RAFAEL S. SALAS, petitioners-appellants v. HON. HILARION U. JARENCIO, respondents-appellees.

G.R. No. L-29788 : August 30, 1972

Esguerra, J.

DOCTRINE:

Article 423 (Civil Code):

The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial
property.

Article 424 (Civil Code):

Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city
streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public
service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.

All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without
prejudice to the provisions of special laws.

FACTS:

The City of Manila had a Torrens Title over a parcel of land. The municipal Board of Manila requested
the President of the Philippines to have the lot declared as patrimonial property of the City so that it
could be sold by the City to the actual occupants of the said parcel of land. Congress enacted RA 4118
whereby the lot was made disposable or alienable land of the State and not the of the City, and its
disposal was given to a national government entity, the Land Tenure Administration.

ISSUE:

Whether the aforementioned land is a private or patrimonial property of the City of Manila?

RULING:

The land is public property. As a general rule, regardless of the source or classification of the land in the
possession of municipality, excepting those which it acquired in its own funds in its private or corporate
capacity, such property is held for the State for the benefit of its inhabitants, whether it be for
governmental or proprietary purposes. The legal situation is the same if the State itself holds the
property and puts it to a different use. The property was not acquired by the City of Manila with its own
funds in its private or proprietary capacity. The land was part of the territory of City of Manila granted
by sovereign in its creation. Furthermore, City expressly recognized the paramount title of the State over
its land when it requested the President to consider the feasibility of declaring the lot as patrimonial
property for selling. There could be no more blatant recognition of the fact that said land belongs to the
State and was simply granted in usufruct to the City of Manila for municipal purposes. But since the City
did not actually use said land for any recognized public purpose and allowed it to remain idle and
unoccupied for a long time until it was overrun by squatters, no presumption of State grant of
ownership in favor of the City of Manila may be acquiesced in to justify the claim that it is its own
private or patrimonial property.