7/24/2019 1. Villanueva v Castaneda

1/5

G.R. No. L-61311 September 2l, 1987

FELICIDAD VILLANEVA, FERNAND! CAISI", AN#!NI! LIANG, FELINA $IRANDA,RICARD! "N!, FL!RENCI! LA%A, &'( RENE !CA$"!,petitioners,vs.

)!N. $ARIAN! CAS#A*EDA, +R., "re(' +/(e o0 te Co/rt o0 Frt I't&'e o0 "&mp&'&,r&' III, VICEN#E A. $ACALIN!, !00er-'-C&re, !00e o0 te $&4or, S&' Fer'&'(o,"&mp&'&, respondents.

CR5, J.:

There is in the vicinity of the public market of San Fernando, Pampanga, along Mercado Street, a strip of land

measuring 12 by meters on !hich stands a conglomeration of vendors stalls together forming !hat is

commonly kno!n as a talipapa. This is the sub"ect of the herein petition. The petitioners claim they have a

right to remain in and conduct business in this area by virtue of a previous authori#ation granted to them by themunicipal government. The respondents deny this and "ustify the demolition of their stalls as illegal

constructions on public property. $t the petitioners% behest, !e have issued a temporary restraining order to

preserve thestatus quobet!een the parties pending our decision. 1&o! !e shall rule on the merits.

This dispute goes back to &ovember , 1'(1, !hen the municipal council of San Fernando adopted )esolution

&o. 21* authori#ing some 2+ members of the Fernandino nited Merchants and Traders $ssociation to

construct permanent stags and sell in the above-mentioned place. 2The action !as protested on &ovember 1,

1'(1, in /ivil /ase &o. 2+, !here the /ourt of First 0nstance of Pampanga, ranch 2, issued a !rit of preliminary

in"unction that prevented the defendants from constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the

controversy. 3n 3anuary 1*, 1'(+, !hile this case !as pending, the municipal council of San Fernando adopted

)esolution 4.). &o. 2', !hich declared the sub"ect area as 5the parking place and as the public pla#a of the

municipality, thereby impliedly revoking )esolution &o. 21*, series of 1'(1. Four years later, on &ovember 2,

1'(*, 3udge $ndres /. $guilar decided the aforesaid case and held that the land occupied by the petitioners, being

public in nature, !as beyond the commerce of man and therefore could not be the sub"ect of private

occupancy. The !rit of preliminary in"unction !as made permanent. 6

The decision !as apparently not enforced, for the petitioners !ere not evicted from the place6 in fact,

according to then they and the 12* other persons !ere in 1'1 assigned specific areas or space allotments

therein for !hich they paid daily fees to the municipal government. 7The problem appears to have festered for

some more years under a presumably uneasy truce among the protagonists, none of !hom made any move, for some

reason that does not appear in the record. Then, on 3anuary 12, 1'*2, the $ssociation of /oncerned /iti#ens and

/onsumers of San Fernando filed a petition for the immediate implementation of )esolution &o. 2', to restore the

sub"ect property 5to its original and customary use as a public pla#a. 8

$cting thereon after an investigation conducted by the municipal attorney, 9respondent 7icente $. Macalino, asofficer-in-charge of the office of the mayor of San Fernando, issued on 3une 1+, 1'*2, a resolution re8uiring the

municipal treasurer and the municipal engineer to demolish the stalls in the sub"ect place beginning 3uly 1,

1'*2. 1The reaction of the petitioners !as to file a petition for prohibition !ith the /ourt of First 0nstance of Pampanga, docketed as /ivil /ase &o.(+, on 3une 2(, 1'*2. The respondent "udge denied the petition on 3uly 1', 1'*2, 11and the motion for reconsideration on $ugust 9, 1'*2, 12promptingthe petitioners to come to this /ourt on certiorari to challenge his decision. 13

7/24/2019 1. Villanueva v Castaneda

2/5

$s re8uired, respondent Macalino filed his comment 1on the petition, and the petitioners countered !ith their reply. 10ncompliance !ith our resolution of February 2, 1'*:, the petitioners submitted their memorandum 16and respondent Macalino, for his part, asked that hiscomment be considered his memorandum. 17n 3uly 2*, 1'*(, the ne! officer-in-charge of the office of the mayor of San Fernando, Paterno S. 4uevarra,!as impleaded in lieu of 7irgilio Sanche#, !ho had himself earlier replaced the original respondent Macalino. 18

$fter considering the issues and the arguments raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, !e rule for

the respondents. The petition must be dismissed.

There is no 8uestion that the place occupied by the petitioners and from !hich they are sought to be evicted is

a public pla#a, as found by the trial court in /ivil /ase &o. 2+. This finding !as made after consideration of

the antecedent facts as especially established by the testimony of former San Fernando Mayor )odolfo ;i#on,

!ho later became governor of Pampanga, that the &ational Planning /ommission had reserved the area for a

public pla#a as early as 1'91. This intention !as reiterated in 1'(+ through the adoption of )esolution &o.

2'. 19

0t does not appear that the decision in this case !as appealed or has been reversed. 0n /ivil /ase 4.). &o.

(+, !hich is the sub"ect of this petition, the respondent "udge sa! no reason to disturb the finding in /ivil

/ase &o. 2+ and indeed used it as a basis for his o!n decision sustaining the 8uestioned order.2

The basic contention of the petitioners is that the disputed area is under lease to them by virtue of contracts

they had entered into !ith the municipal government, first in 1'(1 insofar as the original occupants !ere

concerned, and later !ith them and the other petitioners by virtue of the space allocations made in their favor

in 1'1 for !hich they sa! they are paying daily fees. 21The municipal government has denied making suchagreements. 0n any case, they argue, since the fees !ere collected daily, the leases, assuming their validity, could be

terminated at !ill, or any day, as the claimed rentals indicated that the period of the leases !as from day to day. 22

The parties belabor this argument needlessly.

$ public pla#a is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the sub"ect of lease or any other contractualundertaking. This is elementary. 0ndeed, this point !as settled as early as inMunicipality of Cavite vs.

Rojas, 23decided in 1'19, !here the /ourt declared as null and void the lease of a public pla#a of the said

municipality in favor of a private person.

3ustice Torres said in that casechoing )o"as, the decision saidven assuming a valid lease of the property in dispute, the resolution could have effectively terminated the

agreement for it is settled that the police po!er cannot be surrendered or bargained a!ay through the medium

of a contract. 30n fact, every contract affecting the public interest suffers a congenital infirmity in that it contains an

implied reservation of the police po!er as a postulate of the e=isting legal order. 31This po!er can be activated at

any time to change the provisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or protection of the

general !elfare. Such an act !ill not militate against the impairment clause, !hich is sub"ect to and limited by the

paramount police po!er.32

Ae hold that the respondent "udge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for

prohibition. n the contrary, he acted correctly in sustaining the right and responsibility of the mayor to evict

the petitioners from the disputed area and clear it of an the structures illegally constructed therein.

The /ourt feels that it !ould have been far more amiable if the petitioners themselves, recogni#ing their o!n

civic duty, had at the outset desisted from their original stance and !ithdra!n in good grace from the disputed

area to permit its peaceful restoration as a public pla#a and parking place for the benefit of the !hole

municipality. They o!ned this little sacrifice to the community in general !hich has suffered all these many

years because of their intransigence. )egrettably, they have refused to recogni#e that in the truly democratic

society, the interests of the fe! should yield to those of the greater number in deference to the principles that

the !elfare of the people is the supreme la! and overriding purpose. Ae do not see any altruism here. The

traditional ties of sharing are absent here. Ahat !e find, sad to say, is a cynical disdaining of the spirit of

5bayanihan,5 a selfish re"ection of the cordial virtues of 5pakikisama 5 and 5pagbibigayan5 !hich are the

hallmarks of our people.

A;>)>F)>, the petition is B0SM0SS>B. The decision dated 3uly 1', 1'*2, and the order-dated $ugust 9,

1'*2, are $FF0)M>B. The temporary restraining order dated $ugust ', 1'*2, is C0FT>B. This decision is

immediately e=ecutory. /osts against the petitioners.

S )B>)>B.

Teehanee, C.!., "arvasa and Paras, !!., concur.