Case Digest (G.R. No. 31662)
Facts:
Kock Wing v. Philippine Railway Co., G.R. No. 31662, February 14, 1930, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Kock Wing (plaintiff) sought to operate a shipyard (varadero) on three cadastral lots (Nos. 604, 605, and 1030) abutting the foreshore of the lower, navigable Iloilo River, an area used as Iloilo’s maritime harbor. In 1904 the Philippine Commission had granted Cho Hang Lin a revocable license (Act No. 1223) to construct and maintain slipways on the foreshore; §9 of that Act forbade assignment or transfer of the license without Commission approval. A partnership later operating as “The Iloilo Dry Dock” occupied the foreshore and the adjoining lots; the partnership was placed in receivership by the Court of First Instance of Manila and its assets were sold in 1927, after which Cesar Barrios removed the shipyard equipment to the opposite shore.
Shortly before the partnership’s dissolution, the plaintiff acquired title to the three lots and, claiming right to continue shipyard operations, obtained an Internal Revenue transfer endorsement (a “Privilege Tax Receipt” endorsement) and a municipal license in July 1927. Meanwhile, on March 31, 1927, the Philippine Railway Company petitioned the Governor-General for permission to construct a spur extension and retaining wall and to fill the foreshore for street and wharf purposes; the Governor-General approved on May 26, 1927, and the railroad began construction, which would, if completed as planned, cut off the plaintiff’s river access.
The railroad’s vice-president notified the municipal president that the Governor-General’s permit predated the plaintiff’s municipal license; the municipal president then cancelled the municipal license on August 18, 1927. The plaintiff filed suit seeking injunction and P75,000 in damages, alleging that the railroad’s cons...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the plaintiff have standing to enjoin the railway’s foreshore works or recover damages for loss of access where the works were authorized by the Government and the alleged injury is common to the public?
- Did the plaintiff have any legally protected proprietary or exclusive littoral right to operate the shipyard on the foreshore so as to entitle him to injunctive relief or damages?
- Did the Governor-General have authority to permit the Philippine Railway Company to construct the spur, retaining wall, and wharf works on the foreshore and to take the foreshore out of ordinary disposition rules (i.e., did Acts No. 1497 and 2053 authorize such...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)