FACTS:

This case involves two petitions for prohibition seeking to prohibit respondents from proceeding with the bidding for the sale of a 3,179 square meter land in Tokyo, Japan. One of the petitioners also seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to disclose the basis of their decision to proceed with the sale and to explain the proceedings that prevent Filipino citizens and entities from participating in the bidding process. The subject property was acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement with Japan in 1956. The Reparations Agreement provides for the payment of reparations valued at $550 million in twenty years. The Roppongi property, one of the four properties acquired in Japan, was intended to be the site of the Philippine Embassy but remained undeveloped due to lack of funds. An alternative proposal was presented to lease the property to a Japanese firm in exchange for construction and renovation of embassy buildings. However, the government did not act favorably on this proposal and instead created a committee to study the disposition of government properties in Japan. Executive Order No. 296 eventually allowed non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of reparations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease, or disposition. The sale of the Roppongi property was met with opposition, prompting the filing of the two petitions for prohibition.

The Executive branch of the government in the Philippines has decided to sell the reparations properties, starting with the Roppongi lot. The property was set for bidding at a minimum floor price of $225 million, but the first bidding failed. The rules on bidding were later changed so that the $225 million floor price became merely a suggested floor price. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 objects to the alienation of the Roppongi property, while the petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 objects to selling the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. These petitions have been consolidated to stop the sale of the Roppongi property.

The petitioner in G.R. No. 92013 argues that the Roppongi property is classified as public dominion, and therefore cannot be alienated. The petitioner in G.R. No. 92047 questions the authority of the government to alienate the property and challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 296, which allows the sale of the property to non-Filipino citizens and entities. The petitioner also questions the discriminatory bidding procedures of the Committee on the Utilization or Disposition of Philippine Government Properties in Japan.

The respondents argue that the Roppongi property is governed by the laws of Japan, and even if the Civil Code of the Philippines applies, the property has ceased to be public dominion and has become patrimonial property. They cite various actions by the Executive Department and the Congress that have shown the intention to convert the property to private use.

The petitioner, Ojeda, alleges that Executive Order No. 296, which authorized the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan to the highest bidder, violates several provisions of the Philippine Constitution and laws. The petitioner argues that the sale of the property violates the reservation of the ownership and acquisition of alienable lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens. Additionally, the petitioner contends that the sale contravenes the preference for Filipino citizens in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. The petitioner further asserts that the sale undermines the protection given to Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade practices. Moreover, the petitioner claims that the sale infringes on the guarantee of the right of the people to information on all matters of public concern, as well as the prohibition against the sale of capital goods received by the Philippines under the Reparations Act to non-Filipino citizens or entities not wholly owned by Filipino citizens. Finally, the petitioner argues that the sale violates the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest. The petitioner argues that the use of public funds in the execution of an unconstitutional executive order is a misapplication of public funds. The petitioner asserts that the bidding for the Roppongi property was not publicly disclosed until shortly before the scheduled bidding, and that the bidding guidelines were only available in Tokyo, Japan. Consequently, interested Filipino citizens or entities owned by them did not have the opportunity to comply with the required purchase offer requirements. The petitioner further emphasizes that the Roppongi property will be sold for a minimum price of $225 million, from which the capital gains tax under Japanese law of about 50 to 70% of the floor price would still be deducted. The parties in the case do not dispute that the Roppongi property and three related properties were acquired through reparations agreements, assigned to the government sector, and that the Roppongi property itself is classified as alienable land of the public domain.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Roppongi property, acquired through reparations agreements and designated as the Philippine Embassy, is property of public dominion or patrimonial property.

2. Whether the government's non-use of the Roppongi property for a long time automatically converts it to patrimonial property.

3. Whether there has been a definite abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service.

4. Whether Executive Order No. 296 can legally authorize the sale of the Roppongi property to non-Filipino citizens or entities.

5. Whether Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act. No. 6657 authorizes the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property.

6. Whether Japanese law or Philippine law should apply in determining the authority to sell the Roppongi property.

7. Whether the President has the authority to convey valuable real property of the government without authorization from Congress.

8. Whether Resolution No. 55 of the Senate withdraws the Roppongi property from public domain and authorizes its sale.

9. Whether the Court, in a previous case, upheld the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property.

10. Whether the Court should tackle the constitutional issues raised by petitioner Ojeda.

11. Whether the Roppongi property should be sold considering its symbolic value to the Filipino people.

12. Whether or not the laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be followed in the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan.

RULING:

1. The Roppongi property is property of public dominion. It is classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for public service.

2. Non-use of the property for a long time does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. The property continues to be part of the public domain until there is a formal declaration by the government to withdraw it from public use.

3. There has been no definite abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service. The transfer of the Philippine Embassy to another location and the government's failure to repair the building in Roppongi are not sufficient grounds for abandonment. The recent administrative orders merely authorize a study of the status and conditions of government properties in Japan, but do not indicate a clear intention to dispose of the properties. Executive Order No. 296 does not have a provision authorizing the sale of the properties or declaring that they have lost their public character.

4. No, Executive Order No. 296 cannot legally authorize the sale of the Roppongi property to non-Filipino citizens or entities because the property is classified as public dominion, and only properties designated for the private sector can be sold to non-Filipinos.

5. No, Section 63 (c) of Rep. Act No. 6657 does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roppongi property. The provision refers to alienable properties and not those reserved for public use or service.

6. Philippine law should apply in determining the authority to sell the Roppongi property as there is no conflict of law situation. The property belongs to the Philippines, and the issue is the authority of the respondents to dispose of the property, which is governed by Philippine law.

7. The President does not have the authority to convey valuable real property of the government on their sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by Congress.

8. Resolution No. 55 of the Senate does not withdraw the Roppongi property from public domain nor authorize its sale. It is a mere resolution and does not constitute a formal declaration abandoning the public character of the property.

9. The Court did not uphold the authority of the President to sell the Roppongi property in a previous case. The resolution of the Court in that case acknowledged the Executive's decision to dispose of the property for national economic development projects but did not indicate that the President was authorized to do so.

10. Given the need for a law or formal declaration to withdraw the Roppongi property from public domain and make it alienable, and the need for legislative authority to allow its sale, there is no need to tackle the constitutional issues raised by petitioner Ojeda.

11. Whether or not the Roppongi property should be sold is a policy determination that requires the concurrence of both the President and Congress. The property's symbolic value to the Filipino people should be considered in making this decision.

12. The petitions are granted and a writ of prohibition is issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sale of the Roppongi property. The temporary restraining order is made permanent.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Roppongi property is property of public dominion, which is outside the commerce of man and cannot be alienated. Its ownership is for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.

• Non-use of a public property for a long time does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.

• The intention of the government regarding the use of a property should be definite and abandonment cannot be inferred from non-use alone, especially if it is due to a lack of financial support rather than the government's deliberate will.

• Properties classified as public dominion cannot be sold to non-Filipino citizens or entities unless designated for the private sector.

• Rep. Act No. 6657 does not authorize the Executive Department to sell properties reserved for public use or service.

• In determining the authority to sell government property, Philippine law applies unless there is a conflict of law situation.

• The President does not have the authority to convey valuable real property of the government without authorization from Congress.

• A resolution of the Senate does not withdraw a property from public domain or authorize its sale.

• The Court will only tackle constitutional questions if they are properly raised and necessary for the determination of the case.

• Policy determinations such as the sale of valuable properties require the concurrence of both the President and Congress.

• The laws on conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed in the sale of properties of public dominion.