G.R. No. 9865 - Tufexis vs. Olaguera

Vergo D. Tufexis, acting as plaintiff and appellant, initiated the suit seeking to enforce his claimed right to possess and use a parcel of land and market building based on a government concession.
The plaintiff asserted that he was the sole and lawful owner of the rights acquired at a public sale on September 30, 1911, from Ricardo Pardo y Pujol—heir to Ricardo Pardo y Cabanas, the original grantee under the concession.

The concession, granted by the former Spanish Government on August 4, 1884, provided that on municipal land the grantee was to construct a public market building with a galvanized-iron roof.
The instrument stipulated that the grantee was granted the usufruct of the building’s floor space for forty years. Upon the expiration of this period, both the building and the land would revert to the government or the municipality.
The rights conferred were personal, intended solely for the grantee and his hereditary successor, and were explicitly limited to enjoying revenues from the market’s operation.

Plaintiff alleged that after the building was destroyed by an accidental fire on January 2, 1912, the municipal authorities, in concert with defendant Francisco Olaguera, unlawfully occupied the land from March 1, 1912.
The defendants reportedly installed various structures (stores, booths, billiard tables) on the property, preventing the plaintiff from reconstructing the public market as provided in the concession.
Plaintiff contended that the municipal council acted deceitfully, fraudulently, and in bad faith during failed negotiations intended to purchase his rights under the concession.

In his complaint, plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights and an order directing the defendants to remove the obstructions, along with a demand for damages of P250 per month from March 1, 1912, until the land was vacated.
The defendant municipality demurred, arguing that the plaintiff lacked the requisite legal personality and that the complaint was fatally defective by not showing that the concession rights were transferable or had been acquired by the plaintiff in full.
The Court of First Instance sustained the demurrer and allowed a ten-day period for amending the complaint. Plaintiff’s refusal to amend led to the dismissal of his complaint on September 1, 1913.
Subsequent motions for rehearing and new trial were overruled, and the plaintiff filed a bill of exceptions challenging the dismissal.

Whether a market building, constructed under a government concession on municipal land and intended for public use, can be attached and sold to satisfy a debt incurred by Ricardo Pardo y Pujol.

Is the building, despite being constructed by the grantee at his own expense, the property of the debtor or of the municipality?
Does the fact that the building was destroyed by fire and never fully reconstituted affect the plaintiff’s claim to possess and reconstruct it under the concession?

Whether the personal, non-transferable right of usufruct granted by the concession can be subjected to attachment by a creditor.

Can the creditor legally claim the right to operate the public market or collect revenues arising therefrom as security for a debt?
Should any attachment be limited to the proceeds generated by the market rather than the right to use a public-service facility?