21.

REPUBLIC VS. PARAAQUE,

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, on pure questions of law, assailing
the January 8, 2010 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
195, Paranaque City (RTC), which ruled that petitioner Philippine
Reclamation Authority (PRA) is a government owned and
controlled corporation (GOCC), a taxable entity, and, therefore,
not exempt from payment of real property taxes.
ISSUE:
W/N Reclaimed Lands are exempt from Real Estate Tax?
RULING:
The Court agrees with PRA that the subject reclaimed lands are
still part of the public domain, owned by the State and, therefore,
exempt from payment of real estate taxes. Here, the subject lands
are reclaimed lands, specifically portions of the foreshore and
offshore areas of Manila Bay. As such, these lands remain public
lands and form part of the public domain.
102. FAJARDO VS FREEDOM TO BUILD

FACTS:
Freedom To Build, Inc., an owner-developer and seller of low-cost
housing sold to petitioner-spouses a house and lot and in the
contract to sell, there contained a Restrictive Covenant providing
for some prohibitions regarding the expansion to the house which
the owners would like to do with their house. The controversy
arose when the petitioner-spouses extended the roof of their
house to a point directly above the original front wall wherein
respondent filed an action to demolish the unauthorized
structures on the RTC and when it favored the respondent, the
spouses filed an appeal but the appellate court affirmed the
decision of the lower court, hence this petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the Restrictive Covenant is valid

(2) Whether or not the structures built by the petitionerspouses are legal and valid.
RULING:
1. While it may be correct to state that restrictive covenants on
the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other
structures thereon may broadly be said to create easements or
rights, it can also be contended that such covenants, being
limitations on the manner in which one may use his own
property, do not result in true easements, but a case of servitudes
(burden), sometimes characterized to be negative easements or
reciprocal negative easements.
In its Memorandum, respondent states in arguing for the validity
of the restrictive covenant that the
"x x x restrictions are not without specific purpose. In a low cost
socialized housing, it is of public knowledge that owners
developers are constrained to build as many number of houses on
a limited land area precisely to accommodate marginalized lot
buyers, providing as much as possible the safety, aesthetic and
decent living condition by controlling overcrowding. Such project
has been designed to accommodate at least 100 families per
hectare."
There appears to be no cogent reasons for not upholding
restrictive covenants aimed to promote aesthetics, health, and
privacy or to prevent overcrowding.
2. The Court held that since the extension constructed exceeds the
floor area limits of the Restrictive Covenant, petitioner-spouses
can be required to demolish the structure to the extent that it
exceeds the prescribed floor area limits for as Article 1168 of the
New Civil Code provides that when the obligation consists in not
doing and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall
be undone at his expense.