Case Summary (G.R. No. 97764)
Factual Background
On June 13, 1990 the Municipality of Paranaque enacted Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990, authorizing the closure of J. Gabriel, G.G. Cruz, Bayanihan, Lt. Garcia Extension and Opena Streets in Baclaran for the establishment of a flea market. The Metropolitan Manila Authority approved the ordinance on July 20, 1990 subject to specified conditions concerning vehicular use, pedestrian corridors, hours of operation, marking, and temporariness pending reclamation development. The municipal council had earlier on June 20, 1990 authorized the mayor to contract with a service cooperative to operate flea markets. On August 8, 1990 the Municipality entered into an agreement with Palanyag Kilusang Bayan for Service to operate the flea market, and market stalls were erected on the subject streets.
Police Action and Controversy
On September 13, 1990 petitioner as Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command ordered destruction and confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J. Gabriel Streets; the stalls were subsequently returned to Palanyag. On October 16, 1990 petitioner issued a letter giving Palanyag ten days to discontinue the flea market or face dismantling. The Municipality and Palanyag thereupon filed a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus with damages and prayed for a preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on October 24, 1990 enjoining petitioner from enforcing the October 16, 1990 letter-order pending hearing. On December 17, 1990 the trial court entered an order upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 86, s. 1990 and granted the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioner from enforcing his letter-order against respondent Palanyag. The trial court reasoned that Chapter II, Section 10 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 vested power on local government units to close roads and that the petitioner’s action encroached upon powers legally vested in the Municipality.
Issue Presented
The sole issue the Court framed was whether a municipal ordinance or resolution authorizing the lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea markets is valid under the law.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner, through the Solicitor General, contended that municipal roads are public property devoted to public service and therefore outside the commerce of man; that such streets cannot be subject to private appropriation or contract by anyone, including the Municipality; that a property already dedicated to public use cannot be converted to another public use absent specific legislative authority; that, in any event, the Municipality failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Metropolitan Manila Authority for approval of the ordinance; and that allowing vendors to occupy streets contravened the Municipality’s duty under the Local Government Code to promote the general welfare of residents.
Respondents’ Contentions
Respondents maintained that the enactment of the ordinance fell within the powers granted by law to local government units and that the courts should not interfere with such local legislative action. They relied on the purported grant of authority in Chapter II, Section 10 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 to close roads and to use or convey property withdrawn from public use.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
The Court examined the governing law effective when the ordinance was enacted, namely Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, and the Civil Code provisions on public and patrimonial property. The Court reiterated that property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil Code) and that property for public use includes city streets and provincial roads (Art. 424, Civil Code). The Court held that streets devoted to public service are public property and are under the control of Congress; local governments therefore lack authority to dispose of or lease such public dominion unless specific authority is vested by statute. The Court observed that Section 10, Chapter II of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 permits a local government unit to close roads but only in accordance with existing law and with limitations: closure must withdraw the property from public use, the local unit must indemnify any person prejudiced thereby, and only when circumstances demonstrate the property is no longer intended or necessary for public use does it become patrimonial property that may be used or conveyed. The Court relied on precedent, notably Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, et al., G.R. No. L-40474, August 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 481, and Francisco v. Dacanay, G.R. No. 93654, May 6, 1992, to confirm that streets ordinarily used for vehicular traffic remain public dominion and may not be leased or otherwise made the subject of private contracts. The Court further found that even assuming arguendo that the Municipality possessed authority to enact the ordinance, the Municipality had not shown compliance with the Metropolitan Manila Authority’s conditions precedent to approval, including proof that the streets were not used for vehicular traffic, that a majority of residents did not oppose the flea market, designation of the vending hours, and the required markings and pedestrian corridors. The Court also noted the practical adverse effects of the street occupation on emergency access, hospital access, schoolchildren, sanitation, and general welfare as persuasive of the limits on municipal action.
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 97764)
Parties and Posture
- Petitioner is Levy D. Macasiano, Brigadier General/PNP Superintendent, Metropolitan Traffic Command, who filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court.
- Respondents are Honorable Roberto C. Diokno, Presiding Judge, Branch 62, Regional Trial Court of Makati, the Municipality of Paranaque, and Palanyag Kilusang Bayan for Service.
- The petition sought annulment of the RTC decision that granted a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the petitioner from enforcing a demolition order against market stalls.
- The Supreme Court acted en banc and rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the RTC order.
Key Facts
- On June 13, 1990 the Municipality of Paranaque enacted Ordinance No. 86, Series of 1990 to close several streets in Baclaran and establish a flea market thereon.
- The Metropolitan Manila Authority approved the ordinance on July 20, 1990 subject to four enumerated conditions concerning vehicular use, marking and pedestrian use, designated hours, and temporariness pending reclamation development.
- On June 20, 1990 the municipal council authorized the mayor to contract with service cooperatives for establishment and management of flea markets.
- On August 8, 1990 the Municipality of Paranaque entered into an agreement with Palanyag Kilusang Bayan for Service to operate and manage the flea market and Palanyag erected market stalls on the streets.
- On September 13, 1990 petitioner ordered destruction and confiscation of stalls along G.G. Cruz and J. Gabriel Streets, which were later returned.
- On October 16, 1990 petitioner issued a ten-day directive to discontinue the flea market, threatening dismantlement.
- On October 23-24, 1990 respondents filed a joint petition in the RTC and secured a temporary restraining order and, on December 17, 1990, an order upholding the ordinance and enjoining petitioner from enforcing his letter-order.
Statutory Framework
- The Court examined Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, Local Government Code as in force at the time of the ordinance.
- The Court relied on Article 423 and Article 424 of the Civil Code to classify local government properties as property for public use and patrimonial property.
- The Court construed Section 10, Chapter II of the Local Government Code as the statutory provision authorizing a local government unit to close roads subject to existing law and the Code’s provisions.
- The Court noted that Republic Act No. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991 later repealed the earlier Code and that Section 5(d) of RA 7160 preserves rights and obligations vested prior to its effectivity.
Legal Issue
- The central issue was whether a municipal ordinance authorizing the lease and use of public streets and thoroughfares for a flea market was valid under the laws in force when the ordinance was enacted.
Contentions of Petitioner
- Petitioner contended that local roads are public property devoted to public service and therefore outside the commerce of man.
- Petitioner argued that a property already dedicated to public use cannot be converted to another public use or appropriated by local contract absent a specific legislative grant.
- Petitioner further asserted that the Municipality failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Metropolitan Manila Authority for the ordinance’s approval.
- Petitioner maintained that allowing vendors to occupy municipal streets contravened the municipality’s duty under the Local Gover