Municipality of Cavite Vs Rojas

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-9069 March 31, 1915
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAVITE, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
HILARIA ROJAS and her husband TIUNG SIUKO, alias SIWA, defendants-appellees.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellant.

J. Y. Pinzon for appellees.
TORRES, J.:
Appeal filed through bill of exceptions by the Attorney-General, representing the plaintiff
municipality of Cavite, from the judgment of March 27, 1913, whereby the Honorable
Herbert D. Gale, judge, dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff party,
declaring that the said municipality had no right to require that the defendants vacate the
land in question.
By an instrument dated December 5, 1911, afterwards amended on March 14, 1912, the
provincial fiscal of Cavite, representing the municipality of that name, filed a complaint in
the Court of First Instance of said province alleging that the plaintiff municipal corporation,
duly organized and constituted in accordance with Act No. 82, and as the successor to the
rights s aid entity had under the late Spanish government, and by virtue of Act No. 1039,
had exclusive right, control and administration over the streets, lanes, plazas, and public
places of the municipality of Cavite; that the defendants, by virtue of a lease secured from
the plaintiff municipality, occupy a parcel of land 93 square meters in area that forms part
o the public plaza known under the name of Soledad, belonging to the municipality of
Cavite, the defendants having constructed thereon a house, through payment to the
plaintiff for occupation thereof of a rental of P5,58 a quarter in advance, said defendants
being furthermore obligated to vacate the leased land within sixty days subsequent to
plaintiff's demand to that effect; that the defendants have been required by the
municipality to vacate and deliver possession of the said land, but more than the sixty
days within which they having done so to date; that the lease secured from the
municipality of Cavite, by virtue whereof the defendants occupy the land that is the subject
matter of the complaint, is ultra vires and therefore ipso facto null and void and of no force
or effect, for the said land is an integral portion of a public plaza of public domain and use,
and the municipal council of Cavite has never at any time had any power or authority to
withdraw it from public use, and to lease it to a private party for his own use, and so the
defendants have never had any right or occupy or to retain the said land under leasehold,
or in any other way, their occupation of the parcel being furthermore illegal; and therefore
prayed that judgment be rendered declaring that possession of the sad land lies with the
plaintiff and ordering the defendants to vacate the land and deliver possession thereof to
said plaintiff, with the costs against the defendants.
The demurrer filed to the foregoing complaint having been overruled, with exception on
the part of the defendants, in their answer of April 10, 1912, they admitted some of the
allegations contained in the complaint but denied that the parcel of land which they
occupy and to which the complaint refers forms and integral part of Plaza Soledad, or that
the lease secured by them from the municipality of Cavite was null and void and ultra vires,
stating if they refused to vacate said land it was because they had acquired the right of
possession thereof. As a special defense they alleged that, according to the lease, they
could only be ordered to vacate the land leased when the plaintiff municipality might need
it for decoration or other public use, which does not apply in the present case; and in a
cross-complaint they alleged that on the land which is the subject matter of the complaint
the defendants have erected a house of strong materials, assessed at P3,000, which was
constructed under a license secured from the plaintiff municipality; that if they should be
ordered to vacate the said land they would suffer damages to the extent of P3,000,
wherefore they prayed that they be absolved from the complaint, or in the contrary case
that the plaintiff be sentenced to indemnify them in the sum of P3,000 as damages, and to
pay the costs.
After hearing of the case, wherein both parties submitted parol and documentary evidence,
the court rendered the judgment that he been mentioned, whereto counsel for the
municipality excepted and in writing asked for a reopening of the case and the holding of a
new trial. This motion was denied, with exception on the part of the appellant, and the
forwarded to the clerk of this court.
It is duly proven in the record that, upon presentation of an application by Hilaria Rojas, he
municipal council of Cavite by resolution No. 10, dated July 3, 107, Exhibit C, leased to
the said Rojas some 70 or 80 square meters of Plaza Soledad, on condition that she pay
rent quarterly in advance according to the schedule fixed in Ordinance No. 43, land within
sixty days subsequent to notification to that effect. The record shows (receipts, Exhibit 1)
that she has paid the land tax on the house erected on the lot.
The boundary line between the properties of the municipality of Cavite and the naval
reservation, as fixed in Act No. 1039 of the Philippine Commission, appears in the plan
prepared by a naval engineer and submitted as evidence by the plaintiff, Exhibit C of civil
case No. 274 of the Cavite court and registered in this court as No. 9071. According to
said plan, defendant's house is erected on a plat of ground that forms part of the
promenade called Plaza Soledad, and this was also so proven by the testimony of the
plaintiff's witnesses.
By section 3 of the said Act No. 1039, passed January 12, 1904, the Philippine
Commission granted to the municipality of Cavite all the land included in the tract called
Plaza Soledad. In the case of Nicolas vs. Jose (6 Phil. Rep., 589), wherein the
municipality of Cavite, represented by its president Catalino Nicolas, sought inscription in
its name of the land comprised in the said Palza Soledad, with objection on the part of
Maria Jose et al. who is sought that inscription be decreed in their name of the parcels of
land in this plaza occupied by them, this court decided that neither the municipality nor the
objectors were entitled to inscription, for with respect to the objectors said plaza belonged
to the municipality of Cavite and with respect to the latter the said Plaza Soledad was not
transferable property of that municipality to be inscribed in its name, because he intention
of Act No. 1039 was that the said plaza and other places therein enumerated should be
kept open for public transit; herefore there can be no doubt that the defendant has no right
to continue to occupy the land of the municipality leased by her, for it is an integral portion
of Plaza Soledad, which if for public use and is reserved for the common benefit.
According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in
towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public
waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or
provinces."
The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite
could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it
for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or
public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its
authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could
not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do.
The Civil Code, articles 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside he
commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of
this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February
12, 195, which says: "Communal things that cannot be soud because they are by their
very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets,
common lands, rivers, fountains, etc."
Therefore, it must be concluded that the contract, Exhibit C, whereby he municipality of

Cavite leased to Hilaria Rojas a portion of the Plaza Soledad is null and void and of no
force or effect, because it is contrary to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object
of a contract. On the hyphotesis that the said lease is null and void in accordance with the
provisions of article 1303 of the Civil Code, the defendant must restore and deliver
possession of the land described in the complaint to the municipality of Cavite, which in its
turn must restore to the said defendant all the sums it may have received from her in the
nature of rentals just as soon as she restores the land improperly leased. For the same
reasons as have been set forth, and as said contract is null and void in its origin, it can
produce no effect and consequently the defendant is not entitled to claim that the plaintiff
municipality indemnity her for the damages she may suffer by the removal of her house
from the said land.
For all the foregoing reasons we must reverse the judgment appealed from and declare,
as we do declare, that the land occupied by Hilaria Rojas forms part of the public plaza
called Soledad, and as the lease of said parcel of land is null and void, we order the
defendant to vacate it and release the land in question within thirty days, leaving it cleared
as it was before hr occupation. There is no ground for the indemnity sought in the nature
of damages, but the municipality must in its turn to the defendant the rentals collected;
without finding as to the costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

Municipality of Cavite Vs Rojas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipality of Cavite Vs Rojas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipality of Cavite Vs Rojas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-9069 March 31, 1915

THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAVITE, plaintiff-appellant,

Attorney-General Villamor for appellant.

Therefore, it must be concluded that the contract, Exhibit C, whereby he municipality of

Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

You might also like