SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs.

RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset

Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and
CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents G.R. No. 92013 July 25,
1990.
DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS
PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL
ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE
UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN
JAPAN, respondents. G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990

FACTS: The subject Roppongi property is one of the four properties in Japan
acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered
into with Japan on 9 May 1956, the other lots being the Nampeidai Property (site of
Philippine Embassy Chancery), the Kobe Commercial Property (Commercial lot used
as warehouse and parking lot of consulate staff), and the Kobe Residential Property
(a vacant residential lot). As intended, it became the site of the Philippine Embassy
until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai when the Roppongi building needed
major repairs. Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds, the
Roppongi property has remained undeveloped since that time.
During the incumbency of President Aquino, a proposal was made by former
Philippine Ambassador to Japan, Carlos J. Valdez, to lease the subject property to
Kajima Corporation, a Japanese firm, in exchange of the construction of 2 buildings
in Roppongi, 1 building in Nampeidai, and the renovation of the Philippine Chancery
in Nampeidai. The President issued EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities
to avail of reparations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or
disposition. Amidst opposition by various sectors, the Executive branch of the
government has been pushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the reparations
properties starting with the Roppongi lot.
ISSUE: 1.Whether or not the Roppongi property and others of its kind can be
alienated by the Philippine government.
2. Whether there was a conflict of law between the Japanese law on
property (as the real property is situated there) and Philippine law.
RULING:
1. No. The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is
expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and
the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine
government and the Japanese government. There can be no doubt that it is of
public dominion and is outside the commerce of man. And the property continues to
be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership
until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from
being such.
It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government
on his or her own sole will. Any such conveyances must be authorized and approved
by a law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence.
2. No. A conflict of law rule cannot apply when no conflict of law situation
exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) there is a dispute over the
title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer
immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the
transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined; and
(2) a foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a

SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. RAMON GARCIA, as head of the Asset

Privatization Trust, RAUL MANGLAPUS, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and
CATALINO MACARAIG, as Executive Secretary, respondents G.R. No. 92013 July 25,
1990.
DIONISIO S. OJEDA, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG, JR., ASSETS
PRIVATIZATION TRUST CHAIRMAN RAMON T. GARCIA, AMBASSADOR RAMON DEL
ROSARIO, et al., as members of the PRINCIPAL AND BIDDING COMMITTEES ON THE
UTILIZATION/DISPOSITION PETITION OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES IN
JAPAN, respondents. G.R. No. 92047 July 25, 1990

domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should
apply. In the present case, none of the above elements exists. In the instant case,
none of the above elements exists.