VIUDA DE TAN Toco, plaintiff and appellant,

vs.
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO, defendant, and appellee.

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Classifications of Property – Based on Ownership – State Property
Case Summary: Petitioner, Viuda de Tan was the owner of two strips of land in Iloilo that was
expropriated by respondent, Municipal Council of Iloilo for street widening. Viuda won in the CFI,
subsequent writ of execution led to the sheriff levying municipal property.
CFI overturned the sale of the municipal property, declaring that it was for public use and therefore
couldn’t be the subject of attachment and execution.
SC affirmed the CFI decision, property for public use of the State is inalienable.
Petitioners: VIUDA DE TAN Toco
Respondents: THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO
Doctrines Involved: Property for public use of the State is not within the commerce of man and,
consequently, is inalienable and not subject to prescription.

Facts
1. Petitioner, Viuda is the widow of Tan toco sued municipal council of Iloilo for non-payment of
eminent domain case covering two strips of land which was appropriated to widen a street.
Aggregate amount of P42, 966.0.
a. Due to lack of available funds, the municipality was unable to pay the judgment. - led to
sheriff levying some municipal property, auto trucks for street sprinkling + police patrol
mobile + police stations along Mabini + Molo and Mandurriao streets and lots which
were used as markets.
2. Fiscal of Iloilo challenged attachment, argued it was void – CFI ruled that it was void,
subsequently dissolved the attachment.
3. Led to current appeal.
Issues
1. W/N property is exempt from execution? – YES
a. Under Sec. 2165 of the Administrative codes, Municipalities are corporations, thus
juridical entities. Under Art. 343 of CC properties of municipalities that are for public use
are considered as part of the public domain.
i. Covers roads, foot-paths, squares, streets, fountains and public waters, drives and
public improvements of general benefit.
b. Public use determined by the usage and purposes by which property is held. If property is
held for public uses which means generally governmental purposes, then public domain.
 However, even if such property is temporarily used for private purposes if public use is
not abandoned it still cannot be subject to execution.
i. Public domain includes taxes and public revenues because the same are essential
for governmental work.

RULING

By virtue of all the foregoing, the judgment appealed from should be and is hereby
affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
CFI AFFIRMED.
Notes