Text of the provision
Art. 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(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.
(339a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Property of public dominion includes things intended for public use (roads, rivers, ports, shores) and things the State holds for a public service or to develop national wealth. Such property is inalienable and imprescriptible for as long as it remains devoted to that purpose.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 419 — Public Dominion and Private Ownership.
- Article 421 — Patrimonial Property of the State.
Cases citing this article
- Manila International Airport Authority vs. City of Pasay, et al, G.R. No. 163072, April 2, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Manila International Airport Authority vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 155650, July 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Light Rail Transit Authority vs. City of Pasay, represented by the City Treasurer and the City Assessor, G.R. No. 211299, June 28, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Navy Officer's Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 177168, August 3, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Macan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al, G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.