Facts
Respondent
Macalino, OIC of the Office of Mayor of San Fernando issued a resolution
requiring the demolition of stalls constructed on what the respondent claims to
be a public land which is now proliferated with the vendors’ stalls called
“talipapa.” The petitioners contend that by virtue of the contract of lease
issued to them by the previous municipal council they have the right to stay
and do business at the place in issue. Thus, the petitioners filed a petition
for prohibition with the Court of First Instance contending that they are
protected by the lease contract. Their petition was denied hence this action to
the Supreme Court was filed for certiorari.
Issue
Whether
or not the land in issue is a public land?
Whether
or not the respondent’s act to order the demolition of the stalls amount to
grave abuse of discretion and whimsical?
Held
It
was held by the Supreme Court that the land in issue is a public land.
In
the year 1961, it appears that the municipal council of San Fernando adopted
resolution no. 218 that authorized vendors to construct permanent stalls on the
land in issue by virtue of a contract of lease. The resolution was opposed in a
Civil Case no. 2040. In 1964, the municipal council of San Fernando adopted
resolution no. 29 declaring the land as a parking space and a public plaza of
the municipality which in effect impliedly revoked the resolution no. 218. In
the Civil Case no. 2040, it was held that a public plaza is beyond the commerce
of men. The decision was not appealed nor reversed hence the court finds no
need to disturb the final adjudication of the Civil Case 2040. It is settled
therefore that the land where the stalls were constructed remains a public
land. The petitioners cannot claim the right to occupy the disputed premises by
invoking lease contracts. Being an object beyond the commerce of men, the land
in dispute cannot be an object of a lease contract.
The
respondent has the duty to restore the public land to what it is intended in
nature and no whimsical action was taken in ordering the demolition of the
stalls. It is an act within the scope of exercising police power and such police
power cannot be bargained away through a lease contract. Thus, the court ruled
in favor of the respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment