Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs.

GSIS
G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997
BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS:

The controversy arose when respondent GSIS decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of
Manila Hotel. Only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to
buy 51% shares at P41.58/share, and a Malaysian firm, at P44.00/share. Pending the declaration of the winning bidder, petitioner
matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by the Malaysian Firm which respondent GSIS refused to accept. The petitioner
posits that since Manila Hotel is part of the national patrimony, petitioner should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the
Malaysian firm invoking Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision

2. Granting that this provision is self-executing, WON Manila Hotel falls under the term national patrimony.

3. Granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of the national patrimony, WON selling mere 51% shares and not the land itself can
be considered part of national patrimony.

4. WON GSIS committed grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

1. Yes. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of the 1987 Constitution is self-executing which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. It is per se judicially enforceable The Constitution mandates that qualified Filipinos shall
be preferred. And when our Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified circumstances an action may be maintained to
enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the subject. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.

2. Yes. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to heritage. 35 When the Constitution speaks of national
patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.

3. Yes. 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and
controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel. In this instance,
51% of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands.

4. Yes. Since petitioner has already matched the bid price tendered by the foreign firm, respondent GSIS is left with no alternative
but to award to petitioner the shares of MHC in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the Constitution
as well. The refusal of respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents with petitioner after the latter has matched the bid of
the Malaysian firm clearly constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, GSIS(respondent) is ordered to accept the matching bid of petitioner and execute the necessary clearances for the
purchase of the subject 51% MHC shares.

Reasoning: The Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
and contract.