Comment on Coca Cola's 'fence' advertising

Let me give my two cents worth about Coca Cola's aggressive posturings in local advertising.
Whoever is the local advertising guy for Coca Cola in Dumaguete, should get the attention of Coca Cola higher ups, plus a pat on the back.
I commend this local advertising guy, whoever he may be.
He gets a grade of ten out of ten, for aggressiveness.
I like these kind of people.
I call this type of advertising "fencing", because the product advertises on fences.
But lets talk a little legal.
Is Coca-Cola committing anything unlawful with their massive "fence-advertising" in Dumaguet City?
First, the question we might ask is, whose fence is it?
Is it a private fence or a public fence?
If it is a private fence, who are we to interfere with the presumed agreement between Coca-Cola and the fence owner?
To me, an analogy would be the jurisprudence on freedom of expression on our electoral processes.
The Supreme Court said it is not illegal for candidates to post any size of their posters and visual political propaganda if these are posted in private property, like gates, houses, fences of private persons.
But the political poster size is strictly regulated in designated poster areas.
So I think it would be hard to find legal fault on Coca-Cola for their massive fence-advertising on private property.
There is one long-shot argument against Coca-Cola on their fence-advertisements on private property.
That is, if these huge advertisements become a distraction to motorists that it endangers their safety.
This kind of argument was raised against the giant billboards in Metro Manila.
But what if the fence is public property?
Can Coca Cola paint their logo, let's say, on the white provincial capitol building?
That would pose some problems, wouldn't it?
It would be like the state or the government, endorsing a product, wouldn't it?
What would rival Pepsi Cola say?
Can the government do that?
One of the pictures taken by Leo Mamicpic was the picture of Coca Cola advertisements painted on the fence of the Piapi Elecmentary schools, a public porperty.
Is this legal?
If Globe streamers litter all around the premises of Sidlakan Negros, a public property, is there a legal issue here?
It is legal for private property to be used for public purposes, as long as there is just compensation.
What about the reverse?
Can public property be used for private pruposes?
Ah.... with "just compensation"(?)
But in whose pockets will compensation go?