This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order."[9] | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. Properties of public dominion are owned by the general public.[35] Public use is "use that is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public."[36] As the land in controversy is a portion of Kennon Road which is for the use of the people, there can be no dispute that same is part of public dominion. This being the case, the parties cannot appropriate the land for themselves. Thus, they cannot claim any right of possession over it. This is clear from Article 530 of the Civil Code which provides:ART. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is proper to discuss the position of the Court of Appeals for comprehensive understanding of the facts and the law involved. | |||||