Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-7909 January 18, 1957
CIPRIANO E UNSON, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
ON. ARSENIO . LACSON, a! Mayor o" #$% C&#y o" Man&'a, an( GENATO
COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondents-appellees.
Plantilla, Unson and Limjoco for appellant.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal Arsenio Naawa for
appellee ayor Lacson.
Arturo A. Alafri! for appellee "enato Commercial Corporation.
CONCEPCION, J.)
This is an action to annual a municipal ordinance and cancel a contract of lease
of part of Calle!on de Carmen, in the Cit" of Manila. #ts Ma"or and the $enato
Commercial Corporation % hereinafter referred to as $enato, for the sa&e of
brevit" % lessor and lessee, respectivel", under said contract, are the
respondents herein. After due trial, the Court of 'irst #nstance of Manila rendered
a decision dismissin( the petition, )ith costs a(ainst the petitioner, )ho has
appealed from said decision. The case is before us the validit" of a municipal
ordinance is involved therein.
Petitioner, Cipriano E. *nson, is the o)ner of +ot No. ,-, Bloc& ./01, of the
Cadastral 2urve" of the Cit" of Manila, )ith an area of ,,/01..- s3uare meters,
more or less. #t is bounded, on the North, b" R. 4idal(o 2treets5 on the East or
Northeast, b" +ot No. ,., belon(in( to $enato, and, also, b" a narro) strip of
land runnin( east)ard 6from ,.78 to ..81 meters in )idth and from .9.9- to .8.:
meters in len(ht;, &no)n as +ot No. ,, 6of about ,.0.1 s3uares meters;, )hich
the Cit" of Manila re(ards as its patrimonial propert"5 on the <est, b" private
propert" )hose o)ner is not named in the record5 and on the 2outh or
2outheast, b" a strip of land, narro)er than +ot ,,, runnin( from East to <est
6about ,.78 meters in )hich in )idth and .7.,: meters in len(ht, or an area of
about :/ s3uare meters, more or less;, &no)n as +ot No. 9, )hich is also
claimed b" said Cit" as its patrimonial propert". #mmediatel" 2outh of this +ot No.
9 is the Northern half of Calle!on del Carmen, )hich is separated from its
2outhern half b" the Estro de 2an 2ebastian. 2everal structures e=ist on the lot
of petitioner *nson. There is a si>eable buildin( on the Northern part, ad!oinin(
R. 4idal(o 2treet, and a small buildin( % &no)n as Commerce Buildin( % on
the 2outhern portion, )hich ad!oins the aforesaid +ot No. 9. *nson?s lot is, and
for several "ears has been leased to the National $overnment, for use b" the
Mapa 4i(h 2chool, as Ri>al Anne= thereof, )hich has an enrollment of over
,,/-- students.
@n or about 2eptember .8, ,9/,, the Municipal Board of Manila passed
@rdinance No. 0:1- )ithdra)in( said Northern portion of Calle!on del Carmen
from public use, declarin( it patrimonial propert" of the Cit" and authori>in( its
lease to $enato. The ordinance providesA
2ECT#@N ,. Those portions of the Calle!on del Carmen, Buiapo, havin(
an a((re(ate area of 1-9..1 s3uare meters and ad!acent to the premises
of the $enato Commercial Corporation, are hereb" )ithdra)n from public
use.
2EC. .. The above piece of land described in 2ection , hereof is hereb"
declared as patrimonial propert" of the (overnment of the Cit" of Manila.
2EC. 0. The lessee of the aforesaid cit" propert" )ith an a((re(ate area
of 1-9..1 s3uare meters to $enato Commercial Corporation at a monthl"
rental of P-..- per s3uare meters is hereb" authori>ed.
2EC. :. This @rdinance shall ta&e effect upon its approval. 6E=hibit .-A, p.
,-, 'older of E=hs.;
*pon approval of this ordinance b" the Cit" Ma"or, the lease contract therein
mentioned 6pp. ,0-.,, Record on Appeal; )as entered into and $enato
constructed a buildin( on said portion of Calle!on del Carmen, at a distance of
about -.17/ meter from the 2outhern boundar" of said +ot No. 9. This strip of
Calle!on del Carmen and said +ot No. 9 thus form an open space of about ..::/
meters in )idth, more or less, separatin( said buildin( constructed b" $enato
and the Commerce Buildin( on *nson?s lot. Prior thereto, the latter had, on its
2outhern boundar", t)o 6.; e=its on Calle!on del Carmen, )hich e=its had to be
closed upon the construction of said buildin( b" $enato. 4ence, alle(in( that
@rdinance No. 0:1- and the aforementioned contract of lease )ith $enato are
ille(al, petitioner instituted this action, )ith the pra"er
6a; That respondent $enato Commercial Corporation be immediatel"
en!oined from doin( further )or& in the construction of a )allCor buildin( on
that portion of Calle!on del Carmen leased to them immediatel" upon the
petitioner?s filin( a nominal bond of P/--.--, in such other amount as the
court ma" fi=5
6#; That, after trial, the in!unction above-mentioned be made permanent,
and orderin( the respondent $enato Commercial Corporation to remove
)hatever construction has been done b" them on said propert"5
6c; That, also after trial, the 4on. Arsenio 4. +acson, Ma"or of the Cit" of
Manila, be ordered to cancel or revo&e the buildin( permit and the lease
(ranted to him over the Calle!on del Carmen to the $enato Commercial
Corporation5
6d; That respondents be ordered to pa" the costs of this suitA and for
)hatever e3uitable relief this 4onorable Court ma" deem !ust and proper
under the premises. 6Record on Appeal, p. /;.
The respondents filed their respective ans)ers maintainin( the le(alit" of the
municipal ordinance and the contract of lease in 3uestion, and, after due trial, the
lo)er court rendered its aforementioned decision dismissin( the case, upon the
(round that as o)ner of Calle!on del Carmen, the Cit" of Manila has full
authorit" to )ithdra) such alle" from public use and to convert it into patrimonial
propert" and that
. . . The Cit" of Manila as o)ner has the ri(ht to use and to dispose of
such alle" )ithout other limitations that those established b" la) 6Article
:.8, Ne) Civil Code;, so that )hen the cit" of Manila )ithdre) it from
public use and converted it into patrimonial propert", it simpl" e=ercised its
ri(ht of o)nership. The fact that in the Manila Charter there is no provision
authori>in( the Municipal Board to )ithdra) from public use a street and
to convert it into patrimonial propert", can not be construed to mean that
the Municipal Board has no ri(ht at all to do so. That )ould be a ne(ation
of its ri(ht of o)nership. 2ection ,8, letter 6=;,of the Manila Charter (ives
the Municipal Board po)er and authorit" to la" out, construct and improve
streets, avenues, alle"s, side)al&s, etc. and as corollar" to that ri(ht is the
ri(ht to close a street and to convert it into patrimonial propert".
'urthermore, @rdinance No. 0:1- of the Municipal Board )as submitted
to and approved b" the National Plannin( Commission. This bod" )as
created b" an e=ecutive order of the President of the Republic, and vested
)ith the po)er and authorit" to la" out, construct, vacate, and close
streets, avenues, side)al&s, etc. Assumin( that the po)er and authorit" to
vacate or close a street rest )ith the 2tate, this po)er as dele(ated to the
National Plannin( Commission b" the President in the e=ercise of his
emer(enc" po)er, and )hen this bod" approved said ordinance, it did so
in the e=ercise of the po)er dele(ated to it b" the 2tate. 4ence the validit"
of the ordinance is un3uestionable. 6Record on Appeal, pp. .1-.9.;
4ence, this appeal ta&en b" petitioner *nson, )ho insists that said Municipal
@rdinance No. 0:1- is ille(al and, accordin(l", that the aforementioned contract
of lease bet)een $enato and the Cit" of Manila is null and void.
#n this connection, respondents have been unable to cite an" le(al provision
specificall" vestin( in the Cit" of Manila the po)er to close Calle!on del Carmen.
#ndeed, section ,8 6=; of Republic Act No. :-9 % upon )hich appellees rel" %
authori>es the Municipal Board of Manila, sub!ect to the provisions of e=istin(
la)s, to provide for the la"in( out, construction and improvement . . . of streets,
avenues, alle"s . . . and other public places, but it sa"s not$ing about the
closing of an" such places. The si(nificance of this silence becomes apparent
)hen contrasted )ith section ..:7 of the Revised Administrative Code, e=plicitl"
vestin( in municipal councils of re(ularl" or(ani>ed municipalities the po)er to
close any municipal road, street, alle", par& or s3uare, provided that persons
pre!udiced thereb" are dul" indemnified, and that the previous approval of the
Department 4ead shall have been secured. The e=press (rant of such po)er to
the aforementioned municipalities and the absence of said (rant to the Cit" of
Manila lead to no other conclusion than that the po)er )as intended to be
wit$$eld from the latter.
#ncidentall", said section ..:7 refutes the vie), set forth in the decision appealed
from, to the effect that the po)er to )ithdra) a public street from public use is
incidental to the alle(ed ri(ht of o)nership of the Cit" of Manila, and that the
authorit" to close a thorou(h fare is a corollar" to the ri(ht to open the same. #f
the o)nership of the public road carried )ith it necessaril" the un3ualified ri(ht of
a municipal corporation to close it, b" )ithdra)in( the same from public use, then
Con(ress )ould have no po)er to re3uire, as a condition sine %ua non, to the
e=ercise of such ri(ht, either the prior approval of the Department 4ead or the
pa"ment of indemnit" to the persons in!ured thereb". A(ain, pursuant to section
..:0 of the Revised Administrative Code, the municipal council of re(ular
municipalities shall have authorit", amon( othersA
6a; To establish and maintain municipal roads, streets, alle"s, side)al&s,
pla>as, par&s, pla"(rounds, levees, and canals.
#f, as the lo)er court held, the po)er to construct an alle" entailed the authorit"
to close it, then section ..:7, above referred to, )ould have been unnecessar".
To our mind, the main fla) in appellees? pretense and in the position ta&en b" his
4onor, the trial Eud(e, is one of perspective. The" failed to note that municipal
corporations in the Philippines are mere creatures of Con(ress5 that, as such,
said corporations possess, and ma" e=ercise, only such po)er as Con(ress ma"
deem to fit to (rant thereto5 that charters of municipal corporations should not be
construed in the same manner as constitutions5
,
and that doubts, on the po)ers
of such corporations, must be resolved in favor of the 2tate, and a(ainst the
(rantee.
.
+astl", the authorit" of the local (overnments to enact municipal ordinances is
sub!ect to the (eneral limitation that the same shall not be repu(nant to la).
This is so b" specific provision of section ..08 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as )ell as because Con(ress must be presumed to have )ithheld from
municipal corporations, as its a(ents or dele(ates, the authorit" to defeat, set at
nau(ht" or nullif" its o)n acts 6of Con(ress;unless the contrar" appears in the
most e=plicit, indubitable, and une3uivocal manner % and it does no so appear
in the case at bar. <hat is more, section ,86=; of Republic Act No. :-9, positivel"
declares that the po)er of the Cit" of Manila to provide for the construction of
streets and alle"s shall be sub!ect to the provisions of e=istin( la). . . .
4o)ever, the ordinance and the contract of the lease under consideration are
inconsistent )ith Article 708 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the first
para(raph of )hich readsA
The ban&s of rivers and streams, even in case the" are of private
o)nership, are sub!ect throu(hout their entire len(th and )ithin a >one of
three meters alon( their mar(ins, to the easement of the public use in the
(eneral interest of navi(ation, float a(e, fishin( and salva(e.
@bviousl", the buildin( constructed b" $enato on the portion of Calle!on del
Carmen in dispute renders it impossible for the public to use the >one of three
meters alon( the Northern mar(in of the Estero de 2an 2ebastian for the
purposes set forth in said Article 708. <e are not unmindful of the cases of Ayala
de &o'as (s. City of anila 67 Phil., ./,; and C$ang )ang Ling (s. City of
anila 69 Phil., .,/;, in )hich this Court refused to enforce a similar easement %
provided for in Article //0 of the Civil Code of 2pain % upon private propert"
ad!oinin( the Estero de 2ibacon( and the Estero de la Buinta, respectivel". The
decisions in said cases )ere predicated, ho)ever, upon the fact that, under the
2panish +a) of <aters, the po)er of the administration do not e=tend to the
establishment of ne) easements upon private propert" but simpl" to preserve old
ones, and that, pursuant to the Philippine Bill 6Act of Con(ress of Eul" ,, ,9-.;
and Article 0:9 of the Civil Code of 2pain, no one shall be deprived of his
propert", e=cept b" competent authorit" and )ith sufficient cause of public utilit",
al)a"s after proper indemnit". These considerations are inapplicable to the case
at bar, for, as re(ards Calle!on del Carmen, the aforementioned easement of
public use is not new. Besides, said alle" is not pri(ate propert". #t belon(s to the
2tate.
0
And, even if it )ere % for it is not % patrimonial propert" of the Cit" of
Manila, the same % as a creature of Con(ress, )hich ma" abolish said
municipal corporation and assume the po)er to administer directl" the patrimon"
of the Cit", for t$e #enefit of its in$a#itants % cannot so use or dispose of said
alle" as to defeat the polic" set forth in the said Article 708 b" the ver" le(al
creator of said political unit. 6### Dillon on Municipal Corporations, pp. ,179-,11,,
,18,-,180,,8-0-,8-:.;
#t is ur(ed, ho)ever, that the absence of authorit" of the Municipal Board of
Manila has been cured b" the fact that @rdinance no. 0:1- had been approved
b" the National *rban Plannin( Commission. This pretense in untenable forA
,. #n the case of the Uni(ersity of t$e East (s. *$e City of anila 697 Phil., 0,7;,
decided on December .0, ,9/:, )e held, in effect, that the (rant of po)ers to the
National *rban Plannin( Commission, under E=ecutive @rders Nos. 98 and 071,
amounted to an undue dele(ation of le(islative po)ers, for lac& of specific
standards and limitations to (uide the commission in the e=ercise of the )ide
discretion (ranted to it.
.. 2aid Commission created b" the E=ecutive @rder No. 98, dated March ,,,
,9:7, pursuant to the emer(enc" po)ers of the President under Common)ealth
Act No. 71,, could not possibl" confer upon the Cit" of Manila an" po)er denied
thereto b" its Ne) Charter % Republic Act No. :-9 % not onl" because said
emer(enc" po)ers became inoperative as soon as Con(ress met in re(ular
sessions after the liberation of the Philippines 6Araneta (s. Din(lasan, Rodri(ue>
(s. Treasurer of the Philippines, $uerrero (s. Com. of Customs, and Barredo (s.
Commission on Elections, :/ @ff. $a>., ::,,, ::,95 Rodri(ue> (s. $ella, :9 @ff.
$a>., :7/;, but, also, because in case of conflict bet)een said e=ecutive order,
dated March ,,, ,9:7, and the aforementioned Republic Act. No. :-9, )hich )as
approved, and became effective, on Eune ,8, ,9:9, the latter must prevail, bein(
posterior in point of time, as )ell as act of the principal 6in relation to the
emer(enc" po)ers dele(ated to the President, b" Common)ealth Act No. 71,;,
)hich must prevail over that of the a(ent.
0. Pursuant to said e=ecutive order, the acts of the municipal corporations,
relative to the reconstruction and development of urban areas % even if )ithin
the scope of the (eneral authorit" vested in said local (overnments b" the
charters thereof % shall be ineffective unless approved b" the National *rban
Plannin( Commission, or in accordance )ith the plans adopted or re(ulations
issued b" the same. #n other )ords, the purpose of said e=ecutive order )as not
to enlar(e the po)ers of local (overnments, but to 3ualif" and limit the same,
)ith a vie) to accomplishin( a coordinated, ad!usted, harmonious reconstruction
and development of said urban areas.
:. Properties devoted to public use, such as public streets, alle"s and par&s are
presumed to belon( to the 2tate. Municipal corporations ma" not ac3uire the
same, as patrimonial propert", )ithout a (rant from the National $overnment, the
title of )hich ma" not be divested b" prescription 6Municipalit" of Ti(bauan (s.
Director of +ands, 0/ Phil., /8:;. 4ence, such corporations ma" not re(ister a
public pla>a 6Nicolas (s. Eose, 7 Phil., /98;. A local (overnment ma" not even
lease the same 6Municipalit" of Cavite (s. Ro!as, 0- Phil., 7-.;. @bviousl", it ma"
not establish title thereto, adverse to the 2tate, b" )ithdra)in( the pla>a % and,
hence, an alle" % from public use and declarin( the same to be patrimonial
propert" of the municipalit" or cit" concerned, )ithout e=press, or, at least, clear
(rant of authorit" therefor b" Con(ress.
/. #n fact, the Department of En(ineerin( and Public <or&s of the Cit" of Manila
had ob!ected to the lease in 3uestion, upon the (round that Calle!on del Carmen
is communal propert". #n its ,st indorsement of Eune :, ,9/0, to the Cit" of
Ma"or, said department used the follo)in( lan(ua(eA
,. Records in the present lease of $enato Commercial Corporation of a
portion of Cit" propert" measurin( 1-9..1 s3uare meters, more or less,
sho) that this +ffice $ad consistently #een strongly against t$e lessee of
t$is City property. Even before the passa(e of @rdinance No. 0:1-
6)ithdra)in( from public use those portions of Calle!on del Carmen,
Buiapo, ad!acent to the premises of $enato Commercial Corporations5
declarin( the same as patrimonial propert" of the (overnment of the Cit"
of Manila and authori>in( the lease of said Cit" propert" )ith an a((re(ate
area of 1-9..1 s3uare meters to $enato Commercial Corporation at a
monthl" rental of P-..- per s3uare meter;, t$is office $ad (oiced its
(igorous protest to t$e lease of t$is City property to "enato Commercial
Corporation se(eral times, in (iew of t$e fact t$at t$e lots applied for are
communal property w$ic$ can not #e leased or ot$erwise disposed of
6Cavite (s. Ro=as, 0- Phil., 7-.;. *$is +ffice $ad registered its strong
o#jection to t$e lease of t$is property as per our ,nd -ndorsement dated
Au(. ., ,9/,, :th #ndorsement dated Au(ust 1, ,9/, and 0rd #ndorsement
dated Au(ust .1, ,9/,, all of w$ic$ were su#mitted #y t$is +ffice prior to
t$e enactment of +rdinance 0:1- on .eptem#er .8,,9/, and its
su#se%uent appro(al on +cto#er 0, ,9/,. . . . #t can, therefore, clearl" be
seen from the fore(oin(, that t$is +ffice $ad #een strongly against t$e
lease of t$is City property in (iew of t$e fact t$at t$is is a communal
property. The propert" herein applied b" Mr. 'rancisco $. $enato is also
communal propert" of the Cit" of Manila and disappro(al of t$e same is
strongly recommended. 6E=hibit C, pp. :-/, par. ,, 'older of E=hibits5
emphasis supplied.;
<herefore, the decision appealed from is hereb" reversed and another one shall
be entered declarin( @rdinance No. 0:1-, as )ell as the contract of the lease in
dispute, null and void, )ith costs a(ainst the respondents. #t is so ordered.
Paras, C./., 0eng!on, Padilla, ontemayor, 0autista Angelo, La#rador, &eyes,
/.0.L., and Endencia, //., concur.
*oo#no#%!
,
. . . But the distinction bet)een construin( a municipal charter or a
le(islative act (rantin( po)er to a municipal corporation should be
observed. ?To construe a constitution for the purpose of ascertainin(
)hether under it a po)er can be (ranted is not the same thin( as
construin( a charter )hen it is conceded a po)er can be constitutionall"
conferred, and the onl" in3uir" is )hether it has been in fact been
(ranted.? The charter or statute b" virtue of )hich a municipal corporation
is or(ani>ed and created is its or(anic la) and the corporation can do no
act nor ma&e an" contract not authori>ed thereb". All acts be"ond the
scope of the po)er (ranted are void. #n brief, a municipal charter is
(enerall" construed as a (rant and not a limitation of po)er, and
therefore, po)er to pass an ordinance must be found in the charter in
e'press lan(ua(e or arise b" necessary implication. #f the charter ?does
not e'plicitly or inferentiall" contain such (rant?, the ordinance is not
aut$ori!ed. 6# The +a) of Municipal Corporations b" McBuillin, .d ed.,
971.;
.
The e=tent of the po)ers of municipalities, )hether e=press, implied, or
indespensable, is one of the construction. And here the fundamental and
uni(ersal rule, )hich is as reasonable as it is necessar", is, that )hile the
construction is to be !ust, see&in( first of all for the le(islative intent in
order to (ive it fair effect, "et any am#iguity or fair, reasona#le, su#stantial
dou#t as to the e=tent of the po)er is to be determined in fa(or of t$e
.tate or (eneral public, and against t$e .tate1s grantee. 6# Dillon on
Municipal Corporations, /th ed., :/.5 emphasis supplied.;
The !udicial decisions reco(ni>e certain (eneral rules of construction.
@ne is that the character of the corporation is the measure of its po)ers,
and t$e enumeration of t$ose powers implies t$e e'clusion of all ot$ers.
Another is, if there is a fair, reasonable doubt concernin( the e=istence of
the po)er in the charter, it )ill be resolved against t$e corporation, and
the e=ercise of the po)er )ill be denied. Thus po)er conferred b" charter
to enact ordinances on specified sub!ects is to be construed strictly, and
the e=ercise of such po)er must be confined )ithin the (eneral principles
of the la) applicable to such sub!ects. 6The +a) of Municipal
Corporations b" McBuillin F.nd ed.G, Hol. #, pp. 978-9795 emphasis
supplied.;
The polic" of the la) is to re3uire of municipal corporations a reasonabl"
strict o#ser(ance of their po)ers. Therefore, the courts incline to adopt a
strict rather than a liberal construction.
= = = = = = = = =
. . . As a (eneral proposition, onl" such po)ers and ri(hts can be
e=ercised under (rants of the le(islature to corporations, )hether public or
private, as are clearly comprehended )ithin the terms of the act or derived
therefrom b" necessary implication, re(ard bein( had to the ob!ects of the
(rants.
2ince municipal po)ers are re3uired to be conferred in plain,
unambi(uous terms, the (eneral )ell-settled rule of construction is that a
dou#tful power is a power denied. That is an" ambi(uit" or doubt arisin(
out of the terms emplo"ed in the (rant of po)er must resolved against t$e
corporation and in favor of the public. 6Do., Do., pp. ,-,1, ,-,8-,-.,5
emphasis supplied.;
The rule is (enerall" stated that the scope of soverei(nt" dele(ated to
municipal corporations should not be enlar(ed b" liberal construction. The
po)ers conferred are strictly construed, and an" fair, substantial, and
reasonable doubt concernin( the e=istence of an" po)er, or an" ambi(uit"
in the statute upon )hich the assertion of such po)er rests, is to be
resolved against t$e corporation, and the po)er denied. 601 Am. Eur. 1./5
emphasis supplied.;
As a (eneral rule, the po)ers of a municipal corporation are to be strictly
construed, and an" ambi(uit" or reasonable doubt is to be resolved
against t$e grant.
The po)ers of municipal corporations are not to be enlar(ed, as a
(eneral rule, b" liberal construction. . . . (enerall" it is held that the po)ers
of municipal corporations are to be strictly construed. 67. C.E.2. .705
emphasis supplied.;
0
<hether the fee of the street be in the municipalit" in trust of a public
use, or in the ad!oinin( propreitor it is, in either case, of t$e essence of t$e
street t$at it is pu#lic, and hence, as )e have alread" sho)n, under t$e
paramount control of t$e legislature as t$e representati(e of t$e pu#lic.
.treets do not #elong to t$e city or town wit$in w$ic$ t$ey are situated,
alt$oug$ ac%uired #y t$e e'ercise of t$e rig$t of t$e eminent domain and
t$e damages paid out of t$e corporation treasury. *$e aut$ority of
municipalities o(er streets t$ey deri(e, as t$ey deri(e all t$eir ot$er
powers, from t$e legislature 2 from c$arter or statute. The fundamental
idea of a street is not onl" that it is public, but pu#lic for all purposes of
free and uno#structed passage, w$ic$ is its c$ief and primary, #ut no
means sole use. 6### Dillon on Municipal Corporations, p. ,8:95 emphasis
supplied.