05; Property; rights of a property owner; limitations

1977 No. III-a

The rights of a person over his property are:
a. The right to enjoy, which includes:
(1) Jus utendi, or the right to use;
(2) Jus fruendi, or the right to enjoy the fruits;
(3) Jut abutendi, or the right to consume the by its use.
b. The right to dispose (jus disponendi)t or the right to alienate, encumber,
transform, or even to destroy the property.
c. The right to vindicate (jus vindicandi), or the right of action available to the
owner to recover the property against the holder or possessor. (Art 428, Civil Code).
The limitations upon the right of ownership are:
(1) General limitations imposed by the State for its benefit, such as the
power of eminent domain, the police power, and the power of taxation;
(2) Specific limitations imposed by law, such as legal servitudes;
(3) Limitations imposed by the party transmitting the property either by
contract or by will;
(4) Limitations imposed by the owner himself, such as voluntary servitudes,
mortgages, pledges, and lease rights; and
(5) Inherent limitations arising from conflict with other rights, such as those
caused by contiguity of property.
We might add to the above enumeration the Constitutional prohibition
regarding acquisition of private land by aliens and other Constitutional
limitations.
06; LTD; reclamation of foreshore lands
2000 No VIII
a) Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim
foreshore lands bordering them and to construct thereon adequate docking and
harbor facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement with
the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land
from the sea bordering the city, with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by
Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor General questioned the
validity of the agreement on the ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the
sea which is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is authorized
by RA. 1899 because it authorizes the construction of docks and harbors. Who is
correct? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the City of Cavite under RA
1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it to
Page 242 of 391
reclaim land from the sea. "The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite
did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being the owner, it could not
have conveyed any portion thereof to the contractor.
Alternative Answer;
It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea is necessary in the
construction of the docks and the harbors, the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, It
is not. Since RA 1899 authorized the city to construct docks and harbors, all works
that are necessary for such construction are deemed authorized. Including the
reclamation of land from the sea. The reclamation being authorized, the city is the
owner of the reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as payment for the
services of the contractor.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the assumption that the reclamation contract was entered into before RA
1899 was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea are
"beyond the commerce of man" in the sense that they are not susceptible of private
appropriation, ownership or alienation. The contract In question merely calls for the
reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the coastal waters of the city. Per se, it
does not vest, alienate or transfer ownership of land under the sea. The city merely
engaged the services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city.

06; LTD; reclamation of foreshore lands

2000 No VIII
a) Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim
foreshore lands bordering them and to construct thereon adequate docking and
harbor facilities. Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered into an agreement with
the Fil-Estate Realty Company, authorizing the latter to reclaim 300 hectares of land
from the sea bordering the city, with 30% of the land to be reclaimed to be owned by
Fil-Estate as compensation for its services. The Solicitor General questioned the
validity of the agreement on the ground that it will mean reclaiming land under the
sea which is beyond the commerce of man. The City replies that this is authorized
by RA. 1899 because it authorizes the construction of docks and harbors. Who is
correct? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Solicitor General is correct. The authority of the City of Cavite under RA
1899 to reclaim land is limited to foreshore lands. The Act did not authorize it to
Page 242 of 391
reclaim land from the sea. "The reclamation being unauthorized, the City of Cavite
did not acquire ownership over the reclaimed land. Not being the owner, it could not
have conveyed any portion thereof to the contractor.
Alternative Answer;
It depends. If the reclamation of the land from the sea is necessary in the
construction of the docks and the harbors, the City of Cavite is correct. Otherwise, It
is not. Since RA 1899 authorized the city to construct docks and harbors, all works
that are necessary for such construction are deemed authorized. Including the
reclamation of land from the sea. The reclamation being authorized, the city is the
owner of the reclaimed land and it may convey a portion thereof as payment for the
services of the contractor.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the assumption that the reclamation contract was entered into before RA
1899 was repealed by PD 3-A, the City of Cavite is correct. Lands under the sea are
"beyond the commerce of man" in the sense that they are not susceptible of private
appropriation, ownership or alienation. The contract In question merely calls for the
reclamation of 300 hectares of land within the coastal waters of the city. Per se, it
does not vest, alienate or transfer ownership of land under the sea. The city merely
engaged the services of Fil-Estate to reclaim the land for the city.