STANDARD OIL CO.

VS JARANILLO 44 PHIL 630
FACTS: On November 27, 1922, Gervasia de la Rosa, Vda. de Vera, was the
lessee of a parcel of land situated in the it! of "anila and owner of the
house of stron# materials built thereon, upon which date she e$ecuted a
document in the form of a chattel mort#a#e, purportin# to conve! to the
petitioner b! wa! of mort#a#e both the leasehold interest in said lot and the
buildin# which stands thereon.
1. %n the document describin# the personal propert! intended to be
mort#a#e, it e$pressed that the mort#a#or conve!s and transfer to the
the buildin#, propert! of the mort#a#or, situated in the sub&ect of the
leased premises.
2. 'he petitioner presented it to (aramillo, as re#ister of deeds of the it!
of "anila, for the purpose of havin# the same recorded in the boo) of
records of chattel mort#a#es. *pon e$amination of the instrument,
(aramillo opined that it was not a chattel mort#a#e, for the reason that
the interest therein mort#a#e did not appear to be personal propert!,
within the meanin# of the hattel "ort#a#e +aw, thus re#istration was
refused on this #round.
,. %n an administrative rulin# promul#ated which determined this case
held that the re#ister of deed has no authorit! to pass upon the
capacit! of the parties to a chattel mort#a#e which is presented to him
for record.
ISSUE: %s it the ministerial dut! of (amarillo to accept the proper fee and
place the instrument on record-
HELD: 'he position ta)en b! the respondent is untenable and it is his dut!
to accept the proper fee and place the instrument on record.
1. Jamarillo r!"i#$!r o% &!!&# &o!# 'o$ (a)! *+&i,ial or -+a#i.
*+&i,ial /o0!r $o &!$!rmi'! 'a$+r! o% &o,+m!'$ r!"i#$!r!& a#
,(a$$!l mor$"a"!
.ection 19/ of the 0dministrative ode, ori#inall! section 11 of hattel
"ort#a#e +aw 20ct. No. 113/4, as amended b! 0ct No. 2596, does not
confer upon the re#ister of deeds an! authorit! whatever in respect to the
78uali9cation,: as the term is used in .panish +aw, of chattel mort#a#e.
;is duties in respect to such instruments are ministerial onl!. 'he e<cac!
of the act of recordin# a chattel mort#a#e consists in the fact that it
operates as constructive notice of the e$istence of the contract and the
notice. Re#istration adds nothin# to the instrument, considered as a
source of title, and a=ects nobod!>s ri#hts e$cept as a species of notices.
'he duties of a re#ister of deeds in respect to the re#istration of chattel
mort#a#e are of a purel! ministerial character and no provisions of law
can be cited which confers upon him a! &udicial or 8uasi?&udicial power to
determine the nature of an! document of which re#istration is sou#ht as a
chattel mort#a#e. 'he issue where the chattel mort#a#e is held
ine=ective a#ainst third parties as the mort#a#ed propert! is real instead
of personal is a 8uestion determined b! the courts of &ustice and not b!
the re#ister of deeds.
1. Ar$i,l! 334 a'& 332 o% $(! Ci)il Co&! &o!# 'o$ #+//l3 a4#ol+$!
,ri$!rio' o' &i#$i',$io' 4!$0!!' r!al a'& /!r#o'al /ro/!r$3 %or
/+r/o#! o% $(! a//li,a$io' o% $(! C(a$$!l 5or$"a"! la0.
Ober dictum: “0rticles ,,5 and ,,1 2now 0rts. 511 and 5164 of the ivil
ode suppl! no absolute criterion for discriminatin# between real propert!
and personal propert! for purposes of the application of the hattel
"ort#a#e +aw. 'hese articles state rules which, considered as a #eneral
doctrine, are law in this &urisdiction@ but it must not be for#otten that
under #iven conditions, a propert! ma! have a character di=erent from
that imputed to it in said article. %t is undeniable that the parties to a
contract ma!, b! a#reement, treat as personal propert! hat which b!
nature would be real propert! for purposes of ta$ation which on #eneral
principle mi#ht be considered personal propert!. Other situations are
constantl! arisin#, and from time to time are presented to this court, in
which the proper classi9cation of one thin# orr another as real or personal
propert! ma! be said to be doubtful
3. I##+! 0(!$(!r i'$!r!#$ a# i' 'a$+r! o% r!al /ro/!r$3 'o$ r!l!)a'$
$o $(! i##+! o% /la,i'" $(! &o,+m!'$ o' r!,or& i' C(a$$!l
5or$"a"!
%n +eun# Aee vs Bran) +. .tron# "achiner! o. and Cilliams, the court held
that where the interest conve!ed is of the nature of a real propert!, the
placin# of the document on record in the chattel mort#a#e re#ister is a
futile act.
5INDANAO 6US CO. VS CIT7 ASSESSOR 81961:
FACTS: Respondent it! 0ssessor of a#a!an de Oro it! assessed at
D5,533 petitioner>s e8uipment. Detitioner appealed the assessment to the
respondent Eoard of 'a$ 0ppeals on the #round that the same are not realt!.
'he Eoard of 'a$ 0ppeals of the it! sustained the cit! assessor.
1. 'he petitioner is a public utilit! solel! en#a#ed in transportin#
passen#ers and car#oes b! motor truc)s, over its authoriFed lines in
the %sland of "indanao, collectin# rates approved b! the Dublic .ervice
ommission
2. 'he machine sou#ht to be assessed b! the respondent as real
properties areG ;obart Hlectric Celder "achine, .torm Eorin# "achine,
+athe machine with motor, Elac) and Iec)er Grinder, DH"O ;!draulic
Dress, Eatter! char#er 2'un#ar char#e machine4, I?Hn#ine Cau)esha?
"?Buel. 'hese machineries are sittin# on cement or wooden platforms.
'he! can be moved around and about in petitioner>s repair shop. 'hese
machineries have never been or were never used as industrial
e8uipments to produce 9nished products for sale, not to repair
machines, parts and the li)e o=ered to the #eneral public
indiscriminatel! for business or commercial purposes for which
petitioner has never en#a#ed in.
,. 'he petitioner is the owner of the land where it maintains and operates
a #ara#e for its 'D* motor truc)s@ a repair shop@ blac)smith and
carpentr! shop, and with these machineries which are placed therein,
its 'D* truc)s are made bod! constructed@ and repaired in a condition
to be serviceable in the 'D* land transportation business it operates.
5. '0 sustained the respondent cit! assessor>s rulin# which held the
petitioner liable to the pa!ment of realt! ta$ on its maintenance and
repair e8uipment.
1. Respondents contend that said e8uipments thou#h movable are
immobiliFed b! destination in accordance with par. 1 of 0rt. 511 of the
New ivil ode.
ISSUE: Chether the said e8uipment are sub&ect to assessment as real estate
for the purpose of the real estate ta$
HELD: 'he said e8uipment ma! not be considered real estate. 'he court
declared that the e8uipment in 8uestion are should not be sub&ect to
assessment as real estate for the purpose of the real estate ta$.
1. T(! mo)a4l! !-+i/m!'$# $o 4! immo4ili;!& i' ,o'$!m/la$io' o%
$(! la0 m+#$ <r#$ 4! =!##!'$ial a'& /ri',i/al !l!m!'$#> o% a'
i'&+#$r3.
.o that movable e8uipment to be immobiliFed b! destination in
accordance with 0rt. 511 214 of the New ivil ode, must 9rst be
7essential and principal elements: of an industr! or wor) without which
which such industr! or wor)s would be 7unable to function or carr! on the
industrial purpose for which it was established.: 'hose movables which
become immobiliFe b! destination because the! are essential and
principal elements in the industr! must be distin#uished from those which
ma! not be so considered immobiliFed because the! are merel!
incidentals. .imilarl!, the tools and e8uipment in 8uestion in this instant
case are, b! their nature, not essential and principal elements of
petitioner>s business in transportin# passen#ers and car#oes b! motor
truc)s. 'he! are mere incidentals J ac8uired as movables and used onl!
for e$pedienc! to facilitate andKor improve its service. Hven without such
tools and e8uipments, its business ma! be carried on, as petitioner has
carried on, without such e8uipments, before the war. 'he transportation
business could be carried on without the repair or service shop if its rollin#
e8uipment is repaired or serviced in another shop belon#in# to another.
2. T(! i'&+#$r3 or 0or?# m+#$ 4! ,arri!& o' i' a 4+il&i'" or o' a
/i!,! o% la'&.
0side from the element of essentialit! the provision also re8uires that the
industr! or wor)s be carried on a building or on a piece of land. %n the
case of Berkenkotter vs Cu Unjieng, the 7machiner!, li8uid containers
and instruments or implements: are found in a buildin# constructed on
the land. 0 sawmill would also be installed in a buildin# on land more or
less permanentl!, and the sawin# is conducted in the land or buildin#. Eut
in the case at bar, the e8uipment in 8uestioned are destined onl! to
repair or service the transportation business which is not carried on in a
building or permanentl on a piece of land, as demanded b! the law.
'he court thus hold that the e8uipments in 8uestion are not absolutel!
essential to the petitioner>s transportation business, and petitioner>s
business is not carried on in a buildin#, tenement or on a speci9ed land, so
said e8uipment ma! not be considered real estate within the meanin# of
0rticle 511 2c4 of the ivil ode.
6OARD OF ASSESS5ENT APPEALS @C VS 5ERALCO 10 SCRA 6A
FACTS: "eralco>s electric power #enerated b! its h!dro?electric plant
located at Eotocan Balls, +a#una and is transmitted to the it! of "anila b!
means of electric transmission wires, runnin# from +a#una to the it!. 'hese
electric transmission wires which carr! hi#h volta#e current are fastened to
insulators attached on steel towers constructed b! respondent at intervals,
from its h!dro?electric plant in +a#una to "anila. 'he respondent "eralco has
constructed 53 of these steel towers within L, on land belon#in# to it.
1. 'hree steel towers were inspected b! the lower court and parties. 'he
towers are made up of metal rods &oined to#ether b! means of bolt, so
that b! unscrewin# the bolts, the tower could be dismantled and
reassembled. %t was also found that the s8uare metal frames
supportin# the le#s were not attached to an! material or foundation.
2. Detitioner it! 0ssessor of L declared the aforesaid steel towers for
real propert! ta$. On appeal b! the respondent, the Eoard of
0ssessment of 0ppeals of L re8uired the respondent to pa! the
propert! ta$ on the said steel towers, thus respondent paid said
amount under protest.
,. '0 ordered the cancellation of the said ta$ declarations and the
petitioner to refund the said amount. '0 held that the steel towers
come within the term 7poles: which are declared e$empt from ta$es
under part %% para#raph 9 of respondent>s franchise and that the steel
towers are personal properties and are not sub&ect to real propert! ta$.
ISSUE: 0re the poles and steel supports or towers of "eralco, real propert!
for the purpose of the real propert! ta$-
HELD: No, the! are personal propert!.
'he steel towers or support in 8uestion do not come within the ob&ects
mentioned in para#raph 1 of 0rt. 511 because the! do not constitute
buildin#s or construction adhered to the soil. 'he! are not construction
analo#ous to buildin#s nor adherin# to the soil. 'he! are removable and
merel! attached to a s8uare metal frame ! means of bolts, which when
unscrewed could easil! be dismantled and move from place to place. 'he!
cannot be included in para#raph ,, as the! are not attached to an
immovable in a 9$ed manner, and the! can be separated without brea)in#
the material or causin# deterioration upon the ob&ect to which the! are
attached. Hach of these steel towers or support consists of steel bars or
metal strips, &oined to#ether b! means of bolts, which can be disassembled
b! unscrewin# the bolts and reassembled b! screwin# the same. 'hese
towers do not also fall under para#raph 1, for the! are not machineries,
receptacles, instruments or implements, and even if the! are, the! are not
intended for industr! or wor)s on the land which the! are constructed.
PRES6ITERO VS FERNANDEB 81963:
FACTS: H.DHR%I%ON Dresbitero failed to furnish Nava the value of the
properties under liti#ation. Dresbitero was ordered b! the lower court to pa!
Nava to settle his debts. NavaMs counsel still tried to settle this case with
Dresbitero, out of court. Eut to no avail.
1. 'he sheri= levied upon and #arnished the su#ar 8uotas allotted to the
plantation and adhered to the "a?ao "ill Iistrict and re#istered in the
name of Dresbitero as the ori#inal plantation owner. 'he sheri= was not
able to present for re#istration thererof to the Re#istr! of Ieeds.
2. 'he court then ordered Dresbitero to se#re#ate the portion of +ot 63/
pertainin# to Nava from the mass of properties belon#in# to the
defendant within a period to e$pire on 0u#ust 1963.
,. Dresbitero did not meet his obli#ations, and the auction sale was
scheduled. Dresbitero died after.
5. R%0RIO Dresbitero, the estate administrator, then petitioned that the
sheri= desist in holdin# the auction sale on the #round that the lev! on
the su#ar 8uotas was invalid because the notice thereof was not
re#istered with the Re#istr! of Ieeds, as for the real propert!, and that
the writs, bein# for sums of mone!, are unenforceable since Hsperidion
Dresbitero died on October 22, 1963, and, therefore, could onl! be
enforced as a mone! claim a#ainst his estate.
1. Respondent invo)ed the test formulated b! "anresa 2, "anresa, 6th
Hd. 5,4, and opined that su#ar 8uotas can be carried from place to
place without in&ur! to the land to which the! are attached, and are not
one of those included in 0rticle 511 of the ivil ode@ and not bein#
thus included, the! fall under the cate#or! of personal properties.
ISSUE: Chether su#ar 8uotas are real 2immovable4 or personal properties
HELD: 'he su#ar 8uotas are real 2immovable4 properties.
1. U'&!r !C/r!## /ro)i#io'# o% la0 $(! #+"ar -+o$a allo,a$io'# ar!
a,,!##ori!# $o la'& a'& ,a' 'o$ (a)! i'&!/!'&!'$ !Ci#$!',!
a0a3 %rom a /la'$a$io'.
'he contentions of the respondent cannot stand a#ainst the positive
mandate of the pertinent statute. 'he .u#ar +imitation +aw 20ct 5166, as
amended4 provides N
.H. 9. 'he allotment correspondin# to each piece of land under the
provisions of this 0ct shall be deemed to be an improvement attachin#
to the land entitled thereto ....
and Republic 0ct No. 1/21 similarl! provides N
.H. 5. 'he production allowance or 8uotas correspondin# to each
piece of land under the provisions of this 0ct shall be deemed to be an
improvement attachin# to the land entitled thereto ....
'he su#ar 8uota allocations are accessories to land, and cannot have
independent e$istence awa! from a plantation, althou#h the latter ma!
var!. 'he ourt ;eld in the case of !belarde vs. "ope#, $% &hil '%%, that
even if a contract of sale of haciendas omitted 7the ri#ht, title, interest,
participation, action and rent: which the #rantors had or mi#ht have in
relation to the parcels of land sold, the sale would include the 8uotas, it
bein# provided in .ection 9, 0ct 5166, that the allotment is deemed an
improvement attached to the land, and that at the time the contract of
sale was si#ned the land devoted to su#ar were practicall! of no use
without the su#ar allotment. 0s an improvement attached to the land, b!
e$press provision of law, thou#h not ph!sicall! so united, the su#ar
8uotas are inseparable therefrom, &ust li)e servitudes and other real ri#hts
over an immovable. 0rticle 511 of the ivil ode provides thatG
13. ontracts for public wor)s, and servitudes and other real rights
over immovable propert.
%t is b! law, therefore, that these properties are immovable or real, 0rticle
516 of the ivil ode bein# made to appl! onl! when the thin# 2res4
sou#ht to be classi9ed is not included in 0rticle 511.
1. T(! %a,$ $(a$ $(! P(ili//i'! Tra&! A,$ o% 1946 8US P+4li, La0 3D1.
D9
$(
Co'"r!##: allo0# $ra'#%!r# o% #+"ar -+o$a# &o!# 'o$ mili$ia$!
a"ai'#$ $(!ir immo)a4ili$3.
'he fact that the su#ar 8uotas foes not re8uire re#istration of sales of
8uotas with the Re#ister of Ieeds for their validit!, nor the fact that
allocation of unre9ned su#ar 8uotas is not made amon# lands planted to
su#arcane but amon# 7the su#ar producin# mills and plantation owners:,
since the lease or sale of 8uotas are voluntar! transactions, the re#ime of
which, is not necessaril! identical to involuntar! transfers or levies@ and
there cannot be a su#ar plantation owner without land to which the 8uota
is attached@ and there can e$ist no 8uota without there bein# 9rst a
correspondin# plantation.
CHUA EUAN VS SA5AHANE 5AESASAFA 61 PHIL 4D1
FACTS: .amahan# "an##a#awa %nc., is a corporation dul! or#aniFed under
the laws of the Dhilippine %sland with principal o<ce in abanatuan, Nueva
Hci&a, and that the individual defendants are the president, secretar! and
treasurer respectivel! of the corporation. GonFalo ;. o 'oco was the owner
of 1, /95 shares of the capital stoc) of the said corporation represented b! 9
certi9cate.
1. On (une 1/, 19,1, o 'oco mort#a#ed said shares to hua hiu to
#uarantee the pa!ment of a debt of D23, 333 due on or before (une 19,
19,2. 'he said certi9cates of stoc) were delivered with the mort#a#e
to the mort#a#ee, hua hiu. 'he said mort#a#e was dul! re#istered in
the o<ce of the re#ister of deeds of "anila. and in the o<ce of the said
corporation.
2. On November 2/, 19,1, hua hiu assi#ned all his ri#ht and interest in
the said mort#a#e to the petitioner and the assi#nment was re#istered
in the o<ce of the re#ister of deeds in "anila and in the o<ce of the
said corporation
,. Iebtor, o 'oco defaulted in the pa!ment of said debt at maturit! and
petitioner foreclosed the mort#a#e and delivered the certi9cate of
stoc) and copies of the mort#a#e and assi#nment to the sheri= of
"anila in order to sell the said shares at public auction. 'he sheri=
auctioned said shares of stoc) and the petitioner havin# been the
hi#hest bidder, the sheri= e$ecuted in his favor a certi9cate of sale of
said shares.
5. 'he petitioner tendered the certi9cates of stoc) standin# in the name
of o 'oco to the proper o<cers of the corporation for cancellation and
demanded that the! issue new certi9cates in the name of petitioner.
1. 'he defendants refused to cancel the said certi9cates standin# in the
name of GonFalo ;. o 'oco on the boo)s of the corporation and to
issue new ones in the name of the plainti= because prior to the date
when the plainti= made his demand 2Bebruar! 5, 19,,4, 9 attachments
noted on the new certi9cates which he demanded.
ISSUE: Chether the said mort#a#e ta)es priorit! over the said writ of
attachments
HELD: 'he . held that the attachin# creditors are entitled to priorit! over
the defectivel! re#istered mort#a#e of the petitioner.
1. S(ar!# o% #$o,? ar! /!r#o'al /ro/!r$3
'he! are personal propert!, and therefore, can be sub&ect matter of a
chattel mort#a#e. .o are the certi9cates themselves evidencin# the
ownership of the shares.
1. Co+r$G# ,o'#$r+,$io' o% S!,$io' 4 A,$. 120A a# $o o0'!r#(i/ o%
#(ar!# i' a ,or/ora$io'
E! analo#! with the fore#oin# and considerin# the ownership of shares in
a corporation as propert! distinct from the certi9cates which are merel!
the evidence of such ownership, it seems to be a reasonable construction
of section 5 of 0ct 113/ to hold that the propert! in the shares ma! be
deemed to be situated in the province in which the corporation has its
principal o<ce or place of business. %f this province is also the province of
the owner>s domicile, a sin#le re#istration is su<cient. %f not, the chattel
mort#a#e should be re#istered both at the owner>s domicile and in the
province where the corporation has its principal o<ce or place of
business. %n this sense the propert! mort#a#ed is not the certi9cate but
the participation and share of the owner in the assets of the corporation.
3. DiH,+l$3 o' $(! /ra,$i,al a//li,a$io' o% $(! C(a$$!l 5or$"a"! la0
$o #(ar!# o% #$o,? o% a ,or/ora$io'
'he practical applications of the hattel "ort#a#e +aw to shares of stoc)
of a corporation presents considerable di<cult!, as an e8uit! in shares of
stoc) is of such an intan#ible character, and the ourt has obtained little
aid from the decision of other &urisdictions because the form of mort#a#e
is ill suited to the h!pothecation of shares of stoc) and has been rarel!
used elsewhere. %n fact, it has been doubted whether shares of stoc) in a
corporation are chattels in the sense in which that word is used in chattel
mort#a#e statutes.
4. Ia3# i' !C!,+$i'" a )ali& ,(a$$!l mor$"a"! !J!,$i)! a"ai'#$ $(ir&
/!r#o'#
.ection 5 of 0ct 113/ provides two wa!s for e$ecutin# a valid chattel
mort#a#e which shall be e=ective a#ainst third persons. Birst, the
possession of the propert! mort#a#ed must be delivered to and retained
b! the mort#a#ee@ and, second, without such deliver! the mort#a#e must
be recorded in the proper o<ce or o<ces of the re#ister or re#isters of
deeds.
2. Pro/!r /la,! o% r!"i#$ra$io' o% a ,(a$$!l mor$"a"!.
.ection 5 provides that in such a case the mort#a#e shall be re#istered in
the province which the mort#a#or resides at the time of ma)in# the same
or, if he is a non?resident, in the province in which the propert! is
situated@ and it also provides that if the propert! is situated in a di=erent
province from that in which the mort#a#or resides the mort#a#e shall be
recorded both in the province of the mort#a#or>s residence and in the
province where the propert! is situated
6. R!"i#$ra$io' o% ,(a$$!l mor$"a"! i' $(! oH,! o% ,or/ora$io' 'o$
'!,!##ar3 a'& (a& 'o l!"al !J!,$
'he re#istration of the said chattel mort#a#e in the o<ce of the
corporation was not necessar! and had no le#al e=ect. Chether the
shares of a corporation could be h!pothecated b! placin# a chattel
mort#a#e on the certi9cate representin# such shares are settled b! the
case of (onserrat vs Ceron. %n the present case, the re#istration of such
mort#a#e or the e=ect of such re#istration was not in 8uestion. Nothin#
appears un the record of that case even tendin# to show that the chattel
mort#a#e there involved was ever re#istered an!where e$cept in the
o<ce of the corporation, and there was no 8uestion involved there as to
the ri#ht of priorit! amon# conOictin# claims of creditors of the owner of
the shares.
REPU6LIC VS VDA DE CASTILLO ET AL 819AA:
FACTS: %n 1911, the late "odesto astillo applied for the re#istration of two
parcels of land, +ots 1 and 2, located in Eanadero, 'anauan, Eatan#as, as the
true and absolute owner of the land with the improvements thereon, which
was issued to him b! the Re#ister of Ieeds of Eatan#as. ;e was married to
0manda +at.
1. E! virtue of an instrument dated in "arch 1963, the two parcels of land
with Ori#inal erti9cate of 'itle 2O'4 were consolidated and divided
into +ots 1 to 9 which was covered b! 'ransfer erti9cate of 'itle 2''4.
0fter the death of "odesto astillo on 0u#ust ,1, 1963, 0manda +at
Vda. de astillo, et al., e$ecuted a deed of partition and assumption of
mort#a#e in favor of Blorencio +. astillo, et al., as a result of which
O' was cancelled, and in lieu thereof, new '' were issued to the
respondents .
2. 'he Republic of the Dhilippines 9led a case with the lower court for the
annulment of the certi9cates of title issued to defendants 0manda +at
Vda. de astillo, et al., as heirsKsuccessors of "odesto astillo, and for
the reversion of the lands covered thereb! 2+ots 1 and 24 to the .tate.
,. %t was alle#ed that said lands had alwa!s formed part of the 'aal +a)e
and bein# of public ownership, it could not be the sub&ect of
re#istration as private propert!.
5. Respondents alle#ed thatG 214the GovernmentMs action was alread!
barred b! the decision of the re#istration court 2res &udicata4 that the
action has prescribed@ 224 0ccretions on the ban) of the la)e belon# to
the owners of the estate to which the! have been added@ and 2,4the!
have been in an open and continuous possession of the land for more
than 76 !ears.
1. 'he B% declared that +ots Nos. 1P2 are public lands belon#in# to the
.tate and ordered the Re#ister of Ieeds of Eatan#as the cancellation
of the O' in the name of "odesto astillo and the subse8uent ''
issued over the propert! in the names of the respondents.
6. Respondents appealed their case. 'he 0 reversed and set aside the
appealed decision, and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE: Chat is the nature of the land involved in the case-
HELD: 'he lots in 8uestion are public in nature and are outside the
commerce of man. %t has been satisfactoril! established as found b! the trial
court, that the properties in 8uestion were the shorelands of 'aal +a)e durin#
the cadastral surve! of 192,.
1. S(or!# ar! /ro/!r$i!# o% $(! /+4li, &omai' i'$!'&!& %or /+4li,
+#! 8Ar$. 410 Ci)il Co&!: a'& $(!r!%or! 'o$ r!"i#$ra4l!.
%t has lon# been settled that portions of the foreshore or of the territorial
waters and beaches cannot be re#istered. 'heir inclusion in a certi9cate
of title does not convert the same into properties of private ownership or
confer title upon the re#istrant. +ots 1P2 had alwa!s formed part of the
'aal +a)e, washed and inundated b! the waters thereof. onse8uentl!, the
same were not sub&ect to re#istration, bein# outside the commerce of
men@ and that since the lots in liti#ation are of public domain 20rt. 132,
par. 5, ivil ode4 the re#istration court did not have &urisdiction to
ad&udicate said lands as private propert!, hence, res &udicata does not
appl!.
1. No a,,r!$io' (a# #(o0' $o !Ci#$ i' $(! ,a#! a$ 4ar.
+a)eshore land or lands ad&acent to the la)e, li)e the lands in 8uestion
must be di=erentiated from foreshore land or that part of the land
ad&acent to the sea which is alternativel! covered and left dr! b! ordinar!
Oow of the tides. .uch distinction draws importance from the fact that
accretions on the ban) of a la)e li)e +a#una de Ea!, belon# to the owners
of the estate to which the! have been added while accretion on a sea
ban) still belon#s to the public domain, and is not available for private
ownership until formall! declared b! the #overnment to be no lon#er
needed for public use. %t was established that the occupants of the lots
who were en#a#ed in duc) raisin# 9lled up the area with shells and sand
to ma)e it habitable, therefore, there is no accretion shown to e$ist in the
case at bar.
3. D!%!'#! o% lo'" /o##!##io' i# li?!0i#! 'o$ a)aila4l! i' $(i# ,a#!.
0s alread! ruled b! the ourt, mere possession of land does not b! itself
automaticall! divest the land of its public character 2uevas vs Dineda,
15, .R0 65Q196/R4.
5ANECLANE VS IAC 819A6:
FACTS: 0driano "aneclan# 9led before the B% a complaint for 8uietin# of
title over a certain 9shpond located within the 51 parcels of land belon#in#
to them situated in Earrio .aloma#ue, Eu#allon, Dan#asinan and the
annulment of Resolution Nos. ,/ and 91 of the "unicipal ouncil of Eu#allon,
Dan#asinan.
1. 'he trial court dismissed the complaint upon 9ndin# that the bod! of
water traversin# the titled properties of petitioners is a cree)
constitutin# a tributar! of the 0#no River, therefore public in nature
and not sub&ect to private appropriation.
2. Resolution No. ,/, orderin# an ocular inspection of the a!an#an ree)
situated between Earrios .aloma#ue .ur and .aloma#ue Norte and
Resolution 91, authoriFin# public biddin# for the lease of all municipal
ferries and 9sheries, includin# the 9shpond under consideration, were
passed b! respondents herein members of the "unicipal ouncil of
Eu#allon, Dan#asinan in the e$ercise of their le#islative power.
,. "aneclan# appealed the said decision to the %0 which a<rmed the
same.
5. Eefore the respondents were able to comment on the petition,
petitioners manifested that for lac) of interest on the part of
respondent 0lfredo "aFa, the awardee in the public biddin# of the
9shpond, the parties desire to amicabl! settle the case b! submittin#
to the ourt a ompromise 0#reement pra!in# that &ud#ment be
rendered reco#niFin# the ownership of the petitioners over the land the
bod! of water found within their titled properties.
ISSUE: CON the stipulation in the ompromise 0#reement is void for bein#
contrar! to law and public polic!
HELD: 'he stipulation in the ompromise 0#reement is null and void for
bein# contrar! to law and public polic!.
'he stipulation contained in the ompromise 0#reement parta)e of the
nature of an ad&udication of ownership of the 9shpond in dispute, which was
ori#inall! a cree) formin# a tributar! of the 0#no River. 0 cree) is de9ned as
a recess or arm e$tendin# from a river and participatin# in the ebb and Oow
of the sea, is a propert! belon#in# to the public domain which is not
susceptible to private appropriation and ac8uisitive prescription, and as
public water, it cannot be re#istered under the 'orrens .!stem in the name
of an! individual. 0nd considerin# further that neither the mere construction
of irri#ation di)es b! the National %rri#ation 0dministration which prevented
the water from Oowin# in and out of the sub&ect 9shpond, nor its conversion
into a 9shpond, alter or chan#e the nature of the cree) as a propert! of the
public domain. 'he ourt 9nds the ompromise 0#reement null and void and
of no le#al e=ect, the same bein# contrar! to law and public polic!.
HILARIO VS CIT7 OF 5ANILA 8196D:
FACTS: Ir. (ose ;ilario was the re#istered owner of a lar#e tract of land
around 59 hectares in area, located at Earrio Guina!an# in .an "ateo, RiFal.
*pon his death, this propert! was inherited b! his son (ose ;ilario (r. to whom
a new certi9cate of title was issued. Iurin# the lifetime of Ir. ;ilario, the
estate was bounded on the western side b! the .an "ateo River. 'o prevent
its entr! into the land, a bamboo and lumber post di)e or ditch was
constructed on the northwestern side which was further forti9ed b! a stone
wall built on the northern side. %n 19,7, a #reat and e$traordinar! Oood
inundated the entire. 'he river destro!ed the di)e on the northwest, left its
ori#inal bed and meandered into the ;ilario estate, se#re#atin# from the rest
a lenticular place of land. 'he disputed area is on the eastern side of this
lenticular strip which now stands between the old riverbed site and the new
course.
1. %n 1951 the *... 0rm! opened sand and #ravel plant within the
premises and started scrapin#, e$cavatin# and e$tractin# soil, #ravel
and sand from the nearb! areas the River. 'he operations eventuall!
e$tended northward into this strip of land
2. %n 1957, the plant was turned over to herein defendants?appellants and
appellee who too) over its operations and continued the e$tractions
and e$cavations of #ravel and sand from the strip of land alon# an area
near the River.
,. Dlainti= 9led his complaint for in&unction and dama#es a#ainst the it!
Hn#ineer of "anila, Iistrict Hn#ineer of RiFal, the Iirector of Dublic
Cor)s, and Hn#r. Eusue#o, the Hn#ineer?in?char#e of the plant. %t was
pra!ed that the latter be restrained from e$cavatin#, bulldoFin# and
e$tractin# #ravel, sand and soil from his propert!
5. .ubse8uentl!, the Eureau of "ines who complained that the disputed
area was within the bed of the river so that plainti= should not onl! be
en&oined from ma)in# e$tractions , but should also be ordered to pa!
the fees and penalties for the materials ta)en b! him, and 0tt!.
"a$imo alalan# claimed that he was authoriFed b! plainti= to e$tract
materials from the disputed area but this notwithstandin#, the
Drovincial 'reasurer of RiFal collected from him a sand and #ravel fee,
were respectivel! allowed to &oin the liti#ation as intervenors.
1. %mpleaded as additional defendants were the it! of "anila, the
Drovincial 'reasurer of RiFal, and Hn#r. Hu#enio .ese, the new Hn#ineer?
in?char#e of the plant. Dlainti= also converted his claim to one purel!
for dama#es directed a#ainst the it! of "anila and the Iirector of
Dublic Cor)s, solidaril! for the cost of materials ta)en since 1959, as
well as those to be e$tracted therefrom until defendants stop their
operations.
6. 'he lower court rendered its decision a#ainst the defendants it! of
"anila and the Iirector of Dublic Cor)s, to pa! solidaril! the for the
cost of #ravel and sand e$tracted from plainti=Ms land and a#ainst the
defendant Drovincial 'reasurer of RiFal, orderin# him to reimburse to
intervenor "a$imo alalan# for the #ravel fees ille#all! collected.
Binall!, defendants herein are perpetuall! en&oined from e$tractin# an!
sand or #ravel from plainti=Ms propert! which is two?9fths northern
portion of the disputed area.
ISSUE: Chen a river, leavin# its old bed, chan#es its ori#inal course and
opens a new one throu#h private propert!, would the new riverban)s linin#
said course be of public ownership also-
HELD: 'he ourt held that all riverban)s are of public ownership N includin#
those formed when a river leaves its old bed and opens a new course
throu#h a private estate.
1. Ol& Ci)il Co&! a'& La0 o% Ia$!r# o% 1A66 ,o'$rolli'" la0
.ince the chan#e in the course of the River too) place in 19,7, lon#
before the present ivil ode too) e=ect, the 8uestion should be
determined in accordance with the provisions of the Old ivil ode and
those of the +aw of Caterss 20u#. ,, 1/664.
1. All ri)!r4a'?# a# /ar$ o% $(! ri)!r4!&# ar! o% /+4li, o0'!r#(i/
*nder the old ivil +aw and the +aw of Caters, all riverban)s are of public
ownership, includin# those formed when a river leaves its old bed and
opens a new course throu#h a private estate. 0rticle ,,9 of the old ivil
ode is ver! clear. Cithout an! 8uali9cations, it provides that 7that
devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports, and
brid#es, constructed b! the .tate, riverban)s, shores, roadsteads, and
that of similar character: are propert! of public ownership. Burther, the
riverban) is part of the riverbed. 0rticle 7, of the +aw of Caters which
provides that the phrase 7ban)s of a river: is understood those lateral
strips of Fones of its beds which are washed b! the stream onl! durin#
such hi#h Ooods as do not cause inundations. 'he use of the words 7of its
bed: clearl! indicates the intent of the law to consider the ban)s for all
le#al purposes, as part of the riverbed. 'hus, the ban)s of the River are
part of its bed. .ince undeniabl! all beds of river are of public ownership,
it follows that the ban)s, which form part of them, are also public
ownership.
3. N!0 4!& 0(!' ri)!r ,(a'"!# ,o+r#! i# o% /+4li, o0'!r#(i/K
5!a'# $o r!,o)!r
0rticle ,72 of the old ivil ode which provides that 7whenever a
navi#able or Ooatable river chan#es its course from natural causes and
opens a new bed throu#h a private estate, the new bed shall be of public
ownership, but the owner of the estate shall recover it in the event that
the waters leave it dr! a#ain either naturall! or as the result of an! wor)
le#all! authoriFed for this purpose.: Ean)s are not mentioned in the
provision, as the nature of the ban)s follows that of the bed and the
runnin# water of the river.
4. Ri)!r i# /+4li, o0'!r#(i/ !l!m!'$# %ollo0 #am! 'a$+r! o%
o0'!r#(i/K La0 !C/li,i$
.ince a river is but one compound concept, it should have onl! one
nature, i.e. it should either be totall! public or completel! private. .ince
rivers are of public ownership, it is implicit that all the three component
elements be of the same nature also. .till, the law e$pressl! ma)es all
three elements public. 'hus, riverban)s and beds are public under 0rt.
,,9 and 537, respectivel! of the ode, while the Oowin# waters are
declared so under 0rt. ,,, par. 2 of the +aw of Caters of 1/66.
5UNICIPALIT7 OF CAVITE VS ROJAS 30 PHIL 601
FACTS: Ro&as b! virtue of a lease secured from the "unicipalit!, occupied a
parcel of land in area that forms part of the public plaFa )nown as .oledad
which belon# to the "unicipalit! of avite.
1. Ro&as constructed thereon a house and pa!s the "unicipalit! a rental
of D1.1/ a 8uarter in advance for their occupation, with the condition
that Ro&as are obli#ated to vacate the leased land within 63 da!s
subse8uentl! to the "unicipalit!>s demand to that e=ect.
2. Ro&as has been re8uired b! the "unicipalit! to vacate and deliver
possession of the said land, wherein 63 da!s within which it was ou#ht
to vacate elapsed without Ro&as doin# so.
,. 'he Drovincial 9scal of avite, representin# the "unicipalit! of avite
9led a complaint in the B% avite a#ainst Ro&as alle#in# that the lease
secured from the municipalit! of avite is ultra vires and therefore ipso
facto null and void and of no force or e=ect, for the said land is an
inte#ral portion of a public plaFa of public domain and use, and the
municipal council of avite has never at an! time had an! power or
authorit! to withdraw it from public use, and to lease it to a private
part! for his own use ad so the defendants have never had an! ri#ht to
occup! or retain said land under leasehold, or in an! other wa!, their
occupation of the parcel of land is ille#al.
5. 'hus the! pra!ed that &ud#ment be rendered declarin# that possession
of the said land lies with the "unicipalit! and orderin# Ro&as to vacate
the land and deliver the possession to the "unicipalit!.
1. Iefendant contends that the! had ac8uired the ri#ht of possession
thereof. 0ccordin# to the lease, the! could onl! be ordered to vacate
the land leased when the "unicipalit! mi#ht need it for decoration or
other public use, which does not appl! in the present case.
6. 'he ourt rendered &ud#ment a#ainst the "unicipalit!. ;ence this
petition.
ISSUE: CON the ontract of lease is void
HELD: .uch a contract of lease is void, because a municipalit! cannot
e$clude from public use a portion of a plaFa to lease it to a private person.
'he plaFa is propert! of the public dominion and is outside the commerce of
man. 'he lessee must therefore restore the possession of the plaFa to the
municipalit!, which in turn, must return the amounts paid as advance
rentals.
1. Pro/!r$3 %or /+4li, +#! i' /ro)i',!# a'& i' $o0'#
0rticle ,55 of the ivil ode provides that 7propert! of public use in
provinces and towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the
s8uares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and
public wor)s of #eneral service supported b! said towns or provinces.:
DlaFa .oledad bein# a promenade for public use, the municipal council of
avite could not in 1937 withdraw or e$clude from the public use of a
portion thereof in order to lease it for the sol bene9t of Ro&as. %n leasin# a
portion of said plaFa or public place for private use, municipalit! e$ceeded
its authorit! in the e$ercise of its powers b! e$ecutin# a contract over a
thin# of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered to do so.
1. Comm+'al $(i'" ,a''o$ 4! #ol& a# $(!3 ar! o+$#i&! $(! ,omm!r,!
o% ma'
0rticle 1271 of the ivil ode prescribes that ever!thin# which is not
outside the commerce of man ma! be the ob&ect of a contract. 0s plaFas
and streets are outside this commerce, the decision of the .panish
.upreme ourt 2Beb 12, 1/914 stated that 7communal thin#s cannot be
sold because the! are b! their nature outside of commerce are those for
public use, such as the plaFas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains,
etc.: 'he lease contract, whereb! the "unicipal of avite leased to Ro&as
a portion of the DlaFa .oledad, is null and void and of no force of e=ect, in
accordance with the provision of 0rticle 1,3, of the ivil ode, because it
is contrar! to law and the thin# leased cannot be the ob&ect of a contract.
'hus, Ro&as must restore and deliver the possession of the land described
in the complaint of the "unicipalit! of avite, which in its turn restore to
Ro&as all the sums it ma! have received from her in the nature of rentals
&ust as soon as she restores the land improperl! leased. Bor the same
reasons as have been set forth, conse8uentl! Ro&as is not entitled to claim
that the municipalit! indemnif! her for the dama#es she ma! su=er b!
the removal of her house from the said land.
VILLARICO VS CA 309 SCRA 193
FACTS: .pouses 'eo9lo and "a$ima Villarico 9led an application for
con9rmation of title over a parcel of land in *bihan, "e!caua!an, Eulacan.
1. 'he applicants alle#ed that the! are the absolute owner of the sub&ect
propert!, havin# bou#ht the same from the spouses, .e#undo 2'eo9lo>s
father4 Villarico and "ercedes ardenas, that the! and their
predecessors?in?interest have been in actual, open, adverse and
continuous possession thereof for more than ,3 !ears, that the! are
not aware of an! mort#a#e or encumbrance thereon nor of an! person
havin# an estate or interest therein, and that the land involved is not
within the forest Fone or #overnment reservation.
2. "arcos amar#o, private oppositor also claims to be the real owner
thereof.
,. 'he Government, throu#h the Iirector of Borestr!, averred that the
land in 8uestion is part o the public domain, within the unclassi9ed
area in "e!caua!an, Eulacan@ and conse8uentl! not available for
private appropriation.
5. 'he trial court dismissed the case. %n its decision it provided 7that a
certi9cate of title is void when it covers propert! of the public domain
classi9ed as forest or timber and mineral lands. 0n! title thus issued on
non?disposable lots, even in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value should be cancelled. 'here bein# no concrete evidence
presented in this case that the propert! in 8uestion was ever ac8uired
b! the applicants or b! the private oppositor or b! their predecessor?in?
interest either b! composition of title or b! an! other means for the
ac8uisition of public lands the propert! in 8uestion must be held to be
part of the public domain.
1. *pon appeal, the 0 a<rmed the trial court>s decision, holdin# that
sub&ect parcel of land is within the public domain not available for
private appropriation. ;ence this petition.
ISSUE: Chat is the character or classi9cation of the propert! applied for
re#istration J CON the same still forms part of the public domain
HELD: 'he . upheld the decision of the trial court and 0 as the ad&ud#ed
area at sta)e is within the unclassi9ed forest Fone incapable of private
appropriation. 'here has been no showin# that a declassi9cation has been
made b! the Iirector of Borestr! declarin# the land in 8uestion as disposable
or alienable. 0nd the record indeed discloses that applicants have not
introduced an! evidence which would have led the court to 9ned or rule
otherwise. %ndeed, forest lands cannot be owned b! private persons.
Dossession thereof, no matter how lon#, does not ripen into a re#istrable
title. 'he adverse possession ma! be the basis of a #rant of title or
con9rmation of an imperfect title refers onl! to alienable or disposable
portions of the public domain.
APEL 5ININE VS SOUTHEAST 5INDANAO EOLD 5ININE 491 SCRA
322
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
CE6U OL7EEN VS 6ERCILLES 819D2:
FACTS: 'he parcel of land sou#ht to be re#istered was onl! a portion of ".
Eorces .treet, "abolo, ebu it!.
1. 'he cit! ouncil of ebu, throu#h Resolution No. 219,, declared the
terminal portion of ". Eorces .t., "abolo, ebu it!, as an abandoned
road, the same not bein# included in the it! Ievelopment Dlan.
2. .ubse8uentl!, Resolution No. 2711, was passed, authoriFin# the 0ctin#
it! "a!or to sell the land throu#h a public biddin#.
,. 'he lot was awarded to herein petitioner bein# the hi#hest bidder.
5. 'he it! of ebu, throu#h the 0ctin# it! "a!or, e$ecuted a deed of
absolute sale to the herein petitioner for a total consideration of
D13,/33. E! virtue of the aforesaid deed of absolute sale, the petitioner
9led an application with the B% to have its title to the land re#istered.
1. 'he 0ssistant Drovincial Biscal of ebu 9led a motion to dismiss the
application on the #round that the propert! sou#ht to be re#istered
bein# a public road intended for public use is considered part of the
public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. 'hus, it
cannot be sub&ect to re#istration b! an! private individual.
6. 'he trial court issue an order dismissin# the petitioner>s application for
re#istration, hence this petition.
ISSUE: Ioes the it! harter of ebu it! 2R.0. No. ,/174 under .ection ,1,
para#raph ,5, #ive the it! of ebu the valid ri#ht to declare a road as
abandoned-
Ioes the declaration of the road, as abandoned, ma)e it the patrimonial
propert! of the it! of ebu which ma! be the ob&ect of a common contract-
HELD: 'he .upreme ourt set aside the order of the lower court, and
ordered said court t proceed with the hearin# of the petitioner>s application
for re#istration of title.
1. Ci$3 i# !m/o0!r!& $o ,lo#! ,i$3 roa& or #$r!!$ a'& 0i$(&ra0 $(!
#am! %rom /+4li, +#!.
.ection ,1 of the Revised harter of ebu it! 2+e#islative Dowers4
provides that 7an! provision of law and e$ecutive order to the contrar!
notwithstandin# the it! ouncil shall have the followin# le#islative
powers $$$ to close an! cit! road, street, alle!, boulevard, avenue, par)
or s8uare. Dropert! thus withdrawn from public servitude ma! be used or
conve!ed for an! purpose for which other real propert! belon#in# to the
it! ma! be lawfull! used or conve!ed.: %t is undoubtedl! clear that the
it! of ebu is empowered to close a cit! road or street.
1. Di#,r!$io' o% $(! ,i$3 ,o+',il ,a''o$ or&i'aril3 4! i'$!r%!r!& 0i$(
43 $(! ,o+r$.
'he cit! council is the authorit! competent to determine whether or not a
certain propert! is still necessar! for public use. 'he power to vacate a
street or alle! is discretionar!, and the discretion will not ordinaril! be
controlled or interfered with b! the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or
fraud or collusion. Baithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. .o the
fact that some private interest ma! be served incidentall! will not
invalidate the vacation ordinance 2)avis vs Cit of Baguio4
3. S$r!!$ 0i$(&ra0' %rom /+4li, +#! 4!,om!# /a$rimo'ial /ro/!r$3K
S+4#!-+!'$ #al! )ali&
Chen a portion of the cit! street was withdrawn from public use, such
withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial propert! which can be the ob&ect
of an ordinar! contract. 0s e$pressl! provided b! 0rticle 522 of the ivil
ode, 7propert! of public dominion, when no lon#er intended for public
use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial propert! of the
.tate.: Burther, the Revised harter of the it! of ebu, in ver! clear and
une8uivocal terms, states that 7propert! thus withdrawn from public
servitude ma! be used or conve!ed.: 'hus, the withdrawal of the propert!
in 8uestion from public use and its subse8uent sale to the petitioner is
valid.
CHAVEB VS PU6LIC LANDS AUTHORIT7 412 SCRA 403
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
DACANA7 VS ASISTIO 10A SCRA 404
FACTS: 'his is a petition for mandamus to the non?action of the cit!
#overnment of aloocan in accordance with the decision of the R' to evict
the occupants of a Oea mar)et located in the streets of aloocan.
1. (anuar! 1, 1979 J "etropolitan "anila ommission enacted an
ordinance allowin# the use of streets for the purpose of Oea mar)ets
sub&ect to several conditions.
2. 19/7 J "a!or "artineF caused the demolition of the Oea mar)ets and
the stallowners 9led a case a#ainst such action.
,. R' dismissed the case on the #round that the streets in 8uestions
2;eros del M96, GoFon and GonFales4 are of public dominion, hence
outside the commerce of man.
5. 0fter the decision came out, there was a chan#e in the cit!
administration and current ma!or 20sistio4 did not pursue the action of
the previous ma!or and left the Oea mar)ets in the streets as is.
1. Iacana!, bein# a resident of ;eroes del M96 9led a petition for
mandamus to remove the stalls in their street
ISSUE: "a! public streets be leased or licensed to mar)et stallholders b!
virtue of a cit! ordinance or resolution of "etropolitan "anila ommission-
HELD: 'he .upreme ourt established that Iacana! and the #eneral public
have a le#al ri#ht to the relief demanded and that the cit! o<cials have the
correspondin# dut!, arisin# from public o<ce, to clear the cit! streets and
restore them to their speci9c public purpose, and thus ordered the it!
"a!or and it! Hn#ineer of aloocan it! or their successor in o<ce to
immediatel! enforce and implement the previous decision that ;eroes del
>96, V. GoFon and GonFales .treets are public streets for public use, and the!
are ordered to remove or demolish, the mar)et stalls occup!in# said cit!
streets with utmost dispatch within ,3 da!s from notice of the decision@
decision bein# immediatel! e$ecutor.
1. P+4li, #$r!!$ ,a''o$ 4! ma&! #+4*!,$ $o a l!a#!
0 public street is propert! for public use hence outside the commerce of
man 20rt. 523, 525, ivil ode4. Eein# outside the commerce of man, it
ma! not be the sub&ect of lease or other contract 2*illianueva et.al. vs.
Casta+eda,. 'he disputed areas from which the mar)et stalls are sou#ht
to be evicted are public streets, as found b! the trial court.
1. L!a#! or li,!'#!# '+ll a'& )oi& %or 4!i'" ,o'$rar3 $o la0
0s the stallholders pa! fees to the it! Government for the ri#ht to occup!
portions of the public street, the it! Government, contrar! to law, has
been leasin# portions of the streets to them. .uch leases are null and void
for bein# contrar! to law. 'he ri#ht of the public to use the cit! streets
ma! not be bar#ained awa! throu#h a contract. 'he interest of a few
should not prevail over the #ood of the #reater number in the communit!
whose health, peace, safet!, #ood order and #eneral welfare, the
respondent cit! o<cials are under le#al obli#ation to protect. 'he
H$ecutive Order issued b! the 0ctin# "a!or authoriFin# the use of ;eroes
del >96 .treet as vendin# area for stallholders who were #ranted licenses
b! the cit! #overnment contravenes the #eneral law that reserves cit!
streets and roads for public use. 'he H$ecutive Order ma! not infrin#e
upon the vested ri#ht of public to use cit! streets for the purpose the!
were intended to serveG i.e. , as arteries of travel for vehicles and
pedestrians.
3. J+ri#/r+&!',! a//li,a4l! $o /ro/!r$3 o% /+4li, &omai'
'he streets, bein# of public dominion must be outside of the commerce of
man. onsideri# the nature of the sub&ect premises, the followin#
&urisprudence co?principles are applicable on the matterG 214 'he! cannot
be alienated or leased or otherwise be the sub&ect matter of contract.
2(unicipal of Cavite vs -ojas,. 224 'he! cannot be ac8uired b! prescription
a#ainst the state 2/nsular 0overnment vs !ldecoa,. Hven municipalities
cannot ac8uire them for use as communal lands a#ainst the state 2Cit of
(anila vs /nsular 0overnment,@ 2,4 'he! are not sub&ect to attachment
and e$ecution 21an 1oco vs (unicipal Council of /loilo,@ 254 'he! cannot be
burdened b! an! voluntar! easement.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful