Laurel v. Garcia (G.R. No. 92013) the property is located.

They relied upon the rule

Ojeda v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 92047) of lex situs which is used in determining the
ROPPONGI PROPERTY applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer
and devolution of the title to a property.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
These two (2) petitions for prohibition seek to
enjoin respondents from proceeding with the 1. Can the Roppongi property and others
bidding for the sale of the 3,179 square meters of of its kind be alienated by the Philippine
land at 306 Roppongi, 5-Chrome Minato-ku Government?
Tokyo, Japan. The latter case also, prays for a writ
of mandamus to fully disclose to the public the NO. There can be no doubt that the
basis of their decision to push through with the property is of public dominion and the
sale of the Roppongi property. respondents have failed to show that it
has become patrimonial.
The Roppongi case is one of the four properties
in Japan acquired by the Philippine government The property is correctly classified
under the Reparation Agreement entered into under Art 420 of the Civil Code as
with Japan. The other three (3) properties property belonging to the State and
include Nampeidai Property (present site of the intended for some public service. The
Philippine Embassy Chancery), Kobe Commercial fact that it has not been used for actual
Property (commercial lot being used as a Embassy service does not automatically
warehouse and parking lot for consulate staff) convert it to patrimonial property. Such
and Kobe Residential Property (resident lot conversion happens only if property is
which is now vacant). withdrawn from public use, through an
abandonment of the intention to use
The Reparations Agreement provides that the Roppongi property for public service
reparations valued at $550M would be payable in and to make it patrimonial property.
twenty (20) years in accordance with annual Abandonment must be a certain and
schedules of procurements to be fixed by the positive act based on correct legal
Philippine and Japanese governments. The premises.
procurements are to be divided into government
sector and those for private parties in projects, The EO does not declare that the
the latter shall be made available only to Filipino properties lost their public character,
citizens or to 100% Filipino-owned entities in merely intending the properties to be
national development projects. made available to foreigners and not to
Filipinos alone, in case of sale, lease or
The Roppongi property was acquired under the other disposition. Furthermore, it is
heading “Government Sector” for the Chancery based on the wrong premise that the
of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was Japan properties can be sold to end-
transferred to Nampeida due to the need for users, when in fact it cannot.
major repairs. However, the Roppongi property
has remained underdeveloped since that time. Neither does the CARP Law re-classify
the properties into patrimonial
Although there was a proposal to lease the properties, merely stating that sources
property with the provision to have buildings of funds for its implementation be
built at the expense of the lessee, the same was sourced from proceeds of the
not acted favorably upon by the government. disposition of the Government in
Instead, President Aquino issued EO No. 296 foreign countries, but not that the
entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail Roppongi property be withdrawn from
of separations’ capital goods and services in the being classified as a property of public
event of sale, lease or dispositions. Thereafter, dominion.
amidst the oppositions by various sectors, the
Executive branch of the government pushed for CONFLICT OF LAW
the sale of reparation properties, starting with Furthermore, the respondents’
the Roppongi lot. The property has twice been argument that the Japanese law and not
set for bidding at a minimum floor price of our Civil Code shall apply is incorrect.
$225M. The first was a failure, while the second There is no conflict of law in this
has been postponed and later restrained by the situation. A conflict of law arises only
SC. when:
a. There is a dispute over the title or
Amongst the arguments of the respondents is ownership of an immovable, such
that the subject property is not governed by our that the capacity to take and
Civil Code, but rather by the laws of Japan where transfer immovables, the
 formalities of conveyance, the Issues and Held:
essential validity and effect of the 1. WON the subject property cannot be
transfer, or the interpretation and alienated.
effect of a conveyance, are to be The answer is in the affirmative.
determined. Under Philippine Law, there can be no
b. A foreign law on land ownership doubt that it is of public dominion
and its conveyance is asserted to unless it is convincingly shown that the
conflict with a domestic law on the property has become patrimonial. This,
same matters. the respondents have failed to do. As
property of public dominion, the
Hence, there IS NO need to determine Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of
which law should apply. Both elements man. It cannot be alienated.
does not exist in the case. The issues are 2. WON Philippine Law applies to the
not concerned with the validity of case at bar.
ownership or title. There is no question The answer is in the affirmative.
that the property belongs to the We see no reason why a conflict of law
Philippines. The issue is the authority of rule should apply when no conflict of
the government officials to validly law situation exists. A conflict of law
dispose of property belonging to the situation arises only when: (1) There is a
state and the validity of the procedures dispute over the title or ownership of an
adopted to effect the sale, which should immovable, such that the capacity to
be governed by Philippine law The rule take and transfer immovables, the
of lex situs does not apply. formalities of conveyance, the essential
validity and effect of the transfer, or the
2. Does the Chief Executive, her officers interpretation and effect of a
and agents, have the authority and conveyance, are to be determined; and
jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi (2) A foreign law on land ownership and
property? its conveyance is asserted to conflict
with a domestic law on the same
NO. A law or a formal declaration to matters. Hence, the need to determine
withdraw the Roppongi property from which law should apply.
public domain to make it alienable and In the instant case, none of the above
a need for legislative authority to allow elements exists.
the sale of the property is needed. None The issues are not concerned with
has been enacted for this purpose. validity of ownership or title. There is no
question that the property belongs to
3. W/N EO No. 296 is constitutional? the Philippines. The issue is the
authority of the respondent officials to
The SC did not anymore pass upon its validly dispose of property belonging to
constitutionality. the State. And the validity of the
procedures adopted to effect its sale.
LAUREL VS GARCIA This is governed by Philippine Law. The
MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ rule of lex situs does not apply.
Laurel vs Garcia The assertion that the opinion of the
GR 92013 July 25, 1990. Secretary of Justice sheds light on the
Facts: relevance of the lex situs rule is
Petitioners seek to stop the Philippine misplaced. The opinion does not tackle
Government to sell the Roppongi the alienability of the real properties
Property, which is located in Japan. It is procured through reparations nor the
one of the properties given by the existence in what body of the authority
Japanese Government as reparations to sell them. In discussing who are
for damage done by the latter to the capable of acquiring the lots, the
former during the war. Secretary merely explains that it is the
Petitioner argues that under Philippine foreign law which should determine
Law, the subject property is property of who can acquire the properties so that
public dominion. As such, it is outside the constitutional limitation on
the commerce of men. Therefore, it acquisition of lands of the public domain
cannot be alienated. to Filipino citizens and entities wholly
Respondents aver that Japanese Law, owned by Filipinos is inapplicable.
and not Philippine Law, shall apply to
the case because the property is located
in Japan. They posit that the principle of
lex situs applies.