Scribd
Upload
141 views1 page

Roppongi Lot Sale: Philippine Law Prevails

The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine law, not Japanese law, governs the sale of a property lot in Japan acquired by the Philippines after World War II. The respondents claimed Japanese law allowed the sale, but did not present what that law provides. A conflict of laws issue arises only when there is an actual conflict between laws over title, ownership, or conveyance of immovable property. Here, ownership of the property is not disputed and the issue is the authority of officials under Philippine law to dispose of state property. As such, Philippine law governs and the rule of lex situs does not apply.

Uploaded by

Joseph Kim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
141 views1 page

Roppongi Lot Sale: Philippine Law Prevails

The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine law, not Japanese law, governs the sale of a property lot in Japan acquired by the Philippines after World War II. The respondents claimed Japanese law allowed the sale, but did not present what that law provides. A conflict of laws issue arises only when there is an actual conflict between laws over title, ownership, or conveyance of immovable property. Here, ownership of the property is not disputed and the issue is the authority of officials under Philippine law to dispose of state property. As such, Philippine law governs and the rule of lex situs does not apply.

Uploaded by

Joseph Kim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Laurel vs.

Garcia

G.R. No. L-5897


July 25, 1990
187 SCRA 797

FACTS
On the basis of the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan after the Second World War, four
lots situated in Japan were acquired by the Philippines. One of the four lots is the subject of the present
case, and is herein called the Roppongi Lot. The same lot was utilized as the site of the Philippine
Embassy for some time but the Embassy was later transferred to another lot. The Roppongi Lot then
remained unused for 13 years.

As per E.O No. 296 of then Pres. Aquino, non-Filipino citizens or entities were entitled to acquire
government capital goods in case of their sale. Included in the whereas clasue of said order were the
four lots given by Japan. The present petitions seek to oppose the public sale of the Roppongi lot by
the respondents. The defense of the respondents is that the laws of Japan govern the sale in accord
with the rule of lex situs.

ISSUE
Whether the law of Japan may allow the sale of the Roppongi lot.

RULING
No. The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the Roppongi property by
insisting that Japanese law, not our Civil Code, should apply.

It is exceedingly strange why our top government officials, of all people, should be the ones to insist
that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese law and not Philippine law should
prevail. The Japanese law - its coverage and effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its provision —
is not presented to the Court It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should
apply without stating what that law provides. It is a ed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.

We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should 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 (See Salonga, Private International
Law, 1981 ed., pp. 377-383); and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict
with a domestic law on the same matters.

Hence, the need to determine which law should apply. However, in the instant case, none of the above
elements exists.

The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the property
belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of
property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is
governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.

You might also like