Case Digest (G.R. No. 1975)
Facts:
City of Manila v. El Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Manila, G.R. No. 1975, November 10, 1905, the Supreme Court, Willard, J., writing for the Court. The parties are the City of Manila (plaintiff and appellant) and El Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Manila (defendant and appellee).In July 1887 the defendant petitioned the city for the gratuitous use of a parcel in the Plaza de Goiti to erect a building for its charitable offices, expressly stating the condition that “if the building is abandoned or ceases to be devoted to a Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, the possession of the land will revert to the Municipio.” On July 6, 1887, the municipal corporation adopted a resolution granting “the gratuitous use of the land” on the stated condition; that resolution was submitted to and approved by the Governor-General. The defendant thereafter erected the building and continuously used it for the stated charitable purposes.
On May 14, 1901, the defendant petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for inscription of its possession as owner in the registry of real property pursuant to Article 390 of the Mortgage Law. The Court of First Instance granted the petition and the inscription was made on June 13, 1901. On October 13, 1903, the City of Manila filed suit to cancel that inscription, to recover possession of the property, and for US$14,000 damages.
The trial court (court below) modified the inscription so as to show that the City was the owner and that the defendant had a gratuitous right to occupy the land so long as it devoted it to the Monte de Piedad purposes, and denied other relief. The City appealed. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal by ordinary appellate pr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the 6 July 1887 municipal cession grant the defendant only a conditional right to use the land—reverting to the City if the building were abandoned or ceased to be used as a Monte de Piedad—or did the grant carry a different or more revocable term akin to that alleged for the earlier theater grant?
- Did the defendant’s 1901 action to procure a possessory inscription claiming absolute ownership operate as a renunciation or forfeiture of the rights conferred by the 1887 cession?
- Should the possessory inscript...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)