Title
Aguado vs. City of Manila
Case
G.R. No. L-3282
Decision Date
Jan 9, 1908
Ricardo Aguado sought payment from the City of Manila for unpaid coal deliveries and a deposit under a contract with the defunct Ayuntamiento de Manila. The Supreme Court ruled the City of Manila is not liable as it is not the Ayuntamiento's successor and holds no trust over Carriedo funds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-3282)

Key Dates

  • Contract Date: June 11, 1897
  • Demand for Payment: July 26, 1898
  • Transfer of Rights: February 1, 1899
  • Defendant's Coronation: August 6, 1901
  • Initial Lawsuit Filed: April 28, 1903
  • Lower Court Judgment: March 27, 1906

Applicable Law

The legal framework primarily comprises relevant laws from the Spanish colonial period as they relate to municipal corporations and the transition to American governance.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a contractual relationship between Tomas Luna Munoz and the Ayuntamiento de Manila, wherein Munoz supplied coal for a municipal waterworks project. Aguado, as the assignee of Munoz's claims, sought to recover a total of 5,621.40 pesos, including amounts due for coal delivered and a security deposit made under the terms of their contract.

Stipulated Facts

The parties agreed on various facts, including the history of the Ayuntamiento de Manila, its suspension after American military occupation, and the transfer of its functions and assets to the Military Government and subsequently to the city of Manila from August 6, 1901.

Lower Court's Ruling

The lower court found in favor of Aguado, determining that the city of Manila, as the successor to the Ayuntamiento de Manila, was liable for the debts incurred by the latter. The court ordered the city to pay Aguado the total sum of 7,982.38 pesos and allowed execution against the Carriedo fund property.

Appellate Claims

The city of Manila appealed, contesting the lower court's findings on multiple grounds, including claims that:

  1. The original contract did not bind the successor corporation (city of Manila) as it was entered by the Ayuntamiento de Manila, and thus, the present city had no obligation to fulfill these debts.
  2. The ruling that the city acted as a trustee was invalid and led to unwarranted liability for debts created during the reign of its predecessor.
  3. The execution against municipal property was improperly ordered.

Superior Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the nature of municipal corporations and their legal standing. It reiterated that a municipal corporation acts as an agent of the state, with powers limited to those granted in its charter. When the Spanish Government ceased to function, the Ayuntamiento de Manila lost all powers and contracts entered into thereafter could not bind its successor without specific authorization from subsequent governing authorities.

Conclusion of Liability

The position taken by the Supreme Court was that the current city of Manila is not a legal successor of the Ayuntamiento de Manila in terms of obligations and liabilities. The contracts on which Aguado’s claims were based were made by the Ayuntamiento in its corporate capacity, there

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.