Case Summary (G.R. No. 9069)
Key Dates
• July 3, 1907 – Municipal Resolution No. 10 approving lease to Hilaria Rojas.
• December 5, 1911 (amended March 14, 1912) – Complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Cavite.
• March 27, 1913 – Trial court judgment dismissing the complaint.
• March 31, 1915 – Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal.
Procedural History
The Municipality of Cavite sued the respondents for failing to vacate leased land in Plaza Soledad after demand. The trial court overruled the municipal demurrer, heard evidence, and dismissed the complaint, concluding the municipality had no right to repossess. The municipality excepted, sought a new trial, and appealed by bill of exceptions.
Facts of the Case
• The municipal council, under Act No. 82, granted a 60-day vacation clause lease of a portion of Plaza Soledad to Rojas at quarterly rent pursuant to Ordinance No. 43 (1903).
• Respondents erected a house assessed at ₱3,000 and paid quarterly rent of ₱5.58 in advance.
• The municipality demanded vacation more than 60 days before filing suit; respondents refused, claiming valid lease rights and conditional eviction only if the plaza was needed for public use.
Applicable Law
• Act No. 82 (Municipal Code) and Act No. 1039 (January 12, 1904) vest municipalities with administration over public streets, plazas, and places.
• Civil Code of 1889 (applicable in the Philippine Islands):
– Art. 344: Defines “property for public use” to include promenades and plazas.
– Art. 1271: Only objects not outside commerce may be contracted.
– Art. 1303: Effects of null contracts.
• Precedent (Nicolas v. Jose, 6 Phil. 589): Plaza Soledad is a non-transferable public domain reserved for general transit.
Issue
Whether the municipal council had authority to lease a portion of Plaza Soledad to private parties, and if the purported lease is valid or void, entitling the municipality to repossess without liability for respondents’ improvements.
Supreme Court Analysis
- Plaza Soledad falls within “public use” under Civil Code Article 344 and Act No. 1039; it is part of the public domain reserved for communal transit.
- Plazas and streets are “outside the commerce of man” and cannot be subject to private lease or sale (Civil Code Art. 1271; Spanish Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 1895).
- The 1907 lease contract is ultra vires; the municipality exceeded its power by contracting over property it could not lawfully dispose.
- As a void contract ab initio, it produces no legal effects (Civil Code Art. 1303). Respondents must su
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 9069)
Facts of the Case
- The Municipality of Cavite, organized under Act No. 82 and successor to Spanish-era rights, and by virtue of Act No. 1039, had exclusive control and administration over its public places, including Plaza Soledad.
- By Resolution No. 10 (July 3, 1907), the municipal council leased to Hilaria Rojas approximately 70–80 sq. m. of Plaza Soledad at a quarterly rental of ₱5.58, payable in advance, with a stipulation that she vacate within sixty days after demand.
- Rojas and her husband Tiung Siuko erected a substantial house on the leased parcel, paid the prescribed rentals and land tax, and claimed possessory rights under that lease.
- The municipality demanded that the defendants vacate and deliver up possession; more than sixty days elapsed without compliance.
- The defendants refused, asserting (a) the lease was valid, (b) it could be terminated only if the municipality needed the land for decoration or other public use (which had not occurred), and (c) they had invested ₱3,000 in constructing the house under a municipal building permit.
Procedural History
- December 5, 1911 (amended March 14, 1912): Provincial fiscal, on behalf of the Municipality of Cavite, filed ejectment complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, praying that possession be declared in the municipality, the lease held “ultra vires” and void, and defendants ordered to vacate, with costs.
- Defendants’ demurrer was overruled; April 10, 1912: they filed an answer admitting certain facts, denying that the parcel formed part of Plaza Soledad, and asserting special defense and a cross-complaint for ₱3,000 damages.
- After parol and documentary evidence, April 27