Dacanay v.

Asistio

GR 93654 (May 6, 1992)

FACTS:

On January 1979, the Metropolitan Manila Commission enacted an ordinance designating

certain city and municipal streets, and open spaces as sites for flea markets. One of these
streets was the “Heroes del ‘96” where Francisco Dacanay lives.

In 1987, Antonio Martinez, city mayor of Caloocan, caused the demolition of the market
stalls on Heroes del ’96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales streets. As a result, several stallowners filed
an action for prohibition against the City of Caloocan to enjoin Martinez’s efforts to clear
the streets. The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction but which was lifted on Dec.
1987.

Shortly after the decision came out, a new mayor of Caloocan City was elected – Mayor
Macario Asistio, Jr. He did not continue the former Mayor’s policy of clearing the city
streets. Invoking the court’s decision, Dacanay wrote a letter to Asistio asking for the
demolition of the illegally constructed stalls on Heroes del ’96. He wrote a follow-up letter
to Asistio and the city engineer, and without receiving any response, sought the
intervention of then President Aquino and the Ombudsman.

A letter was referred to Asistio wherein it was stated that after conducting a preliminary
investigation, the Ombudsman recommends the filing of an information in court for the
violation of Sec. 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019.

Nevertheless, the stallholders continued to occupy Heroes del ’96 through the tolerance of
the city officials and in clear violation of the decision of the RTC of Caloocan.

Dacanay filed a petition for mandamus on June 19, 1990, praying that the city officials be
ordered to enforce the final decision in the prior civil case which upheld the Mayor’s
authority to order the demolition of market stalls on Heroes del ’96, V. Gozon, and
Gonzales, and to enforce PD 772.

ISSUE: WON public streets may be leased to market stallholders by virtue of a city
ordinance or resolution of Metropolitan Manila Commission

HELD:

No. The streets, being of public dominion must be outside the commerce of men. The
following are the principles from jurisprudence:

1) Property of public dominion cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject

matter of contracts.

2) It cannot be acquired by prescription against the State. Even municipalities cannot

acquire it for use as communal lands against the State.
3) It is not subject to attachment and execution.

4) It cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement.

Thus, the lease or licenses are null and void for being contrary to law. The interests of the
few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose
health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are
under legal obligations to protect.