03marloc gov

7/31/2019 03marLoc Gov

1/11

Macasiano v. DioknoFacts:

On 13 June 1990, the Municipality of

Paranaque passed Ordinance 86, s. 1990 which

authorized the closure of J. Gabrielle, G.G.

Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and

Opena Streets located at Baclaran,

Paraaque, Metro Manila and theestablishment of a flea market thereon. The

said ordinance was approved by the municipal

council pursuant to MCC Ordinance 2, s. 1979,

authorizing and regulating the use of

certain city and/or municipal streets,

roads and open spaces within Metropolitan

Manila as sites for flea market and/or vending

areas, under certain terms and conditions. On 20

July 1990, the Metropolitan Manila Authority

approved Ordinance 86, s. 1990 of the

municipal council subject to conditions. On 20June 1990, the municipal council issued a

resolution authorizing the Paraaque Mayor to

enter into contract with any service


2/11

cooperative for the establishment, operation,

maintenance and management of flea markets

and/or vending areas. On 8 August 1990,themunicipality and Palanyag, a service

cooperative, entered into an agreement whereby

the latter shall operate, maintain and manage the

flea market with the obligation to remit dues to

the treasury of the municipal government of

Paraaque. Consequently, market stalls were putup by Palanyag on the said streets. On 13

September 1990 Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP

Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic

Command, ordered the destruction and

confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J.

Gabrielle St. in Baclaran. These stalls were later

returned to Palanyag. On 16 October 1990,

Macasiano wrote a letter to Palanyag giving the

latter 10 days to discontinue the flea market;

otherwise, the market stalls shall be dismantled.

On 23 October 1990, the municipality andPalanyag filed with the trial court a joint

petition for prohibition and mandamus with

damages and prayer for preliminary


3/11

injunction. On 17 December 1990, the trial

court issued an order upholding the validity of

Ordinance 86 s. 1990 of the Municipality ofParaaque and enjoining Macasiano from

enforcing his letter-order against Palanyag.

Hence, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

was filed by Macasiano thru the OSG.

Issue:

Whether or not an ordinance or resolution issued bythe municipal council of Paraaque authorizing the

lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares

as sites for flea markets is valid?

Held:

The property of provinces, cities and

municipalities is divided into property

for public use and patrimonial property

(Art. 423, Civil Code). As to property for

public use, Article 424 of Civil Code

provides that "property for public use, in the

provinces, cities and municipalities, consistsof the provincial roads, city streets, the squares,

fountains, public waters, promenades, and

public works for public service paid for by said


4/11

provinces, cities or municipalities. All other

property possessed by any of them is

patrimonial and shall be governed by thisCode, without prejudice to the provisions

of special laws." In the present case, thus, J.

Gabrielle G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Gacia

Extension and Opena streets are local roads

used for public service and are therefore

considered public properties of themunicipality. Properties of the local

government which are devoted to public

service are deemed public and are under the

absolute control of Congress. Hence, local

government have no authority whatsoever to

control or regulate the use of public

properties unless specific authority is vested

upon them by Congress.

Lina vs Pano

in 1995, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes

Office appointed Tony Calvento as an agent to

install a lotto terminal in San Pedro, Laguna.


5/11


6/11

an Act of Congress. While lotto is clearly a

game of chance, the national government deems

it wise and proper to permit it. Hence, theSangguniang Bayan of Laguna, alocal

government unit, cannot issue a resolution or an

ordinance that would seek to prohibit permits.

YES. As a policy statement expressing the local

governments objection to the lotto, such

resolution is valid. This is part of the local

governments autonomy to air its views which

may be contrary to that of the national

governments.

The freedom to exercise contrary views does not

mean that local governments may actually enact

ordinances that go against laws duly enacted by

Congress.


7/11

What the national legislature expressly allows

by law, a provincial board may not disallow by

ordinance or resolution.

The power of local government units to legislate

and enact ordinances and resolutions is merely a

delegated power coming from Congress.

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, andderive their powers and rights wholly from the

legislature. It breathes into them the breath of

life, without which they cannot exist. Alit

creates, so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it

may abridge and control.

Obiter: Unless there is some

constitutional limitation on the right, the

legislature might, by a single act, and if we

can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so

great a wrong, sweep from existence all of themunicipal corporations in the state, and the

corporation could not prevent it.


8/11

Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a

federal state. Being so, any form of

autonomy granted to local governmentswill necessarily be limited and confined within

the extent allowed by the central authority. The

principle of local autonomy under the 1987

Constitution simply means decentralization. It

does not make local government sovereign

within the state or animperium in imperio.

TATEL VS. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC

[207 SCRA 157; G.R. No. 40243; 11 Mar

1992]

Friday, January 30, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic

Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner Celestino Tatel owns a

warehouse in barrio Sta. Elena, Municipality ofVirac. Complaints were received by the

municipality concerning the disturbance caused

by the operation of the abaca bailing machine
http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Digestshttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Political%20Lawhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/search/label/Case%20Digestshttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/tatel-vs-municipality-of-virac-207-scra.html


9/11

inside petitioners warehouse. A committee was

then appointed by the municipal council, and it

noted from its investigation on the matter that anaccidental fire within the warehouse of the

petitioner created a danger to the lives and

properties of the people in the neighborhood.

Resolution No. 29 was then passed by the

Municipal council declaring said warehouse as a

public nuisance within a purview of Article 694of the New Civil Code. According to respondent

municipal officials, petitioners warehouse was

constructed in violation of Ordinance No. 13,

series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of

warehouses near a block of houses either in the

poblacion or barrios without maintaining the

necessary distance of 200 meters from said

block of houses to avoid loss of lives and

properties by accidental fire. On the other hand,

petitioner contends that Ordinance No. 13 is

unconstitutional.

Issues:


10/11

(1) Whether or not petitioners warehouse is a

nuisance within the meaning Article 694 of theCivil Code

(2) Whether or not Ordinance No. 13, series of

1952 of the Municipality of Virac is

unconstitutional and void.

Held: The storage of abaca and copra in

petitioners warehouse is a nuisance under the

provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code. At

the same time, Ordinance No. 13 was passed by

the Municipal Council of Virac in the exercise

of its police power. It is valid because it meets

the criteria for a valid municipal ordinance: 1)

must not contravene the Constitution or any

statute, 2) must not be unfair or oppressive, 3)must not be partial or discriminatory, 4) must

not prohibit but may regulate trade, 5) must be

general and consistent with public policy, and 6)


11/11

must not be unreasonable. The purpose of the

said ordinance is to avoid the loss of property

and life in case of fire which is one of theprimordial obligation of government. The lower

court did not err in its decision.

03marloc gov

Documents