Today is Monday, September 20, 2021

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

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.

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.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation