You are on page 1of 3

Case 74 CITY OF MANILA VS. GERARDO GARCIA, et. Al. G.R. No. L-260 !

Fe"#$a#% 2&, &'67 Fa(ts) Plaintiff City of Manila is owner of parcels of land, forming one compact area, bordering Kansas, Vermont and Singalong streets in Malate, Manila, and covered by Torrens Titles Nos. 4 !"#, #!$%& and #!''% w(ere defendants entered )pon t(ese premises wit(o)t plaintiff*s +nowledge and consent s(ortly after liberation from , 4' to , 4!. T(ey b)ilt (o)ses of second-class materials, again wit(o)t plaintiff*s +nowledge and consent, and wit(o)t t(e necessary b)ilding permits from t(e city. T(ere t(ey lived t(r) t(e years to t(e present. T(e Mayor iss)ed a written permits, eac( labeled .lease contract. to occ)py specific areas in t(e property )pon conditions t(at defendants were c(arged nominal rentals. /pifanio de los Santos /lementary Sc(ool came t(e need for e0pansion. 1n September ,4, , ",, plaintiff*s City /ngineer, p)rs)ant to t(e Mayor*s directive to clear s2)atters* (o)ses on city property, gave eac( of defendants t(irty 3#$4 days to vacate and remove (is constr)ction or improvement on t(e premises. T(is was followed by t(e City Treas)rer*s demand on eac( defendant, made in 5ebr)ary and Marc(, , "&, for t(e payment of t(e amo)nt d)e by reason of t(e occ)pancy and to vacate in fifteen 3,'4 days. 6efendants ref)sed. 7ence, t(is s)it to recover possession. 6efendants appealed. Iss$e) 8(et(er t(e trial co)rt properly fo)nd t(at t(e city needs t(e premises for sc(ool p)rposes. *el+) 6efendants (ave absol)tely no rig(t to remain in t(e premises. T(e e0c)se t(at t(ey (ave permits from t(e mayor is at best flimsy. T(e permits to occ)py are recoverable on t(irty days* notice. T(ey (ave been as+ed to leave9 t(ey ref)sed to (eed. 6efendants are wrong of insisting t(at t(ey (ave ac2)ired t(e legal stat)s of tenants. T(ey entered t(e land, b)ilt (o)ses of second-class materials t(ereon wit(o)t t(e +nowledge and consent of t(e city. T(eir (omes were erected wit(o)t city permits. T(ese constr)ctions are illegal. :n a lang)age familiar to all, defendants are s2)atters; S2)atting is )nlawf)l and no amo)nt of ac2)iescence on t(e part of t(e city officials will elevate it into a lawf)l act. :n principle, a compo)nd of illegal entry and official permit to stay is obno0io)s to o)r concept of proper official norm of cond)ct. <eca)se, s)c( permit does not serve social =)stice9 it fosters moral decadence. :t does not promote p)blic welfare9 it abets disrespect for t(e law. :t (as its roots in vice9 so it is an infected bargain. 1fficial approval of s2)atting s(o)ld not, t(erefore, be permitted to obtain in t(is co)ntry w(ere t(ere is an orderly form of government. T(ey clearly (inder and impair t(e )se of t(at property for sc(ool p)rposes. T(e co)rts may well ta+e =)dicial notice of t(e fact t(at (o)sing sc(ool c(ildren in t(e elementary grades (as been and still is a perennial problem in t(e city. T(e selfis( interests of defendants m)st (ave to yield to t(e general good. T(e p)blic p)rpose of constr)cting t(e sc(ool b)ilding anne0 is paramo)nt. :n t(e sit)ation t()s obtaining, t(e (o)ses and constr)ctions aforesaid constit)te p)blic n)isance per se. >nd t(is, for t(e reason t(at t(ey (inder and impair t(e )se of t(e

. contrary to appellant@s contention. No. ?)dgment affirmed )nder review wit( costs against defendants-appellants. &''& Fa(ts) T(e s)b=ect of t(e disp)te is a parcel of residential land consisting of abo)t 44$ s2)are meters and sit)ated in Poblacion. >+lan. L-&. T(e c(ief of police.. No. . (e was arrested and c(arged accordingly. t(ere was an e0isting m)nicipal ordinance at t(e time 31rdinance No. sometime in . 7owever.D >nd t(ese words were followed by t(e overt act of contin)ing t(e meeting for at least #$ min)tes as s)fficiently establis(ed by t(e evidence. Series of . ?r. CA G. 6ecision of t(e Co)rt of >ppeals is affirmed. Ma+ato.. >s appellant co)ld not prod)ce any. approac(ed appellant and in2)ired of (im w(et(er (e (ad a permit to (old said meeting. T(ere is no claim t(at it gives t(e a)t(orities arbitrary power to grant or deny permit9 in fact t(ere is no claim t(at petitioner was arbitrarily denied a permit.property for a badly needed sc(ool b)ilding. .INES Sa-+ T*E CA G. to "provide at least free public primary instruction. Case 7 FLORENTINO GALLEGO VS. &. . '!. costs against petitioner. &" to >lfredo Tabernilla w(ile t(e . Case 76 0OSE TA12ENA VS. >fter trial. =)dgment was rendered in favor of t(e plaintiff and t(e defendant was re2)ired to vacate t(e disp)ted lot. we will see w(at t(ey can do for )s.$. addressed (is followers. and more.LE OF T*E . T(e lot was sold by ?)an Peralta. t(e c(ief of police warned appellant if (e contin)ed wit( t(e meeting.R.. in a c(allenging vein. 42! Ma% 6. '!4 providing for a previo)s permit for t(e (olding on religio)s meeting in p)blic places. !#.*ILI. :n . Iss$e) 81N t(e (olding of meeting wit(o)t a permit is illegal. >velino Aarrosa. t(e (erein petitioner. T(ey s(ac+le t(e (ands of t(e government and t()s obstr)ct performance of its constit)tionally ordained obligation to establis( and maintain a complete and ade2)ate system of p)blic ed)cation. appellant. (e was to place (im )nder arrest.EO. >nd it appears t(at. &'6! Fa(ts) :n t(e morning of Marc( . appellant and (is companions were abo)t to (old a meeting of t(e ?e(ova(@s 8itnesses in front of t(e p)blic mar+et of Aamb)nao. T(e ordinance in t(is case is reasonable reg)lation of t(e )se of p)blic streets. t(e c(ief of police en=oined (im from so proceeding wit( t(e meeting b)t instead of desisting in obedience to t(e c(ief of police@s intimation. appellant. to t(e pre=)dice of t(e ed)cation of t(e yo)t( of t(e land. *el+) 6isobedience on appellant@s part is self-evident from (is immediate reaction to t(e c(ief of police@ warning for (im to discontin)e t(e meeting E (is e0(orting (is followers Bto contin)e t(e meeting as t(ey were prepared to see w(at can t(e police does for t(em.D 8(ere)pon. :loilo.R. an action for recovery of owners(ip t(ereof was filed in t(e Fegional Trial Co)rt of >+lan by t(e estate of >lfredo Tabernilla against ?ose Tab)ena. disregarding t(e warning. contin)ed t(e meeting for at least #$ min)tes more E w(ere)pon.247 A$/$st !&. BCo) m)st contin)e t(at.

t(ere is s)bstantial evidence s)pporting t(e petitioner*s contrary contentions t(at s(o)ld (ave pers)aded t(e trial =)dge to r)le in (is favor and dismiss t(e complaint. :ss)e. as plaintiff in t(e lower co)rt. #'. w(ic( (e in(erited from (is parents. w(o ac2)ired it even before 8orld 8ar :: and (ad been living t(ereon since t(en and )ntil t(ey died. and 6amasa Timtiman.. S(e remained on t(e said land )ntil (er deat(.#& of t(e F)les of Co)rt provides in Section #' t(ereof as follows. 7eld. Tabernilla ret)rned to t(e P(ilippines in . >t t(e same time. claiming it as (is own.HT(e co)rt s(all consider no evidence w(ic( (as not been formally offered. acting )pon (er son ?)an*s instr)ction. too+ possession t(ereof. T(e trial co)rt re=ected (is defense t(at (e was t(e absol)te owner of t(e lot. conveyed t(e s)b=ect land to Tabernilla. T(e mere fact t(at a partic)lar doc)ment is mar+ed as an e0(ibit does not mean it (as t(ereby already been offered as part of t(e evidence of a party. T(e p)rpose for w(ic( t(e evidence is offered m)st be specified. w(ic( s(e promised to do. Sec. <y contrast. and did. #4. F)le . Petition is granted and t(e appealed decision is reversed and set aside wit( costs against t(e private respondent.two were in t(e Gnited States. failed to prove (is claim of owners(ip over t(e disp)ted property wit( evidence properly cogniIable )nder o)r ad=)dicative laws. . 7ence. Private respondent. Offer of evidence. >lso disbelieved was (is contention t(at t(e s)b=ect of t(e sale between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land planted to cocon)t trees and bo)nded on t(ree sides by t(e Ma+ato Fiver. t(is petition. s(e re2)ested t(at s(e be allowed to stay t(ereon as s(e (ad been living t(ere all (er life. following w(ic( t(e petitioner. ?r. 81N petitioner is t(e absol)te owner of t(e s)b=ect lot. T(e complaint was filed w(en demand was made )pon Tab)ena to s)rrender t(e property and (e ref)sed. (er son and (alf-brot(er of ?)an Peralta. Tabernilla agreed provided s(e paid t(e realty ta0es on t(e property.