T # 7 N(ERSAMIN, J.:'or our consideration and resolution arethe motions for reconsideration of theparties ho both assail the decisionpromul"ated on April (, ))(,

hereb& e upheld the rulin" of theCourt of Appeals +CA den&in" theapplication of the petitioners for the

in Baran"a& Tibi", 6ilan", Cavite on the"round that the& had not established b& sufficient evidence their ri"ht to there"istration in accordance ith either6ection $3+$ or 6ection $3+ of Presidential ecree No. $4( +Propert& Re"istration ecree.

AntecedentsThe propert& sub1ect of the application

for re"istration is a parcel of landsituated in Baran"a& Tibi", 6ilan"Cavite, more particularl& identified as/ot (=53-A, Cad-34-, ith an area of $,%3-s2uare meters. 7n 'ebruar& ),$((=, applicant Mario Malabanan, hohad purchased the propert& fromEduardo @elaDco, filed an application forland re"istration coverin" the propert& in the Re"ional Trial Court +RTC inTa"a&ta& Cit&, Cavite, claimin" that thepropert& formed part of the alienableand disposable land of the publicdomain, and that he and hispredecessors-in-interest had been inopen, continuous, uninterrupted, publicand adverse possession and occupationof the land for more than %) &ears,thereb& entitlin" him to the 1udicialconfirmation of his title.$

To prove that the propert& as analienable and disposable land of thepublic domain, Malabanan presented

durin" trial a certification dated >une $$,))$ issued b& the Communit& Environment and Natural Resources7ffice +CENR7 of the epartment of Environment and Natural Resources+ENR, hich reads!This is to certif& that the parcel of landdesi"nated as /ot No. (=53 Cad 34-,6ilan" Cadastre as surve&ed for Mr.

@ir"ilio @elasco located at Baran"a& Tibi", 6ilan", Cavite containin" an area

of 3(,%3 s2. meters as shon anddescribed on the Plan Ap-)3-))(4 is verified to be ithin the Alienable or

Map No. %)$% established under Pro1ectNo. )-A and approved as such under'A7 3-$545 on March $4, $(=.

After trial, on ecember %, )), theRTC rendered 1ud"ment "rantin"MalabananKs application for landre"istration, disposin" thusl&!

9:ERE'7RE, this Court hereb& approves this application for

re"istration and thus places under theoperation of Act $3$, Act 3(5 andIorP.. $4(, otherise *non as Propert& Re"istration /a, the lands described inPlan Csd-)3-)$%$%-, /ot (=53-A and containin" an area of 6event& 7neThousand Three :undred Tent& 'our+$,%3 62uare Meters, as supported b& its technical description no formin"part of the record of this case, inaddition to other proofs adduced in thename of MAR#7 MA/ABANAN, ho isof le"al a"e, 'ilipino, idoer, and ithresidence at Muntin" #lo", 6ilan",Cavite.7nce this ecision becomes final ande


43/191

predecessors-in-interest of an alienableland of the public domain for more than%) &ears. Accordin" to them, hat asessential as that the propert& had beenconverted into private propert& throu"h prescription at the time of theapplication ithout re"ard to hetherthe propert& sou"ht to be re"istered aspreviousl& classified as a"ricultural land

of the public domain. As earlier stated, e denied the petitionfor revie on certiorari becauseMalabanan failed to establish b& sufficient evidence possession andoccupation of the propert& on his partand on the part of his predecessors-ininterest since >une $, $(34, or earlier.PetitionersK Motion for Reconsideration#n their motion for reconsideration, thepetitioners submit that the mereclassification of the land as alienable ordisposable should be deemed sufficientto convert it into patrimonial propert& of the 6tate. Rel&in" on the rulin"s in6pouses e 7campo v. Arlos, Men"uito

v. Republic= and Republic v. T.A.N.Properties, #nc.,( the& ar"ue that thereclassification of the land as alienableor disposable opened it to ac2uisitiveprescription under the Civil Code0 thatMalabanan had purchased the propert& from Eduardo @elaDco believin" in "ood

faith that @elaDco and his predecessors-in-interest had been the real oners of the land ith the ri"ht to validl& transmit title and onership thereof0that conse2uentl&, the ten-&ear periodprescribed b& Article $$%3 of the CivilCode, in relation to 6ection $3+ of thePropert& Re"istration ecree, applied intheir favor0 and that hen Malabananfiled the application for re"istration on'ebruar& ), $((=, he had alread& been

in possession of the land for almost $5 &ears rec*oned from $(=, the time

and disposable b& the 6tate.The RepublicKs Motion for PartialReconsiderationThe Republic see*s the partialreconsideration in order to obtain aclarification ith reference to theapplication of the rulin"s in Na"uit and:erbieto.Chiefl& citin" the dissents, the Republic

contends that the decision has enlar"ed, b& implication, the interpretation of 6ection $3+$ of the Propert& Re"istration ecree throu"h 1udicialle"islation. #t reiterates its vie that anapplicant is entitled to re"istration onl&

hen the land sub1ect of the applicationhad been declared alienable anddisposable since >une $, $(34 or earlier.Rulin"

9e den& the motions forreconsideration.#n reviein" the assailed decision, econsider to be imperative to discuss thedifferent classifications of land inrelation to the euraRe"alia, a le"al concept first introducedinto the countr& from the 9est b& 6painthrou"h the /as of the #ndies and theRo&al Cedulas,$3 all lands of the publicdomain belon" to the 6tate.$4 This meansthat the 6tate is the source of an& asserted ri"ht to onership of land, and

is char"ed ith the conservation of suchpatrimon&.$5

All lands not appearin" to be clearl& under private onership are presumedto belon" to the 6tate. Also, public landsremain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the 6tate isshon to have reclassified or alienatedthem to private persons.$

Classifications of public landsaccordin" to alienabilit&

9hether or not land of the publicdomain is alienable and disposableprimaril& rests on the classification of public lands made under theConstitution. 8nder the $(%4Constitution,$= lands of the publicdomain ere classified into three,namel&, a"ricultural, timber andmineral.$( 6ection $), Article [#@ of the$(% Constitution classified lands of thepublic domain into seven, specificall&,a"ricultural, industrial or commercial,

residential, resettlement, mineral,timber or forest, and "raDin" land, iththe reservation that the la mi"htprovide other classifications. The $(=Constitution adopted the classificationunder the $(%4 Constitution intoa"ricultural, forest or timber, andmineral, but added nationalpar*s.) A"ricultural lands ma& befurther classified b& la accordin" to theuses to hich the& ma& be devoted.$ The

identification of lands accordin" to theirle"al classification is done e


44/191

national ealth, the Re"alian octrine isapplicable.isposition of alienable public lands6ection $$ of the Public /and Act +CA No. $3$ provides the manner b& hichalienable and disposable lands of thepublic domain, i.e., a"ricultural lands,can be disposed of, to it!6ection $$. Public lands suitable for

a"ricultural purposes can be disposed of onl& as follos, and not otherise!+$ 'or homestead settlement0+ B& sale0+% B& lease0 and+3 B& confirmation of imperfect orincomplete titles0+a B& 1udicial le"aliDation0 or+b B& administrative le"aliDation +freepatent.The core of the controvers& herein lies inthe proper interpretation of 6ection$$+3, in relation to 6ection 3=+b of thePublic /and Act, hich eune $, $(34 or earlier, because an& possession of the land priorto such classification or reclassification

produced no le"al effects. #t observesthat the fiune $, $(34could not be minimiDed or "lossed over

b& mere 1udicial interpretation or b& 1udicial social polic& concerns, andinsisted that the full le"islative intent berespected.

9e find, hoever, that the choice of >une $, $(34 as the rec*onin" point of the re2uisite possession and occupation

as the sole prero"ative of Con"ress, the

determination of hich should best beleft to the isdom of the lama*ers.Eune $, $(34. Accordin"l&, the Courtshould interpret onl& the plain andliteral meanin" of the la as ritten b& the le"islators.Moreover, an e


45/191

the presumption that the land isinalienable.The declaration that land is alienableand disposable also serves to determinethe point at hich prescription ma& runa"ainst the 6tate. The imperfect orincomplete title bein" confirmed under6ection 3=+b of the Public /and Act istitle that is ac2uired b& reason of the

applicantKs possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable a"riculturalland of the public domain. 9here all thenecessar& re2uirements for a "rant b& the ;overnment are complied iththrou"h actual ph&sical, open,continuous, e


46/191

$,))% inhabitants ho live in the bone-shaped islands three barangays.V4W

7n April $3, $(5, the epartment of Environment and NaturalResources +ENRapproved the NationalReservation 6urve& of Boraca& #sland,V5W hich identified several lots as

bein" occupied or claimed b& named

persons.VW

7n November $), 19", then President'erdinand Marcos issued ProclamationNo. 1!1V=W declarin" Boraca& #sland,amon" other islands, caves andpeninsulas in the Philippines, as to$r*)toe) %+ m%r*e re)er;e) underthe administration of the PhilippineTourism Authorit& +PTA. PresidentMarcos later approved the issuanceof PTA C*r3$%r ?B2V(W dated 6eptember %, $(=, toimplement Proclamation No. $=)$.Claimin" that Proclamation No. $=)$and PTA Circular No %-= precludedthem from filin" an application for

1udicial confirmation of imperfect titleor surve& of land

property full cases (public dominion-ownership)

Documents