G.R. No. 226065 - Heirs of Alido vs. Campano

In April 1953, Cipriano E. Unson initiated a suit against Manila Mayor Lacson and Genato Commercial Corporation.
Unson challenged Ordinance No. 3470, under which the City, by leasing a lot (part of Callejon del Carmen) to Genato Commercial Corporation, withdrew the area from public use and converted it into patrimonial property available for private leasing.
Unson, owner of an adjacent lot and building, argued that Genato’s construction on the leased property obstructed his building’s exit and endangered the students of Mapa High School.

Unson’s suit sought the annulment of the ordinance, lease, and building permit, and an injunction to halt the construction.
After losing in the Manila trial court, Unson appealed and achieved a favorable decision in G.R. No. L-7909, where the Court declared the ordinance and contract of lease null and void.
The decision was based on the finding that the ordinance contravened Article 638 of the Civil Code, which mandates a public easement along the banks of rivers and streams to ensure free use for navigation, fishing, floatage, and salvage.

Once the decision became final, Unson filed for a writ of execution directing Genato Commercial Corporation to remove any construction erected on the leased lot.
Genato objected, contending that the decision did not specifically require the demolition of the structure it had built, citing statutory provisions (Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the New Civil Code) concerning the rights of a good-faith possessor.
The Manila court issued the execution ordering demolition, which Genato Commercial Corporation then appealed, arguing its right to retain the building.

The controlling precedent in the case was Perez vs. Evite, which had dealt with similar issues involving possession and the application of judicial orders in land disputes.
The decision also referenced Marcelo vs. Mencias to support the notion that a successful litigant in a land registration-related dispute is entitled to an order for demolition if the defendant’s structure obstructs rightful use.
Genato’s reliance on Articles 448, 546, and 548 was rejected as these provisions apply to bona fide builders and scenarios not applicable to the unique public interest concerns in this case.

Whether Ordinance No. 3470, which converted a public alley (Callejon del Carmen) into patrimonial property for private lease, is legally valid.
Whether the contract of lease and the issued building permit, resulting from this ordinance, can be upheld given the public use implications.

Whether the judgment in G.R. No. L-7909, which nullified the ordinance and lease, implicitly required the removal of Genato’s construction.
Whether it is legally permissible to enforce demolition through execution when the judgment did not expressly include an order for demolition.

Whether Articles 448, 546, and 548 of the New Civil Code, which pertain to the rights of a builder in good faith and necessary expenses, can be applied to defend Genato Commercial Corporation’s retention of the building.
Whether these provisions override or mitigate the public interest considerations arising from the obstruction of the public easement mandated by Article 638 of the Civil Code.