VILLANUEVA, ET. AL. VS CASTAEDA, JR., ET. AL.

September 2l, 1987

Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS : In 1961, the municipal council of San Fernando adopted Resolution No. 218 authorizing 24 members of Fernandino United Merchants and Traders Association to construct permanent stalls and sell in thesubject property within the vicinity of the public market. The Resolution was protested and Civil CaseNo. 2040 was filed. CFI issued writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the construction of stalls.While the case was pending, the municipal council adopted Resolution No. 29 which declared thesubject area as a parking place and as the public plaza of the municipality. CFI decided Civil Case No.2040 and held that the subject land was public in nature and was beyond the commerce of man. Thepreliminary injunction was made permanent.The decision was apparently not enforced, for the petitioners were not evicted from the place. Theywere assigned specific areas and were made to pay daily fees to the municipal government for use of the area.On January 12, 1982 (more than 13 years after CFI decision), the Association of Concerned Citizensand Consumers of San Fernando filed a petition for the immediate implementation of Resolution No. 29,to restore the subject property "to its original and customary use as a public plaza. After investigation was conducted by the municipal attorney, Macalino, officer in-charge of the office of the mayor, issued a resolution ordering the demolition of the stalls in the subject area.Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with the CFI, which was denied.Hence, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the SC. Petitioners argued that they had right tooccupy the area by virtue of lease contracts entered into with the municipal government, and later, byvirtue of space allocations made in their favor for which they paid daily fees. The municipality deniedthat they entered into said agreements. It argued that even if the leases were valid, the same could beterminated at will because rent was collected daily.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners have the right to occupy the subject land.

HELD:

It is a well-settled doctrine that the town plaza cannot be used for the construction of market stalls, and that such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking. This is elementary. Indeed, this point was settled as early as in Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, decided in 1915, where the Court declared as null and void the lease of a public plaza of the said municipality in favor of a private person. The petitioners had

no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises and cannot insist in remaining there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts.

The problems caused by the usurpation of the place by the petitioners are covered by the police power as delegated to the municipality under the general welfare clause. This authorizes the municipal council "to enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein." This authority was validly exercised in this casethrough the adoption of Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, by the municipal council of San Fernando. Even assuming a valid lease of the property in dispute, the resolution could have effectively terminated the agreement for it is settled that the police power cannot be surrendered or bargained away through the medium of a contract. Hence, the loss or damage caused to petitioners, in the case at bar, does not constitute a violation of a legal right or amount to a legal wrong - damnum absque injuria.