Facts:

The case involves Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. as the petitioner against Hon. Pascual A. Bercilles, the Presiding Judge of Branch XV of the 14th Judicial District, and Jose L. Espeleta, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, representing the Solicitor General's Office and the Bureau of Lands, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on September 23, 1968, when the City Council of Cebu, through Resolution No. 2193, declared the terminal portion of M. Borces Street in Mabolo, Cebu City, as an abandoned road, as it was not included in the City Development Plan. Following this, on December 19, 1968, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2755, which authorized the Acting City Mayor to sell the abandoned land through public bidding. Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. emerged as the highest bidder and, on March 3, 1969, the Acting City Mayor executed a deed of absolute sale for the land to the petitioner for a total consideration of P10,800.00. Subseq...

Facts:

1. Background of the Land
   The parcel of land in question was originally part of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. It was declared an abandoned road by the City Council of Cebu through Resolution No. 2193 on September 23, 1968, as it was not included in the City Development Plan.

2. Sale of the Land
   On December 19, 1968, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2755, authorizing the Acting City Mayor to sell the land through public bidding. The petitioner, Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc., was the highest bidder and purchased the land for P10,800.00 on March 3, 1969.

3. Application for Registration
   The petitioner filed an application for registration of title over the land with the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

4. Motion to Dismiss
   On June 26, 1974, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the land, being a public road, is part of the public domain and cannot be registered by a private individual.

5. Trial Court's Decision
   The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application on October 11, 1974, prompting the petitioner to file this petition for review.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Discretionary Power of the City Council
   The City Council has the authority to determine whether a property is still necessary for public use. The withdrawal of a road from public use is a valid exercise of this power, and courts will not interfere unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

2. Patrimonial Property
   Property withdrawn from public use ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes patrimonial property, which can be sold or conveyed by the State. The sale of the land to the petitioner was valid, and the petitioner has a registerable title over the property.