Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    KHO - (3) Unson-v-Hon-Arsenio-Lacson

    Uploaded by

    FRANCIS CEDRIC KHO
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cipriano Unson in his case against Mayor Lacson, the City of Manila, and Genato Commercial Corporation. Unson sued to annul an ordinance that withdrew public access to Callejon del Carmen and leased the land to Genato, who then constructed a building. Unson's adjacent property was negatively impacted as the building blocked the only exit. The Court found the ordinance and lease invalid as the construction prevented public use of the land along the river as required by law. While demolition was not explicitly ordered, the parties agreed the building could not remain if the ordinance and lease were invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    KHO - (3) Unson-v-Hon-Arsenio-Lacson

    Uploaded by

    FRANCIS CEDRIC KHO
    115 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cipriano Unson in his case against Mayor Lacson, the City of Manila, and Genato Commercial Corporation. Unson sued to annul an ordinance that withdrew public access to Callejon del Carmen and leased the land to Genato, who then constructed a building. Unson's adjacent property was negatively impacted as the building blocked the only exit. The Court found the ordinance and lease invalid as the construction prevented public use of the land along the river as required by law. While demolition was not explicitly ordered, the parties agreed the building could not remain if the ordinance and lease were invalid.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cipriano Unson in his case against Mayor Lacson, the City of Manila, and Genato Commercial Corporation. Unson sued to annul an ordinance that withdrew public access to Callejon del Carmen and leased the land to Genato, who then constructed a building. Unson's adjacent property was negatively impacted as the building blocked the only exit. The Court found the ordinance and lease invalid as the construction prevented public use of the land along the river as required by law. While demolition was not explicitly ordered, the parties agreed the building could not remain if the ordinance and lease were invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    115 views2 pages

    KHO - (3) Unson-v-Hon-Arsenio-Lacson

    Uploaded by

    FRANCIS CEDRIC KHO
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cipriano Unson in his case against Mayor Lacson, the City of Manila, and Genato Commercial Corporation. Unson sued to annul an ordinance that withdrew public access to Callejon del Carmen and leased the land to Genato, who then constructed a building. Unson's adjacent property was negatively impacted as the building blocked the only exit. The Court found the ordinance and lease invalid as the construction prevented public use of the land along the river as required by law. While demolition was not explicitly ordered, the parties agreed the building could not remain if the ordinance and lease were invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-13798             July 31, 1961


    CIPRIANO E. UNSON, petitioner-appellee,
    vs.
    HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL., respondents,
    GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondent-appellant.
    Penned by Justice Bengzon

    FACTS: Cipriano E. Unson sued Mayor Lacson of Manila and the Genato Commercial
    Corporation to annul Ordinance No. 3470 of the City whereby the Corporation had obtained, by
    lease, a certain lot plus a permit to build thereon. The lot was a part of Callejon del Carmen
    which the ordinance withdrew from public use and converted into patrimonial property, available
    for lease to private parties. Unson objected to the lease, and therefore to the ordinance,
    because he was the owner of a lot and building that abutted the Callejon, and the construction
    by Genato Commercial shut off the exit from his building, to the great prejudice and danger of
    the students of the Mapa High School that occupied it. In his complaint, Unson asserted that the
    ordinance was null and void, and that Genato's construction impaired the general welfare
    because it deprived the public of the use of the Callejon. He has asked for in junction against
    the construction and annulment of the ordinance, the lease and the building permit.

    Unson lost in the court of first instance of Manila hence the current petition.

    ISSUE: W/N Ordinance No. 3470

    HELD: Ruled in favor of Unson.

    The Honorable Supreme Court found that the ordinance and the contract of lease under
    consideration are inconsistent with Article 638 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.  The building
    constructed by Genato Commercial Corporation on the portion of Callejon del Carmen in
    dispute renders it impossible for the public to use the zone of three meters along the Northern
    margin of the Estero de San Sebastian for the purpose set forth in said Article 638.

    Art. 638. The bank of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private ownership are subject
    throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their margins, to the
    easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.

    In Re: Removal of construction Genato Commercial made on the land leased from the
    City.

    Court cited Marcelo v. Mencias G.R. No. L-5609 April 29, 1960 holding that the Successful
    litigant in a land registration case is entitled to an order of demolition of the house of the
    defeated parties erected on such registered land. The Unson case did not contain any order for
    demolition because as the debate was presented, the only necessary issue referred to the
    validity of the ordinance and consequently of the lease. The parties practically concede that if
    the ordinance was valid, Genato's construction stayed; but if invalid, the contract was void, the
    building had no reason to continue, for it prevented the public to use the callejon. In fact the only
    desire of Unson was to remove the obstruction; but he could fulfill it only thru the annulment of
    the lease and the ordinance. So the ordinance became the central point. Articles 448, 546 and
    548, of the New Civil Code, none of which is applicable. The first refers to the "owner of land on
    which anything has been built." Unson is not the owner, City of Manila is. 

    You might also like