REPUBLIC v CA

FACTS:
Republic Act No. 1899 was passed, which authorized the reclamation of foreshore lands by chartered cities and
municipalities. Pasay City Council passed Ordinance No. 121, for the reclamation of Three Hundred (300) hectares
of foreshore lands in Pasay City. Ordinance No. 158 authorized the Republic Real Estate Corporation ("RREC") to
reclaim foreshore lands of Pasay City.
The Republic of the Philippines ("Republic") questioned subject Agreement between Pasay City and RREC on
the grounds that the subject-matter of such Agreement is outside the commerce of man, that its terms and
conditions are violative of RA 1899, and that the said Agreement was executed without any public bidding.
The Answers of RREC and Pasay City averred that the subject-matter of said Agreement is within the commerce of man,
that the phrase "foreshore lands" within the contemplation of RA 1899 has a broader meaning.
Judge Angel H. Mojica, (now deceased) of the former Court of First Instance of Rizal issued an preliminary
injunction Order , which enjoined the defendants, RREC and Pasay City, from further reclaiming or
committing acts of dispossession." over any area within the Manila Bay or the Manila Bay Beach Resort", until
further orders of the court.
The trial court of origin Renders judgment:
(a) dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint;
(b) lifting the preliminary Injunction issued, as soon as RREC and Pasay City hall have submitted the
corresponding plans and specifications to the Director of Public Works, and shall have obtained approval
thereof, and as soon as the corresponding public bidding for the award to the contractor and sub-contractor
that will undertake the reclamation project shall have been effected.
Republic appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals, before the appeal could be resolved, Presidential Decree No.
3-A issued, which provided; the reclamation of areas under water, whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to
the National Government or any person authorized by it under a proper contract.
All reclamations made in violation of this provision shall be forfeited to the State without need of judicial action.
Contracts for reclamation still legally existing or whose validity has been accepted by the National Government shall
be taken over by the National Government on the basis of quantum meruit, for proper prosecution of the project
involved by administration.
On November 20, 1973, the Republic and the Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines ("CDCP")
signed a Contract 13 for the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Project (Phases I and II) which contract included the reclamation
and development of areas covered by the Agreement between Pasay City and RREC. Attempts to settle amicably the
dispute between representatives of the Republic, on the one hand, and those of Pasay City and RREC, on the
other, did not work out. The parties involved failed to hammer out a compromise.
Court of Appeals came out with a Decision 14 dismissing the appeal of the Republic and holding, thus:
1. Ordering the plaintiff-appellant to turn over to Pasay City the ownership and possession over all vacant
spaces in the twenty-one hectare area already reclaimed by Pasay City and RREC at the time it took over
the same. Areas thereat over which permanent structures has (sic) been introduced shall, including the
structures, remain in the possession of the present possessor, subject to any negotiation between Pasay
City and the said present possessor, as regards the continued possession and ownership of the latter area.
2. Sustaining RREC's irrevocable option to purchase sixty (60%) percent of the Twenty-One (21) hectares of
land already reclaimed by it, to be exercised within one (1) year from the finality of this decision, at the same
terms and condition embodied in the Pasay City-RREC reclamation contract, and enjoining appellee Pasay
City to respect RREC's option.
(On April 28, 1992, the Court of Appeals acted favorably on the said Motion for Reconsideration, by amending the
dispositive portion of its judgment of January 28, 1992, to read as follows:
1. Ordering plaintiff-appellant to turn over to Pasay City the ownership and possession of the above
enumerated lots (1 to 9).
2. Sustaining RREC's irrevocable option to purchase sixty (60%) percent of the land referred to in
No. 2 of this dispositive portion, to be exercised within one (1) year from the finality of this Decision,

at the same terms and condition embodied in the Pasay City-RREC reclamation contract, and
enjoining Pasay City to respect RREC's irrevocable option.
SO ORDERED.)

On February 14, 1992, Pasay City and RREC presented a Motion for Reconsideration of such Decision of the Court
of Appeals, contending, among others, that RREC had actually reclaimed Fifty-Five (55) hectares, and not only
Twenty-one (21) hectares, which was granted by the court.

Cultural Center of the Philippines ("CCP") filed a Petition in Intervention, theorizing that it has a direct interest in the
case being the owner of subject nine (9) lots titled in its (CCP) name, which the respondent Court of Appeals
ordered to be turned over to Pasay City. The CCP, as such intervenor, was allowed to present its evidence, as it did,
before the Court of Appeals, which evidence has been considered in the formulation of this disposition.

ISSUE: WON COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT RREC HAD RECLAIMED 55 HECTARES AND IN
ORDERING THE TURN-OVER TO PASAY CITY OF THE OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF NINE (9) LOTS
TITLED IN THE NAME OF CCP.

YES. There was no legal and factual basis for the Court of Appeals to order and declare that "the requirement by the
trial court on public bidding and the submission of RREC's plans and specification to the Department of Public
Works and Highways in order that RREC may continue the implementation of the reclamation work is deleted for
being moot and academic." Said requirement has never become moot and academic. It has remained
indispensable, as ever, and non-compliance therewith restrained RREC from lawfully resuming the reclamation work
under controversy, notwithstanding the rendition below of the decision in its favor.
We discern no factual basis nor any legal justification therefor. In the first place, in their answer to the Complaint and
Amended Complaint below, RREC and Pasay City never prayed for the transfer to Pasay City of subject lots, title to
which had long become indefeasible in favor of the rightful title holders, CCP and GSIS, respectively.
Although Pasay City and RREC did not succeed in their undertaking to reclaim any area within subject reclamation
project, it appearing that something compensable was accomplished by them, following the applicable provision of
law and hearkening to the dictates of equity, that no one, not even the government, shall unjustly enrich
oneself/itself at the expense of another 20, we believe; and so hold, that Pasay City and RREC should be paid for the
said actual work done and dredge-fill poured in, worth P10,926,071.29, as verified by the former Ministry of Public
Highways, and as claimed by RREC itself in its aforequoted letter dated June 25, 1981.
It is fervently hoped that long after the end of our sojourn in this valley of tears, the court, for its herein historic
disposition, will be exalted by the future generations of Filipinos, for the preservation of the national patrimony and
promotion of our cultural heritage. As writer Channing rightly puts it: "Whatever expands the affections, or enlarges
the sphere of our sympathies Whatever makes us feel our relation to the universe and all that it inherits in time
and in eternity, and to the great and beneficent cause of all, must unquestionably refine our nature, and elevate us
in the scale of being."