Case Digest (G.R. No. 9069) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The Municipality of Cavite v. Hilaria Rojas and Tiung Siuko, alias Slwa (G.R. No. 9069, decided March 31, 1915), the Municipality of Cavite, through the Attorney-General, sued the defendants before the Court of First Instance of Cavite by complaint dated December 5, 1911 (amended March 14, 1912). The municipality, organized under Act No. 82 and vested by Act No. 1039 with exclusive control of its public places, alleged that the defendants occupied a 93 sq. m. parcel of Plaza Soledad under a quarterly lease at P5.58, with an express obligation to vacate within sixty days of demand. Upon demand and the lapse of sixty days without vacation, the municipality sought recovery of possession, claiming the lease was ultra vires and void since public plazas are inalienable. The defendants’ demurrer was overruled; in their April 10, 1912 answer, they denied that the land formed part of the public plaza, asserted a valid lease conditional only on municipality’s need for public use, and f Case Digest (G.R. No. 9069) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- The Municipality of Cavite (plaintiff), represented by the Attorney-General, sued Hilaria Rojas and her husband Tiung Siuko for possession of a 93-square-meter parcel of land forming part of Plaza Soledad.
- The complaint, filed December 5, 1911 and amended March 14, 1912, alleged that the defendants held under an ultra vires lease, had been given sixty days to vacate upon demand, failed to do so, and that the lease was null because the plaza is public domain.
- Defendants’ Answer and Cross-Complaint
- By answer dated April 10, 1912, the defendants admitted some factual allegations but denied that the land is part of Plaza Soledad or that the lease is void, asserting they lawfully acquired possession.
- They pleaded that the lease authorized eviction only if the municipality needed the land for public decoration, and counter-claimed for P3,000 damages for their house erected under a municipal license.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- The court overruled a demurrer, heard parol and documentary evidence, and on March 27, 1913 dismissed the complaint with costs, holding the municipality had no right of ejectment.
- The municipality’s motion for new trial was denied; it filed a bill of exceptions and appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Key Evidence
- Resolution No. 10 (July 3, 1907) leasing 70–80 sqm of Plaza Soledad to Rojas at P5.58 quarterly, with a 60-day vacatur clause.
- Act No. 1039 (January 12, 1904) granted the municipality all of Plaza Soledad as a public promenade; cadastral plan shows the house within the plaza.
- Prior decision (Nicolas v. Jose, 6 Phil. 589) held Plaza Soledad inalienable; Civil Code arts. 344, 1271 and Spanish jurisprudence confirm plazas are outside commerce.
Issues:
- Whether Plaza Soledad is public property outside commerce and therefore inalienable.
- Whether the municipal council of Cavite had authority to lease a portion of the public plaza to a private party.
- Whether, if the lease is void, the defendants must vacate and whether they may claim damages for improvements.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)