MANILA LODGE NO. 761 v.

COURT OF APPEALS repurchasing the property

2. The Act provided that the reclaimed area “shall be the property of the City of
September 30, 1976 | Castro, C. J. | Implications Manila” and that “the City of Manila is hereby authorized to set aside a tract of
the reclaimed land formed by the Luneta extension x x x at the north end not to
exceed five hundred feet by six hundred feet in size, for a hotel site, and to lease
the same, with the approval of the Governor General, to a responsible person or
PETITIONER: MANILA LODGE NO. 761, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE
corporation for a term not to exceed ninety-nine years.”
ORDER OF THE ELKS, INC.

RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF MANILA, and TARLAC ISSUE/s:

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1. WoN the reclaimed land is patrimonial or public dominion. – public dominion

RULING: SC denied the petition.

SUMMARY: The Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1360 which authorized the
City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila Bay. Subsequently Act No. 1657 RATIO:
amended the former act which states that the City of Manila was authorized to sell
or lease the set aside for hotel site. The City of Manila sells the land to Manila Lodge 1. To say that the land is patrimonial will render nugatory and a surplusage the
No. 761 then the latter sold the land to Tarlac Development Corporation. The City of phrase of the law to the effect that the City of Manila “is hereby authorized to
Manila filed a petition for re-annotation of its right to repurchased. The TDC then lease or sell”
filed a complaint that the City of Manila was estopped from repurchasing the 2. A sale of public dominion needs a legislative authorization, while a patrimonial
property land does not.
3. To so construe the statute as to render the term “authorize,” which is
repeatedly used by the statute, superfluous would violate the elementary rule
of legal hermeneutics that effect must be given to every word, clause, and
DOCTRINE: sentence of the statute and that a statute should be so interpreted that no part
thereof becomes inoperative or superfluous.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must give effect to the
general legislative intent that can be discovered from or is unraveled by the four
corners of the statute, and in order to discover said intent, the whole statute, and
not only a particular provision thereof, should be considered. It is , therefore,
necessary to analyze all the provisions of Act No. 1360, as amended, in order to
unravel the legislative intent.

FACTS:

1. The Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1360 which authorized the City of
Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila Bay. Subsequently Act No. 1657 amended
the former act which states that the City of Manila was authorized to sell or
lease the set aside for hotel site. The City of Manila sells the land to Manila
Lodge No. 761 then the latter sold the land to Tarlac Development Corporation.
The City of Manila filed a petition for re-annotation of its right to repurchased.
The TDC then filed a complaint that the City of Manila was estopped from