Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSUES + RULING:
WoN the issue of inalienability of the disputed portion of land may still be litigated in the present case. YES.
This case falls under the exception to the rule that Rule 45 petitions are limited to questions of law, specifically:
o When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which if properly
considered would justify a different conclusion.
Besides, the Court has the inherent power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its
operations whenever the demands of justice so require.
The rationale behind the rule that issues must be limited to those discussed at pre-trial is to prevent surprise.
Here, the element of surprise is not present as the issue of inalienability was raised in the Republics complaint.
Moreover, Palad was examined as to the issue. SHAI did not object to his testimony.
WoN the JUSMAG area may be the subject of disposition. NO. It is still part of the military reservation, hence, not
alienable and disposable.
Under Sec. 83 of the Public Land Act, the President, by proclamation, may designate any tract or tracts of land of
the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic or any of its branches, or for quasi-public uses or
purposes.
o Land reserved as such will be non-alienable, not subject to sale or other disposition.
Consistent with the foregoing postulates, jurisprudence teaches that a military reservation, like the
FBMR, or a part thereof is not open to private appropriation or disposition and, therefore, not registrable,
unless it is in the meantime reclassified and declared as disposable and alienable public land.
o Until reclassified by law or presidential proclamation, its status as part of a military reservation remains,
even if it is not used as a military camp or for defense.
SHAI: The JUSMAG area is private property of the government, removed from the concept of public domain.
SC: SHAIs evidence belies this claim.
o Technical description in TCT No. 15084: the parcel of land is a portion of Parcel 3 of plan Psu-2031.
o To recall, Proclamation No. 423 listed Parcel No. 3 as falling within its coverage.
The Republic only had to prove that Parcel No. 3 has been reserved for military purposes. The evidence of this
fact is Proclamation No. 423, of which the Court can take judicial notice.
SHAI failed to specifically deny the Republics allegation that the JUSMAG area is part of the coverage of
Proclamation No. 423.
o The defendant must specify each material factual allegation the truth of which he absolutely denies and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he will rely to support his
denial.
SHAI had the burden of proving that the parcels of land covered by TCT No. 15084 had already been withdrawn
from the reservation or excluded from the coverage of Proclamation NO. 423.
o It failed to prove that there exists any presidential act specifically withdrawing the disputed parcels from
the coverage of Proclamation No. 423.
Assuming arguendo that the JUSMAG area is alienable and disposable, WoN SHAI may acquire the same. NO.
3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the
public domain, except through lease for a limited period.
o The reason for the ban is not very clear under existing jurisprudence.
WoN Dir. Palads signature on the Oct. 30, 1991 deed of sale is authentic. NO.
Palad categorically declared that his said signature on the deed is a forgery.
o NBI and PNP experts cancel each other out.
Palad signed in Manila (LMB office), but the deed of sale was notarized the same day in Pasig.
o Entire process completed in one day.
o Why would a bureau head go to another city just to have a deed of sale notarized?
There is no record of the requisite public land application to purchase required under 89 of the Public Land Act.
The Official Receipt No. 6030203C presented by SHAI does not pertain to the LMB. Neither is it attached or
appended to any of SHAIs pleadings.
The entire amount (11 million) was apparently paid in P500 and P100 denominations.
Engr. Eugenia Balis, the purported facilitator of this transaction, was never presented in court.
WoN Lt. General Esperon should be cited in contempt. NO.
The question raised by the petitioners therein respecting the ownership of the JUSMAG area and, accordingly, of
the right of the petitioning retired military officers to remain in the housing units each may be occupying is now
moot and academic.
DISPOSITION: Reversed. TCT No. 15084 is VOID.