Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Its Title, Except When Authorized by Congress.": Definition of Property For Public Use

    Uploaded by

    Rikka Reyes
    1. The document discusses the ownership and ability to dispose of properties by local governments. It analyzes two cases - Chavez vs PEA and Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga. 2. In Chavez vs PEA, the Supreme Court ruled that lands acquired by local governments from the national government cannot be disposed of unless authorized by Congress based on the language in Section 60 of CA No. 141. 3. In Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Plaza Rizal was a property for public use or a patrimonial property. Since it was determined to be for public use and located within Naga City, the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Its Title, Except When Authorized by Congress.": Definition of Property For Public Use

    Uploaded by

    Rikka Reyes
    14 views2 pages
    1. The document discusses the ownership and ability to dispose of properties by local governments. It analyzes two cases - Chavez vs PEA and Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga. 2. In Chavez vs PEA, the Supreme Court ruled that lands acquired by local governments from the national government cannot be disposed of unless authorized by Congress based on the language in Section 60 of CA No. 141. 3. In Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Plaza Rizal was a property for public use or a patrimonial property. Since it was determined to be for public use and located within Naga City, the

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    19 Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The document discusses the ownership and ability to dispose of properties by local governments. It analyzes two cases - Chavez vs PEA and Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga. 2. In Chavez vs PEA, the Supreme Court ruled that lands acquired by local governments from the national government cannot be disposed of unless authorized by Congress based on the language in Section 60 of CA No. 141. 3. In Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Plaza Rizal was a property for public use or a patrimonial property. Since it was determined to be for public use and located within Naga City, the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views2 pages

    Its Title, Except When Authorized by Congress.": Definition of Property For Public Use

    Uploaded by

    Rikka Reyes
    1. The document discusses the ownership and ability to dispose of properties by local governments. It analyzes two cases - Chavez vs PEA and Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga. 2. In Chavez vs PEA, the Supreme Court ruled that lands acquired by local governments from the national government cannot be disposed of unless authorized by Congress based on the language in Section 60 of CA No. 141. 3. In Province of Camarines Sur vs City of Naga, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Plaza Rizal was a property for public use or a patrimonial property. Since it was determined to be for public use and located within Naga City, the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Start: 1:01:09 Government," as provided in Section 60 of CA

    No. 141, may be registered under the Torrens


    But in the end the court said whether the
    System pursuant to Section 103 of PD No. 1529.
    properties is sold it is a matter of public policy.
    Such registration, however, is expressly subject
    Where both the congress and the president
    to the condition in Section 60 of CA No. 141 that
    must concur. So there is a requirement for the
    the land "shall not be alienated, encumbered or
    concurrence of both the executive and legislative
    otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting
    department in order for this specific property be
    its title, except when authorized by Congress."
    disposed of.
    This provision refers to government reclaimed,
    Now, for the local government they can also foreshore and marshy lands of the public
    own property for public use and they can also domain that have been titled but still cannot be
    have some patrimonial property meaning they alienated or encumbered unless expressly
    can also dispose of it. For public use, we have authorized by Congress. The need for legislative
    parks and squares, roads and other public works authority prevents the registered land of the
    which has been constructed from the funds of public domain from becoming private land that
    the Local government. can be disposed of to qualified private parties” 1

    Now, patrimonial property will still have the If property is transferred to the local government
    same concept in the patrimonial property in so ,supposing it was reclassified as patrimonial
    far as the national government is concerned. So property, can the local government dispose of
    the local government can sell it and also needs it? – that is the question which can be answered
    property for public use needs to be reclassified in the case of Chavez vs PEA to which the SC
    for patrimonial property. It also needs the act ruled that under CA No. 141 sec. 60 “…shall not
    from the Sangguniang or the local legislative be alienated, encumbered or otherwise disposed
    body. of in a manner affecting its title, except when
    authorized by Congress”
    Definition of property for public use-
    properties that everybody can use including So in this case, it referred to lands that were
    strangers in accordance to its nature but nobody acquired from the national government.
    can exercise private rights over the said
    Province of Camarines Sur vs city of Naga
    properties as an owner.
    FACTS:
    There is a statement in the Chavez case This is a quarrel between the province and the
    regarding the ownership of the local city over Plaza Rizal which was called the
    government. If the national government is freedom park of Camarines Sur. It has a tax
    declaration under the name of the camarines
    considered a certain property removed from
    sur but in June 1948 , Naga city was
    public domain then it can dispose of it to local
    considered as a chartered city so it resulted to
    government. Remember in our system the local
    a territorial domination of the province and
    government has its separate entity that is the city.
    distinct from the national government. So, it can Plaza Rizal was situated right between the
    dispose of these properties to the local territorial jurisdiction of the City of Naga but
    government. the province of camarines sur wanted to get

    “Alienable lands of the public domain "granted, 1


    FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,
    donated, or transferred to a province,
    v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and
    municipality, or branch or subdivision of the AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION, respondents.
    the property because they spent so much for
    its maintenance and it already had its
    sentimental value.

    ISSUE: The question now is who is entitled to


    the property?

    RULING: Again, we go back to the basic


    question, what is the nature of the property?
    Is it for public use or patrimonial in property?
    Camsur wanted to hold that it is a patrimonial
    property because of the existence of a tax
    declaration (as per Atty. Tax declarations are
    not proof of ownership it can only be an
    indication that you have possession not
    ownership)
    Having found out that it is a property for
    public use, the SC had considered the
    territorial jurisdiction of the city since it is
    located in the territorial jurisdiction of Naga
    city then it was declared that Naga is entitled
    to the possession, administer, manage, control
    the Plaza Rizal not the province anymore.
    (END 1:10:40)

    You might also like