Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3144)
Facts:
Carmen Ayala de Roxas and Pedro P. Roxas v. The City of Manila and Robert G. Dieck, G.R. No. 3144. November 19, 1907, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs, Carmen Ayala de Roxas and Pedro P. Roxas, owners of a lot fronting the Sibacon (San Jacinto) canal on the Escolta, applied on January 15, 1906 to Robert G. Dieck, the city engineer and defendant, for a license to construct a terrace over a three‑meter strip of land between the main wall of their house and the canal; the city engineer refused. A subsequent petition to the Municipal Board, dated January 30, 1906, was likewise denied.
At trial the parties agreed that the plaintiffs’ title to the whole lot, including the three‑meter strip, was indisputable and recorded; that a two‑story building had occupied the strip for over seventy years; and that the municipality had not expropriated the strip nor offered any compensation. The defendants’ testimony described the municipal intention to reserve the three‑meter strip for public uses (landing and discharging goods, shelter for shipwrecked persons and fishermen, and ultimately as part of a towpath), and that a building line had been established by ordinance forbidding construction within three meters of the creek. The Municipal Board’s secretary, however, denied any recollection that a towpath purpose was explicitly discussed when Ordinance No. 78 was considered.
The plaintiffs alleged that the denial of the license effectively deprived them of exclusive use and enjoyment of their property by treating the strip as a public wharf or way without prior indemnity. Procedurally, a demurrer to the amended complaint had been overruled, an answer filed, and trial had proceeded; this Court had earlier ruled on the demurrer in a decision of May 5, 1900, stating that the establishment of such easements under the Law of Waters requires prior indemnity. The trial record and the ques...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the City of Manila and its city engineer have authority to refuse the plaintiffs’ license to construct on their three‑meter strip by effectively imposing a public easement without prior expropriation and indemnity?
- If such administrative refusal was unlawful, was the remedy sought—an order commanding issuance of the license—proper under th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)